If you don't want pay to return to where it w
09-16-2017, 03:40 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Position: 175 CA
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
False cause.... even if the requirements are lowered there is still a shortage and pay will not fall back to where it once was.
09-16-2017, 04:14 PM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
False cause.... even if the requirements are lowered there is still a shortage and pay will not fall back to where it once was.
09-16-2017, 04:57 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by BobSacamano
Lol. "If you want your representative to vote for an arbitrary minimum hour requirement in order to prop up wages that would otherwise fall to their natural market level, its gonna cost you."
The funny thing is it doesn't sound so unfair when you see it for what it is.
The funny thing is it doesn't sound so unfair when you see it for what it is.
09-16-2017, 05:34 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: Downward Dog
Posts: 1,877
Instead of 250, i'm betting the new number will be 750.
A senator wrote back saying (essentially) that he is more interested in leveling the playing field, where (my words) a riddle-rat with the same training and certificate shouldn't get a BS hour advantage over fellow pilot who received the same training and FAA certificate.
While I agree with that attitude, I disagree with the 750 number.
Like sniffing out BS and instead of cutting the BS....BS FOR EVERYBODY!!!
A senator wrote back saying (essentially) that he is more interested in leveling the playing field, where (my words) a riddle-rat with the same training and certificate shouldn't get a BS hour advantage over fellow pilot who received the same training and FAA certificate.
While I agree with that attitude, I disagree with the 750 number.
Like sniffing out BS and instead of cutting the BS....BS FOR EVERYBODY!!!
09-17-2017, 07:43 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Rahlifer
The whole focus of the RAA has been lobbying to drop the mins back down to 250 hours. There would be no problem finding tens of thousands starry eyed kids to fill the right seat of shiny rjs along with a near instantaneous drop in wages again. I've read about several proposals similar to the ab-initio deals popular in Europe. Companies would sponsor training costs for candidates in exchange for a decade or more employment contracts. You'd literally be creating an entire generation of indentured servants.
09-18-2017, 06:22 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 517
I am in favor of the 1500hr rule because I think it has vastly helped improve the working conditions at most of the regional airlines, and may ultimately end up in the demise of the model.
However I often wonder how many of those that vehemently defend the 1500hr rule were also the ones that were hired into the right seat of an RJ with 400TT not that many years ago.
However I often wonder how many of those that vehemently defend the 1500hr rule were also the ones that were hired into the right seat of an RJ with 400TT not that many years ago.
09-18-2017, 06:23 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
And even worse, there's a new Top Gun movie coming out. Perfect storm.
Now if you will excuse me, I gotta go do some of that pilot s** * Mav!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
