Is RAH really that bad?
01-21-2015 | 02:46 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
It still is a risky move. We have many guys here that got burned big time chasing the elusive quick upgrade. By the time word gets out about about the next big deal happening, you've already got several thousand guys ahead of you chasing the same deal. Luck and timing play a huge part of this industry. I'd say it's definately worth the risk if you're young, single and don't have too many years wasted at RAH. Three years or less here and it's almost a no brainer to jump ship for greener pastures.
01-21-2015 | 08:35 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
***rumor warning***
A slight tangent, but as far as RAH parking 175s mentioned earlier due to lack of pilots; A little birdy tells me that the regionals are starting to gain leverage through their onslaught of lobbying the FAA. Sorta like Great Lakes did to get lower hour pilots. Now I'm not saying the regionals are all gonna pull out seats and go part 135, but it seems the FAA is softening to the idea of hour reductions in exchange for more sims, more IOE, more check rides and LOFTs...Basically a regional sets up its own low time pilot seasoning syllabus.
A slight tangent, but as far as RAH parking 175s mentioned earlier due to lack of pilots; A little birdy tells me that the regionals are starting to gain leverage through their onslaught of lobbying the FAA. Sorta like Great Lakes did to get lower hour pilots. Now I'm not saying the regionals are all gonna pull out seats and go part 135, but it seems the FAA is softening to the idea of hour reductions in exchange for more sims, more IOE, more check rides and LOFTs...Basically a regional sets up its own low time pilot seasoning syllabus.
01-21-2015 | 08:42 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
The FAA cannot change the minimums as it isn't a regulation it is a law. Its called the Aviation Saftey Enhancement Act. FAA cannot change a law. Congress must vote to repeal the law to change the rules.
01-21-2015 | 08:45 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 297
From: 737 FO
The minimums are not stated in the law, only the requirement for poth pilots to hold an ATP. I still don't think the mins are going to change anytime soon. Nor should they.
01-22-2015 | 04:35 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Good point. I guess you are right and the FAA could completely remove flight requirements for restricted ATP or something but like you said, not likely nor should it be done.
01-22-2015 | 04:43 AM
#77
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Wet behind the ear pis$ ant FO
01-22-2015 | 05:25 AM
#78
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Yep, that the FAA determines what is required for an ATP is the crux of the matter. Keep an ear to the ground my friends.
01-22-2015 | 06:14 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: E175
Per the interview I had with RAH last week, they are offering a 10k sign on bonus for 145 training with the understanding that you will probably only be flying the 145 until next summer and then move you to the Ejet.[/QUOTE]
I have no doubt they would like to staff the 145s, but they can't apparently. I know they have 160 ish pilots less then last year at this time, and more planes.
I have no doubt they would like to staff the 145s, but they can't apparently. I know they have 160 ish pilots less then last year at this time, and more planes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
