The difference is the guy riding in the back of the Gulfstream has a direct say in how old the the guys ridding in the front are. The folks riding in the back of 737 don't have a say and don't get to interview their pilot. The government says on their behalf.

Pilots always suffer after a crash. That's the way we're punished. First the PRIA from that Eagle crash, then the failed checkride backlash from Colgan. What's next?

Not on a fractional.

Imagine if the current hiring practices (at a few carriers) were brought to light.

Yes, the guy who pays 7.5 million for 1/8 share of a Gulfstream and 5k and hour gets as much say as the traveling public.

Remove the hourly requirements and make the ATP provisional on certain circumstances based in experience. Example: With 300 hours you can get provisional ATP but you need to be run through a more intense training program double the sims and double the OE. This will make airlines more careful as to who they hire and the increased vetting will improve the quality if the pilot candidates who are given the opportunity to enter the Airlines training program.

This differences in performance between these two examples is negligible and irrelevant. This is simply another example of the interests of big business trumping safety in this industry. The 1500 hour rule if reduced to say 750 won't solve the shortage, because it isn't the core cause. It might allow regionals to kick the can down the road another year or two, but the core cause is the disparity of economic reward for resources invested (both time and money) and the corresponding lack of interest in being piñata for unsympathetic maximum profit oriented capitalist businesses when there are more financially rewarding career options that require a fraction of the investment.

I'm sure the fix is in and then until the next accident related to training and experience occurs and more human hamburger is presented to the corrupt fat cats in D.C., it will remain.

I'm sure the pilots now benefiting from Age 60 & age 65 would love that. They got theirs because of Age 60. Why stop now? :rolleyes:

Also, how does an airline staff itself with no mandatory retirement age?

This.


There is a gap, whether you want to believe it or not. As a regional pilot, we're constantly fed the management line of "you're just not qualified for a mainline job. You're not good enough." Then somehow, simultaneously, we're supposed to believe that there's one level of safety. Either I'm just as good as my mainline counterparts or I'm not. If I am, I should be paid appropriately. If I'm not, then I'm not as safe. It's simple.

I have a few thoughts on these comments.

1) There is ABSOLUTELY a difference between a 70 year old pilot and a 50 year old pilot. Medical studies absolutely show that mental acuity declines as you age.

2) Reducing the experience requirements is not about the pilot shortage. It is a justification to continue to pay "intern" wages to pilots. They are getting very close to losing the battle to labor. A4A has a very big interest in ensuring this doesn't happen because otherwise the either have to pick up their own feed (more $$) or pay more for outsourced labor (more $$). Either way, it's a lose/lose for them.

3) No matter what anyone tells you, the same pilot with 300 hours vs a pilot with 3000 hours will be a much better pilot in the latter scenario. Experience does matter. I learned more about aviation and flying after 500 total time than I did in the first 500 hours.