Why were minimums so low?
 

Back in 07 when you could get a job w/ a wet commercial?
Was it all demand based?

Easy...The company's has two options at that point to attract candidates.

A- Increase wages and incentives, and attract a much more qualified candidate and better pilot or.....

B- Literally lower minimums as low as they possibly could, knowing you'll have thousands of sub 1000 hour pilots willing to take a 20 thousand dollar a year job, just so they can play airline pilot.

Unfortunately it will always be like option B. No matter how much we say we won't accept these insanely low wages, there will always be a 1,000 more pile-it's that will...

Yes. You haven't been hiding under a rock the past couple years have you?

We couldn't get enough folks with higher times so mins were lowered. IMHO, mins won't be that low no time soon. If you're looking to get in, get your times up.

What are you talking about? Everybody was flying not too long ago, who were these "much more qualified" pilots you are talking about? There were quite a few eminently qualified persons who joined the regionals because it was the only game in town. Also, in my experience, more qualifications don't necessarily mean a person is a better pilot.

The reason 121 airlines hired sub 1000 hour pilots with little experience is because there was no one left to bring aboard.

Not even close.... the reason is because there were not enough experienced pilots who would accept those jobs... there are 2,000 pilots alone from AA on the street, and thousands more from countless other "real" airlines... there was NO shortage of experienced qualified pilots, there was a shortage of people willing to work for nothing.

"the reason is because there were not enough experienced pilots who would accept those jobs... there are 2,000 pilots alone from AA on the street, and thousands more from countless other "real" airlines... there was NO shortage of experienced qualified pilots, there was a shortage of people willing to work for nothing." -Nicely put Mason.

Until there is one source of pilots controled by pilots the labor side will suffer. Take a look at what it takes to become a union electrician. Step one, get a union card. Step two, go job hunting. One source, one path, and they set their pay rates. What happens when a Journeyman looses his job? He applies for another one at the same pay rate. The contractor still chooses who they hire so the best electricians stay employed.
I'd rather have a pilot's union set the standard of what a 121 pilot should be rather than the government or an airline.

Is there a shortage of people willing to work for nothing now? Actually it's because there were more jobs than pilots could fill.

Good point although in fact some of those pilots from "real" airlines did join the regional ranks. More accurately, I should have said there was no one left to hire who wants to move on to a "real" airline who hasn't already
been there and is awaiting recall. Better?;) We all wish that our "regionals" were actually the smallest equipment at a "real" airline and that we were on a better seniority list. However, we didn't let that cat out of the bag and we're all just a little sensitive and weary of being blamed for a situation all you "real" pilots and deregulation created. We on the civilian side are simply playing the best hand we have to get a better job.

Management would say there is!

"Generally", a furloughed pilot, especially a major airline furloughee, is very low on the list to get hired in a new pilot position for the following reasons (assuming the furloughee is trying to get hired in a pilot position that may be a step back or sideways):

- Unless they are willing to give up their recall rights (most won't), they may leave at any time, possibly not allowing the new airline to recoup their training and employment cost.

- New airline doesn't want to pair the "experienced" furloughee with a potentially less experienced Captain. They are concerned about how the furloughee will feel and act "pulling gear for a kid".

- Perceived, or otherwise, potential for a "bad attitude" from the furloughee.

I remember interviewing several furloughed pilots. We didn't hire one. The company was much more interested in the pilot that saw the position as a step up instead of a step sideways or down.

Friend of mine who interviewed at Pinnacle and was hired as a "street captain" (100 hrs right seat) about two years ago told me that during the sit down interview he met an old buddy who was on the interview committee, guy told him that some ex Aloha and UA and ATA guys had just gotten done speaking with him and that none of them had a chance, they didn't care to answer any of the interviewers questions and were only interested in how long it would be before they get in the left seat, having assumed they were already hired with the "qualifications" on their resume.

Has anyone ever heard of the law of supply and demand? Sometimes I wonder after reading some of the comments. Airlines were hiring hand over fist in 2007 because they had positions to fill. Because demand (passenger desire to travel was high), the airlines increased supply (more flights). To cover those extra flights, they had to hire more pilots. Now, demand is far lower and supply has been cut to meet the new level of demand.

As for the comment about the 2000 AA pilots on the street, that's not a real number. How many of those guys are now at other carriers? How many have moved on to other jobs outside of flying? I highly doubt 2000 pilots sat on their rear ends for six or seven years just waiting for a recall notice from AA.

The best thing that could happen to this profession is getting rid of the longevity pay scale and make it so pilots could switch jobs with no penalty or paycut. Portability with each job would allow a pilot to leave a company for whatever reason (base closure, company cutting pay, benefits, etc) which would force the company to take a closer look at what it takes to retain pilots.

Forcing a minimum pay (whether it is the union or government) only forces the company to stay at the capacity level that can support that minimum pay(limited to no growth, only shrinkage).

Its a scary thing to think about, but if we operated closer to the rest of the real world in terms of getting compensated based on the free market and our performance then maybe it would be a good thing?

No, it IS because there were jobs that experienced pilots would not take. There are PLENTY of experienced pilots on the streets. They had to drop standards to 250 & 50 to keep fresh meet in the right seats. They could not lower the minimums any lower than that, and they still couldn't get people fast enough. Was it because that many people were retiring? No, it was because that many people worked for a year or so, and realized how much they were getting screwed and left. The vacancies were all due to turnover rates for the most part.

That still doesn't change the fact that there were/are plenty of qualified airline pilots that have decided to make use of their College education in their other field of study since the money is better, the hours are better, and the QOL is better. If the money and QOL were still here, they would be too.

and people wonder why I don't let my family fly on regionals.....

They are by no means anything even close to being the ONLY experienced pilots that are on the street my friend; the fact that you don't seem to know that tells much of how much time you have in this industry. It also explains your shortsighted comments.

Because the ATA "owns" the FAA and a 200 hour pilot will work for practically nothing. Management abrogates their responsibility by shuffling these guys through training and then making them the Captain's problem.

Yeah I wouldn't let my family fly with a pilot who (at the time) had about 15000 hours, 8000 of which were in the right seat of a Dash 8 and has flown on about every continent on the planet. He was just stuck at a regional where he couldn't upgrade after 12 years of seniority so he decided to move on since he wouldn't be forced to take a pay cut if he became a street captain.

Check your opinions, assumptions and jealousy at the gate before boarding please.

I respect most of your posts but the low blows really aren't necessary.

I NEVER said there were not good Captains/Pilots at regionals, I just said that they are the places where you DO find the ones you would NOT want to fly with. And since the experience level of the crew isn't on the ticket, even though there are always a few high caliber folks around, the safest thing to do is to stay off regionals. If that upsets your little idea of the world, I'm sorry; but truth sometimes hurts.

Sorry, not trying to offend anybody. If the traveling public was truly aware of what is, or what can be, in the cockpits at regionals they would probably chose to travel by alternate means as well. I'll take two mainline flights to avoid even a direct regional flight every single day of the week.

In fact, when I commute to work I could easilly take one of our regional affiliates and arrive right at my own terminal, instead I will fly on a mainline carrier and do the airport shuffle to my terminal. The few people on here who know me, will attest to the validity of the fact that I don't ride regionals unless absolutely mandatory to do so.... or unless I know the crew personally. When I get on those things and the FO hasn't even started shaving daily yet, I typically will turn around and get off.

Now, that is not meant as a low blow, it's simply a statement of fact.

I don't know who your regional affiliates are but to judge all "regionals" is unfair. Skywest never lowered their mins below 1000, Comair is a senior group (even the reserve FO's) and my company (ASA) also has a senior captain group. Even the few bad apples we have are often paired with a 10-20 year captain. These are just the airlines I'm familiar with.

I respect your viewpoint and desire to avoid regionals. I would just prefer you don't come on the regional boards and say that I'm unsafe because I fly for a regional airline. A little tact goes a long way.

What upsets me if using one of the finest pilot's I've flown with as the basis for an offensive and biased remark like that.

I wonder if the traveling public that got on an MD going to LIT, or a 757 in Columbia was aware of what was in the cockpit?

When did I say that? You're reading too much into what was said. I said the likelyhood of finding pilots who shouldn't be in the seat is highest at regionals. If that offends you, sorry.... but it doesn't change the truth; does it.

Face it guys (and Gals) they aren't raising the mins by Federal regulations because they feel like it, or to try and help you get a better paycheck. The evidence has been there for years and years that experince counts, and putting folks with 250/50 into jet airliners was/is a bad idea. They can't trust airline managements to not do it, so they will legislate it out of existence. How can you all root and cheer about them raising the bar for entry into the profession, and then be ignorant of the reasons for which they are doing it. Face it, the regional industry does not have as good a safety record as they should have... the mistakes in these incidents and accidents are typically all pilot skill/experience/decision making ability level related.

I have no problem with raising the mins. I just don't like it when somebody says they won't fly on my airline without knowing our standards simply because it says "operated by" on the side. That's all. I don't mind that you avoid regionals. It's your decision. Just don't come to a forum of REGIONAL PILOTS and expect us to welcome your agruments. Some of us take pride in our jobs and do it right everyday. We're not all pimple popping adolescents.

Completely agreed.... so long as you agree 7 of the last 8 accidents were regionals...

I'm not sure how he can agree with a statistic that's simply not true.

I don't see Colgan hurting for passengers on the EWR-BUF route after the crash and the media attention to the pilot's experience/pay/etc. The traveling public doesnt give two poops about anything except the price of the ticket, and free peanuts onboard.

I am out of flying and unless I start at 6 figures plus, it is just not going to happen. I agree that pilot's are their worst enemy, I tried to look for work, even below my expectation, but I will not work for below minimum wage. any other profession, a change of job does not result in starting over in salary. Lets take it a step further, not only does this not happen for other professions, it does not happen any where else in the world except within the boarders of the United States. You can clear well over 100k and if you want tax free outside this country, what I don't understand is when did the accountants dictate what happens in the airline industry. They have proven they can not run airlines.

Time to step off the soapbox, your turn.:eek:

That isn't always true. Many Govt professions a restructured that if you go do the same job, but in a different city, you go back to square one pay wise and seniority wise.

Well spoken by the me generation. Good job. Rest assured there will be an endless uplly of people to do your job for less.

Really? I went here ---> NTSB - Aviation
and then here ---->NTSB - Accidents Involving Passenger Fatalities - U.S. Airlines (Part 121)

and I found this:

Fatals

09/11/01 SHANKSVILLE, PA UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 757
11/12/01 BELLE HARBOR, NY AMERICAN AIRLINES AIRBUS A300
01/08/03 CHARLOTTE, NC US AIRWAYS EXPRESS Beech 1900
10/19/04 KIRKSVILLE, MO CORPORATE AIRLINES BA Jetstream 32
12/19/05 MIAMI, FL CHALKS OCEAN AIRWAYS Grumman G-37
08/27/06 LEXINGTON, KY MAIR Bombardier CRJ-100
02/12/09 CLARENCE, NY COLGAN AIR Bombardier DHC-8

It doesn't include the non-fatals, and if you do that, you get 7 of the last 8 were regionals. Slip in the USAir on the Hudson and one other one that slips my noodle right now and poof 7 of 8. Period, end of story.

Remember NTSB is going to list any major damage regardless of if it involved an incident or acident. A fuel truck smahing into the plane at the gate will get reported... we're talking about accidents, not expensive mishaps that require reporting under NTSB 830.

Since we're both cross-posting. :D

This would be a more accurate survey of the accidents (all fatalities, not just passenger):

Aviation Accident Database Query

Dates: 1/1/2004 - 9/20/2009
Investigation Type: Accident
Injury Severity: Fatal (or All, whichever you'd like)
Operation: Part 121:Air Carrier

Submit. Very different results.

