Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Law
Official ATP rule - rumors? >

Official ATP rule - rumors?

Search
Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

Official ATP rule - rumors?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-19-2013, 07:38 AM
  #201  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

Originally Posted by yimke View Post
Many companies are throwing around the idea of signing a MOU to allow their junior guys take the flying to meet ATP mins. Commutair has already passed it. I would highly suggest you talk to your union to get this passed ASAP! You are one of the few 121 guys left that has this issue. I'm pulling for a grandfather clause to help guys out like you. But we MUST not lower the entry requirements of 1500 hours.

It is in our best interest as pilots to allow this NOT to pass! All the crummy regional airlines MUST go away! This is ridiculous to lower our standard just to "get ahead." While in reality, we are shooting ourselves in the foot to allow poor regionals to suck up low time pilots just to survive. Simple equation. No pilots= cancels. Cancels=no money No money= BK. With consolidations of the regionals, and/or the termination of all regionals WE as pilots have more leverage to increase pay, QOL, etc..

I'm not dogging on small regionals, but all your premier regionals have NO pilot shortage. Why is this? Probably because people actually want to work there. Once August 2nd hits, there will be no signing bonus to save them. I know many people that want this regional model to burn and return our QOL to the glory days of Pan Am. While this is a optimistic view, I believe we need some sort of compromise with some regional feed. Maybe three regionals is enough.

Young pilots don't realize they can just "hold out" on regionals to suffocate them. However, with the recent Comair and 9E guys on the street the regional management is licking their chops. They will eventually run out of guys, but there are too many young chaps that want to "get ahead." When that time comes, I hope the scumbag management at regionals get what comes to them. Also, that the majors feel the reverse effects of their "Whipsawing" strategies to get cheaper prices. Management is all about bean counting, when they don't care about the long term effects of both employee and customers!

It's 9:30 am here, but this got me so frustrated already. I'll pour some for my homies that have worked at 7 regionals; first year FO's that live at home struggling to survive going into their 30's; 25 year captains at regionals that have their doors closed after decades of good service. *drops mic*

-summary- Airline management sucks
PS - Sorry for any grammar issues,


Airlines are not the only business unable to recruit and retain employees. Many other industries have the same issues in which you can raise salaries to a point whereas the business is unprofitable and the company ceases to exist. If pilots think he or she can extract more money out of the powers that be, more power to you. Personally speaking its not going to happen! Many businesses are out of business because they refused to pay what employees demanded.
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 01:29 PM
  #202  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: CFI/II/MEI
Posts: 481
Default

Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
Airlines are not the only business unable to recruit and retain employees. Many other industries have the same issues in which you can raise salaries to a point whereas the business is unprofitable and the company ceases to exist. If pilots think he or she can extract more money out of the powers that be, more power to you. Personally speaking its not going to happen! Many businesses are out of business because they refused to pay what employees demanded.
This. The companies can pay maybe a little more than they pay now. Maybe an extra $5k, possibly $10k, but just because 1500 hours is required now, doesn't mean that 1st-3rd year FO's are going to be getting anywhere close to $50-60k.

If the shortage is real, I bet they will downsize their fleets, and fly fewer flights of larger planes (requiring fewer total pilots), and pay *slightly* better pay, rather than paying good money to attract many pilots.
Bellanca is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 03:30 PM
  #203  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

Originally Posted by Bellanca View Post
This. The companies can pay maybe a little more than they pay now. Maybe an extra $5k, possibly $10k, but just because 1500 hours is required now, doesn't mean that 1st-3rd year FO's are going to be getting anywhere close to $50-60k.

If the shortage is real, I bet they will downsize their fleets, and fly fewer flights of larger planes (requiring fewer total pilots), and pay *slightly* better pay, rather than paying good money to attract many pilots.

Bellanca, I agree with you in theory because management isn't the only obstacle in raising the starting salaries or wage increases. Some of the opposition is generated from shareholders and other employees as well. The legacy airlines will protect their core customers and let the chips fall where they may with other customers. This will be a interesting laboratory test because I do not believe the legacy carriers can generate the revenue for their current assets held without regional feed! Some regional airlines may have the legacy airlines by the short hairs. Too big to fail doesn't apply to the airline industry.
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 03-20-2013, 08:51 AM
  #204  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,392
Default

Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
Bellanca, I agree with you in theory because management isn't the only obstacle in raising the starting salaries or wage increases. Some of the opposition is generated from shareholders and other employees as well.
True, but I think a lot of the opposition comes from the fact that the regional model is only viable up to a certain cost...you can only pass on so much to the customers before they just drive or stay home...especially on shorter regional routes.

This is why EAS exists...many small routes are not economically viable even at current costs, if the costs go up further then more and larger cities will join the red column...and the government is not in a position to expand EAS subsidies right now.


Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
The legacy airlines will protect their core customers and let the chips fall where they may with other customers. This will be a interesting laboratory test because I do not believe the legacy carriers can generate the revenue for their current assets held without regional feed!
It's entirely possible that majors, confronted with escalating regional costs, would simply terminate service to many markets. This might (or might not) result in voter backlash and either more EAS or more likely some sort of re-regulation.

Why do we allow start-ups to cherry-pick lucrative high-dollar city-pair routes while leaving leagacies holding the bag on complex and thin-margined hub-and-spoke service to the core of America? Maybe some re-regulation is in order. Maybe all airlines should be required to serve a fixed percentage of large, medium, and small destinations?



Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
Some regional airlines may have the legacy airlines by the short hairs. Too big to fail doesn't apply to the airline industry.
It certainly doesn't apply to regionals but it does now officially apply to the big-three. A shutdown of AA, UA, or DL would be catastrophic and would not be allowed to occur.

A catastrophic overnight shutdown of a large regional like AE or SKW would certainly be painful, but it's not going to happen. In order to get that weak in the first place, a big regional would probably have to be declining for years so the majors could manage the downsizing and eventual euthanasia of such a regional in a controlled manner (ie COMAIR). Since costs and income are fairly predictable for regionals, you would see it coming a long way off and have time to re-allocate flying to the latest bottom-feeder.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-20-2013, 09:32 AM
  #205  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

Many aviation professionals and I include myself in this group benefited from both deregulation and EAS. I believe if deregulation never occurred many professional aviators working now would have never been hired because of the structure in the 1970's. Most of the pilots hired were military. I personally know of three pilots hired by major airlines with no military flight experience doing that period. Commuter airlines required more experience in the 1970's than whats required now. I do not want to see re-regulation of the airline industry, instead allow the free market place to work through the elimination of the EAS monies in the lower 48 states. If the government would like to start cutting budgets, start with EAS!
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 03-20-2013, 12:55 PM
  #206  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,392
Default

Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
Many aviation professionals and I include myself in this group benefited from both deregulation and EAS. I believe if deregulation never occurred many professional aviators working now would have never been hired because of the structure in the 1970's. Most of the pilots hired were military. I personally know of three pilots hired by major airlines with no military flight experience doing that period. Commuter airlines required more experience in the 1970's than whats required now. I do not want to see re-regulation of the airline industry, instead allow the free market place to work through the elimination of the EAS monies in the lower 48 states. If the government would like to start cutting budgets, start with EAS!
I don't mean roll back the clock to 1978. But some industries which fulfill a vital public role require some government oversight to remain stable and viable (ie power generation, banks). Pure free market only works in a theoretical model...most real industries have too many variables and peculiarities which can lead an unguided free market up the creek.

Power generation would be much more profitable in a free market...you could save billions by eliminating all those transmission lines which supply small towns. You could also save by not buying enough infrastructure to supply all customers during peak demand...and then you could make a killing by selling power to the highest bidder during those peak periods.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-20-2013, 06:58 PM
  #207  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Default

Originally Posted by bozobigtop View Post
Airlines are not the only business unable to recruit and retain employees. Many other industries have the same issues in which you can raise salaries to a point whereas the business is unprofitable and the company ceases to exist. If pilots think he or she can extract more money out of the powers that be, more power to you. Personally speaking its not going to happen! Many businesses are out of business because they refused to pay what employees demanded.
And that's just as it should be. Businesses should go out of business every once and a while to "renew the fields" and put fresh ideas and concepts into the industry. The weak and ill adapted should go away. By not going out of business everyone keeps getting dragged down to the level of the lowest carrier, and it hurts everyone. Maybe it means "more people" can get involved in aviation and get jobs, but the sacrifice is the jobs ain't what they used to be and they get worse and worse.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 03-21-2013, 07:24 AM
  #208  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

Great posts guys, reminds me of some of the heated debates from some of my business classes. Those utility companies, can't live without them. Fly safe everyone!
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 03-21-2013, 08:36 PM
  #209  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Twin Wasp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,732
Default

Originally Posted by hypoxia View Post
I seem to recall many years ago ATP minimums were 1200 hours and a commercial was 200 hours. I wonder what triggered the raising of the flight hours back then?
My 1974 reg book says 1500 hours. It does say before 22 July 1970 you only have to meet the requirements in effect 22 Nov 1969 but doesn't say what those requirements were. Dug up a 1956 CAR book, there is no stated TT requirement, just a requirement that you have logged 1200 hours in the last 8 years. You're recall is greater than mine.
Twin Wasp is offline  
Old 03-22-2013, 12:32 PM
  #210  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,178
Default

Twin Wasp

No doubt the CAR rule was when it was an Airline Transport Rating added to the holder's Commercial Pilot License. That changed in the mid-60s, maybe. When I started, most of the guys called it the ATR.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Duksrule
Career Questions
21
06-22-2012 05:32 PM
backflip
Flight Schools and Training
3
11-18-2010 12:13 PM
Atrain77
Flight Schools and Training
10
02-09-2006 02:11 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices