KoruPilot

After careful consideration I find myself standing, ever so slightly, corrected on this whole cheap labour RJ thing. My appologies.

I agree that these low pay operations hiring 300 hour drivers for the right seat of an RG are killing our 'profession'. Frankly, after spending numerous years flying in places like the arctic circle and the Saudi dessert, I have gained somewhat of an understanding of what makes a good, professional pilot. And at 300 hours total time very few people have the all 'round ability that is required to sit in the right seat of a jet.

All that said, I would be hard pressed to try and convince a friend asking me for advice to tell them to go back to flying 50 hours a month at $10 an hour in the right seat of a C152, when somebody else is going to take the RJ job that they would be turning down. In three years time they'd be three years behind, with less cash in the pocket.

So what do we do?

I remember looking into the Dentistry field in the Province of Alberta in Canada, from whence I came. The Dental Society neatly kept intake down, and consequently prices up. The licenced professionals governed themselves. I'd like to think we have the same sort of idea in Aviation, but the FAA and MOT seam to listen much more intently to airline owners then pilots when it comes to safety (part 135 air taxi duty schedules as an example).

At a former employer that operated turbo-props and jets, ALPA had contracted a minimum of an ATPL for a new hire position, and for good reason; they had to fly with these guys and gals. At my current employer the minimums are much lower, but as line pilots make the hiring decisions the average new hire SO has about 5000 hours with turbine, some with jet, some with part 121 turbine command. I think the pay is reasonable. If management gets their hands on the hiring they will no doubt try to direct hire 'cadets' into the SO position who they can then pay peanuts. Bad for us, but again who can blame the person taking the position. We'd all be a bit naive to not not think back to when we started and say to ourselves that we would not take the job, or we'd be lying, unless we were an apostle of sorts, or just crazy. You get the point.

So here is one idea. A big push by IFALPA to make an ATPL, not just the writtens or the bloody colonial 'frozen' ATPL (and soon to be unleashed JAR multi-crew ticket), but only the actual licence be mandatory to fly any part 121 turbine aircraft, regardless of seat. It would put everyone in the same boat; they would all have to do the requisite dues paying before going anywhere near a big jet. It would, I believe, bring the average, and by average I mean average wage up.

By the way, I have flown with pilots who have had good or at least reasonable experience before getting into an airline job, being it military, bag flying or bush flying, and they are, in most (but, understandibly as there are exceptions) not all circumstances easy to identify beside their compatriots who have landed a big jet job with little time. The decision making skills and self confidence are just not as prevalent.

Any other ideas and can we make it happen? Am I off my rocker?

Oh yea, I love flying long haul, it is a 'real' and enjoyable flying job and I am easily worth every cent they pay me at least a couple times a year, the rest I do for free.

BCDurbin

I'm only gonna reply because I came from Alberta too - 40 years ago! The problem is there is not a big enough base at bottom of the aviation food pyramid. The Airlines need pilots to fill all their small planes because passengers want more flights per day instead of larger aircraft on fewer flights per day. And there is not enough 135 jobs out there to allow pilots to gain the ATP required experience, and thus, in your scenerio move into a airline right seat with 1500 hours and an ATP - Therefore the airlines have become entry level positions for the low time pilots.

flynavyj

It's not terribly difficult to get qualified for the ATP, there were several flight instructors at my university that were more than qualified. Here's a thought though, by adding the ATP as a requirement for people to start flying, then you'll have more guys who flight instructor to 1500 hrs and then get their ATP and get outta there. @ that rate, i would have been required to instructor for about a year and half (no biggie) and would have been qualified, taken my last test, and moved on. The university however, would have been paying me around 15-17/hr by then because of my "experience aka. hours", which would have made it more difficult to make ends meet, especially considering that everyone there would have been needing to do the same thing. That would raise the costs of training, and make the already astronomical prices of flight training even higher (imagine what the pilot factories would be charging)

Another side note, how much do we actually think requiring the ATP will raise the starting wages for pilots? 3rd, 4th year pay?...Or are we talking 40k starting? I'd highly doubt that 40k starting would really happen, only because the masses already have close the experience needed, and therefore it wouldn't justify a large increase in starting pay. So, that average guy who spent a couple more years instructing now moves into the regionals, and is making the same amount of money he would have been making if he'd come to the regionals w/ 300hrs...except now he's got even more instructing experience, and less jet experience while making the same pay.

