We had this discussion back in July, but those who think higher minimums will cause higher pay are kidding themselves. There is no relation between the two.[/quote]

When was the last time you looked at the Nall Report? Go read it, then talk to us about numbers being only arbirary.

Really? Supply and demand has nothing to do with cost? Whatever College program you are in doing your CFI time, get your money back.

Ok, so you understand supply and demand when it comes to offering flights to meet supply.... but not when demand for labor is greater than the supply? You can't have your cake and eat it too...

 

Read the Nall Report. Case Proven, we accept your apology.

 

I believe he was talking about 121 accidents. Your arrogance weakens your arguments.

 

Yea the Nall report involves GA accident. I think we can all agree we are talking about 121 here. Nice try though. Still not joining the angry mob.

 

Apparetly you folks have not read the report. It clearly discusses ratio's of flight hours to accidents... it is not GA specific, nor is it Corporate Specific, nor is it 121 specific... However, that being said, since the last seven of eight accidents have ALL been regionals, it makes my case for me.

Apology still accepted.

 

How can 7 of 8 be ALL?

What about FedEx in Narita and CAL in Denver? That's two right there...

 

I wouldnt put ALL ATP and Gulfstream academy in the same category. AT Gulfstream you pay them to fly in the right seat. ATP is actually a flight school where you learn to fly there is no airline job after it.

 

I'm on the NTSB website now, looking at the most recent fatal and non-fatal 121 accidents, and I'm sorry, I don't see where you're getting that information. For 2009, from earliest to most recent:

A320
ATR-42
Q400 (Buffalo)
B747
CRJ
MD11
MD88
B737
DHC-8
DC-10
B767
EMB135
A320
EMB170
B737
CRJ
DHC-8
B717

Fatals only (last 5 years):

CV-340(580)
Jetstream 32
EMB170
B737
Grumman G73T
B737
CRJ100
B737
DC9
B747
Q400
MD11

 

[/QUOTE=BSOuthisplace;681337]Couple questions for the group.

What 135 op flying boxes, pax, lab work, checks etc is actively hiring pilots right now?

What 121 accident has involved a pilot with less than 1500 hours? And if there is one, was his/her lack of hours directly attributed to the cause of the accident?

Prove to me that a pure lack of experience (less than 1500, 2000, 3000 however many hours) causes aircraft accidents and I'll support the angry mob. Until then my personal opinion is we need to be looking at quality of training. After all this is something that can be backed with examples (Pinnacle, Comair, and Colgan accidents).[/QUOTE]

It amazes me when I hear someone say there is no difference between someone with 500 hours in a Cessna and 1500 hours in the same plane. IF we assume that is true, then a pilot right off IOE is no different than one who has been on line for a year. I sure hope that isn't true. I would like to think each of us is still learning... I know I am.

So what is the difference between 500 and 1500 hours? The 1500 hour pilot has flown in at least four more seasons, has made a several hundred more go/no-go decisions, and probably had to deal with a few inflight abnormalities.


At 1500 hours minimum, the 121 carriers would be competing with the 135 carriers (and the lower minimums) for pilots. Since 135 starting salaries are a good bit higher than current first year FO pay, 121 companies would need to do something to entice pilots away from a 135 job. During the hiring frenzy, at at least one regional offered signing bonuses to new hires. Eventually, wages would rise.

But would the public pay the extra cost? Well, how much extra are we talking? One dollar per seat per hour would increase salaries for both CA and FO by $18,000 for a 50 pax (assumes 80% load factor and 900 hours of credit). So even a trans-continental round trip ticket would only increase by about $8. These are numbers that are comparable to the TSA fees, and those fees did not impact ticket sales.



There is no way to insure zero crashes, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Greater experience would give a pilot a few more tools during an emergency: maybe the tool needed for a safe outcome.

 

It amazes me when I hear someone say there is no difference between someone with 500 hours in a Cessna and 1500 hours in the same plane. IF we assume that is true, then a pilot right off IOE is no different than one who has been on line for a year. I sure hope that isn't true. I would like to think each of us is still learning... I know I am.

So what is the difference between 500 and 1500 hours? The 1500 hour pilot has flown in at least four more seasons, has made a several hundred more go/no-go decisions, and probably had to deal with a few inflight abnormalities.


At 1500 hours minimum, the 121 carriers would be competing with the 135 carriers (and the lower minimums) for pilots. Since 135 starting salaries are a good bit higher than current first year FO pay, 121 companies would need to do something to entice pilots away from a 135 job. During the hiring frenzy, at at least one regional offered signing bonuses to new hires. Eventually, wages would rise.

But would the public pay the extra cost? Well, how much extra are we talking? One dollar per seat per hour would increase salaries for both CA and FO by $18,000 for a 50 pax (assumes 80% load factor and 900 hours of credit). So even a trans-continental round trip ticket would only increase by about $8. These are numbers that are comparable to the TSA fees, and those fees did not impact ticket sales.



[/quote]

I assume you are smart enough to realize that in your scenario, the likely outcome is not higher regional wages, but rather lower 135 pay because everyone will be after those seats to get the hours to move on. Pay for pilots will not increase until ticket prices go back to where they were, and the industry stops outbidding the prices on expedia travelosity and such.