Flyby1206

I believe you pay the $125k in 15 monthly installments. At some point I'm sure JB will have scholarships for the right type of candidates.

Broncofan

I agree with you actually, i honestly don't think experience will matter that will happen your first few hundred hours at the airline, however I can guarantee people will look at you differently, almost scab like, and your career will suffer for it in my opinion. Your absolutely right though the regional, majors, military, everyone is guilty of putting people with 250 hours of flight time in very complex aircraft and have turned out alright. It's the moral of whether you want to be a part of degrading what we have worked hard for.

LAXative

How quickly we forget the thousands of regional pilots who PFT'd back in the day. They bought their job too.

GuppyPuppy

Funny.....I must say that I still look at the females/minorities in the 47+ age range at United and can't help but think they were low-time hires. I know several there. Not necessarily fair to them...I flew with some who weren't inexperienced.

You can't teach experience. United got away with it (mostly). Jetblue? Not sure. I know I'd rather have an experienced first officer in the the right seat than someone who goes through this program. Probably fine at pushing buttons in the right order. Anything out of the ordinary? I hope it won't be a single-pilot operation.

GP

usmc-sgt

Same boat really, did not forget at all.

uptpilot

What you probably never get to hear about are the statistics regarding how many incidents occur at regionals. Just because a plane doesn't crash doesn't mean inexperienced/uneducated pilots aren't liabilities. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ASAP reports attributable to pilot error in the regionals. Unfortunately we only hear about the guys that die trying to reach the FL400 club or taking off on the wrong runway and killing everyone. I'm not sure that such a high rate of incidents counts as "successful". Also, keep in mind that regional pilots are in the right seat for a LONG LONG LONG time before they become Captains so they gain lots of Point A to B flight experience with the complication that come along the way.

And yes... aircraft are getting safer and safer by virtue of engineering. For example, not everyone could fly the F-14 but just about anyone can fly the F-18. Likewise, it's considerably harder to safely fly an MD-88 with steam gauges than it is to fly an EMB-190. However, the computerization of the aircraft also provides a false sense of security which allows companies to lower knowledge requirements and training requirements. The problem is they don't account for "improbable" scenarios. They design their training programmes such that if the unexpected occurs, "airmanship" (translation: the art of flying in the absence of academic study or training) will save the day. These 0-to-hero programmes do not create "airmanship" which is largely a product of self-education and luck of experiencing certain events in one's career.

This becomes a particularly troublesome issue with newer, more complex aircraft. Take the A380 for example. Easy to fly on a sunny day but a real bear when things go wrong. Remember what happened to that Quantas A380 with an uncontained engine failure? How long did it take to go through all the ECAM messages and actions? Wasn't it in the hours? The crew was successful but perhaps only because of the experience of the pilots who were quite senior, educated, and experienced. The Airbus, as advanced as it is, still requires quite a bit of knowledge to successfully deal with problems. What is going to happen when these inexperienced pilots have to fly the A3XX in Direct Law with no protections? They will have to rely on that fundamental jet experience they never got.

JetBlue, or any other airline, is not scared of inexperienced pilots because they always find a way to not be culpable. In the end, insurance mostly covers the cost of accidents. Airlines always use the party lines "we meet or exceed government standards" and "pilot error" and "they were trained".

• "we meet or exceed government standards" = 1500 is not a lot. Not to mention, the government doesn't prescribe a rigid training and performance requirement. It simply assumes that their simple requirements are enough because it has historically relied upon highly experienced civilian and military pilots. Like everything else FAA, it will require blood to make new rules for the Zero-Hour Wonders. Trust me - it will happen. Unfortunately you cannot fix blood once it is drawn. This industry learns by making mistakes.
• "pilot error": the FAA licenses a pilot and the ultimate decisions are made by the pilots and not the company. The company manages the pilots via 'operational control' but it is still the pilots who bare all of the responsibility. Most accidents are pilot error. The company will simply blame the pilots but never take responsibility for setting them up to fail. Look at Allegiant. Heck, you can even cite Southwest since they keep having questionable maintenance practices. The bottom line is that pilots ultimately act on their own and their company rarely is there to force them into a course of action when weather is down to mins, aircraft is at min fuel, and weather forecasting is less than accurate. Try to think of it like a lawyer... can a company really "defend" a pilot?
• "they were trained". Civilian training sucks. It relies on prior experience and education. Many aspects of it are tied to performance snapshots that have no sustainable translation to real world environments. It sucks but it is adequate because of the existing experience crutch they currently enjoy. Will a corporate training program spend more than it thinks it needs to train a pilot? Of course not!!!! This is a business. Most training will consist of computer based training, superficial classroom instruction, and maybe a single shot attempt in a Level D simulator. In the end, the FAA will approve anything with lipstick no matter how inadequate it truly is. If a pilot crashes a plane because he screws up a go-around and stalls, the company will not be culpable because (1) training met FAA standards, (2) the company let the pilot do it once or twice in a simulator. Therefore, training was provided and pilot error is to blame.