Just don't think that's the answer....might be closer, but....not the answer yet.

hatetobreakit2u

the answer is to fix the longetivity based pay scales

bla bla bla

An ATP would raise the cost's to be qualified. Thus increasing the barriers to entry. More work and money required = less pilots. How much would this reduce the supply?
Doctors have the American Medical Association, does anyone know anything about that? I hear it has a strict limit on how many can get into the field.
I always thought it was unusual that just anyone could get into the flight program at my University.

flynavyj

seems highly doubtful that raising the costs (not significally) would give us less pilots. The factories are charging incredible amounts of money, and if we already have 80k to blow on aviation, then what's another 5-10k?

STILL GROUNDED

Here is the big thing, enrollments are down, pilot pools are down. If you needed an ATP to apply the company would have to pay more because they would not attract enough applicants if they didn't. More by how much? Who knows. But when a kid can buy a seat in an airliner for $80,000 the message the airline receives is that they could practically charge for the job and the pilot would work for nothing. And most of the time they are right. Johnathan Orienstien once said if his classes are full he is paying too much and as much of a jack ass as that makes him sound, he's right. The ATP to apply forced by the pilots in the contract is an interesting therory at the least.

Ski Patrol

Couldn't have said it any better.

KoruPilot

That's all great guys. Keep it coming.

I agree that the person who flight instructs is behind the person who was willing to take the jet job at 300 hours, therefore it is unreasonable to ask someone to stay behind, or get on their case even, when the next person will take the job and end up behind. Hence bringing up the minimum standard to start in a jet so everybody is on an even playing field. The people who work their buts off instructing, flying the military or flying bag/bush planes, but who can't afford to buy a rating or feed their families on the 'cheap jets' pay will get a shot at the RJ airlines, fairly.

I understand some airlines (Colgan with B1900's?) charge for a type rating, and then charge to sit in a seat requiring, legally, a qualified pilot. This should be illegal, and I bet if I asked the average passenger who shelled out for a seat how they felt about the situation up front they'd go ballistic.

I simply do not believe that there are not enough ATPL rated pilots out there to fill the seats of the RJ's. As a matter of fact I know this to be untrue. Take a look at the JP fleet guide and add up the numbers. Part 135 already requires single pilot ops to have minimum qualifications, and thats for the likes of C402's and Navajos. Why the FAA thinks that the same type of thing should not apply to a pilot flying a high performance jet I do not know.

I fail to see how this would bring up the cost of initial training as that is generally an entry level position, and good on 'em if they can get more money but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I would like to see the bottom line airline pilot wage go up, and at the same time make entry into the position more fair for those instructors that did the work and can't afford the rating.

Dentists. Less of them means people have to wait for an appointment and pay a proper fee. Less pilots would, and has in the past meant that people just can't rock up and pay $35 bucks for a flight. Less pilots equals higher pay; just look at ex-pat pilot pay in India and what that is doing to the pilot pool in underpaid markets such as Central America. Wild idea I know and likely unpopular in many rspects, but it works for the dentists.

I understand that I have a mild contradiction in my rant here, but I would like to see pilots in general, and specifically regional and mainline airline pilots start looking towards fixing what is becoming an ever increasing problem.

BCDurbin, don't feel you have to respond just because you spent time in Alberta. Do take a good look at what you're saying though. I know the situation is a tad different in S Africa, but there are many places, Solenta or Nature Air or anywhere out of Maun where a person can get good experience without having to shell out for a jet type rating, and it has left an ample pilot pool for the regionals (I have a buddy at Solenta who'd love a regional seat). That is most certainly the case in the States where there is a very large pool of bag/bush/part 135 pilots. Perhaps the RJ carriers don't want them because they have too much experience; a ridiculous argument that I have heard in the past.

Basically, we need to keep pay up and increase entry level mainline and RJ pay. $30K a year to start at Air Canada and they still can't make money. Air NZ's starting pay is twice that, so is Cathays and Qantas, and they all make money. There has been allot of slagging of pilots going to 'SCAB' regionals on this forum, but no realistic solution to the problem, and frankly I have a hard time finding blame with the pilot who is handed that situation by the operator. Hence my post.

Any ideas? Different from mine as it's been beat to death quickly. I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.

BCDurbin

[QUOTE=KoruPilot;73967]
I understand some airlines (Colgan with B1900's?) charge for a type rating, and then charge to sit in a seat requiring, legally, a qualified pilot. This should be illegal, and I bet if I asked the average passenger who shelled out for a seat how they felt about the situation up front they'd go ballistic.
QUOTE]

Last I checked we didn't charge for a type rating - a training contract yes, but alot of carriers do that. I think there is another carrier out there that charges their F/O's to sit in the right seat - maybe not 121 though.
And most people are oblivious to what goes on up front at any airlines!!

I am starting to see your point all together though, but I won't see it happen in my lifetime and will probably never hear it mentioned outside of these boards! And like I said - it'll take fewer aircraft because I think there is not a large pool of ATP rated pilots out there! - BCD