|
Originally Posted by Bellanca
(Post 1387153)
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.
If the airlines have trouble finding people through traditional means, they will have to find ways to get people via their own methods; bonuses, sponsored flight training, career progression, etc. |
Originally Posted by Bellanca
(Post 1387153)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Blackwing
(Post 1387306)
B.S. There are ample opportunities to build time out there that don't involve flit instruction. Mapping, flying the ditch, dropping meat bombs, traffic watch to name a few.
|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1387335)
You mean things that will be done by drones or just flat out obsolete?
|
Originally Posted by MikeB525
(Post 1386759)
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. |
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
(Post 1387441)
I'm fine with all 3 of those. They add value to our skills and product.
|
Originally Posted by MikeB525
(Post 1387457)
You're fine with more people splattering on the highways so that pilots have better employment prospects?
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1387467)
not our problem, if highway safety is an issue then highway people need to worry about it.
|
Originally Posted by MikeB525
(Post 1387457)
You're fine with more people splattering on the highways so that pilots have better employment prospects?
Also I'm tired of the zero responsibility rationale here..."So if we as a nation drive horribly enough, airlines will be forced to cart our butts around more cheaply. There's no way we can put down the beer, the cell, or the cheeseburger when we drive, that would mean I have to exercise self control.". :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by MikeB525
(Post 1387340)
Practically, probably still years off, if ever. There's a lot of public opposition to drones and they'll probably never be used to carry pax. And even with drones, anything bigger than the little toy-sized ones will probably require a licensed commercial pilot to fly them from the ground. So now logbooks will come with a UAV column!:D
It is only a matter if time before we become obsolete for commercial passenger carrying ops. Cargo guys will get it first. 121 Trans Con will get it next to eliminate the extra crew members during cruise, then domestic flight crews will be reduced to just one pilot who does nothing but monitor the systems. Eventually, he will retire and nobody will take his place. I think the technology will remain too expensive for aircraft with less than 50 seats, but it's eventually coming to a PAX airline near you. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands