|
Originally Posted by doublerjay
(Post 775163)
Value is in the eye of the consumer? is it not?...look at it this way...five different airlines serve the same route. are you really gonna buy the most expensive tickets? the made in America airline? the reputable airline? (thats an oxymoron) Really? Theres a 'percieved' value of 'that airline ticket' your airlines know the real value and they know that threshold and therefore they keep it as high as possible to sales/revenue/ROI/economy as high as possible.
My whole point is - The industry needs to find a way to increase business and first class seat service. There will always be a need for economy class, but the airlines have not done enough to restore the image of class that used to be the NORM!!!! |
I hope that it does pass, but I think there will be exceptions. Riddle and other schools have too much money invested to let it pass without a fight. The further away we get from flight 3407, the less important safety will seem to the legislators and more important money and special interests will be.
As usual the death toll has to be consistently high before any effective legislation will get done. I bet they will pass a law forbidding controllers from inviting family members to work before this gets passed. |
Originally Posted by proskuneho
(Post 775145)
Supply goes down, professionalism goes up, demand goes up, and then PAY goes up...
|
Originally Posted by Burlcfii
(Post 775060)
i agree that in a way this will be a good thing, however it will also not be so great. It is good because i feel it may force airlines such as Colgan to increase pay above food stamps, because most ATP's wont fly for such insulting wages.
on the other hand some of us, myself included dont meet the ATP requirements, however have been flying for years. Personnally i couldn't afford to work as an instructor full time once i got out of college. I had to get a higher paying job. I had to resort to instructing part time for years. Now that i am in a place to make the career change my time is still holding me back. In my opinion it should be up to the airlines to decide who they hire. although they are all looking to pay pilots like fast food cooks, i would think they will look at lower time pilots with a close eye because they wouldn't want the added liability. "strickly my opinion" |
Originally Posted by NightIP
(Post 774983)
It's not often that I come out and be so blunt, but I disagree wholeheartedly.
My company is proof positive that hiring minimums do affect pay. While everyone was going off to go fly RJs in 2007 (myself included), my current company was having a heck of a time filling seats in 402s. They couldn't lower mins (an ATP is a hard min for Part 135 commuter flying), so what did they do? They raised pay! Passing this bill might not have an immediate effect, but down the line when the economy rebounds and retirements at the major level start creating upward movement, I'm optimistic we'll see pay increases. Just be patient. All of these situations lead to cost effectiveness. If a regional isn't cost effective for a major ( be it increased pilot pay or poor quality of service) the major may no longer want to do business. If the regional doesn't have pilots then it will be on the major to fly those routes one way or the other, the simple answer for them is larger aircraft with less frequency. That said the majors would have to grow substantially if this was to happen. I look these situations coupled with the age 65 retirements and ask how can they not have a supply shortage that would cause airlines to raise pay and benefits. Although much of my thoughts are speculation the concept is simple; supply and demand. Less supply equates to more demand, higher demand with barriers to entry results in higher pay. |
Gents,
It seems that everyone is focusing on pay (which is important), but the bigger picture is that if you make an Airline Transport Pilot rating a requirement, you will not have the "500-hour wonder", operating a commercial airliner as an Airline Transport Pilot. Am I missing something? (I prob. am). The issue at hand is to mandate a high level of experience in the cockpit - I want my family's pilot to have an acceptable level of experience, regardless of RJ or mainline. The sad thing is that the consumer is not informed when his flight is farmed out to an "express" - he is not informed that he is getting someone in the cockpit that doesn't even have a license to work as an Airline Transport Pilot. If he was informed, I bet he would pay a little more for more experience up there. Pay is important to all of us. It's my opinion that whether pay goes up or down because of requiring an ATP - so be it. Let's keep our pilots experienced up there. My .02 cents, Aloha |
As I said in my previous post, I understand there are some strongly held views in support of this measure. It sounds great, but I believe it will be a massive mistake that will adversely affect the airlines. I tried to lay that out a few pages back.
