ATPs required for FOs... Senate next week.
03-10-2010 | 01:26 PM
#141
2 days off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
From: Embraer Systems Analyst
Why do people even care? None of this will affect any of us anytime soon. We're talking about decades here before we see pay raises. They will continue to find pilots even with 1500 hours, industries change, there could be a shortage of pilots or there could be an excess supply for a decade or more due to the economy and consolidations. As far as safety, everyone knows that 1500 is just a number it does not mean that the FO will not raise her flaps during a stall.
03-10-2010 | 01:44 PM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Likes: 0
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.
It's just a fact of life that low pay is a part of the regional airline business.
Low pay at the regional or any airline for that matter is not a fact of life. It's because pilots allow it and continue to do the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results.
03-10-2010 | 04:00 PM
#143
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
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.
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.
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.
03-11-2010 | 04:16 AM
#144
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 605
Likes: 7
From: The Right One
03-11-2010 | 05:00 AM
#145
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
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.
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.
If the airlines need to grow and there aren't enough applicants they will have do the same thing ever other industry does, entice more applicants. Pay increases and better working conditions will attract people not originally wanting to become a pilot into the field. This is the way it should work, unfortunately too many people are still willing to do this job for next to nothing.
03-11-2010 | 10:57 AM
#146
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,215
Likes: 0
From: Capt
Hi!
Min hours for a Commercial License is about 188 hours. There is no exact minimum for -141 flight schools.
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.
cliff
NBO
Min hours for a Commercial License is about 188 hours. There is no exact minimum for -141 flight schools.
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.
cliff
NBO
03-11-2010 | 11:08 AM
#147
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
03-11-2010 | 11:17 AM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,215
Likes: 0
From: Capt
Hi!
iPilot: EXACTLY
I heard of 3 things:
1-Hiring guys below 200 hours with -141 Commercial MEL
2-Assigning guys a class date (WITHOUT an interview....looked at resume and licenses...you are hired!) that was AFTER the guys Comm checkride...the class date was contingent on passing the Comm check.
3-Hiring guys who met ALL the Comm qualificiations. When/if they passed their oral sim/any required aircraft checkride, they were granted their Commercial license.
In the case of 2 and 3 (and possibly #1 also), the first Commercial flight these FOs ever did, was with paying PAX in the back and an IOE instructor in the left seat!
cliff
NBO
iPilot: EXACTLY
I heard of 3 things:
1-Hiring guys below 200 hours with -141 Commercial MEL
2-Assigning guys a class date (WITHOUT an interview....looked at resume and licenses...you are hired!) that was AFTER the guys Comm checkride...the class date was contingent on passing the Comm check.
3-Hiring guys who met ALL the Comm qualificiations. When/if they passed their oral sim/any required aircraft checkride, they were granted their Commercial license.
In the case of 2 and 3 (and possibly #1 also), the first Commercial flight these FOs ever did, was with paying PAX in the back and an IOE instructor in the left seat!
cliff
NBO
03-11-2010 | 11:22 AM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
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.
03-11-2010 | 11:32 AM
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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.
and you guys wonder why people talk about scope and wanting to take it back.....
