|
Originally Posted by PUNK
(Post 3431786)
A lot of fine prints. I.e no 121 failures in past 5 years. So if you fail your recurrent in the 4th year, or captain upgrade, you're screwed.
https://i.ibb.co/zSfJV4J/56-C6-D6-A0...DCC4-F5-E5.jpg |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3431800)
Do you believe training failures should have no consequences? That passes should be handed out regardless of whether you demonstrate the ability to perform? Like participation trophies?
https://i.ibb.co/zSfJV4J/56-C6-D6-A0...DCC4-F5-E5.jpg |
Originally Posted by PUNK
(Post 3431786)
A lot of fine prints. I.e no 121 failures in past 5 years. So if you fail your recurrent in the 4th year, or captain upgrade, you're screwed.
|
Originally Posted by mike sierra
(Post 3431891)
Do you realize there are 121 outfits out there failing people so they can't leave?
Who do you want performing your surgery, the doctor who passed his board certification in surgery? Or the one who is board certified in Psychiatry? If some homicidal maniac takes over your kids school, who do you want trying to stop him? An E-4 Marine Recon guy with a K-Bar, or the Uvalde cops? There OUGHT to be penalties for occupational incompetence. |
Originally Posted by PorkyMcFuzz
(Post 3431892)
Yep the fine print is what most gloss over in these “guaranteed” mainline pathways. Sure it’s nice to have no question there, but as it stands right now, it’s not hard to be taken out of the program for things like failures and poor reliability etc…personally know a couple folk who are no longer eligible due to the above, not that it will likely stop them being hired elsewhere outside of the program right now.
Again, if they aren’t competent they ought to lose out. Failures and poor reliability SHOULD have consequences. If this is being done unfairly or maliciously, have the balls to name names. Publicly here where it will warn others, or at the very least in complaints to the FAA. If you do have organizations corrupting their own training programs that is as much a safety issue as Boeing improperly certifying their own aircraft. If you have legitimate knowledge of that happening, do something about it, don’t just whine about it. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3431968)
Again, if they aren’t competent they ought to lose out. Failures and poor reliability SHOULD have consequences.
If this is being done unfairly or maliciously, have the balls to name names. Publicly here where it will warn others, or at the very least in complaints to the FAA. If you do have organizations corrupting their own training programs that is as much a safety issue as Boeing improperly certifying their own aircraft. If you have legitimate knowledge of that happening, do something about it, don’t just whine about it. |
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3432147)
I see you're point but from day one on APC the attitude is own any failures regardless of the cause. Anything else will be branded making excuses. I can't begin to guess how anything nefarious can be proven short of a bunch of neutral witnesses or some type of electronic evidence.
|
Originally Posted by PUNK
(Post 3432149)
Exactly this. I feel like I've been treated unfairly during a airline checkride... But I have no way to prove it.
https://i.ibb.co/4FwwPHb/37-B24043-2...-BB2-EC628.jpg Given that I doubt your actual name is “PUNK” (unless your folks had a real weird sense of humor) you can anonymously post it here giving a description of just what happened and where it occurred. If indeed this was a pattern of intentional failing as you allege, then there must no doubt be others who can validate your assertions. While nothing may undo what you allege happened to you, your story and confirmation by other posters could sure serve as a warning to others. But saying you “feel like” you’ve been treated unfairly with no more data than that does not distinguish you from someone whining that they were absent on the day the participation trophies were handed out. If you have a case, make it. If you don’t, don’t whine about it. |
It’s entirely possible to get hired by a Legacy with multiple 121 failures. You are going to have to discuss it at the interview…..and you’d better have a good story about what YOU learned from it. Not how you are treated unfairly…..but what you gained from the situation. I know somebody very close to me who got hired at the Big 3 with two training failures AND a DUI. I know somebody else who got hired at the Big 3 with a drug-related felony. You have to be able to show your growth….and why you are a great candidate now. Sometimes…..it’s not about explaining things DESPITE the negatives……occasionally, it’s about explaining why you are better BECAUSE of the negatives.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3432297)
https://i.ibb.co/4FwwPHb/37-B24043-2...-BB2-EC628.jpg
Given that I doubt your actual name is “PUNK” (unless your folks had a real weird sense of humor) you can anonymously post it here giving a description of just what happened and where it occurred. If indeed this was a pattern of intentional failing as you allege, then there must no doubt be others who can validate your assertions. While nothing may undo what you allege happened to you, your story and confirmation by other posters could sure serve as a warning to others. But saying you “feel like” you’ve been treated unfairly with no more data than that does not distinguish you from someone whining that they were absent on the day the participation trophies were handed out. If you have a case, make it. If you don’t, don’t whine about it. |
Originally Posted by JohnnyBekkestad
(Post 3432480)
I remember back in the day when I was a CFI, I was forced to send two of my CFI initial candidates with this one guy, He failed them both and when he landed he told them to pay him another 400$ each and they would just go straight back up and finish up. This was even before he had even debriefed me and told me what I needed to retrain them on. I can probably list 100s of similar stories about the same examiner and other ones during the 7 years I was teaching in south florida.
