ATPs required for FOs... Senate next week.
03-12-2010 | 06:44 AM
#161
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: RJ FO
It's not a matter of being a better pilot, Melvin had an ATP. There should be some training behind it. There was a light school offering shared time in a 152 to build ATP hours. Would rather have that guy or someone who sat through 1000 hours of stall recoveries, slow flight, and teaching ground schools to build an actual knowledge base.
I still say the bill falls short. It needs to require companies to supply the type and atp at the time of hire or the on the next pc if you are grandfathered. It also needs to not allow 121 or 135 carriers to sell a pilot seat for the purposes of building experience. This is going to be a hugh mess for anyone trying to build competitive time. It's also going to drive the cost of getting an ATP through the roof. ATP the school charges $2800 for a 4 day course in a seminole. Watch that escalate 3 years from now once it is required that all of the FO's in the industry have to go get an ATP on thier own. the only hope we have is that we build it into our contracts.
I do agree with the bill. I also think it is crap that companies just don't type you from day one. They don't because the know what a crappy job they are giving you and they don't want you to jump ship at the first opportunity. Unfortunatley it is not going to restore anything. The only thing that will restore the career is to go back 20 years and get mainline pilots to not give up scope and to swallow their pride for a moment and fly a 50 passeenger jet at a reasonable pay scale. Mainliners like to think we did this too them. I didn't want to work at regional airline, certainly not for a career. I'd have been quite happy going from a beech 1900 to a 73.
I still say the bill falls short. It needs to require companies to supply the type and atp at the time of hire or the on the next pc if you are grandfathered. It also needs to not allow 121 or 135 carriers to sell a pilot seat for the purposes of building experience. This is going to be a hugh mess for anyone trying to build competitive time. It's also going to drive the cost of getting an ATP through the roof. ATP the school charges $2800 for a 4 day course in a seminole. Watch that escalate 3 years from now once it is required that all of the FO's in the industry have to go get an ATP on thier own. the only hope we have is that we build it into our contracts.
I do agree with the bill. I also think it is crap that companies just don't type you from day one. They don't because the know what a crappy job they are giving you and they don't want you to jump ship at the first opportunity. Unfortunatley it is not going to restore anything. The only thing that will restore the career is to go back 20 years and get mainline pilots to not give up scope and to swallow their pride for a moment and fly a 50 passeenger jet at a reasonable pay scale. Mainliners like to think we did this too them. I didn't want to work at regional airline, certainly not for a career. I'd have been quite happy going from a beech 1900 to a 73.
03-12-2010 | 11:00 AM
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
From: 777, sofa
And which regional pilot group was it that invented the "B" scale? Oh yeah, American.
Which regional signed a contract that allows a subcontractor to fly their routes, at lower wages, so long as their furloughed pilots can have jobs there?
UAL, US, AA, CAL.
(I think DL tried to too, but OH said no thanks.)
If you want to claim the moral high ground, this is not the foundation you want to start from.
03-12-2010 | 11:17 AM
#163
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
I know it's a bit off topic and a little late, but I've got to say it:
Also, some have suggested this proposal will improve pilot compensation. I'd like to believe this, but I am again doubtful. Market forces have degraded compensation, and market forces will be required to improve it. With so many well-qualified airmen currently out of work, I feel it will take many years to shore up excess supply. Perhaps by then the FAA will have adopted the new ICAO multi-pilot crew concept, and exempt them from the 1,500 hour rule. This may again break down the barriers of entry and flood the ranks with "qualified" newly minted commercial pilots. But in the mean time, the folks who stack the deck will continue to transform high-time 737 pilots into RJ drivers.
I support this legislation because I believe it has the potential to improve safety. But I don't indulge in the delusion that it may improve my pay and quality of life.
Also, some have suggested this proposal will improve pilot compensation. I'd like to believe this, but I am again doubtful. Market forces have degraded compensation, and market forces will be required to improve it. With so many well-qualified airmen currently out of work, I feel it will take many years to shore up excess supply. Perhaps by then the FAA will have adopted the new ICAO multi-pilot crew concept, and exempt them from the 1,500 hour rule. This may again break down the barriers of entry and flood the ranks with "qualified" newly minted commercial pilots. But in the mean time, the folks who stack the deck will continue to transform high-time 737 pilots into RJ drivers.
I support this legislation because I believe it has the potential to improve safety. But I don't indulge in the delusion that it may improve my pay and quality of life.
Automation, Glass cockpits, all combined with NextGen, will continue making the job of a pilot easier. From the view of a manager, any experience requirements at all will become arbitrary if the training is good enough.
Because of this, the FAA raising experience minimums will signal the first major step towards MPL. Barring a drastic increase in military or GA pilot training (unlikely), the supply of qualified pilots will eventually dwindle. It doesn't mean airlines will raise the pay. They will bring in quicker avenues (MPL) to improve supply. I'd be willing to bet that one could get applicants to a multi-crew program to pay for the training too...
It really just makes too much sense.
03-12-2010 | 12:18 PM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
From: CFI
From my understanding and reading, there's no requirement for FOs to have an ATP or be at ATP mins in the Senate Bill. That was just in the House Bill. The Senate removed it and instead is taking a stance that the FAA and such need to look at certification requirements and make changes there. Once that's done then they'll move on to min. hours for airlines.
Then again, I can't figure out the difference between S.915, 3371, and 1451. They all have pretty much the same content.
Then again, I can't figure out the difference between S.915, 3371, and 1451. They all have pretty much the same content.
03-12-2010 | 01:14 PM
#165
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Someone told me that the House bill (3371), which contained the ATP req. turned to Senate bill (1451), which does not req. ATP. But there's too many numbers crap to sort through what is actually going on with the different bills.
03-13-2010 | 08:31 PM
#166
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
WASHINGTON — Senators have reached a compromise to dramatically increase the number of flight hours new commercial copilots need to get a license, though the figure falls short of what the group Families of Continental Flight 3407 was seeking. Under a deal brokered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer and announced Friday, new co-pilots would have to have 800 hours of flight experience in specific, rigorous conditions, up from the current 250 hours of general experience.
05-14-2010 | 12:42 PM
#168
Day puke
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
S 1744
"Referred to Committee" per S. 1744: Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training (GovTrack.us)
HR 3371
Passed the House and Read Twice in the Senate per http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3371
"Referred to Committee" per S. 1744: Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training (GovTrack.us)
HR 3371
Passed the House and Read Twice in the Senate per http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3371
05-14-2010 | 05:48 PM
#169
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 5
From: 737 Left
Training Enhancement?
"Referred to Committee" per [URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1744"]S. 1744: Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training (GovTrack.us)
I missed the part where any enhancement to training would occur. I did see where the hiring process could become more difficult, and that the ATP would be required for pilots flying part 121, but not the training enhancements.
I missed the part where any enhancement to training would occur. I did see where the hiring process could become more difficult, and that the ATP would be required for pilots flying part 121, but not the training enhancements.
