![]() |
Originally Posted by Cglyn
(Post 3529649)
I would say no matter your experience, if you get the type rating you get the type rating and that’s the end of it.
The regionals would *really* like it to be, but plenty of folks with a type rating flunk 121 IOE. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 3518635)
Chalk this up to natural selection in the airline industry.
Oh yeah, I forgot, they're worthy and we aren't. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3529011)
i disagree. Look at the order books for new narrow bodies at the majors. Then look at those at the regionals.
https://i.ibb.co/NNgmXx1/E504-F7-FA-...AB285-F4-D.jpg Most current hiring at legacies only covers their incentivized early retirements for COVID. The majors will need to replace their FUTURE retirees and staff those new aircraft while the ULCCs (including all the new kids on the block) and LCCs continue their own expansions. And the regionals have already nearly exhausted the DEC supply. The answer is demand destruction, at least that is what our overlords from the Chicago School would dictate, and what appears to be evolving from the dark and hallowed halls of the managerial banks. Who wins is a meaningful question, because while airline travel is a luxury is some countries, it is almost essential in the U.S. Great thread and thanks for posting it. And with regard to the regional model, F*ck innovation and the model that paid me $17 bucks an hour to fly a jet out of America's capital city. |
Video - "Death of the US regional airlines?"
Here is a surprisingly comprehensive video on this subject, made by a (European) airline pilot for his YouTube channel.
Title: "Is this the death of the US regional airlines?" https://youtu.be/oYM8dG-ZGRo |
Originally Posted by ComanchePilot
(Post 3529854)
Here is a surprisingly comprehensive video on this subject, made by a (European) airline pilot for his YouTube channel.
Title: "Is this the death of the US regional airlines?" https://youtu.be/oYM8dG-ZGRo Very well done! |
Could the FAA reduce the 1,000 hours of SIC 121 time required for upgrade, to 750 hours? Would this have any meaningful benefit?
|
Originally Posted by Pilsung
(Post 3530324)
Could the FAA reduce the 1,000 hours of SIC 121 time required for upgrade, to 750 hours? Would this have any meaningful benefit?
|
Originally Posted by Pilsung
(Post 3530324)
Could the FAA reduce the 1,000 hours of SIC 121 time required for upgrade, to 750 hours? Would this have any meaningful benefit?
|
Originally Posted by Pilsung
(Post 3530324)
Could the FAA reduce the 1,000 hours of SIC 121 time required for upgrade, to 750 hours? Would this have any meaningful benefit?
|
Originally Posted by Pilsung
(Post 3530324)
Could the FAA reduce the 1,000 hours of SIC 121 time required for upgrade, to 750 hours? Would this have any meaningful benefit?
Would it help the regionals if they did? Equally unlikely. Those uncomfortable with immediate upgrade would have even greater reason to find themselves a ULCC where they could hang out for a few years before going to their career destination. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:48 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands