why the raise?
 

Does anyone know why the few regionals that are hiring have raised their mins. in the past 10 days. I had herd that the faa had stepped in b/c of the colgan 3407 flight that had crashed in february in buffalo. I kind of believe this but at the same time i wasn't sure......

Many reasons, perhaps even 3407 in some very small way (to appease the public?) made the previous "mininums" unrealistic (most of us would argue they always had been). But at it's core, there are far too many pilots on the street for competitive minimums to not shoot through the roof. We're a dime-a-dozen now ;)

EDIT: If you're a reporter...you 'oughta know better!

It's news to me that anyone is hiring in the first place. But to answer your question, yes it probably has alot to do with the crash. The other is that thing known as supply vs. demand. The point I alluded to in my first sentence means that if so few carriers are actively hiring then, those that are can be more choosy and, thus raise minimum requirements.

who's still hiring?

Thats what i probably figured supply vs. demand and supply is winning so they can be more choosey, it's just frustrating cuz i had met the other mins. and they went up 300%, thanks for the imput.

Im sure you don't want to hear it but, FWIW this is probably one of those times where you are better off without the job for the time being. Things are changing...capacity reductions, etc. Get more time while you can during the downtimes and you'll be off to the races when the pendulum swings back in the other direction...and it will.

Why not raise the minimums? With so many high time folks on the street, why bother with less experienced applicants.

News flash fellows, after the congressional hearings coming up in the next couple of weeks, I guarantee you that certification, qualification, and overall hiring practices will be brought forward to the table. When it's all set and done, I hope and anticipate nothing less than ATP as the mins. Let's see what happens.

You're probably correct. And I will submit that what we can also be sure NOT to see is a corresponding increase in starting pay.:mad:

Well I woudn't be too sure about that. Two possible scenarios would be:

Less supply drives demand up (in a few years of course) thus forcing carriers to raise the bar to attract the "talent".

or

Congress grows a pair and puts two and two together with regards to the responsibility that we carry on shoulders in relation to our base pay and puts pressure on the carriers "in the interest of safety". This one would be a bit more tricky and would require a bit more lobbying and public support (you hear that ALPA?).

We shall see.

I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yep...glad my PC is right around the corner :cool:

Oh...and I see the hearings drawing a lot of hot air, and then...wait for it...wait for it...nothing.

Meeting the mins does not meen anything these days...you need to excede the mins to have any chance at getting looked at.

Minimums are based on supply and demand. If there is a low demand for pilots (like right now) The airlines can be picky and only hire high time guys which are much easier to train, and cheaper to insure. When there is a higher demand for pilots the airlines will have to be less picky. There is also a big difference between hiring minimums and competive minimums. There is not much chance for a guy with less than 1500 hrs right now. they'll be back to hiring 500 hr guys before we no it.

I don't think that any of this is supply and demand. Basically because there is no demand right now. Minimums can be set at any number, but when no one is hiring, what does it matter???

Here is what I think is going on. The current trend of increased mins is just posturing to the public outrage. Management at the Regionals know that the Congressional Hearings are coming. They are anticipating that one of the criticisms will be the hiring of low time pilots. They know that they will be asked about it and now they be able to say, "look at our minimums. We took the initiative to raise them on our own." Congress and the FAA will think this is sufficient and they will not change any regulations.

By the time anybody is hiring again, all of the concern about the Regional Airline's safety will have blown over. Since no knew regulations will have been imposed on the industry, minimums will be able to go right back down to where they were.

I've talked to a few people in the know in regards to "official" minimums getting raised to an ATP... Don't hold your breath. Too much money in the airlines. (ATA and RAA)

There's no way in hell that can happen. The system here continues to become more and more like the EU system of integrated and MCL programs. There will be less and less GA to provide pilots with the opportunity to build enough time to get ATP mins and the will be fewer and fewer pilots willing to go through what it takes to get those hours.

Requiring ATP mins won't happen...if it does, it won't last more than five years.

The real problem with pilot pay continues to be the RLA. I fail to understand why i haven't seen seen more discussions about this place in time being the perfect opportunity to have a discussion about this. I've also not seen nothing (granted, I don't read these boards NEARLY as much as I used to) about FedEx labor's attempt to get themselves removed from the RLA. I don't know the specifics of it, but I saw on CSPAN one congressman rising in opposition to an amendment to the FAA funding bill that would remove FedEx employees (not sure which group) from the constraints of the RLA.

THIS is the real issue that needs to be dealt with, the "ATP mins" argument is gonna be dead before it even sees the light of day.

If there is so much money in them then why do they all keep going CH 11??:p

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, it's not just about the pay, if the Colgan hearings showed us anything is that the system is broken. One of the main differences between the European system and our current hiring practices here in the states is the recruitment process itself. In Europe they are a lot more selective in their prospective candidates, it's not just a body to fill a seat. In absence of a system like Multi-crew Pilot Lincense (MPL is the correct acronym, not MCL), which not only filters, but trains the candidates from zero time as airline pilots, then we have to modify the system we have, and higher standards raise the expectations, and contribute to higher wages by lowering the supply of "truly qualified" pilots. Furthermore, in light of this accident I expect the FAA to change certain aspects of certification.

We shall see.

Not just the mins, both pilots need to have an ATP.

You missed my point completely. My point is that in the future, there will not be enough GA work (piston twin gigs, instructing, air ambulance, box hauling, charter, whatever) to adequately feed 121 ops with a sufficient number of pilots with ATP mins. This is not a sustainable system...hell, even during the hiring boom of the last few years, that wouldn't have worked....there just weren't enough pilots with ATP mins to fill entry level spots at regional carriers. That's why there were so many people getting hired with 250 hours and sometimes even less.

Changes to certification will take place, you're correct about that, but it won't be in the direction that you'd like it to be.....I think the term "frozen ATPL" will become part of the American flight training vocabulary within the next ten years.

I think that the fATPL is much more likely to come along than an impossible requirement for ATP mins.

Okay, here's the problem... I wouldnt "pay out of pocket" to have an ATP just to get hired at a regional making 23k a year. I have well above ATP mins and I dont agree with this. I do agree with having 1500tt as the norm just to get a call back for an interview.
I think the focus needs to be on fatigue, crew rest quarters and reasonable commute limitations ie, if you're commuting from coast to coast you must be at your domicile 24hrs in advance. This is where proper crew rest quarters can and should be used. I've yet to be in a crew room where at least one pilot wasn't sleeping on a couch. Just my .02

We shall see, but I would be glad if there are less qualified individuals coming to work for my company, and all others for that matter. Less supply would certainly drive demand, and the pay issue would almost resolve itself. In order for that to happen there has to be a better system of qualifying pilots, starting with the elimination of pilot factories. We'll see what happens, either way it won't happen soon, it will take a few years to implement any changes.

It's supply and demand, nothing to do with the FAA. There's virtually nothing out there right now as far as airlines hiring. Plus the only one that has raised their mins is Gojet and they have 10000 hour applicants anyways so it doesn't matter.

Think a little bit ahead, people.

If the mins are arbitrarily raised to ATP minimums, then you will see an industry-wide understaffing within the next 5-10 years. G.A. is not producing enough pilots and the military folks aren't leaving. If they are, they are not going to a regional.

1. They won't change it. An ATP is not necessary to perform the job of FO successfully.
2. The minimums will raise until the staffing levels get low, and then you'll see them drop right back down.
3. Unless GA begins to produce pilots again, the minimums will go lower and lower, until you are dealing with Multi-Crew. This is especially true in the event of user fees.

Both would require a change in regs. The question is which way the change will go.

Prediction: Congress does holds hearing, does nothing.

Let's be honest. Unfortunately as we've seen time and time and time again, nothing will change. This crap has gone on hundreds of time. Lawmakers swearing in-depth review of an incident, quality investigators publishing a report, a top 10 list of changes that need to be made immediately and... ... ... ...

nothing.

Just look how long pilot fatigue and scheduling practices has been on the top 10 list of the NTSB. And we've seen comprehensive changes from the FAA when???

Guys, there are PLENTY of pilots out there who hold an ATP (or have the minimums) but didn't apply to work at a regional airline because the compensation wasn't there. There was never a shortage of pilots to fly for the regional airlines - only a shortage of pilots willing to work for regional airline lifestyle and pay.

If the minimums for flying Part 121 include having an ATP certificate (or at least ATP minimums) then the price for recruiting that talent will go up as well (at least to family-sustainable levels for FOs) and an entire world of pilots who would never have considered flying for a regional making 20-25k a year will be available.

I do agree with sqwkvfr though; the previous generation's career path through piston cargo 135 is shrinking going away due to Check 21 legislation, and the replacement of light twins with SE turbines like Caravans and TBMs. There are still jobs out there to be had for companies like Flight Express and Central Air Southwest...just substantially fewer of them due to smaller companies and substantially less attrition.

The raising of minimums thing is a stupid reactionary move and a only smokescreen at that, especially given that the Colgan FO had ATP minimums...just not the certificate.

This is the real travesty.

I personally think very highly of the work the NTSB does, and its a true shame that they have ZERO authority on matters of safety regulation. Its all 'recommendations' to which some politician decides whether or not to follow.

There are a few post on this thread that imply the airlines will try to hire more experienced pilots when they can. The idea is that it is a buyers market and the airlines will prefer to hire a more experienced pilot over a less experienced pilot. I do not believe this is the case.

I believe that Colgan and Mesaba were selecting low experience pilots in the latter part of last year over more experienced pilots. And you can't blame them. Why would they want to hire a furloughed mainline or other who will jump ship as soon as the job market opens back up. Unfortunately, a situation like 3704 may be just a cost of doing business. Of course, nobody will admit this. I believe it is possible that Colgan passed over more qualified candidates when selecting the FO that was on 3704. How could that have changed the outcome?

I don't know what the answer is. If airlines are now voluntarily increasing their mins, it may be because their secret is getting out and they need to get away from the former practice of intentionally hiring pilots on the lower side of the experience scale. How would the public feel if they new that airlines intentionally select less experienced pilots to save on recruiting and training cost related to turnover from more experienced pilots?

lol....best post on this thread.

So, my last post stated two ideas with absolutely no evidence:

1. There is a direct correlation between experience and safety.
2. Some airlines have intentionally selected less experienced pilots when they could have hired more experienced pilot for reasons related to profits.

If these two statements are true, that leads to a third statement that "some airlines have intentionally increased risks for the sake of profit.

There have been many comments here about the incentive for the companies to address this issue. Also speculation about the ability of the government to make some changes. I think there is a third, more likely, player. The insurance companies. In many cases, the insurance companies are the most likely change agent.

How do they feel now? This is exactly what IS going on.

Why would a regional airline hire a 10,000 hour pilot over a 1,000 hour pilot? Sure they may cost the same.....but do they? The 10,000 hour pilot has many more opportunities available to him/her and is a more risky investment. In an economy like this, the risk is less because the opportunities are less. But on the up swing, these high timers are going to be the first to leave, while the comparatively low timers are still salivating over the fact that they have a job. They will stick around much longer to await upgrade, etc.

An example: Take the decision to buy one of two possible vehicles for $20,000. Both can do the same job and have the same reliability. One, however, has a better trim package, leather seats, etc. The other is a basic model. However, the basic model has a 10 year warranty and the other has a 3 year warranty. From a cost management perspective, if YOU weren't going to drive the car yourself, but were merely looking for a vehicle to move employees from point A to point B - which would you choose? Which has a lower cost of ownership? Which would your stockholders (who want maximum ROI) want you to choose?

Pilots are pawns on the companies chessboard in more ways than you think.

I think you missed the point of the thread, the idea is that with a 'wing and a prayer' congress will grow a pair and force a few changes starting with certification and minimum requirements to work at a 121 carrier.

This isn't about the airlines, if it was up to them the planes would be certified for single pilot ops!!!:eek:

Does anyone actually know how many (or what percentage) of new hires had less then 1500 hours? Less than 1000 hours? Yes there were absolutely people hired with less than 500 hours but in my opinion these were an extremely small minority.

And considering the overall safety record for the past few years and considering the fact that even the lowest time newhires probably have ATP min hours by now, I'd say the airlines' gamble paid off.

Don't forget that all the newhires had to get through training. Granted training demands can vary greatly, but ultimately the FAA signs off on each training program. The weakest pilots were weeded out then or during the probation rides.

There are plenty of people willing to work for the salaries paid by the airlines right now. If the FAA mandates higher minimums then all that will happen is programs like GIA or ATP will develop pay-for-training deals- only $99,000 0 hrs-ATP!!!!

Part of the responsibilty is with potential newhires. It is up to you to decide who you are going to work for. I was always taught that you want to work for the best company you possibly can. Not the fastest upgrade, not the shiniest biggest airplane, etc. Maybe that requires some waiting until you meet the minimums there. If you work for a crappy airline you should expect crappy QOL, pay, furlough, etc. Don't whine about it.

The other part of the responsibilty is on passengers. You get what you pay for. If you want the cheapest ticket then you will get the lowest bidding airline. Until people figure this out and change their behavior airlines will keep trying to cut costs (and corners) to stay competitive.

Both pilots on Colgan had ATP minimums or greater and both passed their rides and were properly credentialed to be there. Where do you draw the line? The Comair crash, both pilots had several thousand hours if I recall. The 747 collision in the Canaries, the Concord accident, the Continental DEN runway overrun, the Air Florida icing accident. Again, where do you draw the line?

I have yet to see a way to draw a relationship between anything quantitative (hard facts) on crew experience vs. crash occurrences. Those Air France pilots both had a slew of experience I am sure.

I am afraid we are chasing rainbows to make ourselves feel better and hope that the competition will become less through an act of congress. Won't happen. Fatigue might be addressed, training programs might be changed to implement similar situations, etc. But the low time guys will still be hired because there doesn't appear to be a direct track record between lack of experience and crashes.

That being said, perhaps my last post makes more sense now.

Wow, so you missed the Colgan hearings altogether didn't you? I recommend you read or download the transcripts all the quantitative evidence you need.

Bravo.....The first rational post on this issue. So tired of the raise the minimums argument. Even though I meet them .... Plenty of high timers crashes on record. Show me data on low timers vs high timers crashes comparatively.........No correlation.