jayray

The Feds aren't the one passing the law. And to answer your question, yes 1500 hours would more than likely make you a better pilot than 250 hours regardless of the plane flown.

flyingkangaroo

I disagree with you..... buddy... The pilots at UPS, fedex, netjets etc. have made substantial contract gains that I feel reflect progress in the industry. Their contracts are strong and their pilot groups show strong solidarity. Although these jobs are rare, they should be a model of what US airline contracts should be and not reflect the top of the industry. These jobs still exist however i fear the long term effect that whipsaw and undercutting will have on pilot groups.

skippy

you people are wasting your keystrokes-- there is no freaking way they make having an atp to become a first officer--- NONE, ZERO, NADA-- the RAA lobby and all the other lobbies combined simply scoff at alpa----- never in a hundred million years----

while i support it, im smart enough to know what runs the airline industry and the groups who make safety a mockery--- what a freaking joke-- no we have to worry about them raising the age to 70- b/c other countries allow it

Aloha

Makersmarc,
I can appreciate a well thought out argument. Your point is taken.
-Aloha

Whacker77

I understand there are some very strongly held views about the benefits of the ATP requirment. In the abstract, it seems like a great idea, but only in the abstract. It pays no attention the cyclical nature of hiring nor does it address safety in the slightest. The last thing anyone should want is a Congress with little grasp on the realities of airline flying dictating what hiring requirements should be.

Time after time and post after post, I get the distinct sense the majority of support for this bill is based solely on the silly notion that pay will increase. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is simply no relationship between pay and hiring requirments. Regional pilots who feel they are entitled to higher pay have latched onto this in the hopes it will be the silver bullet.

I know some will throw the supply/demand argument out, but that will not affect pay. Regional airlines are the ones who will be hurt by this requirment because their pool of potential applicants will shrink drastically. Yet, year after year, they are being given more and more routes to fly by the majors. With majors already strapped for cash, why is there any reason to believe the broke majors will allocate more money to the regionals for pay?

I won't lie, I have a dog in this fight as I'm someone who has 1300 hours. Attaining another 200 won't be a massive chore, but my objection lies in the economics of this decision. I think it is terribly short sighted and will cause major problems, should it be implemented, in three or four years time.

Just consider this. One of the things that has tied up hiring and furloughs is the new age 65 retirement age. It's a fine idea, but it came at the worst possible time ever, the start of the great recession. It created an artifical backlog of pilots, but even now, recalls are beginning at several regionals because demand has bottomed and even begun to pickup. It's not hard to find 1500 hour pilots right now, but what about 2012?

In 2012, the retirements we expected to see will be in full swing once again and most of the furloughed guys will have been recalled. Yet, there is a large and growing gap in the number of people even attempting to earn commercial cetificates. What then when hiring resumes in full force? Are airlines going to remain artificially small because there aren't enough applicants? I certainly doubt it. Are shareholders going to be happy that majors aren't maximizing profit? I doubt it.

There are a whole host of unintended consequences that could come with this bill. It's implimentation would provide an extremely rocky period for an already faltering industry and it could well make things worse. It could take five or more years for this new requirment to sort itself out in the airlines. It's a fine idea in the abstract, but not right now.

NightIP

It's not often that I come out and be so blunt, but I disagree wholeheartedly.

My company is proof positive that hiring minimums do affect pay. While everyone was going off to go fly RJs in 2007 (myself included), my current company was having a heck of a time filling seats in 402s. They couldn't lower mins (an ATP is a hard min for Part 135 commuter flying), so what did they do?

They raised pay!

Passing this bill might not have an immediate effect, but down the line when the economy rebounds and retirements at the major level start creating upward movement, I'm optimistic we'll see pay increases. Just be patient.

iPilot

I think if the airlines continued down the path right now they'd end up with a pilot shortage eventually. You lower pay enough and eventually nobody will want the job. There simply isn't enough people out there willing or able to fly an airliner for free.

It may come down to pure minimum wage but eventually it will become unfeasible. But anyway there will become a point where people will simply not want or be able to do the job anymore.

If you make it harder for individuals to get into this job, in this case the ATP requirement, you will have to make it worth their while somehow. For instance, there are lots of pilots out there who walked away after 9/11 and this current recession and would never come back under the current pay. Would they come back if they were offered a decent salary? Probably. If it comes down to not finding enough pilots and identifying those who meet the requirement, I think the airlines will raise the pay. Quite simply they'll have to.

Burlcfii

i agree that in a way this will be a good thing, however it will also not be so great. It is good because i feel it may force airlines such as Colgan to increase pay above food stamps, because most ATP's wont fly for such insulting wages.

on the other hand some of us, myself included dont meet the ATP requirements, however have been flying for years. Personnally i couldn't afford to work as an instructor full time once i got out of college. I had to get a higher paying job. I had to resort to instructing part time for years. Now that i am in a place to make the career change my time is still holding me back.

In my opinion it should be up to the airlines to decide who they hire. although they are all looking to pay pilots like fast food cooks, i would think they will look at lower time pilots with a close eye because they wouldn't want the added liability. "strickly my opinion"

iPilot

Yeah but in the regional world they have incredible pressure to a) be the cheapest out there and b) fly the planes. I'm sure Colgan would love to hire A-grade pilots but they said they could fly their contracts and they can't just shrug and say they can't find enough pilots.

The "added liability" isn't there because, in the case of 3407, they simply all say that the pilots met the FAA requirements so they should be just as good as anybody else. The problem is that the FAA's requirements do not meet the needs of a modern industry. 250 hours for a commercial license worked great when everyone had military experience and you wouldn't DREAM of flying an airliner with less than a decade of experience. Now that we're counting on pilots getting real-world experience for training we need to make the rules reflect that. Sure the banner tower won't have the experience of a fighter pilot. But unfortunately we have to draw the line somewhere and requiring an ATP does a fairly good job of it.

To trust the airlines to do right by us is like trusting crack addict with your wallet.

stbloc

If this bill gets passed you will see a pilot shortage like we never have seen before. Enrollment will fall in half at flight schools and the military is not needing as many pilots with the UAV program. From what I hear is most military pilots are choosing to bypass the majors career wages are low and the stagnate growth.

Here is a intresting quote out of the Dubia Air show.

Taking manufacturers' market outlook studies into account, IATA predicts that 17,650 new passenger aircraft will be delivered by 2018, requiring more than 200,000 new pilots, or nearly 19,000 pilots a year. Current global training programmes can produce a maximum of 15,200 per year, leaving a shortfall of more than 3,000 pilots annually.