whats the difference between these two bills?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3371

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-1744

Do they not do the same thing? 3371 has already be voted on, and ready to go to the Senate. 1744 has not even been to the house yet.

Because an interview, training program, & IOE are not indicative of what we as pilots face on the line everyday. Just because someone can pass these things does not mean they are fit for the job. WX, fatigue, broken airplanes, hunger, 16 hour duty days, and 5 legs a day can not be duplicated in the sim. If said new hires are going to an RJ operator it's likely they won't see a 5 leg day either as their Check Airman probably avoids those kinds of trips.

A 1500 hour pilot is without a doubt, flat out more experienced then a 250 hour pilot mill grad. Period. A 1500 hour pilot will have more situational awareness, & this is an extremely important aspect of our job. More & more Regional pilot groups are flying into Mexico every year. It is a threatening environment that will eat you up if you don't know what you're doing. You'd better have a plan B, C, & D because when your shooting that non precison approach at night in mountainous terrain with thunderstorms in the area you need to know where your going to go if you go missed. Oh, but where will you go if you lose an engine on the missed? Can you make your first alternate with that mountain in way? Just a few examples here. I could go on & on.

How many times does this industry have to shed blood to get some stinking rules changed? Better rest rules, better work rules, and more strict bottom line requirements will help. It's time for change, or more blood will be shed. We as an industry have been too lucky for far too long.

Awesome post. Well said.

Noted...like I said, I'm not necessarily saying that raising minimums to 1500 hours is a bad thing, I'm just saying I can see it from the view of a student pilot as well. Just having 1500 hours does not guarantee that you will be exposed to the examples you have posted above. If I were to have 1500 hours tooling around in a Cessna 150 as a flight instructor, I wouldn't necessarily be exposed to 16 hour days, reduced rest, dealing with MX control/dispatch, etc. I'm not saying that flight instructing is not valuable, I agree that a 1500 hour pilot will most likely have better decision making abilities since they are exposed to more. I say most likely because you can fly for 1500 hours and not run into a single problem, while at the same time somebody else could fly for 100 hours and have an engine failure/fire right after takeoff. It's all relative, which is why I think quality of flight time and experience should still be taken into consideration.

I don't think anyone opposed to the ATP porposal is advocating that it's a good thing for a 250 hour pilot to be hired. The question is should the government mandate a hard and fast rule. I say no, but I'm not opposed to the theory. I certainly don't think there's a magic number, but if I were going to pick one 1000 looks interesting to me.

As for the two bills, the Senate has it's own bill and will not take up the House bill. The Senate will pass it's own bill sometime this year and then the two bills will be sent to a conference committe of both House and Senate members. That is where the real negotiating will take place and likely where the RAA and airlines will exert their influence.

The bill that emerges from the House/Senate conference may look nothing like the two bills either body passes. The ATP rule could be totally gone, or it could be enhanced to 2000 hours as well. Who knows. My money is on the FAA and the airlines winning the battle by instituting their own tougher requirments and nullifying the government's ATP requirement.

I agree, I understand why students would oppose this. But don't let them sway YOUR opinion...they simply don't know what they don't know yet.

The are blinded by the horrible prospect of having to work as a CFI for two years...but after they are done they will be glad they did. And 10-15 years down the line they will be REALLY glad that they can't be easily undercut out of their job by a pimple-faced 19 year-old 250-hour wonder.

Even though I'm for the proposed rules, I completely agree with you. They are placing the cart before the horse on this one. On par with the bus driving companies requiring a 4 year degree to drive a bus for 10 dollars an hour. Right now there is no incentive to become a pilot, the only people training are the college students which will not be able to support mass hiring. I fear they're using the 1500 rule as a silver bullet.

If bus companies required 4 yr. degrees and only paid 10/hr it would only be a matter of time before they would have to raise the pay to attract qualified applicants.
So having 1500hr requirement and with all of the other hurdles placed in the way, we might be able to break the vicious cycle of SJS. We are our own worst enemy, just go look at the commute air thread. There are a bunch of guys working hard to get a horrible low paying job, because they are the only ones hiring. At some point that cycle has to stop. Maybe requiring a 1500hrs and an ATP will make people stop and think.......I have paid my dues, CFI, 135 charter etc. I will not accept 20/hr to fly an airliner. I have my doubts though, nothing has stopped it yet and I am not sure anything ever will. The draw of the big shinny airplane is like heroine to an addict.

It's not that simple and you know it's not that simple because it hasn't happened yet. Airlines can't just raise salaries as they wish, you have contracts which are pretty much amended once a decade. Salaries won't be going up just because they need fill in a few more seats this or that year. If it turns bad all they'll do is give hiring bonuses or base guarantees like they did last time. If this thing is about safety, at least for them, then instead of requiring an ATP they should find a happy medium somewhere between the commercial and ATP mins. I just don't think the current system can support the ATP requirement.

For me it is about raising the bar, how do you get guys that want to work at an airline not to get blinded by the big cool airplane? To realize that they are worth more than 20/hr? To actually start at a livable wage? The days only being an FO for a year or two are over. Each and every person who gets hired on at an airline should start acting like that is the place they are going to retire and treat is as such.
The FAA and management want professionalism, pay for it.
The majors and ALPA want to stop the erosion of their place in this world, find some way to make the people they are outsourcing to cost more, ie. pay for it.
We are in a highly skilled profession yet we are paid and treated like we work at Wal-mart. Why? Because we, as a pilot group, have allowed it to happen. Short-sighted leadership at ALPA pre and post deregulation. This attitude of looking out for oneself first and last. I have heard many times from senior captains that they only have to ride it out for 3 - 4 more years and then they don't care what happens, as long as their pay and benefits aren't affected.
I don't know I could go on, but I see requiring an ATP for employment at a 121 carrier as a step in the right direction.