Too lazy to read the 6 pages of the thread...so sorry if someone already said this

BUT
We had a FED jumpseating last week. He basicly said dont expect to see this happening any time soon. I personally agree with him.
Does 1500hrs in a C172 really make you a better pilot?

People will get their 1500 hours however they can, (military, 135, cfi, banner tow, jump, buying their own airplane or whatever).

It will still be up to the airlines to figure out who they think is the most suitable to actually go in the cockpit.

There will never be a law that says, if you got your 1500 hours by flying up and down a coast with a banner, you can not be in the cockpit of a 121 air carrier.

Forget what post it was in this thread, but I agree, pick your battles, fight the CVR debate....

I would respectfully disagree.... My position is (and has been) that an ATP should be required to be a crewmember in a Part 121 cockpit seat.


Yes, I do. We get paid what our union can negotiate, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a CBA, those are the facts. I do believe all the 121 regionals have CBA's.....



I don't care where people start. I really don't. I have said it before, "we have/serve a diverse customer base, therefore we should have a diverse workforce." The synergy that can be achived from a pilot group that comes from a variety of backgrounds can be very useful if it is properly managed/nurtured.

Didn't say that. What I have said is that: My position is (and has been) that an ATP should be required to be a crewmember in a Part 121 cockpit seat.

I don't know if it will make them more or less safe until the results are in. Most ATP's are granted on the basis of a Level D sim ride, so if that is where they get it from, so be it, but one can get an ATP in almost any kind of aircraft.

For the record, it looks like we might have to agree to disagree. That's okay with me if it needs to be that way.

SD

Hate to break it to ya buddy but your "ten years from now" prediction is todays reality

Your statement pays no compliment to the FAA exams, they are a joke and obviously my cat could pass if the JAA standard only takes three brain cells.
Eagle hired 200 hr pilots less than three years ago to fly CRJ's. I pass no judgement though, I would take the job if it was offered to me. I got turbine ratings early, but I did not touch a jet until 15 years after I started flying. Read into that CRJ comment anyway you like.
My 2 cents:
1.10 years ain't alot of experience, it's moderate though.
2.Hours ain't everything.
3.We have 300 hour pilots defending our shores.
My point...
It all starts with the quality of training. Students these days go to pilot supermarkets that offer package deals with quick training and flashy equipment.
The knowledge base given to FAA flight students in the classroom is a joke. Why do I say this. How many systems questions are asked in the ATP written......NONE!
Yeah, yeah, it's all based on aircraft type, but why have no knowledge on related systems that you will be working with.

I don't get it. (it's not the first time) - In a society where your barber needs a licence to cut hair, isn't it reasonable for an airline pilot to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating? Regardless of the seat side, it just seems to make sence to me.

Make a minimum standard, grandfather those that do not have the mins now that are currently working, and apply those mins to future new hires. Won't this make it harder to become an airline pilot; making fewer new RJ pilots; supply and demand dictates that fewer pilots will make salaries throughout the business go up? I'm sure I'm missing something here. Your thoughts?
-Aloha

Makes sense, except for the "whatabouts." Whatabout the people that are trained and don't have jobs and crushing debt?

Also, by requiring 1500 hours or more to get an airline job we will get the applicants that actually like flying, and not just chasing a paycheck (as if there were much of a paycheck to chase these days). Just my $.02.

[quote=makersmarc;774767]Makes sense, except for the "whatabouts." Whatabout the people that are trained and don't have jobs and crushing debt? quote]

A fair point Makersmarc,
on the other hand "whatabout" the general public deserving the safe standard benchmark of an airline pilot. If that airline pilot is going to be in the seat, he should hold the required, experience, and skill to hold an Airline Transport Pilot rating. Anyone that does not meet that standard should not be an airline pilot. Heck, why not have surgeons practicing with out medical degrees, or trial lawers practicing with passing the bar........ It only makes sence to have an airline pilot measure up to high standards. I commend you on your thoughts, I just wanted to share mine.
-Aloha

What I'm saying is that I think the reason pay at the regionals is so low is because pay is negotiated based on number of seats and years of service, NOT experience. Raising the requirement to an ATP will not raise salaries at the bottom without changing the pay formulas to based on experience.

You would need a national seniority list with pay rates based on experience ONLY, and nothing else to really fix what is wrong with this profession. Only then would we see the kind of unity required to fix the safety issues we are facing.

[quote=Aloha;774784]Aloha, I agree with you completely I just wanted to state the argument that will no doubt be made by other parties. Embry Riddle or UND will want some sort of 'carve out' so that their particular ox isn't gored. The argument can be made that by extending a special consideration to these schools it would be unfair to not extend it to every other potentially injured party. In writing to our representatives it is important to say that there needs to be an unblurred line between a qualified airline pilot and one that is not. I think that line should be 1500/ATP.