Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
That is something I want to ask Prater.
I do not support it either. A few hundred hrs less, but this is 1/3 the requirement of an ATP. I went to one of these schools and that stuff does not cut it compared to flight time.
There are plenty of pilots that will do just fine with this hr requirement, but when making a blanket law, it needs to protect the public from the dolts, and 500 hrs does not come close.
FWIW, it is not about blindly supporting to guys in there, it is about supporting the structure and clout. I disagree with a great many things at National, but that does not mean I think option B is better. ( I know nothing about the current option B)
Heyas ACL,
The rationalization that will be given is that ALPA had to be part of the process to have input as to what was going to happen anyway.
If you talk to some of the "strategic" thinkers... they will tell you that the MPL was just a matter of time, no way to stop it, and that ALPA had to be part of crafting the solution...and if this sounds suspiciously like the age 65 thing, you would be completely correct.
The Colgan accident fallout has NOT changed their thinking at all, and the legislation is just a speed bump...as soon as people found their RJ flights to East Butthole canceled on Xmas Eve because of crew shortages (it will be sold as such, NOT that there is a shortage of people willing working for crap wages), and the MPL would appear overnight.
Rather than an opportunity to really get some industry change going, it is simply squandered to "be part of a solution". Never mind the solution is bad.
Some things ARE worth fighting for...
Nu