I'm all for the 1500hr rule and ATP. Not because I am already well past the mins but because for a LONG time these were the mins with the regionals. Guys cut their teeth banner towing, flying checks/cargo ect...
Personally, I believe no one with sub 1000hrs should be flying passengers. The exemption of course is the Military guys. MIL pilots are usually top of their class and washout very easily unlike a civilian pilot who can re-take stage checks or check rides multiple times until he/she passes.
If aspiring pilots have the desire and "can do" attitude, this new rule won't be a thorn or a road block. No more 0-hero puppy mills. This is a profession and like every profession there's a looooong learning period.
This new rule is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't give two craps if you are for 1500 hour pilots or green energy! What I care about is that the pilot profession is not politically active as a whole and only cares about number one! Thus, the ultimate demise and constant abuse!

 

It doesn't take any science or research in this case, just a few thousand hours of experience to see the light.

 

If your can do attitude is within a team concept (CRM), I am all for it. Individual accomplishments mean little if you cannot apply them to the team. I definitely believe in we as oppose to I. The bigger the plane, the more we you will need!

 

Exactly!!!!

 

With the talk of the ATP rule and safety, I came to this realization recently and I'm going to throw it in here. This is probably my first time doing anything that could be considered "flame bait".

Libertarians like John Stossel often argue that government regulations can wind up making the public less safe, for various reasons. Using the same logical process, it's possible that the ATP rule will actually result in more transportation-related deaths and casualties. Here's how:

1- The ATP rule makes it substantially more difficult to become an airline pilot, which could maybe potentially cause difficulty for the airlines (regionals) to staff their flights.
2-This will cause the product (air travel) to become more expensive or limited in supply (airlines may have to cut service).
3- People will still want to go to Disney World and visit grandma, so those people who can no longer fly will drive or take busses, which are fundamentally more dangerous and result in more highway casualties, which will probably outweigh the reduction in casualties from more experienced pilots.

 

That's possible. If they had to pay pilots a lot more, then small planes would be the first to go, since the revenue capacity (number of seats X fare per seat) might not be able to increase to match overhead (pilot pay). Some of these would be feeder service, and would result in loss of service.

But there are many other components of airline cost, and fuel, not labor, is now the largest. Also there have only been a few brief periods where pilots with less than 1500 hours could easily get an airline job.

Much of this coincided with the RJ boom, and it's worth noting that low labor costs enabled mainline to shift some narrowbody flying to RJ's (also side-benefit of increased frequency). If higher labor costs forced majors to undo the RJ's, they would simply shift much RJ flying back to mainline. Net loss of some of those pilot jobs, but they would be good, sustainable jobs.

But we in aviation are not responsible for the safety of other modes of transportation, so I won't lose any sleep about that. If folks are too cheap to pay the piper, the are welcome to blow half their vacation driving on I-10 and exposure their families to significant road risk in the process. That sounds like a problem for big government...REALLY big government

 

Part of the point of this thread is that people can't get to ATP mins by banner towing. Check flying pretty much doesn't exist anymore, and there aren't enough cargo jobs to go around.

 

That's for DOT, DMV and other organizations to sort out. Flight safety is what we care about. Aviation is our industry. If we need to pull old people's driving licenses, I'm sure with enough deaths it would be on the horizon too. Flying is inherently less safe IMO. To take a machine, fling it through the atmosphere at high speeds, and land it safely at a destination, is mindblowing to me. The reason this happens safely is due to regulation, planning, skills, and other reasons. Most of these things do not exist to any comparable extent within automobiles or many other industries. Take away this, and we're no more "safe" than anything else.

As far as Bellanca's point, if that many cargo jobs do not exist, what makes you think all that many major pilot jobs exist? Everyone has the same goal to be a widebody 777 captain, but the fact of the matter is not everyone can be because there are not that many jobs. That's the natural force that regulates the pilots in the industry and forces them to take other jobs because the piloting career doesn't pan out. You can't artificially create business to that extent. I've even seen quite a few people say "well, I don't want to instruct" or "I can't instruct people", but guess what, if you aspire to be a Captain/ATP, you are supposed to instruct and it's part of your privileges.

 

This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. So because people drive like morons, we should allow airline pilot qualifications to remain low?