Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Adolphus Coors 05-13-2009 11:20 AM


Originally Posted by Dash8widget (Post 609720)
I hate to tell you this but Part 61 students are required to meet the same standards as Part 141 students. They are called the FAA Practical Test Standards and all applicants for an FAA license or rating are required to be tested to those same standards. These standards must be demonstrated to an FAA designated examiner during a check ride regardless if the student came for a 61 or 141 type of environment.

There are many, many great pilots who came up through the part 61 ranks. (for a variety of reasons - cost, availability of 141 schools, etc.) And, gasp, many of these pilots are now flying for major airlines. The horror! These pilots need to be identified immediately, their certificates pulled and banned from commercial aviation for life! Or at least until the can be retrained through a part 141 school.

By the way, there is one exception to the check ride requirements I mentioned above - ATP's and type ratings issued through airline AQP programs. Pilots under an AQP program are required to demonstrate the same standards as listed the ATP PTS. The big difference being that its done in a series of "validations." And if a demonstrated manuever does not meet standards, it can be retrained on the the spot. Under a part 61 check ride, if any part of the ride does not meet the standards then that check ride is a bust. The examiner will issue an FAA pink slip and cannot provide retraining.

If you read what I wrote you see that I never said that pilots who are trained part 61 are bad pilots or we should take their certificates. I simply said that they did not train under a standardized training program. Part 61 outlines the requirements to be eligible for the certificate or rating and the PTS is the standard by which all pilots are judged. HOWEVER this does not mean it is effective. I have signed off 47 students who trained under both part 61 and 141. When I left the part 141 school for the part 61 school there was a massive difference. The part 61 students I checked were trained to pass a DE's check ride not the PTS and there knowledge during orals was no where near as in depth as those from 141 schools. Like it or not part 61 is train to pass the local DEs check ride not the PTS. I'm sorry if you think passing a DE's check ride makes you standardized and means you have complied with the PTS, but it doesn't.

In many areas there is a very high fail rate among CFI candidates. Why? Because this is the one part 61 check ride were you can not choose your DE. The FAA chooses him for you.

Why are there so many teddy bear DEs out there? It's a business and they want as many students as they can get. They don't want the reputation of being a ball buster. The FAA looks the other way because they want to promote aviation.

There are people who fly airplanes and than there are pilots. Unfortunately there are too many people who fly airplanes among our ranks.

Commercial pilot candidates should be held to very high standards. Letting some DE judge whether this candidate is worthy in a 1.5 hour flight and a 2 hour at best oral is not the answer.

I know many outstanding part 61 trained pilots out there. That does not mean part 61 is an effective and safe way to train commercial pilots!

Adolphus Coors 05-13-2009 11:30 AM


Originally Posted by Dash8widget (Post 609729)
Unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen if we raise more barriers to entry for professional pilots. More expensive training leads to fewer pilots in the pipeline (remember, these guys are having to pay for this training themselves), which leads to less competition for jobs, which leads to people with less experience getting those jobs.

Just look at many of the foreign carriers. GA is so limited that there is very little civilian base for the airlines to hire from (and not enough military pilots to fill the need). Therefore, these airlines are forced to hire off the street people who are not even pilots yet.


NOPE. This causes airlines to fly with less pilots which means no more small RJs. So sad I know. It also makes start up carriers less likely to succeed. This is also sad huh?

In reality what Rhino suggests will ultimately lead to job security and and better pay. O ya and more than likely safer skies;)

Dash8widget 05-13-2009 12:21 PM


Originally Posted by Adolphus Coors (Post 609853)
If you read what I wrote you see that I never said that pilots who are trained part 61 are bad pilots or we should take their certificates. I simply said that they did not train under a standardized training program. Part 61 outlines the requirements to be eligible for the certificate or rating and the PTS is the standard by which all pilots are judged. HOWEVER this does not mean it is effective. I have signed off 47 students who trained under both part 61 and 141. When I left the part 141 school for the part 61 school there was a massive difference. The part 61 students I checked were trained to pass a DE's check ride not the PTS and there knowledge during orals was no where near as in depth as those from 141 schools. Like it or not part 61 is train to pass the local DEs check ride not the PTS. I'm sorry if you think passing a DE's check ride makes you standardized and means you have complied with the PTS, but it doesn't.

In many areas there is a very high fail rate among CFI candidates. Why? Because this is the one part 61 check ride were you can not choose your DE. The FAA chooses him for you.

Why are there so many teddy bear DEs out there? It's a business and they want as many students as they can get. They don't want the reputation of being a ball buster. The FAA looks the other way because they want to promote aviation.

There are people who fly airplanes and than there are pilots. Unfortunately there are too many people who fly airplanes among our ranks.

Commercial pilot candidates should be held to very high standards. Letting some DE judge whether this candidate is worthy in a 1.5 hour flight and a 2 hour at best oral is not the answer.

I know many outstanding part 61 trained pilots out there. That does not mean part 61 is an effective and safe way to train commercial pilots!

I guess my experience with part 61, 141 and DE's is just different than yours. I'm sorry that you came across so many "teddy bear" DE's and students who were trained to pass a specific DE's check ride. I guess that I was fortunate in my career to NOT have such experiances. Though I've never been a DE (just an APD), I have many friends who are, and I know that they do not compromise on their check rides for the sake of good business. They all have had issued their share of pink slips, and are still popular DE's. But again, maybe I'm just lucky. Oh, and in my experiance, the FAA doesn't just look away. I personally know of two local DE's who had their designations pulled for not meeting standards.

Granted that there is probably less variance in the quality of part 141 schools, variance still exists (there have been some pretty bad 141 schools out there). A competent instructor under 61 will put out just as good a pilot as a 141 program.

The problem isnt the system for training and certifying pilots, even at the commercial pilot level (and I mean commercial pilot certificate, not airline pilots).

slowplay 05-13-2009 12:31 PM


Originally Posted by Free Bird (Post 609763)
Thread Creep..........................

Not trying to be a buzz kill guys, but the only reason that scope is an issue is because the DELTA pilots gave it away.

Maybe we should stop voting for things that allow more RJ's? Maybe let our reps know that we want the outsourcing of our jobs to stop right now.

Just a thought

If Delta pilots gave away scope, then how did you get a job? Same question for Super...

You guys are too new to remember when we truly had no scope. ASA was flying BAE-146 with 88 and 100 seats. Ron Allen threatened to transfer all the 737-200 flying to Comair (and the threat was real).

Yet we managed to hire nearly 1000 pilots in the last two years with no furloughs. ASA and CMR have pilots on furlough. Compass is capped at 36 jets. The total number of 70-76 seat jets is capped. The total number of 76 seat jets is capped unless mainline grows. Over 130 RJ-50's will have been parked by the end of 2009 (20 of them coming from ASA this year).

Reality is a little different than your statement.

Superpilot92 05-13-2009 12:38 PM


Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 609900)
If Delta pilots gave away scope, then how did you get a job? Same question for Super...

You guys are too new to remember when we truly had no scope. ASA was flying BAE-146 with 88 and 100 seats. Ron Allen threatened to transfer all the 737-200 flying to Comair (and the threat was real).

Yet we managed to hire nearly 1000 pilots in the last two years with no furloughs. ASA and CMR have pilots on furlough. Compass is capped at 36 jets. The total number of 70-76 seat jets is capped. The total number of 76 seat jets is capped unless mainline grows. Over 130 RJ-50's will have been parked by the end of 2009 (20 of them coming from ASA this year).

Reality is a little different than your statement.

That doesnt account for now and in the near future when the time comes to replace md88s and dc9s. attrition has caused hiring not so much growth at DAL and NWA. Look at DALs/NWA's prechapter 11 seniority lists to see the problem. DAL had a bunch more pilots and nwa had over 6000 pilots just in 2005. NWA has about 5000 now.

its a huge issue even though the regionals are getting hit also. reality is a little different than youu statement ;)

Dash8widget 05-13-2009 12:40 PM


Originally Posted by Adolphus Coors (Post 609861)
NOPE. This causes airlines to fly with less pilots which means no more small RJs. So sad I know. It also makes start up carriers less likely to succeed. This is also sad huh?

In reality what Rhino suggests will ultimately lead to job security and and better pay. O ya and more than likely safer skies;)

I understand where you are coming from, your arguments just don't match what has happened in reality. That last big hiring cycle is a good example. After 9/11 the airlines were hit hard; lots of furloughs at the majors, big cuts in pay, etc. As a result, fewer people started perusing airline careers and enrollment in flight schools took a hit. Then things started to turn around. The airlines started hiring again and the regionals were growing and loosing pilots at the same time. So, the regionals had to start hiring in large numbers. But they found that the supply of well qualified pilots was much less than in years past. So what happened? The regionals began lowering their hiring requiments significantly.

