Under normal circumstances, this would be true...the golden rule would apply. But this time we have a perfect storm...

- Labor friendly government

- Voters who are really annoyed at big business, and not inclined to trust them any further than they could throw the Sears Tower.

- A smoking hole accident with all the outrageous evidence you could ask for on the CVR/FDR.

I think the FAA is going to have to follow through this time...if they don't congress will do it for them. If you have any opinions or preferences on the new rules, be sure to write your congress-people.

 

That would be like an airline hiring you with a commercial SEL. I don't know of one that hires with only CSEL and I doubt it would be any different with the ATP, but I could be wrong.

 

Guys,

Don't forget about the law of unintended consequences. This is a good start and should cause an upward trend in pay. Follow this through and it should cause ticket prices to rise. Sooner or later airlines are going to have to make a profit, unless we go back to some form of
semi-regulation. Follow that through and we should see less discretionary air travel. Follow that and you have the industry downsizing.
I know this is a simplification, and just one possible outcome but lets face it, for years airfares have basically been subsidized through cheap labor - us. Who knows how this would actually play out, but I guess thats why they are called "unintended consequences" because they were not foreseen.

Scoop

 

Congress is already doing it.

 

I think it's a great idea.
If you want to fly for an airline you must have an airline license. Sounds fair.
In order for airlines to recruit qualified applicants they are going to have to increase the QOL for the pilots. Maybe even increase the entry level pay. Because we are all working under some sort of contract the companies will be unable to just raise the year 1 pay. All pilots will have to recieve the same increase. SJS will decrease because reality will set back in. You will have to work at getting your ATP. It will help out those 135 ops and flight schools retain people. Should have happened years ago.

 

It was one of my most well thought out and provocative posts yet

Oh well I will just have to go get lunch and then I may get back to reposting it.

 

For $2 extra pr. ticket? I doubt it and even if downsizing did happen, it would be for the greater good. Don't be a wuss



On another note, there has been several questions pertaining to the details of the bill.

2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS-

(A) PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that prospective flight crewmembers undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability of each applicant for a position as a flight crewmember in terms of functioning effectively in the air carrier’s operational environment.

(B) ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flight crewmembers–

(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot license under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(ii) have appropriate multi-engine aircraft flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.

(b) Deadlines- The Administrator shall issue–

(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection (a); and

(2) not later than 24 months after such date of enactment, a final rule under subsection (a).

SEC. 11. FLIGHT SCHOOLS, FLIGHT EDUCATION, AND PILOT ACADEMIC TRAINING.

(a) GAO Study- The Comptroller General shall conduct a comprehensive study of flight schools, flight education, and academic training requirements for certification of an individual as a pilot.

(b) Minimum Contents of Study- The study shall include, at a minimum–

(1) an assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of flight schools;

(2) an assessment of the Administration’s academic training requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act as compared to flight education provided to a pilot by accredited 2- and 4-year universities;

(3) a comparison of the academic training requirements for pilots in the United States to the academic training requirements for pilots in other countries;

(4) a determination and description of any improvements that may be needed in the Administration’s academic training requirements for pilots;

(5) an assessment of student financial aid and loan options available to individuals interested in enrolling at a flight school for both academic and flight hour training;

(6) an assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of general aviation flight schools that offer or would like to offer training programs under part 142 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(7) an assessment of whether compliance with the English speaking requirements applicable to pilots under part 61 of such title is adequately tested and enforced.

(c) Report- Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study.

 

True to a certain extent. The million dollar question is where is the breaking point? I suspect that airlines could employ a few more pilots, and pay better wages for regional FO's (especially first year) without driving ticket costs by more than a few cents or a dollar or two. Folks are not going to cancel their vacation or weekend plans for the price of a latte (a small latte).

Looking at an arbitrary (non-bottom feeder) regional airline (ASA)... take a 6 year CA and a 4 year FO on a 70-seat jet (I don't know how many seats are installed, call it 70 though):

$71+$41= $111 hourly cost for flight crew.

Add in some extra to account for benefits and overhead, lets call it about $180 cost to the company.

For a one hour flight, each pax on a full flight would pay $2.57 for the flight crew.

Assume 75% loads, this goes up to an average of $3.43 per pax.

Now raise that by a mere $0.57 to $4/pax and you get an extra $40 for the crew. Since regional unions will cheerfully and aggressively throw their junior pilots under the bus, assume that $30 of that will go to the captain (putting him in a six-figure tax bracket) and $10 to the FO...so the FO now makes $50/hour, which is probably a liveable wage for a few years in moderate cost-of-living locals.

 

That's an interesting math experiement. Here's another one using ASA. 1st year pay for an FO at ASA comes to $20,700. Let's say we want to nearly double that to $40,500 or $45 an hour. That would add $22 cost per flight hour to the overall cost or 44 cents per passenger per ticket per hour on the 50 seater or 31.5 cents on the 70 seater. On a 2 hour flight we are talking less than $1 per passenger to give the FO a livable wage. I know everything is governed by supply and demand but is anyone really going to say, "Screw it the trip to Disney World is off, the price of the ticket went up $1."

Now obviously everyone (Captains, FAs, mechanics, etc.) would want a piece of the pie but imagine if we could raise the average price of a ticket by $10. We could do so much good for everyone involved with the company. That's an extra $500 per hour revenue on the 50 seater or $700 on the 70 seaters. Obviously that isn't guarenteed since we don't fly 100% load factors but even 70% load factors would generate $350 and $490 per hour extra respectively. That's a lot of money that could be split between all of the employees. It's wishful thinking I know, but I think it also illustrates that huge swings in flight crew salaries (up or down) don't significantly add or subtract from the cost of the ticket.

Imagine if we got the TSA to be more efficient and kept more of the face value price of the ticket instead of giving it to those clowns. Ticket prices wouldn't have to go up and we'd all be making respectable salaries.

 

I agree that it should be more difficult to get an ATP license, maybe something along the lines of a CFI ride in that it is done by the FAA not a DPE. I don't think it needs to be tougher to get something like a recreational, private or even instrument. Let the doc's and lawyers kill themselves if they want.

1500 is an arbitrary number, but it is the number that most pilots will agree they see a huge difference in their experience/awareness in the cockpit. I know I thought I was bulletproof at 250, now I feel more inexperienced 1k hrs later than I thought I was then.

This is the point! Simple supply and demand will take over...Airlines can't keep a/c staffed to keep up with public demand --> Airlines are able to raise ticket prices and keep airplanes full --> Airlines will then be forced to use this extra revenue to increase pay rates to attract more pilots to staff their a/c to supply for the demand... Also the lag time on this will be something the unions can work with. It will take over two years for a new pilot to go from 0-->1500tt. No more zero to heroes in 90 days will give the unions more time and pull to negotiate with the beaucratic mess created by the NMB

Also agreed. It takes a lot of work to go from a bill to a law (Schoolhouse Rock anyone?). This proposal will not be the form the final law takes if passed...We need some pork added on to it.

Finally Whacker if you are indeed a 1200 hr pilot then you have nothing to worry about. Even at a slow flight school I was able to instruct 50hrs/mo. By the time this were to become law you would have the 1500 hours, I don't think(know) the airlines will even be hiring by then.