In response to some of the previous comments, I definitely believe there will be a shortage of pilots in the near future (3-5 years). What we saw in the last two years was the expectation the world economy would cease to exist. That's not going to happen and airlines will begin, gradually, adding routes, capacity, and pilots back. Right now, there are a glut of pilots. Why? First, the age 65 rule kept a whole host of people working who otherwise wouldn't be. Second, the recession forced many furloughs. The question I continue to ask though is how many furloughs would there have been had the age 65 rule not been enacted in 2007? I think hiring may have continued had that not happened. Eventually and sooner than we think, the furloughed pilots will be recalled due to attrition and expansion. Once that group is exhuasted, then what? I can tell you as a CFI, there aren't very many people showing up at the field to become airline pilots as it is. Add to that it will require a minimum of 1500 hours, quite daunting at 0 hours, and the well will run even drier. I just don't see from where the new pilots are going to come. Several pages back, one commenter said he would favor allowing only those who attended an aviation college the right to fly for 121 operators. How will that help? I attended college and earned two majors and two minors. After graduation I learned to fly and and became a CFI. I didn't need a classroom setting to become a commercial pilot. Still, these kinds of possibilities are going to keep people, good people, away from flying. I am resigned to this bill eventually passing, but I don't think it's anything close to the panacea most believe it to be. Competency and training are the keys to safer pilots, not artificial time limits. |
What day are they voting on this? Thanks.
|
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 775304)
As I said in my previous post, I understand there are some strongly held views in support of this measure. It sounds great, but I believe it will be a massive mistake that will adversely affect the airlines. I tried to lay that out a few pages back.
In response to some of the previous comments, I definitely believe there will be a shortage of pilots in the near future (3-5 years). What we saw in the last two years was the expectation the world economy would cease to exist. That's not going to happen and airlines will begin, gradually, adding routes, capacity, and pilots back. Right now, there are a glut of pilots. Why? First, the age 65 rule kept a whole host of people working who otherwise wouldn't be. Second, the recession forced many furloughs. The question I continue to ask though is how many furloughs would there have been had the age 65 rule not been enacted in 2007? I think hiring may have continued had that not happened. Eventually and sooner than we think, the furloughed pilots will be recalled due to attrition and expansion. Once that group is exhuasted, then what? I can tell you as a CFI, there aren't very many people showing up at the field to become airline pilots as it is. Add to that it will require a minimum of 1500 hours, quite daunting at 0 hours, and the well will run even drier. I just don't see from where the new pilots are going to come. Several pages back, one commenter said he would favor allowing only those who attended an aviation college the right to fly for 121 operators. How will that help? I attended college and earned two majors and two minors. After graduation I learned to fly and and became a CFI. I didn't need a classroom setting to become a commercial pilot. Still, these kinds of possibilities are going to keep people, good people, away from flying. I am resigned to this bill eventually passing, but I don't think it's anything close to the panacea most believe it to be. Competency and training are the keys to safer pilots, not artificial time limits. Whacker, While I disagree with most of what you say, I wanted to complement you on a well reasoned argument. |
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 775304)
As I said in my previous post, I understand there are some strongly held views in support of this measure. It sounds great, but I believe it will be a massive mistake that will adversely affect the airlines. I tried to lay that out a few pages back.
In response to some of the previous comments, I definitely believe there will be a shortage of pilots in the near future (3-5 years). What we saw in the last two years was the expectation the world economy would cease to exist. That's not going to happen and airlines will begin, gradually, adding routes, capacity, and pilots back. Right now, there are a glut of pilots. Why? First, the age 65 rule kept a whole host of people working who otherwise wouldn't be. Second, the recession forced many furloughs. The question I continue to ask though is how many furloughs would there have been had the age 65 rule not been enacted in 2007? I think hiring may have continued had that not happened. Eventually and sooner than we think, the furloughed pilots will be recalled due to attrition and expansion. Once that group is exhuasted, then what? I can tell you as a CFI, there aren't very many people showing up at the field to become airline pilots as it is. Add to that it will require a minimum of 1500 hours, quite daunting at 0 hours, and the well will run even drier. I just don't see from where the new pilots are going to come. Several pages back, one commenter said he would favor allowing only those who attended an aviation college the right to fly for 121 operators. How will that help? I attended college and earned two majors and two minors. After graduation I learned to fly and and became a CFI. I didn't need a classroom setting to become a commercial pilot. Still, these kinds of possibilities are going to keep people, good people, away from flying. I am resigned to this bill eventually passing, but I don't think it's anything close to the panacea most believe it to be. Competency and training are the keys to safer pilots, not artificial time limits. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:05 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands