Yea you're right. They were unemployed, in school, with something like 250k in student loans.

 

Uh. Exactly...

..In school. That's the keywords brah.

 

Hahahah keywords for what? You've yet to actually make a point, only guess about employment status. I can't read your mind!

 

Would you care to provide even one example of how the public perceiving airline pilots as professionals has served to enhance, or even help to enhance, pay and quality of life for airline pilots in the last few decades?

I can't think of a single one...in fact, the two major changes (age 65 and 117) came to pass, at least to a certain extent, as the result of somewhat negative public perception.

This fight is not going to be won in the USA Today. It will be won in courtrooms, at the negotiating table and in the halls of Congress; which is full of people who understand that political survival involves avoiding land mines and getting the negatives up on their opponent.

Now, I'm not advocating that we all start running around unshaved with our shirts untucked, top button undone and use the word "dude" during PA announcements...in fact, I think that personal appearance and conduct are extremely important.

The point is that the article's author speaks for no one but himself, so I fail to see any damage caused by the profession as the result of it's being published. However, if he had written "all pilots are experienced and things are super-safe," you can bet your last dollar that lobbyist for the RAA would have forwarded it to the chiefs of staff of every congressman on the commerce committee and a whole bunch of others.

As it's written, it helps to stymie the movement to repeal of the 1500 hour rule, which is causing, at the bare minimum, my company to experience serious staffing shortages and finally forced them, after EIGHT YEARS to finally take contract negotiations seriously.

...so I'm all for it.

 

I couldn't agree more.

I do, however, believe in the power of public perception. It's just that public perception must be played based on powerful emotional responses such as fear and shock. Generally when things are going smoothly (Joe public gets from point A to B reliably and consistently) there is very little concern and public perception is irrelevant. When there's a serious tragedy suddenly everyone jumps in and plays on the powerful emotional response that results when lots of people die suddenly and at once. Everyone is looking to blame someone and that's unfortunately when change can be implemented.

The trick is to create positive change. I believe the increased hiring and rest rules were a positive change for the profession and for safety. The only pilots (excuse me..."real pilots") who may disagree are those who are under 1500 hours and are frustrated building time because they're impatient....the situations created by these rules benefit them as well but they just can't see it yet...they will.

In the past it was unheard of for airlines to hire mass groups of pilots under 1500 hours anyway so build your time and be patient....in the end you will be better off.

BB will have the press believe that all sub 1500 hour pilots are banner towing in Miami Beach losing those finely crafted airline piloting skills they picked up in a PA28. The fact is there are plenty of good jobs for sub 1500 hour pilots if they are committed and competitive.

The RAA is certainly playing to public perception...they have large PR and lobbying firms working on pressuring Congress to roll back the regulations so they can pay pilots less money. They even go so far as to post in these and other online forums to try to direct or divert conversations between real pilots. Their problem is they have a weak hand that even throwing massive amounts of money probably won't fix...but they keep trying waiting for that opportunity. Their fear card is cancelled flights...our fear card is sudden and horrible death.

Public perception reacts to shock and awe...so if anything we need more articles like this...not less. This is why rags such as the NYDN get circulation...it scares people.

There likely will be another tragedy where this issue is played out again. It's unfortunate but true.

 

What's all the arguing about here with this topic? Regional pilots are less experienced as a group. Certain subjective conclusions are being drawn as a result by various people. But none of that matters so long as flying remains cheap, the public doesn't care then.

The argument is really no different than a bunch of regional pilots who don't like their pay at $20,000 per year, but yet they still come in droves because they want to fly a shiny jet.

 

I agree that we need to keep the RAA from repealing the 1500 hour rule. FAR117 was a good thing for pilots and a step in the right direction. I also agree that public perception is vitally important in making meaningful change. I don't, however, think it is prudent to call regional airlines unsafe and scare the general public out of flying at all.

First, this isn't war. I don't think shock and awe applies even a little here. Second, the public is going to read these "articles" and go to their congressmen who are going to go to the FAA and ask why they aren't ensuring safety. They are going to the RAA and going to ask why they aren't safe. What do you think their response is going to be? "We are confident based on empirical evidence of a reduction of incidents over the x amount of years that the 1500 hour requirement is adequate." Then the RAA is going to point their fingers at pilot unions and accuse us of fear mongering. You lose the trust and respect of the public and congress and you lose the benefit of the doubt. Then there is no way we can have a voice in affecting real change.

 

You are thinking to hard about this, the public doesn't care so long as airfares are cheap.

 

This. As long as fares are cheap, Joe Public is happy and so is Congress. I hate to say it, but with the exception of 9/11 most people see an air tragedy on the news, think to themselves, "That's too bad," then go on about their day. Pilot pay never even enters into their thought process. And if it did, it's not like they'd call their Senator and say, "You know, we should really look into a minimum wage for pilots." As long as the RAA can say some Delta pilots make $200k, Joe Public will probably just get the impression we're greedy for wanting more. Just yesterday Joe Public couldn't even understand that I wasn't a U.S. Airways pilot since that's what was painted on the plane.

I think our only real shot at meaningful change is getting out of the Railway Labor Act. But Joe Public and Congress would hate that because fares would go up.

 

How about Congress mandating that all code share airlines have their own paint scheme and not that of their major partners.