Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Pages : [1] 2 3 4

View Full Version : Great Lakes' Part 135 plan


Aero1900
07-10-2013, 03:28 PM
Great Lakes plan for the future consists of obtaining a Part 135 operating certificate and operating a portion of our flights under scheduled 135 rules.

These rules limit passengers to 9, but they will allow Great Lakes to hire First Officers who do not meet the new "1500 hour/ ATP" rules.

Company wide, Great Lakes load factors are in the mid 40% range, and that's with about 34 Beech 1900s and 5 Brasilias. Great Lakes plan is to have all captains fully 121 certified, and only a portion of the FOs on the 135 side. All captains would then be able to fly all flights, 121 or 135. The 135 flights will be operated the same as the 121 flights. A release will be produced and we will continue to fully comply with all 121 regs. The only real difference is the flight will be limited to only 9 passengers.

By doing this, Great Lakes will circumvent the difficulty in getting new hire pilots as we will be able to hire 250 hours pilots again. Any pilot hired on very low time will only be able to fly 135 flights until they reach 1500 hours at which point they will be able to fly all flights and all routes.

It is certainly an interesting plan. We will see how it works out. For now, Great Lakes is just waiting for the FAA to grant us the 135 certificate.


SYdude
07-10-2013, 03:40 PM
http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif

FlyJSH
07-10-2013, 03:46 PM
Amazing how quickly they can get creative.


Spoilers
07-10-2013, 03:50 PM
Maybe if they'd pay a livable wage and have actual benefits they wouldn't have problems getting people. Why would anyone go there?

BenS
07-10-2013, 03:55 PM
As far as August 1st is concerned, its all too little too late.. As previously suggested, grab your popcorn 'cause its gonna be a real show around here..

deadstick35
07-10-2013, 04:00 PM
Why the limit of 9?

rickair7777
07-10-2013, 04:02 PM
Why the limit of 9?

That's the cutoff for sched 135...any more and you need 121 for scheduled ops.

yimke
07-10-2013, 04:20 PM
It is funny to what airline management will do to keep cheap labor.

The other problem is they will not be able to upgrade people quickly due to lack of 1000 hours ops.

Starting the microwave now!

hypoxia
07-10-2013, 04:44 PM
Maybe if they'd pay a livable wage and have actual benefits they wouldn't have problems getting people. Why would anyone go there?

I wouldn't doubt Lakes charges 250 hour pilots to come fly for them!
The reality is they will have thousands of applicants anyway! If they want captains they'll use the money they charge the 250 hour pilots to pay captains better! Welcome to the world of aviation!

todd405
07-10-2013, 06:37 PM
I wonder how fast they think they're gonna get this 135 certificate. I always heard that the FAA will drag their feet when it comes to new certificates especially 135.

iflythewest
07-10-2013, 07:02 PM
This is just the standard goat rope operation that Doug Voss runs. The management deserves everything they have coming and more.

ackattacker
07-10-2013, 07:13 PM
Hmmm, this sounds like a troll. The regs are pretty clear that it's not a simple matter of cutting of ticket sales at 9. You actually have to only have a "maximum seating configuration" of 9 passenger seats or less (and a payload of less than 7500 pounds). That means for sure removing the seats, and probably it has to be fairly permanent. I don't see the FAA signing off on this at all.

JamesNoBrakes
07-10-2013, 07:57 PM
Hmmm, this sounds like a troll. The regs are pretty clear that it's not a simple matter of cutting of ticket sales at 9. You actually have to only have a "maximum seating configuration" of 9 passenger seats or less (and a payload of less than 7500 pounds). That means for sure removing the seats, and probably it has to be fairly permanent. I don't see the FAA signing off on this at all.

1900s are already operated part 135 9 or less.

But anyways, see how easy it is to solve any "pilot shortage" problem? When you run EAS hauling 2 people out of some airport in the middle of nowhere, you don't even need to be 121...

ackattacker
07-10-2013, 08:22 PM
1900s are already operated part 135 9 or less.

But anyways, see how easy it is to solve any "pilot shortage" problem? When you run EAS hauling 2 people out of some airport in the middle of nowhere, you don't even need to be 121...

Show me one that is operating 1900's in commuter operations with more than nine passenger seats installed under 135.

Also, EAS contracts are awarded based upon proposals for a certain level of service, including frequency of service and the number of seats. Material changes to the service provided would seem require putting the whole thing out for bidding again.

JamesNoBrakes
07-10-2013, 08:44 PM
Show me one that is operating 1900's in commuter operations with more than nine passenger seats installed under 135.

Also, EAS contracts are awarded based upon proposals for a certain level of service, including frequency of service and the number of seats. Material changes to the service provided would seem require putting the whole thing out for bidding again.
You missed the 9 or less part.
It's one of many AK flights on 1900-Cs operated under 135. There are also 1900s doing freight and 121 of course.

Dejavu
07-10-2013, 09:10 PM
That's the cutoff for sched 135...any more and you need 121 for scheduled ops.

I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9

Aero1900
07-10-2013, 10:19 PM
I am not trolling. I am a current GLA Captain, and I am simply sharing what management has shared with us.

I am not very familiar with 135 ops as I went straight into 121. I've never flown 135. My understanding is that you can only run scheduled 135 flights if the plane has a max capacity of 9 passenger seats. I do not know if GLA will have to physically remove seats, mark 10 seats inop, or just sell a max of 9 tickets per flight. I don't know.

As I mentioned, our load factor is an average of 40 something percent. So, if we operated a handful of our thinnest routes under 135, the 9 pax limit would be fine most of the time. How many routes and flights would be operated under 135 would depend on staffing. Staffing is the entire reason GLA would do this.

As far as when the FAA might get around to issuing us 135 certificate, again, who knows? I have heard that the FAA is really stingy about giving out 135 certificates, and I have heard that during the "sequester" they are even less likely to do it, or at least slower.

On the other hand, our DO believes we are likely to get the certificate fairly soon. The reason for this is as follows: Since GLA is already a 121 certificate holder, and we are going to operate the 135 flights under the more strict 121 rules they should feel comfortable with the operation. His plan is to operate 135 flights exactly as we do 121 flights. We will have a release, and we will follow all the 121 regs with regard to weather, alternates and fuel requirements. The only thing that will be different is the FO will not need to comply with the new ATP rules

Captain Tony
07-11-2013, 04:51 AM
What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.

Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.

Ramprat
07-11-2013, 05:23 AM
Put Do Not Occupy tape on 10 seats, problem solved.

hypoxia
07-11-2013, 05:35 AM
Put Do Not Occupy tape on 10 seats, problem solved.

Yank unrestricted F/O's off of flights with 9 or less passengers if another flight goes 10+. Another problem solved!

USMCFLYR
07-11-2013, 05:55 AM
I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9
You didn't fly for the former Exec Express Airline back in the early 80's did you? :)
I haven't seen too many -228s around but I knew that they flew them for a short amount of time.

hypoxia
07-11-2013, 06:04 AM
Another issue is whether or not the passengers have rights to know what kind of air carrier/operation they are flying with before they purchase a ticket. For instance, they purchase a ticket from Denver to Rock Springs thinking it is to be operated under FAR 121 regulations but when they board it is now under 135 regulations (a lesser standard). Granted, passengers probably don't know the difference but it has the potential to open up a can of of legal worms.

NCR757dxr
07-11-2013, 06:12 AM
Not that I hold any vested interest in this but I do think this a very cleaver idea. Lets admit it, these new ATP rules are a joke (and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them). So I applaud GLA for actually thinking of ways around these dumb new rules.

I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.

todd405
07-11-2013, 07:11 AM
What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.

Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.

Haha or go find a few "Bandits" and go all 70's / 80's!

What
07-11-2013, 09:29 AM
Not that I hold any vested interest in this but I do think this a very cleaver idea. Lets admit it, these new ATP rules are a joke (and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them). So I applaud GLA for actually thinking of ways around these dumb new rules.

I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.

Why are they a joke?

TBucket
07-11-2013, 09:40 AM
Why are they a joke?

yeah, I see keeping 250 hour wonders out of airliner cockpits as a good thing.

NCR757dxr
07-11-2013, 09:46 AM
yeah, I see keeping 250 hour wonders out of airliner cockpits as a good thing.

It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.

I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore :rolleyes:

Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.

USMCFLYR
07-11-2013, 09:51 AM
It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.

I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore :rolleyes:

Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so linear in their thinking.
No...it is called a compromise.
If we are going to pick on numbers - then ANY number you come up with would have the same problems.
Any type of experience could be questioned.
Any written test generated invalid.

It is easy to figure out WHY they gave credit for certain schooling.
It is generally thought that a structed training environment is considered.....well....more structured and therefore of higher quality. Is that always the case - no, but I bet it is true in a majority if the bell curve.

I'd rather keep it ALL at 1500TT, but that is just my opinion too.


(and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them).
And no.........I don't think I have blinders on or do I benefit from the rule.

680crewchief
07-11-2013, 09:54 AM
FAA: We don't think you're safe unless you have 1500 hours and an ATP.

GLA: OK, we will change 121 to 135

FAA: Great! Carry on...

Public: What do you mean this isn't United or Frontier? I bought a ticket from them, not Great Lakes?!?!

Voss: HAHAHAHA...$$$$$$$$$$$

hypoxia
07-11-2013, 11:24 AM
But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway.

The fact is, the more 141 schools that pop up, the more FAA employees that are needed. It's all about job security! Follow the money trail!

pete2800
07-11-2013, 11:51 AM
Not that I hold any vested interest in this but I do think this a very cleaver idea. Lets admit it, these new ATP rules are a joke (and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them). So I applaud GLA for actually thinking of ways around these dumb new rules.

I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.

Everyone in the airline profession benefits from the new rules.

LarryDavid
07-11-2013, 11:57 AM
It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.

I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore :rolleyes:

Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.

The biggest joke was making current FOs get their ATP rating. First of all the check ride was not even a real check ride, they pretty much spoon fed the FOs at my airline. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that the FOs I have been flying with for years have an ATP rating. It is a miracle we didn't crash before they went through the paperwork and got an ATP.

Cubdriver
07-11-2013, 12:03 PM
FAA may not think much of doing an overnight swap of 121 for 135 at GLA, but the truth remains it is a slippery swap aimed at saving GLA money, at the direct expense of airline safety. Safety is both the appearance of safety as well as the spirit and practice of safety. Regional airline safety is a hot button topic since Colgan 3407. GLA apparently wants to do a simple rule swap to circumvent 121 safety rules which were put there for a reason. I doubt they will get much traction with the FAA due to the current political environment and their 135 certificate will be denied. I am really not arguing whether it is a substantial difference in safety, as GLA has always tapped the least experienced pilots and they would simply do the same (if allowed to) under 135 rules. On the personal side, I feel this is a slippery maneuver to circumvent safety in favor of making a buck, and it is also a direct attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress. Again, it is not the safety I am concerned about as much as the attitude and lack of care about appearances GLA shows here.

rickair7777
07-11-2013, 12:06 PM
I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9


Back in the day. That changed when almost all scheduled 135 was rolled into 121.

rickair7777
07-11-2013, 12:13 PM
It is easy to figure out WHY they gave credit for certain schooling.
It is generally thought that a structed training environment is considered.....well....more structured and therefore of higher quality. Is that always the case - no, but I bet it is true in a majority if the bell curve.


That sounds good on paper, but the real reason for the extra credit is that the big aviation schools lobbied for it.

Military got included because their programs are obviously structured as well, and the aviation schools could not justify excluding them. they would have preferred to exclude military, so as to solidify their monopoly as being the only fast-path to a 121 cockpit.


I'd rather keep it ALL at 1500TT, but that is just my opinion too.


Me too. I'd keep the mil exemption but that's it.

BenS
07-11-2013, 12:14 PM
FAA: We don't think you're safe unless you have 1500 hours and an ATP.

GLA: OK, we will change 121 to 135

FAA: Great! Carry on...

This is what I've wondered about the whole thing.. is the FAA really going to enjoy hearing the only reason lakes is getting a 135 is to circumvent new safety rules, and the FAA is just supposed to smile and nod?

But does getting this open the floodgates to pilot applications? I just cannot see people knocking down the door for a 135 operation and a 3 year $17,500 training contract.

rickair7777
07-11-2013, 12:18 PM
FAA may not think much of doing an overnight swap of 121 for 135 at GLA, but the truth remains it is a slippery swap aimed at saving GLA money, at the direct expense of airline safety. Safety is both the appearance of safety as well as the spirit and practice of safety. Regional airline safety is a hot button topic since Colgan 3407. GLA apparently wants to do a simple rule swap to circumvent 121 safety rules which were put there for a reason. I doubt they will get much traction with the FAA due to the current political environment and their 135 certificate will be denied. I am really not arguing whether it is a substantial difference in safety, as GLA has always tapped the least experienced pilots and they would simply do the same (if allowed to) under 135 rules. On the personal side, I feel this is a slippery maneuver to circumvent safety in favor of making a buck, and it is also a direct attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress. Again, it is not the safety I am concerned about as much as the attitude and lack of care about appearances GLA shows here.

If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.

I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.

M20EPilot
07-11-2013, 12:22 PM
If GLA pulls it off.... it is a genius move if you think about it. If not, something has to give.

But WRT circumventing rules, it won't be the first time: GLA already operates part 121 using less-restrictive part-135 rest rules. The Colgan incident was also a catalyst to improve things fatigue-wise, yet GLA already has an 'out'.

I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.

hypoxia
07-11-2013, 12:30 PM
If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.

I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.

Does the Captain need an ATP for 135 scheduled operations? My understanding is a Captain operating under 135 IFR needs 1200 TT? Heck for that matter, GLA can hire Captains or F/O's that are over age 65 for the 135 side! Beats being a greeter!

I can just read the help wanted ads. GLA hiring retired greeters to be an on call First Officer. Who said this was a young man's game? Of course if you keel over before your contract to pay back training costs lapse, we'll go after your estate!

pagey
07-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Does the Captain need an ATP for 135 scheduled operations?


Yes....with pax

USMCFLYR
07-11-2013, 01:20 PM
That sounds good on paper, but the real reason for the extra credit is that the big aviation schools lobbied for it.
Lobbied for it based on what premise though?
Answer - the fact that they were a more structured, 'known quantity' training environment than your mom and pop school with a very WIDE range of results.

Military got included because their programs are obviously structured as well, and the aviation schools could not justify excluding them. they would have preferred to exclude military, so as to solidify their monopoly as being the only fast-path to a 121 cockpit.



Me too. I'd keep the mil exemption but that's it.
We disagree there then. I don't think the military should have an exemption.

FlyJSH
07-11-2013, 01:29 PM
I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9

Back in the day, scheduled 135 was 29 or fewer seats INTRAstate or 19 or fewer INTERstate.

I'm wondering how expensive it would be to set this all up: additional airframes, another training program, and mx.

JohnnyG
07-11-2013, 01:32 PM
We disagree there then. I don't think the military should have an exemption.

I'd give the military an exemption before I would some of these aviation college kids. I'm sure there are pilots out there who came from Riddle who are good, but that's not my experience.

The best pilots I've seen consistently went to good colleges and took the 6 month ATP program and never looked back. Them, and navy guys. I'm just saying....

hypoxia
07-11-2013, 01:34 PM
Yes....with pax

Does the age 65 rule apply to 135 pax? GLA could have a dual qualified 135 Captain/FO.

JohnnyG
07-11-2013, 01:34 PM
I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.

They're also allowed to effectively pay new pilots 2-5 dollars an hour using a variety of schemes.

80ktsClamp
07-11-2013, 01:41 PM
I'd give the military an exemption before I would some of these aviation college kids. I'm sure there are pilots out there who came from Riddle who are good, but that's not my experience.

The best pilots I've seen consistently went to good colleges and took the 6 month ATP program and never looked back. Them, and navy guys. I'm just saying....

No kidding. There is ZERO way there should have been an aviation university exemption.

I would have been fine with a graduate of military UPT or the like having an exemption though. Now that is a known quanity, not someone that forked out 90 grand to ERAU for the same ratings I got.

gold
07-11-2013, 02:10 PM
Keylime was operating scheduled 135 for a while in their 19-seat metros out of BJC and APA. The nice thing about scheduled 135, passengers are not required to go through security screening. I'm not sure how KL made it legal and if seats were removed or not. They recently obtained a 121 cert and I believe their passenger metros are now operated under 121. Keylime FO pay is the same as Great Lakes.

NCR757dxr
07-11-2013, 04:41 PM
We disagree there then. I don't think the military should have an exemption.

I'll second that. Not only do "some" come out with poor civil aviation knowledge, a lot also can't fly their way out of a paper bag.

And before I get flammed, notice the word in the ""

USMCFLYR
07-11-2013, 05:27 PM
I'll second that. Not only do "some" come out with poor civil aviation knowledge, a lot also can't fly their way out of a paper bag.

And before I get flammed, notice the word in the ""
Sorry - I can't even buy the "some".
If you have passed military flight training - you have proved you can fly your way out of a paper bag. I certainly feel that way about anyone who has gone to the boat with 140 hrs of flight time behind them.
They may not be 'Chuck Yeagers' (thank goodness), but that alone takes skills. Let's compare the two flying experiences between someone who graduated from Naval Aviation training for example with approximately 260 hours of training and the ERAU pilot with like times.
Of course maybe you and I have different definitions of what 'can't fly their way out of paper bag' means.

I say most come out of military flying with poor civil aviation knowledge. They have never been trained in the civilian world. It is avery stringent niche type of flying; which is exactly why I think they need at least 1500 hrs of flight time - to at least get a little seasoning and experience. Usually by that time they have done something other than join up on their lead and head out to the Warning Area and then bingo'ed home to the break (in my community at least - add in what a junior squadron pilot would do in your particular community )

I'm sure some of the other communities get a lot more 'civvie' like experiences and make the transition even easier. I've said it before on these threads - but a pilot from my former community is probably THE WORSE indoctrinated type of pilot for the type of flying that I do now - but as I hoped I would prove - I continue to be trainable at least!

JamesNoBrakes
07-11-2013, 06:19 PM
Does the Captain need an ATP for 135 scheduled operations?

Not currently.

§ 135.243 Pilot in command qualifications.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—

(1) Of a turbojet airplane, of an airplane having a passenger-seat configuration, excluding each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more, or of a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part 119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.

(2) Of a helicopter in a scheduled interstate air transportation operation by an air carrier within the 48 contiguous states unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate, appropriate type ratings, and an instrument rating.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under VFR unless that person—

(1) Holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that aircraft; and

(2) Has had at least 500 hours time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of cross-country flight time, at least 25 hours of which were at night; and

threeighteen
07-11-2013, 06:36 PM
I don't see how this will ever work...

One issue is that FOs will be required to have 1000 hours of 121 SIC time before making 121 Captain.

That means they are going to have to fly for 1000 hours under the 121 side after getting their 1500 hours or whatever minimum applies. Lakes will be bleeding Captains like they always do and not be able to upgrade their FOs fast enough, leaving them short still.

ackattacker
07-11-2013, 07:36 PM
Not currently.

Not true. Read carefully. Commuter operation (which is defined by having scheduled routes), multiengine aircraft, ATP is required. This is why Cape Air requires an ATP.


§ 135.243 Pilot in command qualifications.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—

(1) Of a turbojet airplane, of an airplane having a passenger-seat configuration, excluding each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more, or of a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part 119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.
....

Hurryage65
07-11-2013, 07:47 PM
God I hope lakes burns to the ground. What an awful example of companies taking advantage of people that have a passion for a job

Paid2fly
07-11-2013, 08:00 PM
Back in the day, scheduled 135 was 29 or fewer seats INTRAstate or 19 or fewer INTERstate.

I'm wondering how expensive it would be to set this all up: additional airframes, another training program, and mx.






Skywest used to fly the EMB-120 part 135 with 30 seats.

rickair7777
07-11-2013, 09:11 PM
I'll second that. Not only do "some" come out with poor civil aviation knowledge, a lot also can't fly their way out of a paper bag.

And before I get flammed, notice the word in the ""

Sorry - I can't even buy the "some".
If you have passed military flight training - you have proved you can fly your way out of a paper bag. I certainly feel that way about anyone who has gone to the boat with 140 hrs of flight time behind them.
They may not be 'Chuck Yeagers' (thank goodness), but that alone takes skills. Let's compare the two flying experiences between someone who graduated from Naval Aviation training for example with approximately 260 hours of training and the ERAU pilot with like times.
Of course maybe you and I have different definitions of what 'can't fly their way out of paper bag' means.

I say most come out of military flying with poor civil aviation knowledge. They have never been trained in the civilian world. It is avery stringent niche type of flying; which is exactly why I think they need at least 1500 hrs of flight time - to at least get a little seasoning and experience. Usually by that time they have done something other than join up on their lead and head out to the Warning Area and then bingo'ed home to the break (in my community at least - add in what a junior squadron pilot would do in your particular community )

I'm sure some of the other communities get a lot more 'civvie' like experiences and make the transition even easier. I've said it before on these threads - but a pilot from my former community is probably THE WORSE indoctrinated type of pilot for the type of flying that I do now - but as I hoped I would prove - I continue to be trainable at least!


I would agree that none come out of military flight training as poor pilots. I'd take any recently winged military pilot sight unseen.

Occasionally you get a guy who retires with 1500 hours, after having spent 20 years doing almost everything but flying, who's lost his edge.

JamesNoBrakes
07-11-2013, 10:26 PM
Not true. Read carefully. Commuter operation (which is defined by having scheduled routes), multiengine aircraft, ATP is required. This is why Cape Air requires an ATP.

Well, you didn't say "multi-engine" to start with :) Time to switch those beat up 1900s out for pilatus

JamesNoBrakes
07-11-2013, 10:30 PM
God I hope lakes burns to the ground. What an awful example of companies taking advantage of people that have a passion for a job

The idea is absolutely brilliant, the kind of idea that lands a CEO a big bonus!....and yes, they should burn to the ground. :D

Salukipilot4590
07-11-2013, 10:49 PM
I don't see how this will ever work...

One issue is that FOs will be required to have 1000 hours of 121 SIC time before making 121 Captain.

That means they are going to have to fly for 1000 hours under the 121 side after getting their 1500 hours or whatever minimum applies. Lakes will be bleeding Captains like they always do and not be able to upgrade their FOs fast enough, leaving them short still.

They'll hire DECs

M20EPilot
07-12-2013, 06:19 AM
That means they are going to have to fly for 1000 hours under the 121 side after getting their 1500 hours or whatever minimum applies. Lakes will be bleeding Captains like they always do and not be able to upgrade their FOs fast enough, leaving them short still.

I thought the changes to the ATP rule specifically allowed part 135 (and 91K fractional) SIC time to count towards the 1000 in air carrier ops required to act as PIC?

680crewchief
07-12-2013, 06:22 AM
God I hope lakes burns to the ground. What an awful example of companies taking advantage of people that have a passion for a job

Magic eight ball says..."Wait and see!"

This place can't go away fast enough.

ackattacker
07-12-2013, 10:21 AM
I thought the changes to the ATP rule specifically allowed part 135 (and 91K fractional) SIC time to count towards the 1000 in air carrier ops required to act as PIC?

Nope. Only 121 SIC time and certain 135 PIC and 91 PIC where an ATP is required. Basically you need to have 1000 hours in operations that require an ATP before you can be a Part 121 PIC. Realistically, that means that any Part 121 Captain has to have at least 2500 hours (or slightly less if they have an aviation degree or military service). They need to get an ATP first, then fly 1000 hours in operations which require an ATP, and then they can be a part 121 Captain.

Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more. Furthermore, getting the ATP is going to become more expensive due to the ACQ ATP program.

roogs25
07-12-2013, 11:11 AM
Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more.

Thus the proposed $17,000, 3 year, non-prorated training contract.... indentured servitude apparently is alive and well.

Hurryage65
07-12-2013, 11:42 AM
I bailed ASAP and never looked back best decision of my life. Loved all the pilots that worked there and that's it.

680crewchief
07-12-2013, 12:09 PM
I bailed ASAP and never looked back best decision of my life. Loved all the pilots that worked there and that's it.

Thanks for coming to work today!

Nevets
07-13-2013, 10:26 AM
yeah, I see keeping 250 hour wonders out of airliner cockpits as a good thing.

