Mike Enzi's attempts to repeal the ATP Law
 

Enzi's bill | The Ranger, Riverton and Lander, Wyoming Daily Newspaper

Give U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming a set of golden pilot's wings for recognizing the potentially catastrophic problem facing Wyoming's small airports and trying to do something about it.
Enzi has introduced a bill in Congress which would keep automatic federal funding cuts from kicking in at airports for failing to reach the 10,000-passenger mark last year.

Riverton Regional Airport, the only airport in Fremont County with airline service, is one such field. Just a couple of years ago, Riverton Regional Airport boarded more than 13,000 passengers. Then a new federal regulation changed the experience requirements for co-pilots on all airline flights with 10 passengers or more. It cut the Great Lakes Airlines pilot force by at least one third, and the small airline that counts on maximum efficiency to make ends meet suddenly could not staff its full flight schedule in compliance with federal regulations. Service was abandoned at some airports (Sheridan), other airports "fired" Great Lakes Airlines (Rock Springs), and the airports continuing to be served by the carrier saw a demoralizing erosion of service.
Last year, Riverton Regional Airport only boarded about half as many passengers as it had the year before, virtually all because of the pilot shortage created by the Federal Aviation Administration's ruling.
Enzi's bill is a sensible one. It permits the 2013 boarding figures for airports to be used as the qualification basis for the $1 million annual federal grant for small airports. This is important money for airports that often rely on it to make basic infrastructure improvements that benefit the air traveling public.

The bill also would permit the 2013 boarding figures to remain the qualifying standard for several years to come, buying time for the airports to work out new service solutions while, hoping against hope, that the FAA regulation which is causing this calamity might be re-examined and modified, or even repealed.

As Enzi and others familiar with the situation have pointed out, the rule change has nothing to do with Great Lakes Airlines, Wyoming, or, as a matter fact, the cockpit experience of co-pilots. It came about as a knee-jerk response to a plane crash in the state of New York some years ago. Both pilots in that crash were experienced at or beyond the level now required of small airlines everywhere.

Had a junior pilot with little seat time actually been to blame for the crash, then the justification for the new rule would be easier to swallow. As it is, however, Wyoming residents frustrated in the extreme by the service decline have more reason to dislike non-elected bureaucrats from federal agencies who hand out regulations with little thought to the real-life consequences.

It is unclear whether or when Enzi's bill might pass Congress. Legislators from big states with big airports don't care much about the problems of Riverton or Sheridan, or similar airports in other sparsely populated states out west. There simply aren't enough voters affected for them to worry about. But Enzi is an experienced and respected legislator, a committee chairman recognized universally as a pragmatic and sensible guy who doesn't sponsor legislation on a whim. With Republicans now in the majority in the Senate, this bill should be taken seriously.

If it could be passed, it would be a good stopgap while Wyoming figures out a longer-term solution. Riverton Regional Airport is hard at work on that, and having the million dollars in federal money still available will make it easier for us to attract a different airline for service here, or, possibly, to create a situation under which Great Lakes Airlines could continue to serve -- but more reliably.

All Fremont County ought to thank Sen. Mike Enzi for his recognition of and responsiveness to this problem. He has flown into too many Wyoming airports not to recognize the importance of air service to small cities where the nearest metro airport is six hours away. With effort now being made locally and nationally, we might stand a chance.

Okay, let me get this straight...

"I live in a tiny little town that can barely produce 30 passengers per day on a good year, and last year only about half that number. I'll gladly accept federal money to subsidize my jerkwater* town's airport. But how dare those folks who dole out the money establish regulations that could negatively impact me!"


*Sorry for the cross transportation metaphor... especially since Riverton, not being on any major rail routes, wouldn't even qualify as a jerkwater town.

So, they're anti-regulation. But ... pro-subsidy.:rolleyes:

I didn't see anything about a repeal. Just reducing the amount of pax needed to get the subsidy.

Welcome to the modern Republican Party. Against handouts unless they're the ones getting the money..

Right. And the dems support handouts and subsidies for both sides. Face palm.

I was in a airport last year that GL services. I said to the airport MGR its criminal what they pay pilots at GL he said "they gotta start somewhere!" I said sub minimum wage is not the place. I feel no sympathy for them (GL) they are like meth heads addicted to the sub par wages and are doing everything they can to no pay for the product.

Agreed on everything said in this thread. When can we get rid of EAS and Amtrak?

Once you legislate a handout, good luck ever taking it away. Have you ever tried to take a bottle from a dependent hungry infant? They scream bloody murder until they get it back. Voting adults who are the beneficiary of handouts they've come to rely on are no different. Only difference is the adults are capable of finding an alternate solution...kind of.

What Enzi fails to address is the fact that people are no longer willing to invest upwards of $100,000 to get into this career and make $18-$24000 a year to start when they can invest the same amount of money in another profession and make significantly more money to start and over the lifetime of their career. Until compensation improves to the point that putting money into this career becomes a smart investment, this will never get better.

The bill also would permit the 2013 boarding figures to remain the qualifying standard for several years to come, buying time for the airports to work out new service solutions while, hoping against hope, that the FAA regulation which is causing this calamity might be re-examined and modified, or even repealed.

This is the start. Wait until they try to sneak it into legislation later this year.

1500 hr rule was not typical knee jerk reaction either. The families of Colgan victims lobbied hard and hounded congressmen to pass that bill. They also continue to put pressure on those who would renege--unlike ALPA.

Yes. The colgan families are not going to just let this go, and neither are they going to forget.

Riiiiiight because we need another reason to keep Great Mistakes alive.

Dude don't be dragging politics into this.

Go post over in JetCareers if you want to get into a left vs right scuffle. They're all about that.

This is true. It was one thing to take out a loan you never intended to pay back (most of the DCI Academy, Gulfstream pilots). Now banks don't give loans as easily for flight training. The money has to come from somewhere. It's a lot harder to make the dumb investment when the bank forces the pilot in training to come up with the money some other way.

Don't discount one huge pot of money for flight training. Tons of ex mil use GI bills to finance flight training while getting degrees. I know one particular university whose flight program was majority ex mil using GI bills and foreign students whose government footed the bill. Not very many average Joe Schmoe college kids whose parents were paying for everything. Most of those guys quit after they realized it was not fun having to work somewhat hard to get ratings at an astronomical cost, with a dismal ROI, and having to take classes at the same time. Don't know if that is representative of the larger aviation university population or not.

On a related note, perhaps someone should fill them in on how the FAA is permitting companies to use disciplinary action against pilots who refuse 2 hour 117 extensions. Sadly, they might be more effective than the unions.

When I got the GI bill, it was $18000, about half what a Comm MEL ticket cost, and it didnt cover anything until one got his private. Maybe things are different now, but for me, the GI bill assisted me getting my tickets; I still had to come up with the other half plus room, board, etc.

(That $18,000 worked out to about 3k per year of service: not exactly a windfall.)

Montgomery GI Bill is a different story. If you use the post 9/11 GI bill, you can use it for straight up flight training at a 141 school, for all ratings after the PPL. That's capped at $10k per year and not a good use of a GI Bill.

What I saw people doing is going to an aviation university, pursuing a professional pilot degree, and getting both tuition and flight labs paid for, in full, and receiving BAH at the e5 rate on top of that, and a book stipend. The "flight training" costs are part of the degree and not considered vocational, so there is no cap other than the cost of what is in the syllabus. That, my friend, is a windfall, depending on how they set it up. You can make it several hundred thousand dollars if you are efficient and go to a yellow ribbon school. If you already have a degree, and you enroll to get another bachelors in the professional pilot program and take nothing but flight labs, you don't burn much GI bill and they pay a lot for the few credit hours you take. I still have plenty of GI Bill left over to go get an MBA when this aviation career craps on me. And I still have over $50k in my flight account I have to give back to the VA bc my ratings were add-ons and I already had a lot of time, so I ripped thru them and didn't use that much. I could have got sea plane, glider/airplane/helo CFI and ATP, a bunch of joyrides, all paid for by the GI bill, and still would have had enough for a 2 year MBA. There are definitely better ways to use it now than when you did it, but it took some digging and a lucky assignment near one of these schools fornme to find out its true potential.

Shack. Let's drink beer. Filler if necessary.

Great mistakes will fold in 3 months if they are lucky. Where have you been :confused:

What Sen. Enzi is missing, as well as the FAA, is that Great Lakes has already effectively repealed the 1500 hour rule.. by operating under the part 135 certificate, Lakes should be able to hire all the pilots they could want. Lakes should not see a degration of service because of the 1500 hour rule because the 1500 hour rule no longer applies to them or their Riverton service. So maybe, just maybe, Enzi should stick to real republican values and stand by the economic laws of capitalism.

