Ummm, if you increase the required time then you eliminate the pilot mill grads who are willing to jump into an RJ for 20K a year. That will decrease the amount of qualified applicants, and guess what? The incentive to become a pilot comes back. How horrible that these 250 hour wonders would have to Flight Instuct for a while. Add the potential new rest requirements and you will see a drastic change in the way regionals operate. No more stand-up/continuous duty/illegal/high speeds would be allowed, among other things.

This certainly NOT putting the cart before the horse, not even close.

 

This is the problem with pilots and flying. Pilots will work for less because of the "coolness" factor. My contemporaries in other careers scoff at low paying job offers, they're all looking for whoever pays the most. Pilots will work for anything as long as they get to fly, accountants don't really have that mentality.

The true issue of pilots is most of us are chasing a dream that we don't even really understand is dead. One of the other threads was talking about upgrade at American, most junior captain... 1992 hire. Making his upgrade to captain, 18 years. Before that he probably spent 5 years minimum at a regional, so here's a guy who has 23 years in and he's just upgrade to JUNIOR captain. Guys talk about the cushy lifestyle of a major airline captain, is it really cushy after 23 years of the lifestyle we all live.

I doubt ATP will solve anything, but have at it.

 

Quality of flight time and experience has always been considered. It's been a basis of hiring for years. If I'm instructing a PP applicant, and I feel he is ready for his Part 61 checkride before he meets the min applications times, it doesn't matter. He still has to meet the mins before he can take the checkride.

Just because a guy can read a gouge, chair fly, and pass an interview doesn't mean he can do the job. And just because I've flown 1500 hours as a Flight Instructor without ever experiencing an engine failure doesn't mean I'm not as good as a guy who has flown 100 hours and has experienced an engine failure. That's not quality, that's odds. But having 1500 hours does make me a more experienced pilot then the 100 hour guy.
And experience is flat out easier to determine then quality of flight time. JMO

 

Do you really think people will stop wanting to become pilots because they now have to flight instruct?

Was there a shortage of pilots back in the 90's when they flew a turbo prop rather than a jet, had to pay $10,000 for training and made less than $15,000? A lot of those pilots had over 1500 hours and there was no shortage either.

 

I wouldn't flight instruct and never have. Teaching is not something I am good at or care for. I was extremely lucky and blessed to "fall into" my airline job. If I was graduating from college right now with 250 hours, I would probably do something else.

 

Would you fly pipeline patrol, do arial photography to get your hours up? I've met a bunch of people that didn't flight instruct to get hours.

 

This junior captain very well cound have been military and instead of spending 5 years minimum at a regional might have spent between 8-16 years in the military; making that anywhere between a 26-34 year commitment. WHEW! Having a passion for something certainly does make you more willing to sacrifice no doubt. I've had to really reevaluate my priorities and with the common sense advice that many have given me I'm heading in the right direction. A cruel circle.

USMCFLYR

 

Most definitely, I know those jobs are somewhat hard to come by but I would have done anything as long as it did not involve instructing. I did a lot of my CFI training and it felt like pulling teeth. Just wasn't for me.

 

It's not a good comparison to match the 1990's against today's airline industry. Things have changed drastically. Not the least of which is the widespread use of the regionals. Also, the industry is larger than it was in the 1990's.

The ATP rule does nothing for the airlines except hamstring them. I say that because the rule will affect their ability to grow and match the demand increased passenger loads will require. Growth, by the way, will come back sooner than you think.

This comes back to the point I have been trying to make since last August. Airlines are not going to want to remain artificially smaller if the demand for more routes and capacity is there. Yet, that is what I feel this measure could produce.

If, as many say, the rule would weed out those not willing to make it to 1500 hours, then from where do the extra pilots needed to fly the extra planes come? It's been noted many times that fewer and fewer are becoming commercial rated pilots already. Right there is cause for concern even if no growth takes place.

When growth does come again, are airlines going to say, "Well we would like to expand and capitalize on more people wanting to fly, but we can't do so because it has become cost prohibative for young people to become pilots?" I can't see airlines leaving money on the table like that because most are publicly traded and are duty bound to act in the best interest of shareholders.

Even if you assume airlines would forgo growth, there is no reason to believe the extra money resulting from fewer pilots would in turn be given to employed pilots as higher pay. It would be doled out as dividends to share holders, used to retire debt, or a whole host of other things. It's just a fact of life that low pay is a part of the regional airline business.

 

That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have heard on APC in quite sometime...........and that is saying something!