dbflyer

American kids are largely not interested in long term future commitment in my experience. When I talk to high school kids about the military, the number one reason they tell me they are not interested is because they don't want to make a 4 year commitment to something they don't know if they will like.

I doubt the airlines here will have much luck with ab initio unless there are some clear paths out of the commitment for the kids who decide it is not what they were hoping for.

Much easier to go to a 6 month computer coding class for $15k and have a guarantee of a $60K/yr job or you get your money back. Much easier to move on to the next attempt to "find your passion" without nearly as much downside.

jcountry

Stupid should hurt.

In that case it will.

Blackhawk

Yeah, but the thing is they will screech at the world and insist we vote for someone like Bernie, because you like know, it's like unfair that they, like ya know, borrowed money to pay for like a worthless degree, ya know, and now an evil bank wants their money back. Like, ya know, fer sure. Like Bernie 20... whatever the next thingy is when we vote. My minority/lesbian/LGBT/Poli Sci/socialist/1900-1905 studies professor told me so like fer sure it must be true.

Fleet Warp

Yeah you are right, but you are still wrong. Will a major higher someone directly out of 135? Rarely, and most of those few likely have a glowing friends list.

A big reason for anyone to move to DEC at a regional is to both get another type and to pass a(nother) 121 new hire course. (proving they are still trainable) Most of the DECs today have been stuck in a single type and way of doing things for 10-15 years.

JohnBurke

This is not correct.

14 CFR 121.436(a)(3) establishes the requirement for 1000 hours of SIC, in order to act as pilot in command under Part 121. Specifically:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._1436&rgn=div8

In context of this thread and your response, experience obtained under Part 135.243(a)(1) speaks to more than just aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats. The language of the regulation addresses three possibilities, separating them with commas and using "or" to verify that any of the three are applicable to that subparagraph.

135.243(a)(3) specifically points to:

• Turbojet aircraft
• Airplanes having a passenger seating configuration of 10 or more
• Multi engine airplanes in commuter operations

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._1243&rgn=div8

Any of the three are applicable to the requirement to hold an ATP under Part 135.

A pilot flying a turbojet aircraft as PIC under Part 135 must hold an ATP.

A pilot flying an aircraft with a passenger seating configuration of 10 o more (excluding any pilot seat) as pilot in command must hold an ATP.

A pilot flying a multi engine airplane in a commuter operation as defined under Part 119 as pilot in command must hold an ATP.

This is to say that the SIC requirement may be met, in context to your statement, by PIC experience under Part 135 in the above aircraft. Also, in accordance with impending changes already announced as a final rule in the Federal Register, experience as SIC under 135 will also be applicable.

Irishblackbird

You are correct and I did verify this with my local FSDO. When I went through indoc with my first 121 carrier 3 years ago, I was improperly told during my look back that none of my 135 time would count towards the 1000 hours because of the 10 seat configuration, and never verified the validity of that claim. I stand corrected.

JohnBurke

The FSDO has never had authority to interpret regulation. You have full authority (and are expected) to read and know the regulation.

The regulation and its interpretation are know three ways, with a fourth as an insight into possibilities: the regulation itself, FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation, and the Federal Register preambles from release of the final rule. All are available. You may also look into ALJ and board renderings on challenges to enforcement of the regulation.

Asking the local FSDO is akin to taking financial counsel from the guy that washes your car.

rickair7777

Yes, but it's not a bad place to start in some cases if you know someone and trust someone there. You cannot hang your hat on it, but hopefully an ASI can point you to the relevant documentation which you can rely on.

FlyingSlowly

Poor bargaining (aka riding the whipsaw) on the part of many regionals is the reason CA rates are so low. If there were a RALPA (instead of ALPA), we could help rise above the BS and someone could actually make decent money as a FFD CA.

Legacy XJT has been suffering, for example, not because they are too expensive. The problem is that other regionals had (temporarily) become too cheap. So where does the flying go?

As long as the regional pilots maintain and us-vs-them mentality toward fellow regional pilots, the corporations win and the whipsaw continues...

rickair7777

That's the way the system is designed to operate. Well it actually sort of evolved into that over time, but managers definitely know a good thing when they see it.

An RALPA might be better than nothing, but at some point you could price yourself out of business... RJ flying either goes back to mainline or goes away due to economics.