Mesa
06-08-2015 | 07:21 AM
#8623
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
The contract is crap, period. The philosophy here is that a cheap company can secure more contracts. Securing more contracts supposedly keeps upgrades low. Low upgrades are touted as better than a good contract. Whether any of that is true for you... well, that's up to you to decide.
06-08-2015 | 08:50 AM
#8627
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
I was at Pinnacle '05-07
06-08-2015 | 08:55 AM
#8628
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
LOL at all the chest-thumping new hires talking about their aviation experience in here.
06-08-2015 | 09:00 AM
#8629
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
On a slightly related note, from the EJet new hires I've flown with, I'm starting to feel like the 1,500 hour rule should be ammended as follows:
1) Set the bar at 2,500 hours TT, except:
2) Give 3x to 5x credit for any 91/135/121 turbine PIC or any military hours (including rotor)
3) Give 2x to 3x credit for 91/121 turbine SIC
4) Give 1.5 to 2x credit for CFI dual given
Or something like the above. In retrospect--now that I'm flying with new hires in the right seat on a daily basis--it was a highly irrational decision for the final rule to quantify all flight time as equal. While I understand the restricted ATP provides credit for slightly more rigorous training, the idea that all 1,500 hours are the same is absolutely absurd.
1) Set the bar at 2,500 hours TT, except:
2) Give 3x to 5x credit for any 91/135/121 turbine PIC or any military hours (including rotor)
3) Give 2x to 3x credit for 91/121 turbine SIC
4) Give 1.5 to 2x credit for CFI dual given
Or something like the above. In retrospect--now that I'm flying with new hires in the right seat on a daily basis--it was a highly irrational decision for the final rule to quantify all flight time as equal. While I understand the restricted ATP provides credit for slightly more rigorous training, the idea that all 1,500 hours are the same is absolutely absurd.
06-08-2015 | 09:04 AM
#8630
Chief Engineer
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 815
Likes: 0
From: CRJ FO
On a slightly related note, from the EJet new hires I've flown with, I'm starting to feel like the 1,500 hour rule should be ammended as follows:
1) Set the bar at 2,500 hours TT, except:
2) Give 3x to 5x credit for turbine PIC or military hours (including rotor)
3) Give 2x to 3x credit for 135 PIC
4) Give 1.5 to 2x credit for CFI dual given
Or something like the above. In retrospect--now that I'm flying with new hires in the right seat on a daily basis--it was a highly irrational decision for the final rule to quantify all flight time as equal. While I understand the restricted ATP provides credit for slightly more rigorous training, the idea that all 1,500 hours are the same is absolutely absurd.
1) Set the bar at 2,500 hours TT, except:
2) Give 3x to 5x credit for turbine PIC or military hours (including rotor)
3) Give 2x to 3x credit for 135 PIC
4) Give 1.5 to 2x credit for CFI dual given
Or something like the above. In retrospect--now that I'm flying with new hires in the right seat on a daily basis--it was a highly irrational decision for the final rule to quantify all flight time as equal. While I understand the restricted ATP provides credit for slightly more rigorous training, the idea that all 1,500 hours are the same is absolutely absurd.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