It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.

I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore :rolleyes:

Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.

So you are an advocate for getting rid of the hour requirement for every single certificate and rating? We don't need 1500 hours for captains then. If they are competent at 1000 hours, then fine, right?


But WRT circumventing rules, it won't be the first time: GLA already operates part 121 using less-restrictive part-135 rest rules. The Colgan incident was also a catalyst to improve things fatigue-wise, yet GLA already has an 'out'.

I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.

GLA is not the only 121 airline which operates under 135 rest rules and flight time limitations!

I thought the changes to the ATP rule specifically allowed part 135 (and 91K fractional) SIC time to count towards the 1000 in air carrier ops required to act as PIC?

Nope. Only 121 SIC time and certain 135 PIC and 91 PIC where an ATP is required. Basically you need to have 1000 hours in operations that require an ATP before you can be a Part 121 PIC. Realistically, that means that any Part 121 Captain has to have at least 2500 hours (or slightly less if they have an aviation degree or military service). They need to get an ATP first, then fly 1000 hours in operations which require an ATP, and then they can be a part 121 Captain.

Assuming they get this 135 operation running, the only path forward for someone who doesn't have ATP minimums would be to be a 135 SIC until getting the hours, then getting their ATP and flying as a 121 SIC for another 1000 hours. I don't think GL is going to be able to hold onto pilots that long in this environment, not unless they pay a lot more. Furthermore, getting the ATP is going to become more expensive due to the ACQ ATP program.

So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.

ackattacker
07-13-2013, 10:51 AM
So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.

The 135.243(a)(1) SIC time does not count towards the 1000 hour requirement. It does count toward the 1500 total time requirement to get an ATP.

From the new 121.436:

(3) If serving as pilot in command, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this subparagraph is not required.

Nevets
07-13-2013, 12:02 PM
So to answer the original question, if GLA is operating under 135.243a1, those FOs will be able to count their SIC time.

The 135.243(a)(1) SIC time does not count towards the 1000 hour requirement. It does count toward the 1500 total time requirement to get an ATP.

From the new 121.436:

(3) If serving as pilot in command, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this subparagraph is not required.

Oh it's PIC time that counts towards the 1000 required to be a 121 captain. I see what you mean now. My bad, I didn't catch that on your previous post.

So theoretically, if you meet the requirements to get an RATP at 1000 hours, then you can get hired at GLA with as little as 190 hours (141 commercial minimums), get to 1000 hours as FO, get your RATP, go to the 121 side as on FO for another 1000 hours (2000 total time), and then upgrade. Did I miss any shorter path other than street captains who already meet the 1000 hour requirement?

conquestdz
07-13-2013, 03:59 PM
Maybe they can get some beat up old King air 200's and fly it all single pilot.....but then they would have to keep an auto pilot functioning.

ZBowFlyz
07-13-2013, 05:42 PM
If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.

I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.

What in the heck are you talking about?:confused:

2cylinderdriver
07-13-2013, 06:04 PM
What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.

Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.

The regs changed in 96 to force 135 air carriers into 121 for all ops greater than 9 seats. The old 135 allowed all the way up to 30 plus seats (7500 lb payload). That was how they forced the change by restricting 135 to 9 seats.

Sounds like a brilliant plan actually, GLA will be the place to build time to get the hours for the new ATP for SIC's!

FlyJSH
07-13-2013, 06:41 PM
Oh it's PIC time that counts towards the 1000 required to be a 121 captain. I see what you mean now. My bad, I didn't catch that on your previous post.

So theoretically, if you meet the requirements to get an RATP at 1000 hours, then you can get hired at GLA with as little as 190 hours (141 commercial minimums), get to 1000 hours as FO, get your RATP, go to the 121 side as on FO for another 1000 hours (2000 total time), and then upgrade. Did I miss any shorter path other than street captains who already meet the 1000 hour requirement?

IIRC 135 requires 1200 tt to be pic under ifr, so add 200 to that.

Sad that someone who qualifies for psuedo-ATP can't haul check in an Arrow.

Nevets
07-13-2013, 08:13 PM
Oh it's PIC time that counts towards the 1000 required to be a 121 captain. I see what you mean now. My bad, I didn't catch that on your previous post.

So theoretically, if you meet the requirements to get an RATP at 1000 hours, then you can get hired at GLA with as little as 190 hours (141 commercial minimums), get to 1000 hours as FO, get your RATP, go to the 121 side as on FO for another 1000 hours (2000 total time), and then upgrade. Did I miss any shorter path other than street captains who already meet the 1000 hour requirement?

IIRC 135 requires 1200 tt to be pic under ifr, so add 200 to that.

Sad that someone who qualifies for psuedo-ATP can't haul check in an Arrow.

Well, he would get those 200 hours and another 800 as a 121 FO.

Anyway, unless something else changed, you don't need an ATP to haul checks in an arrow.

What
07-14-2013, 06:56 AM
Well, he would get those 200 hours and another 800 as a 121 FO.

Anyway, unless something else changed, you don't need an ATP to haul checks in an arrow.

And how many arrows are out there flying checks?

n6149s
07-14-2013, 07:36 AM
GLA will be like flight instructing - just with pax and a training contract.

AtlCSIP
07-14-2013, 09:19 AM
And how many arrows are out there flying checks?

While nobody flies checks anymore, I do know of a company that was considering putting an arrow on their certificate for small cargo ops. No autopilot, one engine, and they may have been considering the VFR alternative to attract lower time guys, IIRC. Didn't happen, but it could.

What
07-14-2013, 11:07 AM
While nobody flies checks anymore, I do know of a company that was considering putting an arrow on their certificate for small cargo ops. No autopilot, one engine, and they may have been considering the VFR alternative to attract lower time guys, IIRC. Didn't happen, but it could.

Yea, that will help hundreds of guys build time!

SYdude
07-15-2013, 10:49 AM
Add Content

iflythewest
07-15-2013, 03:17 PM
how many fo's still dont have 1500 hours that are on property?

680crewchief
07-15-2013, 03:42 PM
how many fo's still dont have 1500 hours that are on property?

Yes, that's correct.

BenS
07-15-2013, 08:13 PM
how many fo's still dont have 1500 hours that are on property?

The question should be: how many f/O's will have an atp come August 1st..

Many have 1500, few have the appropriate certificate.. Sounding like single digits will be prepared out of a pilot group of 300..

rsb619
07-15-2013, 09:59 PM
Is the 3yr/$17k contract a confirmed reality, or just speculation/exaggeration?

atpcliff
07-15-2013, 10:51 PM
from a guy I know...
We just got an AC from the Feds. Basically says after 7-31-14, you can only get an ATP for 121 ops at a 121 air carrier, and that you must have 30 hours of FAA approved ground school at a 121 air carrier and 10 hours of flight time in a level "C" or "D" sim with a GTOW greater than 40,000#'s in order to have permission to take the ATP written. It is a new AC and this is an initial reaction to what I read today
AC 61-138

So, if GL does ANY 121 ops, (the new) pilots will have to have 10 hours in a sim for an aircraft over 40K MGTOW.

Also, I was at airline that had 50 seat DC-9s for PAX ops. We were told we would not have to screen the PAX as we were operating an aircraft with 50 seats or under. BUT, then the Feds changed their minds and said it only applied to aircraft that were originally CERTIFIED with 50 seats or less...

EMB120IP
07-16-2013, 04:47 AM
from a guy I know...


So, if GL does ANY 121 ops, (the new) pilots will have to have 10 hours in a sim for an aircraft over 40K MGTOW.

Also, I was at airline that had 50 seat DC-9s for PAX ops. We were told we would not have to screen the PAX as we were operating an aircraft with 50 seats or under. BUT, then the Feds changed their minds and said it only applied to aircraft that were originally CERTIFIED with 50 seats or less...

I read the same AC. It seems like you can either take an approved ATP CTP/sim at a school or the air carrier will add it to its training program. Our POI will probably give us the low-down on what they expect us to comply with. It does give leeway to the 40K lb sim requirement (ie. using the 1900 or EMB sim), as long as it closely simulates the aircraft that carrier operates (or something like that)

steak pilot
07-18-2013, 07:40 PM
Is the 3yr/$17k contract a confirmed reality, or just speculation/exaggeration?

Not a reallity.

iflythewest
07-18-2013, 08:03 PM
I heard that there are still no lines to bid on for August. Are they maybe shutting down in 12 days?

ackattacker
07-30-2013, 09:46 AM
I heard that there are still no lines to bid on for August. Are they maybe shutting down in 12 days?

Bump. August 1st is 2 days away. Curious what the staffing plan is. Did they get a 135 certificate?

Ekupilot
07-30-2013, 01:00 PM
With so many airlines hiring, why would anyone want to go to Lakes?

What
07-30-2013, 01:16 PM
With so many airlines hiring, why would anyone want to go to Lakes?

The irony is the same is said for most regionals, the only ones not saying that are SKW and Compass, other than that same song different station.

shfo
08-05-2013, 04:58 AM
So how is it going at Lakes? Are there lots of cancellations? I talked to a Laker the other day who said about 60% of the FO time is uncovered and most of the flights are being crewed with two Captains.

nyalex
08-09-2013, 08:53 AM
I'm a CA at lakes and had a line last month (July). There was no FO for that line. I never once flew with a FO, only other captains. Every captain on reserve is an honorary FO. Much like the white rhino, a true Great Lakes first officer is an endangered species.

AlaskaBound
08-16-2013, 12:43 PM
Great Lakes Airlines Faces Shortage of Pilots - AviationPros.com (http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11117216/great-lakes-airlines-faces-shortage-of-pilots)

surfnski
08-16-2013, 05:11 PM
Great Lakes Airlines Faces Shortage of Pilots - AviationPros.com (http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11117216/great-lakes-airlines-faces-shortage-of-pilots)

Yawn. Yeah right.

johnso29
08-16-2013, 05:45 PM
I'm crying for all the regionals. Really. Here's an idea. Pay a livable wage.

gearcrankr
08-16-2013, 05:47 PM
(Peter Griffin voice) Who the h-ll cares???

johnso29
08-16-2013, 05:52 PM
(Peter Griffin voice) Who the h-ll cares???

You know what really grinds my gears?

PerpetualFlyer
08-16-2013, 06:28 PM
That article was hilarious, especially the reason given for why they can't keep first officers. "All the majors are trying to grab all the guys that have at least 1,500 hours, and they always pick out of the pot of Great Lakes because we have a great training program.."

Hahaha, yea, your training program, that's why everyone leaves lakes! It could possibly be because of the ridiculously low pay!

Slats
08-17-2013, 03:35 AM
That article was hilarious, especially the reason given for why they can't keep first officers. "All the majors are trying to grab all the guys that have at least 1,500 hours, and they always pick out of the pot of Great Lakes because we have a great training program.."

Hahaha, yea, your training program, that's why everyone leaves lakes! It could possibly be because of the ridiculously low pay!

By "Majors" I'm sure she's referring to SkyWest, ExpressJet, Compass,Republic and pretty much anywhere else that pays more :rolleyes:

surfnski
08-17-2013, 03:38 AM
Guaranteed line out the door of CFIs with DOTS (that's Dirty Old Turboprop Syndrome). Just a play by management to circumvent the new laws. Yawn.

Cubdriver
08-17-2013, 11:57 AM
FWIW, I stopped through the North Platte airport the other night where they do several flights a day and asked the gate agent if they were making the route these days. She said not reliably, because not enough pilots to man flights. Apparently the would rather stop flying than boost wages. I wonder how profitable it is canceling like that.

Apokleros
08-17-2013, 12:31 PM
I'm not shedding a single tear for Great Lakes until it pays its workers a fair wage.

BaronRouge380
08-17-2013, 01:53 PM
I'm not shedding a single tear for Great Lakes until it pays its workers a fair wage.
And I do not think anyone will. I am actually laughing...
They'd rather disappear than improve pilots' condition.

Aero1900
08-17-2013, 02:46 PM
How much would Great Lakes have to increase their pilot pay to attract pilots with 1500 hours?

Great Lakes has always hired people with half the time that places like SkyWest did. Now that that is not possible, what can they do? They can't and won't pay equal to or better than SkyWest, so whats a company to do? The only real draw is ultra fast upgrade, currently about a year or a little less.

Great Lakes is never going to pay competitive wages, so are they doomed, or will they rely on hiring guys that blow the interview at SkyWest, Eagle, and RAH?

Just wondering...

9easy
08-17-2013, 03:08 PM
Plenty of other countries fly 1900s and 208s.. How about charging enough for a ticket for the luxury of flying to a remote place.. And pay the pilots enough to keep them around?

johnso29
08-17-2013, 03:37 PM
Plenty of other countries fly 1900s and 208s.. How about charging enough for a ticket for the luxury of flying to a remote place.. And pay the pilots enough to keep them around?

Absolutely not. According to our government, flying is a right. Not only is it a right, but the fares have be dirt cheap. Profitability is not relevant. The general public is entitled to cheap fares supplied off the backs of labor. How dare airlines merge and attempt to end the instability of the industry. :rolleyes:

QuagmireGiggity
08-17-2013, 04:48 PM
The seats must be completely removed.

globalexpress
08-17-2013, 06:03 PM
How much would Great Lakes have to increase their pilot pay to attract pilots with 1500 hours?

Great Lakes has always hired people with half the time that places like SkyWest did. Now that that is not possible, what can they do? They can't and won't pay equal to or better than SkyWest, so whats a company to do? The only real draw is ultra fast upgrade, currently about a year or a little less.

Great Lakes is never going to pay competitive wages, so are they doomed, or will they rely on hiring guys that blow the interview at SkyWest, Eagle, and RAH?

Just wondering...

It's not that they can't pay what SkyWest or GoJets pays. The industry has changed and their management is failing to react to the changes quickly enough, even though they have seen it coming for what...a few years now? They can't even retain their pilots who have more than 1500 hours. They need to raise their wages. They need to stop treating their pilots like red-headed step-children. They need to start paying for training. They need to settle their contract with their pilots' union. They need to start kissing some serious pilot a$$ or their business is going to be in serious trouble- and they're already having a bad 2013 (financially) already.

If they can't or won't do the above, then their company will have to shrink and/or die. Fielder's choice on that one.

snippercr
08-17-2013, 07:11 PM
How much would Great Lakes have to increase their pilot pay to attract pilots with 1500 hours?

Great Lakes has always hired people with half the time that places like SkyWest did. Now that that is not possible, what can they do? They can't and won't pay equal to or better than SkyWest, so whats a company to do? The only real draw is ultra fast upgrade, currently about a year or a little less.

Great Lakes is never going to pay competitive wages, so are they doomed, or will they rely on hiring guys that blow the interview at SkyWest, Eagle, and RAH?

Just wondering...

Is it the pay or the promise of an upgrade in 12 months to get that PIC turbine time. However, if the majors really DO start hiring people without PIC turbine time, than Lakes is royally screwed. Unless you REALLY want that ISN or FMN domicile, I cant think of any draw.

At first I thought that maybe the quick upgrade, even without PIC time, would give you better pay than life regional FO. Nope. I actually make the same as a EMB120 captain as -145 FO until their 9th year. I already make more as a 3rd year FO than ANY -1900 captain there.

CptGSXR
08-17-2013, 08:01 PM
Absolutely not. According to our government, flying is a right. Not only is it a right, but the fares have be dirt cheap. Profitability is not relevant. The general public is entitled to cheap fares supplied off the backs of labor. How dare airlines merge and attempt to end the instability of the industry. :rolleyes:


This is without a doubt the BEST post I've ever seen on these forums.....and I'm not being a wise ass. What I wouldn't give to have people realize this truth.

norskman2
08-17-2013, 08:59 PM
How about charging enough for a ticket for the luxury of flying to a remote place.. And pay the pilots enough to keep them around?

If GLA destinations could support higher ticket prices, they wouldn't be EAS cities in the first place. :rolleyes:

ghann001
10-13-2013, 08:20 PM
does any body know if it is possible to commute from la or do they require their pilots to live at the base?
also their website shows 750 hours total time required are they already approved for the 135 ?????

EMB120IP
10-14-2013, 04:42 AM
does any body know if it is possible to commute from la or do they require their pilots to live at the base?
also their website shows 750 hours total time required are they already approved for the 135 ?????

You are not required to live in base, although sometimes it's a little easier to do so. A large percentage of our pilots commute. We are also in CASS which allows sitting in the cockpit on the jumpseat if all seats in back are full. I couldn't tell you what the historic loads are between LAX-MSP, but with the number of flights between the two cities, I'm sure it's doable.

If you check Flightstats.com and under the "Flights" tab, select "Flight Availability" and select the airports (LAX-MSP), date, and approximate time of travel to find the number of flights and the supposed loads. At a quick glance, it looks like there are a large number of flights between the two all day.

As far as the 135 operation, the Govt shutdown has slowed things a bit. I couldn't give you a specific timeline but hopefully soon.

trip
10-14-2013, 06:24 AM
As far as the 135 operation, the Govt shutdown has slowed things a bit. I couldn't give you a specific timeline but hopefully soon.

Why would you be hoping for this to happen?

Aviator88
10-14-2013, 06:40 AM
Because he is management.

RgrMurdock
10-14-2013, 07:22 AM
you would do a la to msp commute for great lakes?

Captain Tony
10-14-2013, 07:45 AM
Ever heard of an airline called SkyWest? Compass? Mesa?

And you won't be commuting to MSP, you'll be commuting to Ft Dodge, Farmington, or Williston. Good luck with THAT!

M20EPilot
10-14-2013, 04:28 PM
As far as the 135 operation, the Govt shutdown has slowed things a bit. I couldn't give you a specific timeline but hopefully soon.

As a former Laker, I have to say hopefully never.

I really do wish for more competitive working conditions for my fellow Lakers, and none of the BS Part 135 exemptions - for hiring, rest, or anything else.

The701Express
10-14-2013, 05:20 PM
Presuming the FAA eventually allows the airline to operate under pt 135 on certain routes, how will that affect the EAS subsidies on those routes?

Granted I'm no expert, but EAS contracts are to fly x number of seats on certain routes a certain number of times in a given time period. If you reduce the capacity of the aircraft flying that route by ~50%, wouldn't that be the same as cutting the number of flights in half?

Could the bigger issue here be adherence to a DOT contract rather than gaining FAA approval?

ghann001
10-14-2013, 05:21 PM
Ever heard of an airline called SkyWest? Compass? Mesa?

And you won't be commuting to MSP, you'll be commuting to Ft Dodge, Farmington, or Williston. Good luck with THAT!
which one of these upgrades within months? the goal is get to the majors someday without having to be stuck at a regional for 6 years fo and another 5 as a captain just because they have nicer destinations and fly crjs

ghann001
10-14-2013, 05:26 PM
Presuming the FAA eventually allows the airline to operate under pt 135 on certain routes, how will that affect the EAS subsidies on those routes?

Granted I'm no expert, but EAS contracts are to fly x number of seats on certain routes a certain number of times in a given time period. If you reduce the capacity of the aircraft flying that route by ~50%, wouldn't that be the same as cutting the number of flights in half?

Could the bigger issue here be adherence to a DOT contract rather than gaining FAA approval?
not necessarily the average greatlakes flight takes 0ff with 3-5 ppl from prc to lax i guess it would make no difference to them

bretthull
10-14-2013, 06:23 PM
which one of these upgrades within months? the goal is get to the majors someday without having to be stuck at a regional for 6 years fo and another 5 as a captain just because they have nicer destinations and fly crjs

There are a lot of other factors to consider that affect QOL aside from upgrading. Lakes ranks in the bottom in pretty much every one of those.

Paid2fly
10-14-2013, 06:38 PM
which one of these upgrades within months? the goal is get to the majors someday without having to be stuck at a regional for 6 years fo and another 5 as a captain just because they have nicer destinations and fly crjs







Good luck with upgrading "within months" when they can't find new hire first officers to fill you right seat so you can upgrade...:rolleyes:

ghann001
10-14-2013, 07:12 PM
Good luck with upgrading "within months" when they can't find new hire first officers to fill you right seat so you can upgrade...:rolleyes:
true ..have not thought about that :cool:

ghann001
10-14-2013, 07:14 PM
what is the life style like? how many days on?and how many off? iheard they are back at the base every night is that true?

pete2800
10-14-2013, 10:05 PM
what is the life style like? how many days on?and how many off? iheard they are back at the base every night is that true?

Crappy. Too many. Too few. Doesn't matter.

BenS
10-15-2013, 06:53 PM
what is the life style like? how many days on?and how many off? iheard they are back at the base every night is that true?

1) QOL is a to each their own I suppose... While there, my time was not easy in the least. Then again, I chose to maintain an apartment while taking home $1,000 a month. My choice, I suppose.

2 & 3) Expect no more than 10 days off on any month. Up to 8 of those days could be spent commuting depending on your base assignment. Don't expect to get assigned Denver right out of training, and don't expect to get to move to Denver. Since August, I don't think anyone has gotten to Denver, and MSP isn't all to probable either.

4) Depending on your line, you may or may not be "home" every night. But "home" may be Pierre, Williston, Farmington, etc..

Crappy. Too many. Too few. Doesn't matter.

Best response ever.. much better than mine I even have to admit.

But yea.. and upgrade?!?! unless some miracle flood of pilots is found, I see no upgrades. I think July was the last upgrade class and Lakes is running a ratio of something like 5 or 6 captains to every f/o they have... yea.. so I just don't see where the upgrades will come from, not for a very long time. Also a QOL thought, I don't think anyone is not flying 120 hours a month with all vacations cancelled into the foreseeable future... so you better be ready to marry a fo position at Lakes, not just work as one there..

shfo
10-16-2013, 05:47 AM
How many pilots does Lakes have left? The profile still says 307 but I've heard less than half that many remain and a handful are quitting every week.

Hurryage65
10-16-2013, 08:06 AM
I cannot believe anyone could even be considering this place, run as fast as you can. Any place is better

1900luxuryliner
10-16-2013, 08:41 AM
How many pilots does Lakes have left? The profile still says 307 but I've heard less than half that many remain and a handful are quitting every week.

Total on seniority list: 179 (which includes management pilots, pilots on leave, and instructor pilots).

Active, line bidding pilots (FOs and CAs): 144

Total line bidding FOs: 42

dirtysidedown
10-16-2013, 08:51 AM
Shut it down and let a good company like Cape Air come in and take over the routes.

zondaracer
10-16-2013, 08:54 AM
Total on seniority list: 179 (which includes management pilots, pilots on leave, and instructor pilots).

Active, line bidding pilots (FOs and CAs): 144

Total line bidding FOs: 42

Do they still have 38 aircraft? If so, that comes out to 1.9 crews per plane (if my math isn't bad) :eek:

1900luxuryliner
10-16-2013, 09:43 AM
Total on seniority list: 179 (which includes management pilots, pilots on leave, and instructor pilots).

Active, line bidding pilots (FOs and CAs): 144

Total line bidding FOs: 42

I should have also stated that management pilots and instructor pilots often pick up open flying, and I would imagine they have been doing that quite a bit, lately. I count somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-13 instructor/management pilots who have the ability to pick up open time. The rest are either at other airlines, and still on the list, or don't regularly pick up flying (full-time management). I am maybe off, plus or minus a few, on this "management/instructor actively flying" count, as I haven't been at Lakes for awhile now. This is just my best guess, looking at the current list. So, this would mean about 157 pilots flying Great Lake's flying, either through line-bidding, or through management/instructor open time pickup.

Captain Tony
10-16-2013, 08:30 PM
which one of these upgrades within months? the goal is get to the majors someday without having to be stuck at a regional for 6 years fo and another 5 as a captain just because they have nicer destinations and fly crjs

Upgrade in months? To fly reserve for 2 years as a CQFO and NOT logging PIC time? At $28/hr. If you think that's a shortcut, you're an idiot. There's no short cuts. Pay your dues like everyone else son.

Slats
10-17-2013, 02:53 AM
Upgrade in months? To fly reserve for 2 years as a CQFO and NOT logging PIC time? At $28/hr. If you think that's a shortcut, you're an idiot. There's no short cuts. Pay your dues like everyone else son.

Agreed. I especially love how these guy quote being an FO for 6+yrs... Those times will drop with mainline hiring. It's been stagnant due to 65 and oil. Now that retirements are starting to kick in, upgrade times will change. While paying your dues, do some homework son...

Aviator89
10-23-2013, 01:28 PM
FAA may not think much of doing an overnight swap of 121 for 135 at GLA, but the truth remains it is a slippery swap aimed at saving GLA money, at the direct expense of airline safety. Safety is both the appearance of safety as well as the spirit and practice of safety. Regional airline safety is a hot button topic since Colgan 3407. GLA apparently wants to do a simple rule swap to circumvent 121 safety rules which were put there for a reason. I doubt they will get much traction with the FAA due to the current political environment and their 135 certificate will be denied. I am really not arguing whether it is a substantial difference in safety, as GLA has always tapped the least experienced pilots and they would simply do the same (if allowed to) under 135 rules. On the personal side, I feel this is a slippery maneuver to circumvent safety in favor of making a buck, and it is also a direct attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress. Again, it is not the safety I am concerned about as much as the attitude and lack of care about appearances GLA shows here.

Both pilots in colgan 3407 had met the ATP requirements correct? Captian was around 4,000 hours and the FO was 1500ish? Granted they totally screwed up, but i ahve my doubts that this rule specifically would have saved this flight. it wasnt a 300 hour pilot sitting right seat. So i still dont see why 3407 is a reason for the new ATP rule. But it certainly calls training and duty/rest time into question. Wasn't duty time and required rest changed as well? I wasnt familiar with the regs prior to 2009...

On another note, if GLA has EAS contracts but not enough pilots to fill them they do need to find a way to fix it. Yes its kind of beating around the bush a little, but the Captain is still ATP, most the FO's are ATP qualified. Only a few routes will fall under the 135.
My question is, on those flights after the 135, does the less than 1500tt fo sit as a passenger? While a 121 FO takes his/her spot? In that case, those legs that are combined 135/121 need two FO's on board?

USMCFLYR
10-23-2013, 01:59 PM
When you talk about the times the crews had AT THE TIME OF THE MISHAP, you are missing the point of their experiences in getting there in the first place. Look at the their times when they were hired into their first P121 job. Part of this law is suppose to make people get some numbers if reasonable hours before you hop into an airliner cockpit.

Frick
10-23-2013, 09:00 PM
I have 1200 hours, but I also have a year and a half left on my contract at my current job...a 135 operation so I'm not in a hurry to get to the airlines anytime soon. I'm actually in favor of the new ATP rule, because I'm hoping it will increase pay based on supply and demand when I'm ready to jump ship. Although, I will say even if the Colgan pilots met the ATP requirements when they got HIRED I highly doubt it would have changed the outcome of 3407. I'm not sure what they did before Colgan but let's say they were a CFI like I was. I instructed at my local FBO and 90% of my flying was with private pilot students in VFR conditions. I don't think an extra few hundred hours of VFR flying would have improved their instrument scan and not have let their airspeed drop to stall the airplane. I think the extra few hundred hours in a q400 after getting hired at Colgan would have better prepared them for flight 3407 rather than another few hundred hours in a Cessna 172 in VFR conditions. Or let's say they were flying banners. I don't think flying in circles around a NASCAR race or up and down a beach for 1,500 hours would have changed the outcome of 3407. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

DryMotorBoatin
10-24-2013, 01:39 AM
I have 1200 hours, but I also have a year and a half left on my contract at my current job...a 135 operation so I'm not in a hurry to get to the airlines anytime soon. I'm actually in favor of the new ATP rule, because I'm hoping it will increase pay based on supply and demand when I'm ready to jump ship. Although, I will say even if the Colgan pilots met the ATP requirements when they got HIRED I highly doubt it would have changed the outcome of 3407. I'm not sure what they did before Colgan but let's say they were a CFI like I was. I instructed at my local FBO and 90% of my flying was with private pilot students in VFR conditions. I don't think an extra few hundred hours of VFR flying would have improved their instrument scan and not have let their airspeed drop to stall the airplane. I think the extra few hundred hours in a q400 after getting hired at Colgan would have better prepared them for flight 3407 rather than another few hundred hours in a Cessna 172 in VFR conditions. Or let's say they were flying banners. I don't think flying in circles around a NASCAR race or up and down a beach for 1,500 hours would have changed the outcome of 3407. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

I stopped reading after "I'm hoping this will increase pay"

lionflyer
10-24-2013, 03:59 AM
I think CA Renslow could have used about a year teaching students proper stall recovery technique. 3407 has been beaten to death. Back to GLA bashing!

Frick
10-24-2013, 04:09 AM
Ill agree it MIGHT have helped him recover from a stall, but I don't think it would have kept him from stalling in the first place. I would put more blame on Colgan. He had multiple check ride failures before AND while at Colgan. If he didn't learn to push forward instead pulling back on the yoke to recover from a stall...I'm not so sure instructing more would have helped.

SrfNFly227
10-24-2013, 04:43 AM
As stated above, Renslow started his airline career with out ATP minimums. He was hired at Colgan with 618 total and that was after attending the FO program at Gulfstream. When he paid his way in to the right seat of his first airliner, he had 328 hours.

742Dash
10-24-2013, 05:50 AM
Both pilots in colgan 3407 had met the ATP requirements correct? Captian was around 4,000 hours and the FO was 1500ish? Granted they totally screwed up, but i ahve my doubts that this rule specifically would have saved this flight...

It is very simple. No pilot who had spent his formative years towing or instructing would have pulled the wheel into his gut when startled. And that is what caused this accident.

1500 hours is an opportunity, even an obligation, to be become skilled and street smart before you have a bunch of paying passengers behind you.

Frick
10-24-2013, 08:44 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think requiring 1500 hours is a good thing. I used to not think so, but now I realize experience definitely helps. I just have a hard time believing 1,000 hours towing banners rather than 1,000 hours in a Q400 would have prevented the CA from stalling the airplane. I currently fly a Beechjet 400 and I've learned more in the last 100 hours than I did in the 700 hours before that. Not just because its a new airplane, but because its more complex, I'm flying into busier airports with a higher workload, and things just generally happen a lot faster. I have to be on my toes.

USMCFLYR
10-24-2013, 12:43 PM
Frick -

A 1,000 hours towing a banner right a the edge if a stall, as the previous poster said, would have probably taught a pit that sticking the yoke in his lap was the wrong move - EVER!
A 1,000 hours in a Q-400 with a vast majority of it spent squarely and safely in the heart of the envelope might not develop those same skills/intuition. If a pilot has spent most of their flying careers without having to explore the edges of the flight envelopes, then it becomes more of an academic exercise.

Nevets
10-24-2013, 01:24 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think requiring 1500 hours is a good thing. I used to not think so, but now I realize experience definitely helps. I just have a hard time believing 1,000 hours towing banners rather than 1,000 hours in a Q400 would have prevented the CA from stalling the airplane. I currently fly a Beechjet 400 and I've learned more in the last 100 hours than I did in the 700 hours before that. Not just because its a new airplane, but because its more complex, I'm flying into busier airports with a higher workload, and things just generally happen a lot faster. I have to be on my toes.

Yes, you do learn a lot in those first 100 hours in a new turbine powered aircraft. But what you are missing is that you may not have the same readiness (laws of learning) too learn what you should learn in those 100 hours if you don't have the fundamentals down in the previous 500 hours instructing, banner towing, etc. Just the opportunity to scare yourself a couple of times on those 500 hours are learning experiences you carry with you forever!

This is what people don't get. Yes, most any 250 hour commercial pilot can be trained to manipulate the controls of most any turbine powered aircraft in a reasonable amount of time. But it's the intangibles that you don't learn because of the lack of experience that is the true cause if many accidents. It's very rarely airmanship that is a contributing factor in an accident. It's more likely that it's aeronautical decision making and human factors that perpetuated the chain of events that led to an accident. Those 1000 hours are supposed to be for learning everything else other than the physical art of flying.

Cubdriver
10-24-2013, 01:41 PM
Everybody says the 3407 accident pilot stalled the plane in a fit of poor thinking which is probably true, but I do not think I have ever any heard proof that he wasn't thinking he had a tail stall due to ice accretion. If he thought the latter (tail stall), then what he did would have been sensible.

What
10-24-2013, 02:49 PM
Everybody says the 3407 accident pilot stalled the plane in a fit of poor thinking which is probably true, but I do not think I have ever any heard proof that he wasn't thinking he had a tail stall due to ice accretion. If he thought the latter (tail stall), then what he did would have been sensible.

That's why the FO raised the flaps! The main contributor was their fatigue, they mentally weren't there!

Coolbeans
10-24-2013, 03:04 PM
Having flown the q400 things about the crash have to be broken down. First big mistake was not having the correct speeds set for icing conditions. With the ref speed switch set in the on position speeds should have been increased about 20 knots. So basically he was configuring the airplane like it was ref speed of 120 when in reality ref should have been closer to 140. You would see guys slow the airplane down call for flaps the red tape would be coming to what seemed like scary close and when the flaps finally kicked in the tap would disappear from view. Well if he had that mind set of none ice I can see how he got caught off guard by the stick shaker. Secondly he executed a poor stall recover. Everyone talks about push the nose down push the nose down but at the time of the crash that is not what was taught it was stay in the flight directors and we all know how funky that can be in the sim in training. Sometimes it takes guys a couple of tries before it even looks ok. Still to this day guys tell you to push the nose over but not to much, you can loose altitude but no more than 200 feet. What has really been pushed a side is that one that switch was not really taught well and was not stressed to pilots the importance setting speeds correctly in icing conditions hence why the very next day they had another stall shaker event and two guys would set the normal speeds if they thought they would be out of the clouds which if you forgot you set yourself up for a similar situation to 3407. The most important things for pilots no matter how much time one has is Bad situations and bad practices can lead to bent metal.

Cubdriver
10-24-2013, 03:57 PM
We know the airplane got slow for a fact, and I am not sure how speed un/stable the 400 is, but if they were thinking ice is affecting the airplane then letting it get slow is not consistent with the thought. Vref-ice is always faster than normal. But if they did get slow, got the shaker by surprise, then in a panic reacted thinking it was a tail stall rather than a wing stall, I can see it, but there would have to be some other form of corroborating evidence such as a forward pull on the control column.

Coolbeans
10-24-2013, 04:18 PM
The accident was caused because the speed switch was on period if that switch was off there would have been no stick shacker and the airplane would have landed as normal. In Europe q400 hundred had a very similar situation happen first officer got slow because speeds where set wrong stick shaker happen the captain reached up and to the speed switch off, stick shaker goes away. In flight 3407 they had no idea why they had a stick shaker so his response actually made the situation worse. I am flying the crj200 now we don't increase speeds for ice nor does the airplanes speed tap change for icing conditions. In the q400 the stick shaker will activate 20knots earlier than it would with the ref switch off. The guy was flying assuming that the airplane would behave a certain way when it was not going to because of its configuration. The stick shacker went off at 131 if that switch was off it would have activated at 110.

What
10-24-2013, 04:41 PM
The accident was caused because the speed switch was on period if that switch was off there would have been no stick shacker and the airplane would have landed as normal. In Europe q400 hundred had a very similar situation happen first officer got slow because speeds where set wrong stick shaker happen the captain reached up and to the speed switch off, stick shaker goes away. In flight 3407 they had no idea why they had a stick shaker so his response actually made the situation worse. I am flying the crj200 now we don't increase speeds for ice nor does the airplanes speed tap change for icing conditions. In the q400 the stick shaker will activate 20knots earlier than it would with the ref switch off. The guy was flying assuming that the airplane would behave a certain way when it was not going to because of its configuration. The stick shacker went off at 131 if that switch was off it would have activated at 110.

So you are saying that the Q400 shaker is based on speed instead of AOA?

Coolbeans
10-24-2013, 05:01 PM
That switchh basically lowered the AoA that the aiplaneed would think it would stall. So if the gentleman was flying profile with it off no stall. But because it was on the AoA attack at normal profile would have put him in a position to get a stall indication. So planed ref is 125 at 130 knots you are ref +5 AoA good. Switch on ref is now 145 AoA is now lower and now at 130 you are now ref-15 and receive a stick shacker. My earlier post was trying to point out that they screwed up by not remember that speed switch was on he would have never allowed himself to slow that much if his speed was bug at 145 instead of 125.

Cubdriver
10-24-2013, 05:40 PM
Again I am not familiar with the Q400 design, but the flight data recorder would have speed switch position data and I believe the investigation accounted for it as well. I do not know for sure that you are wrong C/B, you have a plausible theory after all, but I doubt your theory, and I also doubt mine about tail icing as well. It looks like the plane got slow out of sheer negligence and that's all there is to it besides a botched stall recovery. The latter is what amazes everyone to this day.

Coolbeans
10-24-2013, 06:00 PM
But I think it is important for people to see both sides his poor stall procedure was impart do to a lack of system knowledge which was impart do to poor practices at an airline. The report in my opinion has caused people to focus on the end result. When in fact it was that small missteps that led to his weakness being shown. In 121 world we are never suppose to get to a stalling situation but when they do if you look at past history things don't usually end well which to me shows poor training across the board. It is easy to say lower the nose but if that switch was off there would have been no incident. Stalls are easy to recover from when you expect them but it is a whole another issue when you think you are doing right and it occurs.

Captain Tony
10-26-2013, 08:07 AM
The accident was caused because the speed switch was on period if that switch was off there would have been no stick shacker and the airplane would have landed as normal. In Europe q400 hundred had a very similar situation happen first officer got slow because speeds where set wrong stick shaker happen the captain reached up and to the speed switch off, stick shaker goes away. In flight 3407 they had no idea why they had a stick shaker so his response actually made the situation worse. I am flying the crj200 now we don't increase speeds for ice nor does the airplanes speed tap change for icing conditions. In the q400 the stick shaker will activate 20knots earlier than it would with the ref switch off. The guy was flying assuming that the airplane would behave a certain way when it was not going to because of its configuration. The stick shacker went off at 131 if that switch was off it would have activated at 110.

So you are saying that the Q400 shaker is based on speed instead of AOA?

The ATR has this too. It's common on turboprop airliners. The stall protection system defaults to lower criteria in incing conditions, because in theory, an iced wing stalls before a clean one, and booted wings are horrible at shedding ice compared to heated ones. But in the ATR is was automatic, set by the ice detector. I didn't realize the Dash had to be manually set? Odd.

Another aspect of turboprop flying is that pilots are taught to recognize and recover from tailplane stalls in icing conditions, and to recognize the difference between a wing and tail stall. This may be a hard aspect to grasp for pilots who have only flown a CRJ which is supposedly immune to tail stalls, but because the ice may build faster than the boots can clear it, tprops are really susceptible to this. I have always suspected the Colgan crash was caused because the Captain in his fatigued state mistakenly assumed it was a tail stall in icing conditions. And he probably would have flown out of it if they had set full power, and the fatigued FO hadn't raised the flaps uncommanded.

But this crash has been beaten to death over and over. Back to GLA and their idiotic 135 plan.

9kBud
10-26-2013, 08:31 AM
The ATR has this too. It's common on turboprop airliners. The stall protection system defaults to lower criteria in incing conditions, because in theory, an iced wing stalls before a clean one, and booted wings are horrible at shedding ice compared to heated ones. But in the ATR is was automatic, set by the ice detector. I didn't realize the Dash had to be manually set? Odd.

Another aspect of turboprop flying is that pilots are taught to recognize and recover from tailplane stalls in icing conditions, and to recognize the difference between a wing and tail stall. This may be a hard aspect to grasp for pilots who have only flown a CRJ which is supposedly immune to tail stalls, but because the ice may build faster than the boots can clear it, tprops are really susceptible to this. I have always suspected the Colgan crash was caused because the Captain in his fatigued state mistakenly assumed it was a tail stall in icing conditions. And he probably would have flown out of it if they had set full power, and the fatigued FO hadn't raised the flaps uncommanded.

But this crash has been beaten to death over and over. Back to GLA and their idiotic 135 plan.
The AOA probe settings change to icing angles with selection of the horn heat switches on the ATR -300 series, and still had to be turned off manually with the "Icing AOA" button.

Captain Tony
10-26-2013, 09:03 AM
The AOA probe settings change to icing angles with selection of the horn heat switches on the ATR -300 series, and still had to be turned off manually with the "Icing AOA" button.

Yeah, that's it! Long time, no ATR, lol. and we flew -212s but it did go on and off with the horn heat "stage one anti ice", I believe. I have to admit I brain dumped most of the ATR stuff.

Coolbeans
10-26-2013, 04:57 PM
At Colgan they were never taught to recover from tale ice. The tail was design no to have this problem. It was never even a subject of training.

shfo
11-06-2013, 04:33 PM
Total on seniority list: 179 (which includes management pilots, pilots on leave, and instructor pilots).

Active, line bidding pilots (FOs and CAs): 144

Total line bidding FOs: 42

Heard the latest bid showed 125 total with 31 FOs.

Cubdriver
11-23-2013, 06:21 PM
Someone on another thread posted they are closing down their Pierre, Cheyenne, Fort Dodge, and Farmington lines. Really?

E2CMaster
11-23-2013, 07:33 PM
I heard that from the GL ramp worker last time I flew out of Farmpit (my division HQ is there, so I fly GL as a Pax quite often)

Not sure if rumor mill or not.

camba0a6
11-24-2013, 09:41 AM
Yes, It has been confirmed that FOD, PIR and FMN are all closing effective Jan 1st. I had not heard about CYS, but it wouldn't surprise me if that and PRC closes in the next few months, leaving just MSP, DEN and PHX as the 3 bases. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I know we are down to less then 100 Beech guys total, with another 30 or so on the Brasilia and a few full time instructors who are flying the line. The shortage is so bad, our Chief pilots and even our DO have all been flying the line. Also, about a third of our daily departures, system wide cancel on a daily basis. On average we loose around 10-15 a month and coming up in January is when the rest of our FO's training contracts are up, and most of them will leave when it is up. Captains are to the point where guys who have been here 6+ years are going to other regionals, just to get out of Lakes.

I truly believe in 3 months Lakes will not be around in it's current form. It's possible that they will shrink and just operate a handful of routes out of Denver, but if this 135 stuff doesn't go through, which I believe it wont happen in time to save us, then I see Lakes being the first casualty of this "so-called" pilot shortage.

MasterOfPuppets
11-24-2013, 09:49 AM
I wish nothing but the best for GL pilots but this has been extremely interesting to watch. Iv always said that EAS needs to go and its a waste of money it looks as though the new rest rules and ATP rule just may do what congress is scared to do.

mojo6911
11-24-2013, 01:52 PM
I would take a street captain slot, but the pay is too low.

Apokleros
11-24-2013, 06:53 PM
I have no love for GL, but at the end of the day the workers will be the ones who will suffer while the well-off CEOs and filthy-rich bigwigs that wouldn't dare to raise the workers' compensations to a meaningful level will simply run out and spread their heinous McDonald's wage philosophy to other companies. I hate GL, but that truly stinks for the workers over there.

DryMotorBoatin
11-24-2013, 07:10 PM
I have no love for GL, but at the end of the day the workers will be the ones who will suffer while the well-off CEOs and filthy-rich bigwigs that wouldn't dare to raise the workers' compensations to a meaningful level will simply run out and spread their heinous McDonald's wage philosophy to other companies. I hate GL, but that truly stinks for the workers over there.

This. +1. The sad fact is, if and when GL closes it's doors, the higher ups will line their pockets as they loot on the way out. They'll be sure to get "theirs"

BaronRouge380
11-24-2013, 08:07 PM
Yes, It has been confirmed that FOD, PIR and FMN are all closing effective Jan 1st. I had not heard about CYS, but it wouldn't surprise me if that and PRC closes in the next few months, leaving just MSP, DEN and PHX as the 3 bases. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I know we are down to less then 100 Beech guys total, with another 30 or so on the Brasilia and a few full time instructors who are flying the line. The shortage is so bad, our Chief pilots and even our DO have all been flying the line. Also, about a third of our daily departures, system wide cancel on a daily basis. On average we loose around 10-15 a month and coming up in January is when the rest of our FO's training contracts are up, and most of them will leave when it is up. Captains are to the point where guys who have been here 6+ years are going to other regionals, just to get out of Lakes.

I truly believe in 3 months Lakes will not be around in it's current form. It's possible that they will shrink and just operate a handful of routes out of Denver, but if this 135 stuff doesn't go through, which I believe it wont happen in time to save us, then I see Lakes being the first casualty of this "so-called" pilot shortage.
Do they still have classes? Have they been able to hire anyone lately?

globalexpress
11-24-2013, 09:26 PM
I googled "Great Lakes Airlines cancellations" and there are quite a few articles. In one of the stories, the CEO of Great Lakes said that other airlines are "aggressively recruiting" his pilots, hence the shortage. What a joke. No one is "recruiting" your pilots, Chuck. They're just leaving because you suck at compensating your professionals a market wage. Pay a living wage and your pilots won't leave. How about a retention bonus? Something? Anything?

Goodbye Great Lakes. I feel bad for the employees, but unfortunately this is what happens when the dinosaur doesn't adapt fast enough to changing (labor) market conditions, even when given a few years' worth of lead time. I hope their pilots find greener pastures.

Cubdriver
11-25-2013, 05:21 AM
I have no love for GL, but at the end of the day the workers will be the ones who will suffer while the well-off CEOs and filthy-rich bigwigs that wouldn't dare to raise the workers' compensations to a meaningful level will simply run out and spread their heinous McDonald's wage philosophy to other companies. I hate GL, but that truly stinks for the workers over there.

Vilifying Doug Voss and the GL Board is not relevant. All companies want cheap labor, all do. The philosophy of capitalism is to exploit the existing supply to make money using prevailing costs, and cheap pilot labor was the order of the day for a long time in this segment of industry. It appears to be drying up now, and they do not have the right business model to survive on higher costs. That's all. They'd pay the wages if their business would work. Short hops with small passenger loads to small, poor towns is the problem.

NuGuy
11-25-2013, 08:27 AM
Pffft....I used to work at a place where we looked up at Lakes.

It can always be worse. Always.

Nu

iflythewest
11-26-2013, 04:33 PM
SkyWest has been awarded the Pueblo CO EAS contract, effective February 1, 2014.

1900luxuryliner
11-26-2013, 10:47 PM
Vilifying Doug Voss and the GL Board is not relevant. All companies want cheap labor, all do. The philosophy of capitalism is to exploit the existing supply to make money using prevailing costs, and cheap pilot labor was the order of the day for a long time in this segment of industry. It appears to be drying up now, and they do not have the right business model to survive on higher costs. That's all. They'd pay the wages if their business would work. Short hops with small passenger loads to small, poor towns is the problem.

How do you know they don't have the right business model to survive higher costs? Their business model is to parisitically exploit a highly inefficient and bloated Federal Government program. They are blaming other airlines for poaching their pilots (laughable), and blaming the Federal Government for increasing experience requirements...they haven't and will not look at themselves in the mirror as being part, if not most of their own problem.

680crewchief
11-27-2013, 04:49 AM
How do you know they don't have the right business model to survive higher costs? Their business model is to parisitically exploit a highly inefficient and bloated Federal Government program. They are blaming other airlines for poaching their pilots (laughable), and blaming the Federal Government for increasing experience requirements...they haven't and will not look at themselves in the mirror as being part, if not most of their own problem.

Well said.

conquestdz
11-27-2013, 05:30 AM
How do you know they don't have the right business model to survive higher costs? Their business model is to parisitically exploit a highly inefficient and bloated Federal Government program. They are blaming other airlines for poaching their pilots (laughable), and blaming the Federal Government for increasing experience requirements...they haven't and will not look at themselves in the mirror as being part, if not most of their own problem.
None of us "know" what their business model can accommodate when it comes to higher costs. However, we can make an educated guess that flying 0 to 5 paying passengers per leg even with a finite government subsidy does put a limit on what they can pay...and nobody is willing to work for that amount anymore. Thus it sounds like the business model is probably soon to die. You are correct about EAS being an outdated government program. Not enough elected representatives will vote to kill a program that supports their district....even if they are conservative tea party types. This will probably do it for them.

Cubdriver
11-27-2013, 06:02 AM
Some towns and regions will react when they see Great Lakes & EAS failing to work for them any more. This makes me think EAS can be revamped to fit current cost structure. I am not pro or con on EAS, just wondering how these contracts are written. And I also wonder if GLA dropping routes is mainly a negotiation tactic. If so, it implies they could have retained all the pilots they lost and their business model still works, but only with higher EAS revenues to support the higher pilot pay.