Would you want to be operated on by a doctor who showed up for anatomy and pathology class but was never able to pass either? IF THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES IN TRAINING PERSONNEL YOU ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IN TRAINING PERSONNEL. YOU DO NOT PASS THE TRAINEES REGARDLESS OF MERIT. |
I don’t know, are doctors going to recurrent every year and failing KVs for trick questions unrelated to their duties?
|
Doctors kill thousands a year through malpractice and incompetence.
|
Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB
(Post 3436575)
Doctors kill thousands a year through malpractice and incompetence.
|
Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB
(Post 3436575)
Doctors kill thousands a year through malpractice and incompetence.
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyBekkestad
(Post 3432480)
I remember back in the day when I was a CFI, I was forced to send two of my CFI initial candidates with this one guy, He failed them both and when he landed he told them to pay him another 400$ each and they would just go straight back up and finish up. This was even before he had even debriefed me and told me what I needed to retrain them on. I can probably list 100s of similar stories about the same examiner and other ones during the 7 years I was teaching in south florida.
|
Originally Posted by hindsight2020
(Post 3436866)
Generally one at a time though, which the public apparently has more acceptance of, for some reason. Slow boil the frog or something like that....
|
Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB
(Post 3436575)
Doctors kill thousands a year through malpractice and incompetence.
|
It has been less than 6 months..,
and already it’s hitting even at Skywest and Republic. It may take a recession to save the regionals.
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3431797)
YOU MISS THE POINT. It isn’t about GOJET and it isn’t about AA. It’s a queuing problem.
For a regional to remain viable they must retain CAs long enough to sit left seat enough for them to get an FO up to 1000 hours SIC. That is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM assuming no loss of ANY FOs prior to them becoming CAs themselves (which of course there is) and no loss of any CAs prior to them getting 1000 hours of 121 PIC (which of course there is). if that is not the case ON AVERAGE than you are in a negative FEEDBACK LOOP WHERE A DIMINISHING NUMBER OF CAs will only be able to provide a diminishing number of flights leading to a diminishing number of FOs getting to upgrade eligible (and taking longer to do it) and ultimately the organization can’t continue. That CANNOT be offset by pumping new FOs in at the bottom, which will only dilute available right seat hours among a greater number of FOs, slowing their progression even more. In fact, the loss of ANY FOs prior to becoming a CA is more devastating than the early loss of a CA. A CA that leaves after flying as a CA for 500 hours has ‘cost’ the organization 1000 hrs of SIC time but has ‘earned’ for the organization only 500 hours of SIC time, whereas any senior FO (600-800 hrs SIC) who departs gives an even lower return on ‘investment’ in terms of CA hours. Nor is it just How many block hours do you believe you can fly a CA? In a year? Max allowed by law is 1000, but how many actually BLOCK a thousand? Considering there is going to be recurrent and two weeks of vacation and cancellations due to weather? You aren’t going to be able to get this done with an average time as a CA of 18 months even if you don’t lose a single CA before they get to 1000 121 PIC or a single FO to a ULCC. And you ARE going to lose FOs to the ULCCs (and some even to legacies) and you are going to lose a $hitload of CAs to both BEFORE they get anywhere near 1000 121 PIC. And then there are the special cases - like the military retirees that flew C-17s, KC-135s, or B-52s for 10-12 years before flying a desk to finish out his 20 years who now comes to a regional for no other purpose than to do a touch and go - to pick up a free ATP and get current. There’s no way in hell they are going to stay around long enough to make CA- heck, they’ll quite possibly be a CA at a legacy before they could ever flow to one. I’m sorry, but if you think increasing flow will make this situation better, you are delusional. The regionals don’t need faster career progression of their CAs to remain viable, they need slower career progression. But with the majors hiring like they are, they aren’t going to get it. Best option for people at the regionals, barring a truly devastating recession ( and I’ll give you that this administration is doing their best to engineer that) is to go wherever you can get in the quickest and where they are going to work you like the proverbial rented mule, get all the SIC hours you can until a major (any major) will give you an interview, and then get a second type there, where disappearing CAs are not yet an issue, while putting out and constantly upgrading apps for whoever you want to work for. Otherwise you are going to be the one with no seat at the table when the regional system fails. If I haven’t explained it adequately for you, buy the book: https://www.dummies.com/article/busi...raints-255110/ |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3509914)
and already it’s hitting even at Skywest and Republic. It may take a recession to save the regionals.
|
Originally Posted by ImSoSuss
(Post 3510061)
You were wrong about the CAs. They are hurting because of the lack of CAs. They have more FOs then they know what to do with.
That’s sort of what I said, isn’t it? For a regional to remain viable they must retain CAs long enough to sit left seat enough for them to get an FO up to 1000 hours SIC. That is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM assuming no loss of ANY FOs prior to them becoming CAs themselves (which of course there is) and no loss of any CAs prior to them getting 1000 hours of 121 PIC (which of course there is). |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3510095)
That’s sort of what I said, isn’t it?
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3431797)
In fact, the loss of ANY FOs prior to becoming a CA is more devastating than the early loss of a CA. A CA that leaves after flying as a CA for 500 hours has ‘cost’ the organization 1000 hrs of SIC time but has ‘earned’ for the organization only 500 hours of SIC time, whereas any senior FO (600-800 hrs SIC) who departs gives an even lower return on ‘investment’ in terms of CA hours. Nor is it just |
Originally Posted by ImSoSuss
(Post 3510157)
negative
Losing FOs hasn't been nearly as devastating as losing CAs for the last 12 to 18 months. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:37 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands