1500TT/500ME
100 inst.
ATP
4Year college degree.
This seems realistic.
BTW my quals were all much higher than this when I finally got an airline seat.

 

My guess would be 1000/100 with a 4 year degree will be the norm, but don't worry...when (if ever) the airlines really need people again they'll just lower the experience requirements to 300/any and no education requirement instead of increasing pay to attract qualified people. It’s like hiring illegal immigrants, it's just too easy.

 

Unless we start flying to the moon who cares about hours. My 8 hour days in the saab were worth 32 hours in a CRJ. I think the newspaper reading ratio is about a 4:1, but obviously I have been gaining valuable experience reading the USA today

 

I was hired by AWAC with 1050/100, 62 of that 100 multi was turbine and 50 of it was jet SIC. I also had well over 400 hours of level C/D simulator experience, which made training a no-stress affair.

I can't help but think some of the sentiment on this thread is "I got mine, now let's pull up the ladder behind me" but IF minimums were going to be raised, they should simply be to meet ATP minimums and have successfully completed the ATP written...and newhires are checked at completion of training such that they hold an ATP certificate.

 

What about keeping the minimums low-ish
(ATP minimums, small amount of multi time, ATP written) and make the interview a whole lot tougher than it currently is?

This way it gives advantage to qualified individuals (like those Boiler just referred to with Aviation degrees with lots of sim time/ CRM training, etc.) I'm not saying that everyone from these places would automatically make it, just have a chance to prove themselves in a TOUGH interview. In my mind this would strike a good balance between avoiding 300-hour terrors, and still getting people who are capable FO's.

 

I disagree with those who call for gobs and gobs of multi time in order to get hired.

1. I can appreciate the need for total time. I have gained an incrementally large amount of experience, knowledge, and decision making skills that I gained since acquiring my Commercial cert at 207 hours, and not, as a CFI around ATP minimums. I would not have wanted me in a jet with 300TT, although I would have gladly taken the job at the time.
Experience=safety, and there is nothing like more total time to build experience. Is my 1200 enough? If you think I need more to be a competent regional FO, so be it. I will continue to CFI and look for 135 work to build hours.

2. When asked how to build multi time, you said to MEI some more. I completely disagree with this. While some multi time is valuable, after a while it becomes silly. How much more does doing engine outs with students in beat up Seminoles teach you than teaching someone how to land? Or to fly on instruments?

3. Multi time is becoming harder and harder to come by. In years past, MEI'ing was a legitimate way to build time, because the lawyers and doctors of the world would buy Barons, 310's, and Seneca's when they had it made. Now those are being replaced with Cirruses, Columbias, etc as the "aircraft of choice" when you had it made in life. I teach at a large part 61 flight school and have plenty of opportunities to teach in glass cockpit diamonds, cirruses, etc. I have experience managing systems, FMS's (if you can call the GFC 700 an FMS), teaching ADM and cockpit management in these aircraft. Multi? Not so much Multi students are few and far between, simply the aviation industry has changed so much.

4. Looking for "saftey pilot work" sitting in the right seat of a king air or something similar has been bashed on countless times in other threads as not getting paid to do something you should be paid for. This i agree with, to a point.

5. As others have pointed out on this thread, the days of flying boxes in an aztec are going, not gone perhaps, but on their way out. The vast majority of frieght work is going to FEDEX and UPS (or going digital)...even mighty airnet is struggling as of late.

The point of all this is to say that yes, experience is invaluable, but why weigh multi time so heavily, when junk seminoles cost $200-$300 an hour, for the purpose of getting a $20k a year airline job?

There are certainly other ways of testing for the skills necessary to be PIC on an RJ besides coming up with an arbitrary amount of ME time.

 

I have the inclination that had you been hired with, say, 4400 tt and 1500 multi, you would be asserting the minimums should be 4000tt and 1000 multi.

I think a lot of us agree that those numbers are simply too high and unrealistic. During better economic times, people go to Majors or corporate jobs with that close to that kind of time. Definitely the experience of a 500 hour pilot is not enough, but let's face it, after so many hours instructing (single or multi) you're not getting any better. Should the requirement be to fly 135 then? Why not make a military flight background mandatory? I believe that better minimums (ATP mins, as others have mentioned) are pragmatic examples of an acceptable level of experience to enter the cockpit. Going above those minimums is what will make you competitive.

We should set the bar high enough to keep our profession full of professionals, but we should not arbitrarily set minimums of thousands of hours.

 

What a lot of you are forgetting is that the minimums is nothing more than a set number to limit the number of applicants, hence why it is an ever changing number. My good friend at Continental got on with Eagle when he had something in the neighborhood of 3000-1000ME. Keep in mind that was in a different market. Many of the FBO flight schools around the country cannot even afford to keep "A" multi engine plane as the insurance costs for a rental twin SEVERELY outweigh the gains. In the entire central Indiana area there is 1 twin for rent. The next closest place is an hour drive up to Purdue. You cannot seriously expect an applicant to have 2000ME to go to a regional job, its just not practical especially in this economy.

 

FlyJSH those numbers are Simply UNREALISTIC, For so many reasons I cant even begin to start, If you really believe that 5000tt and 2000 multi is a good start. Good luck with getting your seats filled in ANY economic climate.

 

Attention Folks! Hiring 18-21 year olds with little time is not a recent phenomena!

I know a guy named Gordon in Ft. Worth, TX. He's in his seventies and runs a dispatcher school, as well as teaches written prep at the local flight school. He worked for Pan Am for some ungodly amount of years starting in the 1950's. One day I asked him how he got his start, and he told me the story of how he interviewed after he graduated(High School), they liked him, and he got hired as an FO. I then asked him how much time he had when he got hired and he said "ZERO" That's right, goose egg on any type of flight training or education. That being said, how much more experience did he have than the average "300 wonder".

Now, before you start beating me over the head with a hammer, I am in no way advocating the hiring of low time pilots. I'm not necessarily against it either. I'm just saying it's been done before. The difference is of course the era.

Sixty years ago, an 18 year old was a man. He was expected to be hard working , responsible, and full of character. My grandfather who was part of that generation, held a full time job, while attending high school, and enlisted in the military after graduation. Today he would be considered an over achiever. Back then he was normal. Today, young people rarely have these 3 traits together, if they have them at all. To all you younger folks out there who don't think this applies to you, than maybe it doesn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe your that exception, or maybe your not. I'm inclined to think as a general rule, the later is true. I point to things like wearing your eppaulettes "backwards" or my personal favorite "the backpack". For crying out loud, your an airline pilot! Your job is not just to fly the airplane, but to inspire confidence in the general flying public. The perception that you give off, as you stroll down the terminal with backpack and IPOD is not awe inspiring. I don't care if it was Chuck Yeager doing it. You could be the best pilot in the world, but who would know. Just like a uniformed pilot drinking in a bar is labeled a drunk. That may not be the reality, but it is always the perception that sticks with people. Sorry for going off topic, but the people I'm talking about know who they are. Others, this is not directed at you.


Your probably wondering were I'm going with this and I'm not quite sure my self. What I think I'm trying to say is that we can discuss all day long about what the magic number should be, but in the end it probably has more to do with each persons individual character rather than their specific experience. When I used to CFI, I would tell my students that you can teach a monkey how to fly a plane, but judgement is what makes a pilot. Some of that you can teach, alot of it you can't. This maybe a hard pill for some people to swallow, but the hard truth is that good pilots, as well as bad, exist at all ages, experience levels, and job descriptions.

Unfortunately, as I think all of us can agree, the system the airlines use to weed through applicants is flawed. There's a tremendous amount of emphasis put on experience and other factors, rather than on the individual. When I interviewed at the regional I worked for, it lasted 5 minutes. In and out, sim ride, offer 2 days later. I could have been a crackhead jonesing for a fix, and I don't think they would have noticed. I personally would much rather be judged by a potential employer by my charcter, rather than my experience, regardless of how much I have.