Well said. Whenever I fly with someone who criticizes another pilot's skill I know I have a long trip in front of me. Amazing how these guys are always the ones who forget to select nav and are calling for flaps above speed and on and on.:roll eyes:

That is true, I tell everybody I am paying off more flying debt by not flying.
The 3 things you mentioned apply to any degree/vocation.

You're absolutely correct; the experience riding on a regional is vastly different. For example, on every Skywest flight I have ever ridden on, the FAs have been super-friendly and courteous. As opposed to every flight on UAL, in which I've felt (even once in business class, transpac) like an unwelcome intruder.

See how silly generalizations are?

Agree with you 100 % mainline flight attendants on UAL are soo damn unfriendly. To each his own i guess.

Yes, the Coast Guard is the smallest branch of the Armed Services. Besides SAR, chasing druggies and saving lost penguins, we serve under the Navy during times of war. CG pilots go through Navy Flight Training alongside Navy/Marine SNA's and are winged as Naval/CG Aviators. Many have given their lives in the service of their country..2 were friends of mine who were killed in helo mishaps.

I think the "guard" the previous poster was referring to was the "National Guard"..but I don't think any of them would consider themselves as "fun boys" while getting shot at over in the sandbox.

Don't want to join this fight, just wanted to answer your "serious" question.

FWIW, had to JS coming back from a funeral on a SW CRJ7..the crew was very gracious to let me sit up with them so my family could make it home and I was impressed with their professionalism and standardization with our cockpit procedures at DL. Thanks again for the ride, guys, if you're reading this!

It actually is the same quality and same standard governed by the FAA. We do the same thing as you, in fact it's a lot tougher.

Back in the day, at DAL, you couldn't budge the guys off the 440.

The minimum standards may be the same but in practice major airlines aren't operating at the minimum standards.

Ok what does that mean exactly? You get crew meals?

yes, that is what it means.

Perhaps mainline should reconsider hiring any regional pilots?

I do think it is interesting though, that after the majors got rid of the military style CRM structure, the accident rate basically dropped to zero.

I must agree that the majors probably go beyond the call of duty with your training but it doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot if anything it just makes your life easier during training. The regionals have good training and if anything it makes it harder on the pilot. Most regional pilots are hard workers with tremendous experience in and out of busy airports etc. High quality I say. Most I have flown with put me to shame with knowledge and experience. I would have no problem putting my family on any regional aircraft. The bible talks about taking the log out of your eye before you see the twig in others. I have apply this as well.

What type of military brethren
1. CFI’s who join as WO to get 750 and become RJ FO’s
2. CFI’s who become commissioned officer’ s and retired there
3. John Q public who get a flight slot in guard, reserve or active duty without have ever touching an airplane and either retired there or didn’t
4. RJ FO’s who sign up to wait out seniority
5. RJ pilots who were laid off and didn’t want to start over
6. People who were born better and PI$$ excellence like you sound
Comparing an all civilian career to a civilian+military career is not the same as comparing civilian to all military in only public aircraft career.

Many, many former students of mine are now both regional and mainline pilots. (I've been around for a while.) To a man (and a woman), the mainline pilots all tell me that the only difference between regional operations and mainline operations is the compensation and the general QOL/ morale.

I also fail to see the difference between a CRJ-900 operating SFO-ORD nonstop, vs. a 132-seat mainline A318 flying the same exact route. (Aside from the Airbus's larger passenger capacity.) You're flying the same altitudes, same airspeeds, dealing with the same weather conditions, and operating under the same regulations. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the dramatic difference that supposedly requires all mainline pilots to be Chuck Yeager, while the regional guys are happy just to find the airport.

And if your assertion were true, it would follow that the rate of accidents, incidents, and stupid pilot tricks worthy of CNN coverage would be far higher for regionals than for mainline aircraft. Do you have the data to back up your claim? If so, I'm sure we'd all be interested to see it. A check of airline accident records in the US, over the past ten years, reveals the following accidents that took place in US airspace by US-operated carriers. (It does not include incidents that resulted in no injuries, such as the NWA crew that overflew their destination airport by 150nm a few years back. It also does not include incidents that were clearly due to mechanical failure and were no fault of the crew.)

Regional: Colgan 3407, Comair 5191, and Pinnacle 3701.

Mainline: SWA 1248, SWA 345, UPS 1354, AA 331, CAL 1404.

Obviously this isn't a scientific list, and it only goes back ten years from today. But with regional airlines operating something like 50% of all 121 departures (again, not a precise figure), one would expect to find far more regional airline incidents than mainline. This does not appear to be the case.

Always willing to be educated and told that I'm wrong...however, I'd like to see the data.

Thanks for the info on the Guard. Much respect for anyone who serves this country. Should not have made my comment about the guard. Just trying to take a jab at the 1 percenter on this forum that we all have flying at our company/branch.

My reasoning is simple. Colgan 3407.

Seriously? The actions of one crew somehow represent the competence of tens of thousands of pilots?

Sure, 3407 was an astonishing display of lethal incompetence. But there have been plenty of gross failures of airmanship at the mainline level. Plenty. I noticed that 3 of the mainline accidents involved SWA aircraft landing. Would you conclue that all SWA pilots therefore aren't qualified to land their aircraft?

Good post. Needed to be said.

Ah, so then UPS didn't crash a plane and kill a crew recently.

Are ya‘ll really measuring airline performance based on the ability to not crash. Is a post solo student as capable as a CFI because they both don’t have a crash under their belt? If a crash is a really a series of events that were chained together on one trip wouldn’t you want to determine how frequent these same events occurred separately not causing a crash. Would you not also want to measure go-arounds caused by pilot error or runway incursions, or 360 on final for energy mgmt.
There are two different points being made here:
1 The mainline/regional equipment is harder/easier to fly.
Well, mainline pilots are managing more energy
2 The overall operations are equal
Mainline generates the standard and regional matches it. I.e. United introduced CRM as a result of a crash. Colgan merged, went out of business, and washed its name as a result of a crash.

My comments have nothing to do with the flying or crew member flying experience. It's everything about that crash outside of flying that concerns me.

-Pilots sleeping in crew rooms
-Pilots making so little money ($15,000 for the FO) can't afford a hotel
-Training and failed checkride culture at the company
-That it required incredible lobbying efforts on behalf of families to get regional airlines where they are at now, and who knows for how long

Outside of Colgan
-Who knows what the condition of regional airlines maintenance departments are in, we all just assume its sound. There will be a shortage of mechanics coming up too soon if not already.

Am I supposed to agree that everything is better now? No way. In the 90's the FAA mandated that all airlines would now be under the same safety umbrella by requiring regional airlines to move away from 135. Some airlines are heading back that way. I just cannot get on board with the notion that somehow there is one level of safety between regional and major airlines.

Major airlines will continue to draw the best candidates from the regionals. That can only mean the most experienced crews fly at the majors while less experienced crews fly for the regionals. I'm not suggesting a course of action or saying this is a problem, just an argument why major airlines are operating higher than the minimum standards. There is no getting around the fact that regional airlines are a training ground for major airlines. One has to be comfortable with that fact.

No worries...Semper Paratus!

You made some excellent points in your post. This one, in my opinion, is not one of them.
Members have been saying here that many regional FO's have been getting hired by majors while captains get passed over.
Couple that with the fact that due to the regional industry's erratic and arguably less stable nature you might find 25 year comair captains amongst the ranks and FO's waiting a decade to upgrade in some stagnated/furlough-prone companies. I don't think that supports your generalization.

They are hiring FOs, particularly if the major the FO is going to is the customer of that regional. They know if they take FOs, their regional supplier will only have to replace that FO. If they take a captain, their regional supplier will need to replace that captain AND an FO.

So, take a captain=need to find 2 more pilots. Just take and FO and only need to replace 1.

So, don't fool yourself that they're only taking the most experienced from regionals. It makes no math/staffing sense.

mesasbah,


Do you really think the majors just chose the "military style" CRM, then one day chose the current standard? You need to learn some aviation history before spouting off. Hint: it wasn't a choice; what you call "military style" CRM was the way cockpits were run for decades regardless of the crew background. As we're operating rooms, bridges on ships, civil and miltary and a host of other crew-based teams. TheY're all learning from years of research on human factors.

GF

The only places that seem to be picking up a lot of F/O's are the lower tier majors that are seeing new hires/guys on the bottom of the list leaving for the legacies (jetBlue, Spirit, Allegiant, Virgin America, etc). In a way they are picking guys up that don't mind getting "stuck" so to speak. Absolutely great opportunity for them.

In no way does your math make sense. If one CA leaves they upgrade one F/O, and hire an F/O. There is a "training" bubble" of sorts but it doesn't necessitate hiring another pilot, certainly not a 1:1 ratio.

If what you said is true, why did my new hire class have only CA's, and half were from their regional carriers? And that number doesn't include any flows.