Originally Posted by
RedBaron007
So here's a question I've been pondering for a few days. Should the new proposed rule requiring an ATP and 1500 hours include a retroactive requirement? More specifically, should airlines be required to train First Officers already employed and issue them ATPs? Perhaps they would only be required to do so once the First Officer reaches ATP minimums - if they are not there at the time of rule issuance.
I see one huge advantage for pilots: a free ATP if you're already employed at an airline.
And I see one disadvantage: another training event at which your certificate is on the line.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Preferences?
I'd rather keep this forum focused on the retroactive question instead of the validity of the ATP and 1500 hr requirement, since that's already a pretty extensive thread. Thanks.
Sorry, but the bill as written does NOT include any waiver or grandfathering of existing pilots, so the requirement applies to everybody... why would you need to include another section in the bill to repeat that it already applies to everybody? It just gives people already there three years to get their ATP.
As for forcing the companies to provide the ATP... I think that is yet another example of the younger type of pilots that have been getting hired the last few years that come in with an attitude of entitlement.
It wasn't good enough that they got hired at a part 121 airline with only 250 hours, now they want the airline to pay for their ATP too....
Does this mean that ALL of the pilots who were hired WITH their ATP's can get a stipend check since they won't cost all this extra money?
WOW, this gets better everyday....
I guess the vast majority of us who worked as CFI's, flew boxes all night for a living, worked our way up, and had thousands of hours on the ATP ticket we already had BEFORE even getting a 121 interview shouldn't be surprised by this latest cry from the "me" generation.
So, since your objective of this thread is to keep this focused on the including a "retroactive" part of the legislation, I would suggest you back and read it again... since it already is.