Originally Posted by Whacker77 (Post 776765)

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.



It's just a fact of life that low pay is a part of the regional airline business.

Originally Posted by Alknew182 (Post 776095)

whats the difference between these two bills?

H.R. 3371: Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

Read The Bill: S. 1744 - GovTrack.us

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.

Originally Posted by Whacker77 (Post 776594)

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.

Originally Posted by AirWillie (Post 776637)

It's not that simple ........ I just don't think the current system can support the ATP requirement.

Originally Posted by Whacker77 (Post 776765)

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.

Originally Posted by atpcliff (Post 777305)

There is no requirement for airlines to hire people with a Commercial license, and the Regionals were hiring guys without one when they were hard up for pilots.

Originally Posted by iPilot (Post 777323)

Best one I heard was at FlightSafety where RAH does E-170 training. The instructor came in to my class to show my ground instructor something. This new-hire's paperwork included his 1st class medical with his student license on the back. Apparently he was one of the zero-to-hero guys and never had to get a new medical in his lightning fast training. Needless to say the grey-haired FlightSafety guys just about died right there.