Notice that they did not start parking rj's for lack of pilots - they just lowered the bar.

RJ's (at the regional level) are not the result of there being too many pilots out there - they are the result of agreements made by short sighted major airline pilot unions giving up scope for better pay. Job security and better pay will come from scope protection, NOT from cutting the number of commercial pilots coming from part 61 programs!

sailingfun 05-13-2009 12:51 PM


Originally Posted by Superpilot92 (Post 609903)
That doesnt account for now and in the near future when the time comes to replace md88s and dc9s. attrition has caused hiring not so much growth at DAL and NWA. Look at DALs/NWA's prechapter 11 seniority lists to see the problem. DAL had a bunch more pilots and nwa had over 6000 pilots just in 2005. NWA has about 5000 now.

its a huge issue even though the regionals are getting hit also. reality is a little different than youu statement ;)


When you look at the pre chapter 11 seniority lists also look at the work rules and pilot utilization. Pre Chapter 11 the average Delta pilot flew 600 block hours a year. Post chapter 11 with the new contract the average pilot flies in excess of 800 block hours per year. That is better then a 25% improvement in productivity. We had just over 10,000 pilots. With a 25% improvement in productivity you are down to 7500 pilots. Want to know where the jobs went? WORK RULES!

bigdaddie 05-13-2009 01:05 PM


Originally Posted by deltabound (Post 609672)
"When 1.95% of your gross salary isn't enough" . . . :rolleyes:


Seriously. You'd probably get more bang for your buck by hand writing letters to your elected leaders on issues you care about.


I'd get more "bang for my buck" by keeping the 1.95% plus the assessments and just buy booze with it. With Moak and friends in power combined with the economy and rising oil prices, we're screwed.

So I would like to make a motion that we stop paying dues today, buy your drink of favor and party at my house. Golf and water sports are included.

AND if you ask why I don't do something about it and take up a Union possition: it's quite simple. I'm too busy drinking, playing golf, and enjoying water sports.

Superpilot92 05-13-2009 01:09 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 609909)
When you look at the pre chapter 11 seniority lists also look at the work rules and pilot utilization. Pre Chapter 11 the average Delta pilot flew 600 block hours a year. Post chapter 11 with the new contract the average pilot flies in excess of 800 block hours per year. That is better then a 25% improvement in productivity. We had just over 10,000 pilots. With a 25% improvement in productivity you are down to 7500 pilots. Want to know where the jobs went? WORK RULES!

i dont disagree but the fact remains that both the airlines have shrank. while the regionals experienced explosive growth. We have half the number of dc9s and all the small 737s are gone at DAL, also lots of heavies have been parked. Scope is a huge issue no matter how you slice or dice it.

vprMatrix 05-13-2009 01:25 PM


Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 609900)
If Delta pilots gave away scope, then how did you get a job? Same question for Super...

You guys are too new to remember when we truly had no scope. ASA was flying BAE-146 with 88 and 100 seats. Ron Allen threatened to transfer all the 737-200 flying to Comair (and the threat was real).

Yet we managed to hire nearly 1000 pilots in the last two years with no furloughs. ASA and CMR have pilots on furlough. Compass is capped at 36 jets. The total number of 70-76 seat jets is capped. The total number of 76 seat jets is capped unless mainline grows. Over 130 RJ-50's will have been parked by the end of 2009 (20 of them coming from ASA this year).

Reality is a little different than your statement.

Let me see, are you saying that the Delta Scope is good or just that is is better than no scope at all???

FYI, all of the 737-200 flying was transfered (yes, i know not the specific flight). Where are the 737-200s? What aircraft replaced them? Where are the 727s? What aircraft replaced them? What city pair did these aircraft fly? What aircraft currently fly these routes.

I think that we would have been better off to let ASA keep their few 146s and stop the 500 other RJs, 222 of these having seat mile cost better than DC9s and equal to MD88s. For next months schedule there are still more RJs in the Delta fleet count than there are mainline aircraft. (excluding NW and there regional feeders)

Do you honestly believe that there would not have been a lot more hiring than 1000 in the last 7 years if the number of RJs haddn't grown to 500?


BTW those 20 RJs at ASA will be around a little bit longer than you said but at least they will be going, unless Delta changes their mind and keeps them around for a few extra years like they did wth the ATRs.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands