Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
A bit of reality checking is in order here. In the political arena, what ALPA says in public and pushes for in private are two different entities.
ALPA in fact long ago began quietly supporting the reduction from 1500 hours when Embry Riddle...who has many tie in's with ALPA...came forward with the proposition that a four year degree from "certain accredited colleges" should equate to a specific level of training and knowledge, thus allowing a reduction in flight hours a a trade off. This position was also heavily lobbied by AABI, the accreditation group that certifies aviation schools. This position has not changed.
Why the push? Because based upon the cost of a four year aviation school, mom and dad are looking for junior to find a job right out of school. Not have to "apprentice" for a period of time. Junior should go from the dorm room to the right seat.
Now let's revisit RAA, NBAA, ATA and the other industry groups. They favor reduced hours because it allows a quicker flood of young inexperienced...read "lower cost" pilots that can be used to drive the cost model down.
AOPA? If the cost of an airline job means time working at less glamorous jobs, the odds that junior will remain interested in flying at a young age declines...and erodes the GA base which is already in a serious state of affairs. FBO's need renters and students. A large subset is lost if they see their dream of being an airline pilot requiring extra flying and specific experience.
The argument that a 500 hour pilot is twice as good as a 250 hour pilot is fallacy at best. That's akin to saying a 16 year old with two days of driving experience is twice as good as the one who just got their license today. And while military pilots do enjoy a directed and ntense training cycle and handle complicated aircraft at low time points, the incidence of accidents is higher and if transposed to the passenger industry would be unacceptable.
Industry trends are pushing for lower hours due to the increase in automation. In the cost analysis, the aircraft is programmed to fly from "A" to "B," shoot an approach, land and brake on the centerline. A pilot is only needed to taxi...that can be resolved by kids, video systems and remote control servoed systems IF the travelling public could be sold on a pilotless drone. The 500 hour pilot is the first logical step.
Here's the problem. There are times when the "magic" takes a vacation. Only standby instruments, a radio and skill are available.
And a 500 hour pilot does not have the skillset to safely land the aircraft.
ALPA knows that.
So why are they supporting the rule reduction? New bodies, even at reduced pay scales, equals cash flow.
Now the FAA. They know what the public sentiment was. They have been getting pressured tremendously by ATA, RAA, AABI, AOPA and others. They can't be seen caving to them or to ALPA.
However...an "accomodation" that is suddenly "embraced" by ALPA as a middle road, now becomes a way out. After all...ALPA would NEVER compromise safety.
Babbitt get's his escape from the problem. ATA, RAA get cheaper employees. AABI keeps mommy and daddy writing checks for juniors schooling. And AOPA keeps their pipeline full.
And the profession falls further behind as management now has an excuse for cheaper labor contracts.
I disagree with a couple of your assessments, but on the whole would not argue with the points you make. As insinuated, this is a
political issue as much if not more than a safety one. How can you tell?? over 2000 comments from virtually every organization with any interest in pilot training or hiring.
The RAA and the training industry (universities and pilot academies) are in a serious defensive position. That said, they are proposing the status quo, with added provisions. 1500 hours will
kill several organizations, hence their interest in proposing reasonable (
) changes. ALPA's proposals include much of these and more and with higher flight time requirements than the industry ( don't believe me, read them yourself).
Many here are advocating 1500 hour ATP limits on entry to 121, not because they think it will make for a better entry level pilot, but because it will create a barrier to entry to the profession, with hopes it will raise income and QOL terms. As one on the inside, I see and appreciate the logic, but it is so transparent that even the FAA won't buy off on it. ALPA's proposals will raise the bar and, hopefully, create a higher caliber aviator while limiting the ability of anyone to just buy his way into the profession. Agree or disagree, There will be a need for future pilots and improving standards will help to limit supply.