Yes, fatal AND non-fatal it's very different.
a Jetblue A320 - severe inflight turbulance - no damage to aircraft
a USAir - preflight inspection found damage from unknown cause
a AirTran 717 with inflight turbulence and an FA and pax got hurt
a Continental 76 - inflight turbulence - pax injured, no aircraft damage
blah blah blah.... take the time to read them.

then do just the fatals....
when you see the list with a bunch of 737's on it, notice how they are all "1" fatality... these are all ground crew personnel accidents.... then compair them to the Comair, Colgan and other regional accidents where crew and passengers are being killed.

That's a terribly weak argument, and I think you know it. Here are the non-regional accidents between 1/1/2004 and 9/20/2009:

FedEx MD11 - Totaled on landing. Only 2 people aboard were killed, but I'd imagine if there were passengers there would be more than (2) listed.

Kalitta 747 - No idea yet, but again, the little (2) doesn't matter as it was a cargo bird.

USA Jet DC9 - Destroyed during approach. Again, cargo. Very few fatalities.

Sky King 737 and CAL 737 in ELP - Yep, ground handling. Got me there. Republic's ground handling fatality is also listed on that page.

Southwest 737 - Wrecked off the end in MDW.



So there ya have it. Those were not all ground handling accidents as you're trying to make them out to be. Also not listed is the CAL 737 in DEN that, somehow, did not result in fatalities.

The point that I made in the other thread remains the same: Nobody is immune from accidents. If it gives you the warm fuzzies to avoid all regionals that's fine, but realize that it's not based in any fact.

Tell me you are not including foreign carriers and accidents in foreign lands.... can we agree to compare US regionals with US Majors in the US? I guess the list I ran was different than the list YOU ran. I selected UNITED STATES. By the way, the Southwest accident was people on the ground killed, not crew or pax.

and I NEVER said anybody was immune from accidents. What I said was the regionals have a worse safety record and kill people far more often. So, if we use your numbers Majors/Cargo is what 10... maybe 15.... while regionals are what..... lets see...
Comair 50
Colgan 49
Beech 1900 19 (forgot who operated that one)
so, 118 to less than 20 just since 2003. Yep, you make your arguement well.

We can go back more and talk about other ones where regional pilots only killed themselves, like the colgan guys in the 1900 going out of HYA, or the CRJ guys flaming out both engines...

Look, if there were NOT a problem, the US Congress would not be looking to regulate increased minimum hours for new hires, better rest and duty hours... if there were NOT a problem, they could care less how much sleep you got, when you commuted to work, how much time you had when hired. The fact is YOUR job is about to be regulated from the highest levels of the US Govt; that doesn't happen when things are just peachy.

I agree. The airlines love the fact that pilots can't use their experience to move to a growing airline with pay guarantees.

A thought....

The FAA could improve safety by having Class A, B, C airline transport certificates just like commercial trucking. Example...

1500 min flight time for FO
5000 min flight time for a Class C license (eg. 100,000 lbs max) for PIC
10000 min flight time for a Class B license (eg. 200,000 lbs max) for PIC
15000 min flight time for Class A license (eg. over 200,000 lbs) for PIC

It would act like a national (experience) seniority list.

This argument makes my head hurt.

Select United States, that's fine, but there were no foreign airlines listed. There were, however, three US carriers that had accidents in foreign countries. That fact doesn't nullify my point.

By the way, the number of fatalities isn't a valid metric. The number of fatal accidents certainly is. Don't confuse the two.

P.S.: The B1900 above was an accident caused by maintenance, not crew competency.

I never said there wasn't a problem. I full agree with the increase and don't think 300 hour pilots belong in regional cockpits. Hell, I've flown with 200 hour FOs here at my company and more often than not it's downright awful. They don't have the experience to be a good resource in the cockpit. We agree 100% there.

I am taking quite a bit of offense to the idea that you won't set foot on regional aircraft, period. That's extremely short-sighted in my mind. The vast majority of regional pilots are safe and competent at their jobs.