+1!
Now the realist in me is saying how do we do this? I think most would agree the answer goes beyond simply requiring a 4 year degree and ATP. Management is gonna be management and pinch every nickel they can in the process.

Didn't the richest guy in the world drop out of college?

Yes, and I don't think Albert Einstein went to school but taught himself...these people are sophonts in what they do, they are the exception and not the norm.

I think part of the reason people have so much respect for doctors or lawyers is because they know they've had a lot of schooling, and dedicated a lot of time to their profession. They can not take any shortcuts, and generally these professionals are very well spoken. We need higher barriers for entry to 121 carriers; holding an ATP, 23, and 4 year college degree in anything. These 90 day school should be banned by the FAA; all these schools are doing is barley checking the boxes, especially when the president of the school has Designated Examining Authority and just passes students to claim the high success of all their candidates. It's a huge conflict of interest.

Yes it will be harder for people to go from 250hrs-1500hrs. They will have to instruct, part 91 operations, and part 135...but this is what we need for safe pilots to be flying around 50+ people. This will all initially cause a shortage because the public is finding out, and the banks, that pilots make no money. When the airlines don't have pilots to fill the seats in 5-10-15 years, they will be forced to raise their pay and give initial bonuses, just like our nurses today are getting. As this pay goes up to what it should be, people who have their certificates are going to come out of the woodwork, and students will be back to training in high numbers. This will create a lot of flight instructing jobs, and if that still isn't enough to get pilots up to 1500 hours, the airlines will throw these new commercial students in a full motion sim for 1200 hours to get their time up and pay them if they need them.

Some people think all the flying is going to be traded down to the regionals, and we don't like that because the pay is bad, and the schedules are bad...but in the future the pay and schedules will have to change, and then nobody can complain because the regionals will be very simular to what the majors have. Well I guess we will always have something to complain about.

People don't respect or pay doctors and lawyers the way they do because they have a bachelors in whatever subject they happen to have a bachelor's in. They demand that pay and respect because after their bachelors, they attend very rigorous post-bachelor's educational programs, then continue on to rigorous post-academic certification and training. The pilot career field is similar in the respect that we require rigorous training and certification, but Joe Schmo on the street isn't going to respect a pilot any more because he has a four year degree in a random subject. There are too many Joe Schmos who already have random bachelors degrees for that to really elevate the pilot career field to a "profession".

The educational requirements for doctors and lawyers aren't there to create barriers to entry into the career field. They are there because these are knowledge based professions that require that sort of study. The simple truth is that our profession doesn't require that sort of academic training. My high school physics and math classes covered more than what I have needed as a pilot. What makes a good pilot is knowledge of the appropriate regulations (which is not academic type knowledge), and the skills and experience gained from actually flying an airplane.

Yes, making a requirement for a four year degree would raise the bar for entry, and therefore help moderate the oversupply of pilots, but there is simply no justification for making that a federal regulatory requirement. As an airline, I would prefer that my employees have a four degree because it does tend to show the things you mentioned, but as far as federal regulations, requiring a four year degree would have a negligible effect on increasing safety for the flying public. If you want more capable pilots in the cockpit, we need to increase the training and experience requirements for airline pilots, not require a degree in an unrelated field.

True. It should be who's most qualified, not just who has the most money.

FLYJSH hit the nail on the head with this. I agree 100%

I have been finding it hard to believe that guys are actually complaining that 121 carriers might require 1500hr/ATP certificate.

Also, tiresome and pointless, is the argument of "how does flying a C-152 for 1500hrs in the pattern help me fly a CRJ". Indirectly, it sure does. I think people are missing the point. I think the 250hr up to 1500hr time building bridge DOES show what kind of pilot you have been. For example, as a CFI you must show responsibility, good judgment, follow FAR's, be on top of WX&MX, even show up to work on time... etc. Next logical step possibly, maybe to sit SIC in a Chieftain, sitting next to an EXPERIENCED guy who teaches and monitors your progress "in the system" dealing with WX, ATC etc. Once some experience is gained, move to PIC maybe and so on. That brings even more responsibility, judgment yada yada...SO THEN, when the almighty interview comes around, the interviewer has more to "measure you up" as to what kinda pilot you have BEEN and might BE. Did you follow FAR's? Bust any FAR's? Run out of fuel? Take off with ice on the wings? Cut corners with MX items? Constantly call in sick? Get fired from every flying gig ya had? THESE are the things I believe the interviewer is looking at and can be reasonably attained after @ 1500 hours or so-HOWEVER you chose to get from 250 to 1500hrs (CFI, Banner tow, charter etc). These things are not measurable for a guy who walks out of an airline training academy or college program- which only shows that he is trainable-an import factor I do agree. That is why I believe there SHOULD be some kind of minimum set before stepping into a 121 environment. Seems like everybody thinks they are ENTITLED to an airline job-there are NO guarantees. When I was first applying, American Eagle's mins were 3500/1500multi-and that was competitive! Ask around- tis' true! AND if you did get a regional job back then, day one in ground school was filling out bank loan paperwork for your training and even your hotel.

If gaining 1500hrs or an ATP seems like the end of the world to you, you *may* want to switch careers. You need a very thick skin. I have been in 121 for only 10+ years and when I log off here I have to file my unemployment claim AGAIN. I am on my second furlough. Also been through one airline bankruptcy and one bad seniority integration. Saddle up!

You have been in this industry 10 plus years and you are trying to start all over again at Colgan?

THIS is be a beautiful ideal for the profession. Getting a year or so of operational experience in smaller planes sitting next to someone who had been there and done that. Moving over to the right seat and getting some PIC experience before flying planeloads of unsuspecting passengers (while helping bring up a new co-pilot). Perhaps even getting paid more than poverty wages in the process.

The only other thing I would wish is if instructing wasn't an entry level job, but was done with people who had some real flying experience.

Yes, I sure did apply to Colgan. I heard a false rumor they were going to hire SAAB Capt's off the street (already have the type-rating and 2000+PIC in it) Had an interview set up too. But after learning I'd be a SAAB/IAD F/O- I respectfully declined the interview and never went. I currently make more on unemployment so, FOR ME, it wouldn't have worked. Wasn't trying to "start all over again at Colgan" (have a seniority # at a "major")...was maybe trying to keep myself employed as a pilot in these bad times until I am recalled.

Did most regionals, (or commuters as I hear they were referred to) require pay for training back in the 80s/90s?? I am honestly asking.