Sberry
11-27-2013, 08:34 AM
I heard the DO is leaving, sounds like this place is about finished. The way they have treated people they deserve to go out of business. The airline industry will be better off without Great Lakes.

1900luxuryliner
11-27-2013, 09:04 AM
None of us "know" what their business model can accommodate when it comes to higher costs. However, we can make an educated guess that flying 0 to 5 paying passengers per leg even with a finite government subsidy does put a limit on what they can pay...and nobody is willing to work for that amount anymore. Thus it sounds like the business model is probably soon to die. You are correct about EAS being an outdated government program. Not enough elected representatives will vote to kill a program that supports their district....even if they are conservative tea party types. This will probably do it for them.

It certainly puts a limit on what they can pay, an no one would ever expect them be able to match RJ pay. However, EAS subsidy amounts are based on a competitive bid, which takes into account a carriers fixed costs. Could they have included these expected higher fixed costs in each new EAS bid years ago, when they knew this legislation was coming down the pipeline? Probably, but I don't know for sure they would have had that ability. You stated, "and nobody is willing to work for that amouny any more." But , they were able to attract pilots in 2007, when most other regionals dropped their experience requirements to a wet-ink commercial-multi. Could they raise their compensation enough to remain viable, yet still attract pilots? I don't know, but it's obvious they don't see that as being part of their problem. Would 19 or 20, or 21 per hour, along with a 1 year upgrade, get FOs in the door? Again, I don't know. My only argument was that they don't see that as being a problem, from every statement I have seen from them.

Cubdriver
11-27-2013, 09:04 AM
It does as if poor management has run the company into the ground. I do not believe that abusing pilots was ever part of their game though, it is just what worked for them in a cut-throat industry. Maybe they can save what's left with a more accurate EAS bid. Adapting to change is the real test of managerial skill, we'll see. Also I believe the fleet of 1900s is worn out and they may be thinking there is no way forward with the present scheme.

7AC2B60
11-27-2013, 09:06 AM
"SkyWest was just awarded the service in and out of Pueblo, Colorado. SkyWest put in a bid of $1,737,732 to fly the Brasilia as United Express to Denver, while Great Lakes proposed status-quo with the Beech 1900D at $1,549,558."

http://www.easflights.com/

not always awarded to the lowest bidder with lowest pilot salaries

conquestdz
11-27-2013, 09:15 AM
That is kind of my point regarding the business model. They had to make competitive bids based on the cost of doing business has risen substantially and they are locked into contracts at a lower rate. I don't think they have the means to make the kind compensation and quality of life changes required to attract and retain pilots regardless of their attitude. Not being a laker, I can't comment on the attitude of your management, but from what I have read here, they really have their heads in the sand.

1900luxuryliner
11-27-2013, 10:30 AM
That is kind of my point regarding the business model. They had to make competitive bids based on the cost of doing business has risen substantially and they are locked into contracts at a lower rate. I don't think they have the means to make the kind compensation and quality of life changes required to attract and retain pilots regardless of their attitude. Not being a laker, I can't comment on the attitude of your management, but from what I have read here, they really have their heads in the sand.

I agree with most of what you state, except for I think it is a huge question mark whether they would be able to afford increased FO compensation, or not; or, if they would be able to raise it enough to get people in the door. As they are operating right now, I believe most of their flights are being operated CA on CA, paying 2 guys 30-something per hour, per flight, rather than an FO making 16 per hour, and a CA making 30-something per flight hour.

7AC2B60
11-27-2013, 11:18 AM
I agree with most of what you state, except for I think it is a huge question mark whether they would be able to afford increased FO compensation, or not; or, if they would be able to raise it enough to get people in the door. As they are operating right now, I believe most of their flights are being operated CA on CA, paying 2 guys 30-something per hour, per flight, rather than an FO making 16 per hour, and a CA making 30-something per flight hour.

surprised government doesn't require EAS bids include a "prevailing wage" for pilots, so GLA bid would need to at a minimum include pilot pay similar to SKW.....currently the government approves EAS contracts with substandard pay for pilots.....based on the recent PUB EAS award to SKW (bid 12% higher than GLA), low bid failed....hopefully a good trend for overall pilot pay.

for non ESA flying, what impact "higher" wages would have on GLA business model is unknown, as GLA presents "low bid & low wage" flying.....hopefully for the pilots, GLA can regroup, make much needed improvements to their business model including improved pilot wages and keep flying.....reported debt restructure of $34M in 12/2011 is likely a major factor to the operations of GLA.

http://www.gbcredit.com/~/media/Merchant-Partners/News/greatlakes.ashx

JamesNoBrakes
11-27-2013, 06:22 PM
surprised government doesn't require EAS bids include a "prevailing wage" for pilots, so GLA bid would need to at a minimum include pilot pay similar to SKW.....currently the government approves EAS contracts with substandard pay for pilots.....based on the recent PUB EAS award to SKW (bid 12% higher than GLA), low bid failed....hopefully a good trend for overall pilot pay.

for non ESA flying, what impact "higher" wages would have on GLA business model is unknown, as GLA presents "low bid & low wage" flying.....hopefully for the pilots, GLA can regroup, make much needed improvements to their business model including improved pilot wages and keep flying.....reported debt restructure of $34M in 12/2011 is likely a major factor to the operations of GLA.

http://www.gbcredit.com/~/media/Merchant-Partners/News/greatlakes.ashxKinda funny to have a "prevailing wage" on subsidized routes that are in no way necessary for our country to function or our citizens. Yes, I could see in some places this would be necessary, or that for some remote locations some kind of subsidy could be provided to EMS helicopters/services, but EAS in the lower 48 in places with roads that are 2-3hrs by car from a bigger hub is just ridiculous. That was what they built their business model on, but the government at least bids out to the lowest bidder in true capitalist form, whilst "serving the public" with this socialist program. :D If they want to fly these routes with their 3 or 6 passengers, they should be using Cessna 207s, airvans, Navajos, 402s, etc. They have the wrong planes for these routes IMO, assuming some of them are actually necessary routes...

AlaskaBound
12-02-2013, 12:59 PM
FAA Proposes $304,000 Civil Penalty Against Great Lakes Aviation (http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/11255399/faa-proposes-304000-civil-penalty-against-great-lakes-aviation)

Cubdriver
12-02-2013, 01:27 PM
It took the FAA 3 years to realize there was a problem with Lakes deice practices? I don't see why the long delay. Maybe it's a chronic problem and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

threeighteen
12-29-2013, 11:09 AM
any updates on the downward spiral?

harvick4
12-29-2013, 11:44 AM
any updates on the downward spiral?

It looks like all the BE1900 Capts were awarded a line. So, 72 lines. But 44 of those lines don't have an FO.

globalexpress
12-29-2013, 03:13 PM
It looks like all the BE1900 Capts were awarded a line. So, 72 lines. But 44 of those lines don't have an FO.

No attempt by management to raise wages, settle the pilot contract, or do anything "above and beyond" to attract pilots?

bonesbrigade
12-30-2013, 01:07 AM
No attempt by management to raise wages, settle the pilot contract, or do anything "above and beyond" to attract pilots?

I don't follow the financials of Lakes at all, but is it possible that the company can literally not afford to do this without falling off the edge?
I don't know what kind of margins Voss is operating on, but they can't be any more than single digit operating margins. Giving everyone a straight raise might not be practical. Performance-based bonuses might not even be possible if such things aren't worked into the EAS contract.

Das Auto
12-30-2013, 07:01 AM
I'm confused. Great Lakes is advertising 750 hours for F.O.'s. Did this get approved? If so you could argue that it would solve the their staffing problems. Even though the wages are pitiful, I'm sure there are plenty of instructors out there that would rather get to 1,500 hours in the right seat of a turbine powered airplane than bashing the pattern in a 152 before they apply to SkyWest, or wherever.

zondaracer
12-30-2013, 05:12 PM
750TT will get you a restricted ATP if you are military trained pilot...

Systemized
01-26-2014, 05:52 AM
I heard Great Lakes received their 135 cert. and will start hiring FOs with 500 hours.

Apokleros
01-26-2014, 08:29 AM
With a three-years long training contract, AFAIK.

One would have to hate instructing pretty badly to subject himself to working for Lakes for three years. There won't be any upgrade in sight, and if I'm not mistaken, a newly hired FO won't earn his ATP while working there...forcing him to attend the new ATP certification courses and paying a $hit-ton of cash if he ever chooses to go to an other airline.

Then again, that won't be a valid consideration after July 31, 2014.

CoATP
01-26-2014, 10:25 AM
what happens then?

JamesNoBrakes
01-26-2014, 11:44 AM
what happens then?

PROFIT!

http://www.yahooka.com/attachments/free-all/53238d1339460430-what-you-wearing-right-now-southpark_profit_gnomes.jpg

spaaks
01-26-2014, 08:06 PM
I heard Great Lakes received their 135 cert. and will start hiring FOs with 500 hours.

I sure hope not

BaronRouge380
01-26-2014, 08:19 PM
I heard Great Lakes received their 135 cert. and will start hiring FOs with 500 hours.
Really? Very disappointing news! Can someone confirm?

Captain Tony
01-27-2014, 03:52 AM
So they're really going to fly 1900s around with only 9 seats? Really? and I assume they're parking the E120s (finally)?

Systemized
01-27-2014, 06:22 AM
So they're really going to fly 1900s around with only 9 seats? Really? and I assume they're parking the E120s (finally)?

The 135 is additional to their 121. E120s will stay and some 1900s will be 135. Straps will be placed across seats.

Systemized
01-27-2014, 06:24 AM
Really? Very disappointing news! Can someone confirm?

I don't work their, don't ask me how I know. If you really want a confirmation, call the company.

Captain Tony
01-27-2014, 07:29 AM
I'd "heard" the FAA wouldn't buy off on roping the seats, they actually wanted them removed. And operating dual certificates doesn't make sense. It certainly won't solve their problems.

Sieve
01-27-2014, 08:33 AM
I'd "heard" the FAA wouldn't buy off on roping the seats, they actually wanted them removed.

You are correct. As far as I know, they still have not been approved for 135 operations.

ClarenceOver
01-27-2014, 11:19 AM
Great Lakes will fold before they are approved for 135. If you are there i would do the industry a favor and bail now. I would seriously consider starting over at the bottom of another regional before you end up on the street.

iflythewest
01-27-2014, 11:25 AM
It looks like the entire MSP operation will be shutdown in five days from today...and that is where the 135 operation was to take place...looking grim on the route map. Time to bail!

JamesNoBrakes
01-27-2014, 06:30 PM
I'd "heard" the FAA wouldn't buy off on roping the seats, they actually wanted them removed. And operating dual certificates doesn't make sense. It certainly won't solve their problems.
Yes, the seats have to be removed to consider it as "less seats" than it was originally certificated for. Also, on the 1900 I think they have to have maintenance crews do it. Usually on the smaller stuff they can get authorization to have the pilots do it, but for some reason I think the 1900 doesn't allow for that.

block30
01-27-2014, 06:34 PM
It looks like the entire MSP operation will be shutdown in five days from today...and that is where the 135 operation was to take place...looking grim on the route map. Time to bail!

Where do you see that? Thanks.

iflythewest
01-27-2014, 07:25 PM
Their route map shows it all gone by then. Also read all the news articles that came out today highlighting the sudden shutdown. Lines had been built for msp and 5days before flying them, the pilots are told of base shutdown...

block30
01-27-2014, 07:33 PM
Their route map shows it all gone by then. Also read all the news articles that came out today highlighting the sudden shutdown. Lines had been built for msp and 5days before flying them, the pilots are told of base shutdown...

Wow. I found this...

Devils Lake air service to be temporarily grounded; Great Lakes Airlines pulling out of Devils Lake, Jamestown | INFORUM | Fargo, ND (http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/424812/)

spaaks
01-27-2014, 07:49 PM
Wow. I found this...

Devils Lake air service to be temporarily grounded; Great Lakes Airlines pulling out of Devils Lake, Jamestown | INFORUM | Fargo, ND (http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/424812/)

great news for the industry as a whole, here's hoping this is the start to raising the bar. bad for the pilots there, but they'll land on their feet.