We are entering uncharted territory. I hope there is never a tragic incident but I guarantee you that the number of ASAP reports and violations will go up significantly.

uptpilot

"experience" is a very inadequate word and a blunt tool.

At 1,500 hrs, I knew my Point A to B flying very well but it wasn't until around 4000 hrs until I learned how lucky I really was. My lack of education in aeronautics could've made me a statistic in literally hundreds of cases. Just being honest... The continuing education process never ends and without a structured education system, every pilot has a different intellectual toolkit. This is a problem because in such a chaotic system, we only statistically know that an adequate level of airmanship only develops at the higher number of hours of experience.

I've no doubt that these guys can do it in 250 hrs but there will be a greatly enhanced level of risk. Since risk is not easily quantified, airlines will simply ignore this and let the cards fall where they may.

The real litmus test are the situations where we can only speculate. Would a 250 hr pilot or even 1500 hr pilot successfully have reproduced Sullengberger's landing on the Hudson? I'm learning that a lot of civil pilots hate the guy for some of his comments but I do think he is 100% right about 'experience' and the airline environment.

uptpilot

I will attempt to answer this...

You are not a jerk, so don't think I am for replying. I was a 250-hr wonder once upon a time (military). Remember though... Jetblue is NOT the military - not even close.

The problem is that you WILL pass the E-190 course because it is very very very basic. You will get all the gouge and will know from Day 1 exactly what to know for the test. While I do not think this is a bad thing, it is a bad thing with guys who have no other experience to fall back on. You will not have the 'experience' to know what is important and what is not. You will not even know how to learn what you need to know. For example, if you have smoke in the cabin and a confirmed fire from the inflight entertainment system, will you take an hour to go hold and run endless checklists while the fire burns you to death (Swissair Flt 111) or will you just land at LAX if you originally departed from LGB? Conversely, if you have an electrical problem that requires you to shut down every system in IMC conditions with 100' ceilings everywhere or will you carefully weigh your options? There are billions of scenarios that are not taught in Part 121 training.

JetBlue training is very good but it is not a full training program. It is a difference training program that already assumes a lot. Sure, they will take a stab at lengthening it but it will only cover what they think you need to know. They are not there to teach you Part 91, 121 rules or to teach you in depth aerodynamics or systems. The training will always be constrained by cost. They will not let you go fly the sim for fun or to practice to a level of excellence.

Again, this is not about you, per sey. I've no doubt you are the top of your class, probably built your own wind tunnel, practice flightsim daily, and recites Iron Eagle 1-4 perfectly. The problem is that once someone like you comes through the pipeline that isn't YOU but a mainstream guy, tragic things will happen and companies like JetBlue will not adequately diagnose the causes. They will do whatever they can to offload responsibility onto the pilots and the government. You will be a test case to prove we can do the same with less. And, like I said before, they will find some way to pay you less so that your generation will never make as much as the older generations.

I'm not against young people doing this. In fact, I remind people all the time that the engineers that got us to the moon were in their 20's (the pilots were in their 30's and military). It's just that the system will only do what is necessary to meet the legal standards and leave the rest on your shoulders and to luck.

uptpilot

ALPA - hahahahahahhahahahaaaa.. They are too busy strengthening cockpit doors. They can't even get lithium battery shipments squashed and that is a no-brainer known danger that has caused many crashes. ALPA wastes HUGE amounts of money and simply has become a self-preservation organization of its own existence. They have a monopoly and they act like it.

You can do a hell of a lot more than ALPA by:
1) writing letters to the FAA (I speak from personal experience),
2) suing the FAA or companies,
3) educating the public,
4) joining consumer advocacy groups,
5) using the mainstream media to voice your opinions.

Personally I think we need to audit ALPA and do what we can do cut our union payments in half. We're simply not getting our money's worth. There are too many people that know only aviation and only the low performance of the industry to cite as status quo. ALPA makes a few incremental changes here and there but nothing they do is revolutionary. It is evolutionary but in geologic time. ALPA should've have deep sixxed Gateway 7 a long time ago. They simply do not have a warrior mindset. Think of how effective the teachers' unions are. Think of how effective McDonald's workers were in forcing their company to pay them $15/hr with NO UNION and no organization other than social media. Those are the kind of performance standards that I expect.

atpcliff

Do NOT pay for ANY training. The pilot shortage will get MUCH worse...wait for them to pay you!!!