I'll add my two cents to this discussion even though many won't agree. I think the 1500 hour rule is a noble one, but an impractical one. Simply announcing a number as a hard and fast rule accomplishes nothing. For instance, if the ATP certificate only required 1200 hours, would the cockpits be less safe? What about 2000 hours?

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm as opposed to 250 hour wonders as the next guy, but I think a hard and fast rule doesn't improve the situation. The simple fact is air travel is continuing to increase, even in these economic times, and hiring will have to move to meet the new demands. If the demand is there, I just can't see how airlines can justify remaining artificially small to their shareholders.

I'll be the first to admitt I don't have a good answer to this problem. I think a move like this is going to cause a huge drop off in the number of people attempting to make aviation a career. I also think a perfect storm is brewing with this move and the age 65 rule that could result in a huge shortage of pilots in just a few years. That's just conjecture, though.

What I feel confident in saying is this move will not affect pay at all. As I see it, there's just no link between the two issues. Are regionals, locked in to tough contracts with penny pinching majors, really going to increase pay? I doubt it. I also think it's unfair to compare the 1990's to today. Fifteen years ago, the air travel industry was much smaller than it is today. There are far more planes in use today and that means more pilots.

I am a big proponent of barriers to entry in this business. Starting with 0 hours and hoping to make it an airline is a daunting, time consuming, and financial challenge. It keeps many away. Drawing a line in the sand with 1500 hours, while noble, just isn't the way to do it as far as I'm concerned.

I say all this as a guy with 1300 hours.