E2CMaster
01-27-2014, 08:56 PM
Well, there goes half my crew's ride home.

spaaks
01-27-2014, 09:33 PM
Even Great mistakes' hometown is searching for another dance partner

Cheyenne airport wants another carrier | Today's News | Wyoming Business Report (http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article/20140122/NEWS/140129993/0/FRONTPAGE)

Electra
01-28-2014, 08:48 AM
You get what you pay for... So in this case, next to nothing.

FLYZERG
01-28-2014, 09:02 AM
“They’re blaming the federal government for new regulations that have caused a pilot shortage.”

Yeah go ahead and blame the government, yet somehow I was able to be paid more flying a 402. CFI's being paid 2x as much as FO's at least. For the pilots there im sorry if I offend you with this, I hope this place ceases to exist.

Aviator89
01-28-2014, 10:08 AM
Sell the 1900's to Cape, let them take the routes, whether thats 121 or 135 and 9 seats. Then I and many others will be willing to fly them. GLA no way.

Aviator89
01-28-2014, 10:12 AM
“They’re blaming the federal government for new regulations that have caused a pilot shortage.”

Yeah go ahead and blame the government, yet somehow I was able to be paid more flying a 402. CFI's being paid 2x as much as FO's at least. For the pilots there im sorry if I offend you with this, I hope this place ceases to exist.


Yup, blame the government, its not the 11$ a flight hour pay, horrible management or QOL that makes qualified pilots not want airline jobs. :rolleyes:

GLA is the biggest slap in the face to the profession next to first year FO pay at a (reputable?) regional. :eek: If they were offended, they know deep down they want it too. Everyone knows GLA is just a time builder, not a career. Time to move on folks.

dmncnpilot
01-28-2014, 10:59 AM
I just corrected the writer about the real reason GLA is closing down hubs, but of course he removed my comment about low pay, low qol and greedy management. We as regional pilots have a very long tough road ahead. Hopefully we can make the general public, media and government aware of the injustice in the regional airline industry. I hate it for the the fellow crews at GLA but they see the writing on the wall. I'm not one to talk though. Silver might be next!

9kBud
01-28-2014, 11:00 AM
Sell the 1900's to Cape, let them take the routes, whether thats 121 or 135 and 9 seats. Then I and many others will be willing to fly them. GLA no way.

LOL, our CEO HATES the 1900.

Stew75
01-28-2014, 03:56 PM
Due to the unintended consequences of the new Congressional mandated pilot regulatory requirements, the company feels it is in the best interest of our customers, communities and employees to suspend service from these stations until we are able to rebuild our staff of pilots in order to provide reliable service," said Great Lakes Aviation CEO in a statement released by the company. "We deeply regret and apologize for this inconvenience."

Pulled this from an article. I guess that FO pay of 12k a year and 25k for a captain has NOTHING to do with it! Good luck rebuilding the staff.

andreas500
01-28-2014, 04:34 PM
I just corrected the writer about the real reason GLA is closing down hubs, but of course he removed my comment about low pay, low qol and greedy management. We as regional pilots have a very long tough road ahead. Hopefully we can make the general public, media and government aware of the injustice in the regional airline industry. I hate it for the the fellow crews at GLA but they see the writing on the wall. I'm not one to talk though. Silver might be next!

FWIW - I just made the following comment to the article in the Wyoming Business Report, so we will see if it sticks. As I have stated once before, I fly a tremendous amount, am not a pilot, but keep up on the industry very closely because of two things - 1. I am intrigued and enjoy the aviation industry, and 2. the more real information you have about the situations of life that surround you, the better your decision making skills will perform.

Just a comment - as I fly a tremendous amount into all types of small towns on many types of planes and airlines - so I pay attention to what and who holds my life in the controls of the plane and decisions made behind the curtain.

Great Lakes has perhaps the LOWEST paid pilots of any scheduled airline, and that is the greatest driving force in their inability to hire new pilots and a rapid loss of existing pilots . While the new flight and duty regulations, put in place to enhance the safety for the flying public does exacerbate this, it is not the primary reason for under-staffing.

Great Lakes is working toward getting the FAA to allow them to fly under less stringent regulations - Section 135 instead of 121, to avoid the new flight safety regulations. This is a change that does not address the real cause of their pilot shortage, however if they are successful, I for one will no longer fly on Great Lakes EVER as my life, safety, and schedule is more important than saving $20 to $50 on an airplane ticket.

For those of you that fly the planes that I ride - thank you for being professionals. It is appreciated.

E2CMaster
01-28-2014, 05:05 PM
Comment I made got nuked as well.

andreas500
01-28-2014, 05:13 PM
Yes, the comment that I copied to my message above also has been deleted. Wonder why they even allow comments if they don't really want them.

E2CMaster
01-28-2014, 05:24 PM
Probably have advertising from Great Lakes.

pete2800
01-28-2014, 06:16 PM
I got a comment deleted as well. They have a 'contact us' page. It might be time for some comedy.

E2CMaster
01-28-2014, 06:37 PM
Comedy:Engage

It's more or less a hometown paper for me (I live in Wyoming). So I emailed them.

Aviator89
01-28-2014, 07:07 PM
LOL, our CEO HATES the 1900.

Ok, well just take the routes then? True, these 1900's are probly beat beyond worth, but all the other King Airs iv flown are absolotylu awesome (except the 100, garrets suck) I know the 402's might be replaced with something else eventually[/I]. Cant think of the name of it at the moment but I saw a article on it.

iflythewest
01-31-2014, 07:05 AM
Well that sure didn't take long. Which cities will SkyWest take next?

SkyWest Airlines to provide passenger air service to Jamestown | WDAY | Fargo, ND (http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/92959/)

viper548
01-31-2014, 07:27 AM
Well that sure didn't take long. Which cities will SkyWest take next?

SkyWest Airlines to provide passenger air service to Jamestown | WDAY | Fargo, ND (http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/92959/)

I don't think TAKE is the appropriate word since Lakes stopped service then SKW got awarded a new contract. Lakes just announced they are stopping service to Ft. Dodge, so I suppose that might be next.

Surprise
01-31-2014, 07:40 AM
All your flying are belong to us.;)

Jet87
01-31-2014, 08:30 AM
Quote:





Originally Posted by iflythewest


Well that sure didn't take long. Which cities will SkyWest take next?

SkyWest Airlines to provide passenger air service to Jamestown | WDAY | Fargo, ND




I don't think TAKE is the appropriate word since Lakes stopped service then SKW got awarded a new contract. Lakes just announced they are stopping service to Ft. Dodge, so I suppose that might be next.

I think Take is the right word, obviously SkyWest has been prepping to TAKE this flying from Lakes since they announced they change basically simultaneous

Captain Tony
01-31-2014, 08:57 AM
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

dmncnpilot
01-31-2014, 10:12 AM
Well that sure didn't take long. Which cities will SkyWest take next?

SkyWest Airlines to provide passenger air service to Jamestown | WDAY | Fargo, ND (http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/92959/)

Good article but it's still incorrect. This article still blames the new regs and not the poor pay and qol. The reporters email and phone are listed at the end of the article. I just called the reporter, we should all call and correct this.

bernouli
01-31-2014, 11:51 AM
Well that sure didn't take long. Which cities will SkyWest take next?

SkyWest Airlines to provide passenger air service to Jamestown | WDAY | Fargo, ND (http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/92959/)

Skywest provides a superior product with better reliability (Mx, crew availability, better aircraft, etc).

It was never flying that 'belonged' to Great Lakes. If Skywest is who you choose to blame, well...

What
01-31-2014, 11:53 AM
Good article but it's still incorrect. This article still blames the new regs and not the poor pay and qol. The reporters email and phone are listed at the end of the article. I just called the reporter, we should all call and correct this.

It is because if the new reg!!! If it wasn't for the regs then there would be airline.... Ohh never mind someone just came in and is doing the flying ;)

AlaskaBound
01-31-2014, 12:24 PM
Skywest provides a superior product with better reliability (Mx, crew availability, better aircraft, etc).

It was never flying that 'belonged' to Great Lakes. If Skywest is who you choose to blame, well...

The CRJ200 is superdy duperdy superior. It's a crap airplane and barely a step up from what's on it now. But what Skywest pilot hasn't ever thought their "product" wasn't superior to the rest of our inferior products?

Turboprop
01-31-2014, 02:47 PM
One flight a day out of Alliance Municipal Airport - kotanow.com- Scottsbluff Area News, Sports, and Weather (http://www.kotanow.com/story/24593422/one-flight-a-day-out-of-alliance-municipal-airport)

What
01-31-2014, 03:05 PM
The CRJ200 is superdy duperdy superior. It's a crap airplane and barely a step up from what's on it now. But what Skywest pilot hasn't ever thought their "product" wasn't superior to the rest of our inferior products?

Have you ever been in a lakes's 1900?

A FA, a bathroom, a cup of water coffee, water or OJ means a lot to the flying passenger. The airplane being quieter and more comfy make a difference for the peeps. So yes SKW offers a superior product in a CR2 compared to a lakes 1900

darkman62
01-31-2014, 04:27 PM
"how dare you, this is a 87 honda!!!"

sparerib11
01-31-2014, 04:57 PM
From that article about Alliance:
"Placek says Great Lakes is trying to schedule flights around the number of pilots available and understands the frustrations of customers if their flights are still canceled."

Wow. That's one way to run an 'airline'. Certainly sounds like part 135.

conquestdz
01-31-2014, 05:29 PM
I personally like the "This is not a Great Lakes issue. This is more of a pilot shortage issue."

JamesNoBrakes
01-31-2014, 05:33 PM
Have you ever been in a lakes's 1900?


With the prop sync not deferred?

680crewchief
01-31-2014, 06:47 PM
The prop sync should be the least of your worries.

9kBud
01-31-2014, 08:00 PM
With the prop sync not deferred?

What's "prop sync??"

9kBud
01-31-2014, 08:04 PM
Have you ever been in a lakes's 1900?

A FA, a bathroom, a cup of water coffee, water or OJ means a lot to the flying passenger. The airplane being quieter and more comfy make a difference for the peeps. So yes SKW offers a superior product in a CR2 compared to a lakes 1900

Funny enough, I had a passenger remark on one of my two flights today about how our 402 is more comfortable than the "regional jet" he flew on Skywest. Clearly delusional.

E2CMaster
01-31-2014, 08:26 PM
It's more comfortable if you get the CP seat. Otherwise, no.

M20EPilot
01-31-2014, 08:32 PM
I'll take a DH in the back of a 1900 over a CRJ200 any day (of course, for a commute, any ride is a good ride and I always managed to put the pain aside when SkyWest took me home in a CRJ).

But, I'm 6'3". A CRJ window seat is no fun. A CRJ can be comfortable, if nobody is next to you. Other than that, its not my favorite airplane.

bernouli
01-31-2014, 09:56 PM
I'll take a DH in the back of a 1900 over a CRJ200 any day (of course, for a commute, any ride is a good ride and I always managed to put the pain aside when SkyWest took me home in a CRJ).

But, I'm 6'3". A CRJ window seat is no fun. A CRJ can be comfortable, if nobody is next to you. Other than that, its not my favorite airplane.

Does the 1900 have an APU?

9kBud
01-31-2014, 10:18 PM
It's more comfortable if you get the CP seat. Otherwise, no.

Even that's not the best since I make pax in the CP seat slide up for the person behind them

E2CMaster
02-01-2014, 12:10 AM
Unless you want me flying the rudders, not really an option.

M20EPilot
02-01-2014, 07:30 AM
Does the 1900 have an APU?

The 1900 has awesome battery start capabilities :D. It has no APU. Its cold, or hot, for a while. And its LOUD in the back. I was only commenting in reference to having to choose between being little or big 'spoon' when forced to sit next to another gentleman in the back of a CR2.

dmncnpilot
02-01-2014, 11:37 AM
Does the 1900 have an APU?

Yes it has 2, one on each wing :D

Seminole00
02-01-2014, 12:00 PM
Funny enough, I had a passenger remark on one of my two flights today about how our 402 is more comfortable than the "regional jet" he flew on Skywest. Clearly delusional.

Until he wants to use the bathroom I suppose..:p



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1