I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I strongly feel mandating a fixed amount of time is not the answer. As I've said before, I'm not arguing for low time hires. I'm just don't like setting a number in stone that can be gamed by crafty people.

I don't think anyone can accurately pick a number that equates to true safety. Personally, I know my skills and overall competency improved greatly as I passed the 1000 hour mark. Did it happen the moment I hit 1000 hours? Of course not, but I noticed that things seemed to operate far more smoothly. For others, it may have been 750 hours or 1250 hours.

I have a background that's a little different from many of those seeking a regional job. I earned a degree in both finance and economics. I learned to fly after college in a 141 school. I built the majority of my time flying solo and have racked up some where close to 125 hours of IMC. I have some instructing time as well, but only in the area of 200 hours.

I noticed someone said the House bill carried an exemption for those who trained at an accredited 141 school. That seems fair, but, sorry to say this, what about my experience shouldn't allow an exemption. I'm not whining about this, I'm just usuing it as an example. As it is, I'm not to far from 1500 anyway (1250 TT).

Having read so many comments about this topic in the last few months, it seems many favor this bill because they believe it will increase pay. I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between the two ideas. Higher time requirements are not going to force airlines to pay higher wages. That's a pipedream.