I'm all for if they want to redefine the number of enplanements to keep funding or service at airports that need them, but to pressure the FAA to reevaluate its 1500 hour rule, for lakes, which is part 135, is udder insanity. Lakes is actually living proof that even if we eliminated the 1500 hour rule, we'd hire a small handful of 500-1499hr guys and then in a year we'd be right back where we are today.

Lakes isn't suffering some mythical pilot shortage because the FAA is cutting off their source of labor, lakes is suffering because there are so few young people who desire the job of being an airline pilot anymore. Lakes is an example of a repealed 1500 hour rule that still won't save the industry. Until the job becomes desireable again, Lakes and other regionals will continue to suffer staffing issues. This is basic supply-demand, the part 135 exemption that lakes got, and its continued abysmal service record, only shows that this republican should stand by supply-demand economics. This, believe it or not, isn't the governments fault.

I thought it was incredible they got the FAA to sign off on the 135 exemption. Goes to show how flexible the FAA can be with airlines when they want to be.

Agreed.. I just find it funny a senator would still demand they "reevaluate" the 1500 hour rule for an airline it doesn't apply to anyway..

Lakes has 25 captains and are losing 7 a month to other airlines. They are still flying 121. 135 only applies to fo's. I have a friend there hoping he makes it to 1500 before they fold. He's at 1300 now...Lakes is circling the drain. If they pull out of their predicament i will be in shock.

Republicans as hungry infants addicted to handouts.
Well played, FaceBiten, well played.....

I think republicans is the wrong word there.

Essential Air Service

My favorite oxymoron.

EAS=Welfare air. Some that receive the EAS then turn around and use the subsidy to unfairly lower prices on the competitive non EAS routes. Operators that get a large percentage of revenue from it, would not last long if it went away. Gotta love Crony capitalism....

Quite a bit of your "Welfare Air" goes to move those miserable people who grow your food. Farm and rural folk pay money in the form of taxes, until the air transportation industry pays for every segment of their business, via fees and taxes, those "welfare air" folks get a shot at the transportation industry they support via taxes.

[mod note]

Steer clear of purely red vs. blue controversy, please.

They insisted that Great Lakes configure their aircraft like any other P135 operator.

It was GL that tried to get around actually removing their seats. The FAA stood firm that if they wanted to act like a P135 carrier that they BECOME a P135 carrier (at least on those specificed routes)

Their aircraft still flying P121 lines fly under those the appropriate rules are they not?

Well I do not get much inside data from there, but what you say sounds correct from what people say here about it.

The three main problems I have with it are

(1) it's is none other than a workaround of FAA rules (the ATP Rule) which are specifically intended to increase regional airline safety.
(2) the paying passengers do not know what is going on and probably would not like this if they did know what it means for them, and
(3) if the CA goes kaput you have a 250 (500?) hour wonder in charge of a dozen paying passengers in a Beech 1900 going 250kts in potentially bad weather with no certified gps or even a working autopilot.

Is it legal? Apparently. Is it safe? There is reason to doubt and/or debate that.

Can you explain this about EAS, I thought the taxes on the airline tickets pay for the govt. svcs such as airport fees and atc. Also, couldn't the farm folks drive to a bigger city to get service? I can think of a few places that got EAS and are within 2-3 hrs drive of a city with airline service.

I have no insider information either.
I'm only repeating what has been shared on the many GLA threads that you and I have both read.

All of those concerns are true - but no different than they are from any other P135 carrier. Some of those operating single pilot even I thought.

As much as some might not like them -- there are slightly different rules for the two. If GLA operates under the P135 like any other operator would - then it would actually be unfair to the business to NOT let them convert part of their certificate

I do not know what the differences between 121 and 135 passenger ops are. Good question for someone who does know. I have 121 passenger experience and 135 cargo experience, which is not enough to go on.

Having a airline industry that serves all taxpayers was the intent of EAS. There are plenty of reasons to have a truly national transportation system. More than a few of our strategic military bases are truly, out in the middle of nowhere. Airline taxes contribute, but in no way pay for the entire structure as it sits. Everybody chips in on the air transportation thing, and as such a 2-3 or more hour drive to take your loved one for chemotherapy might be a little too much.

You don't need to "invest" $100,000+ to get into this career. I paid around $10K for my private, instrument, commercial and multiengine ratings and was at a major 5 years later.

$10,000 for all of those ratings? You must have had some sweet connections. Even if you figure you did everything for $85/hour, 250 hours of flight time at that rate is over $20,000. I'm not saying it's impossible, but unless you know a guy or have some type of scholarship.....yeah that's impossible.