RAA is trying very hard to rescind ATP rule
 

People are working very hard to keep the cheap labor around.

Regional air carriers try to weaken rules for pilots - City & Region - The Buffalo News

video
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325637-...airline-safety

I'd like Mr. Black to produce one of these pilots that he claims works as a crop duster after college to build ATP minimums.

It's Ms. Black with a maiden name of Malarkey. I find that very fitting.

"Faye Malarkey Black testified that airlines are seeing fewer qualified pilots applying for jobs because, in part, they have spent too much “unstructured” time trying to rush to attain the 1,500 hours. She said the requirement “favors candidates who have amassed 1,500 hours over candidates who have undertaken academic pathways through tier piloting career but not amassed the 1,500 hours.”"

From what I've experienced on the line and in the training center with new hires, I totally agree with this quote. It's at the point where, if you have 1500, you can get a job at pretty much any regional. I don't think the solution is to lower the standards however. Maybe the legacies need to think about completely restructuring the regional/mainline feed structure because even with a change in the requirements there are still not enough students in school now to cover the retirements.

I don't think changing the requirements will even have that big of an effect on the pilot supply in the short term. I instructed full time for almost 2 years... Of all the students I ever had, only ONE has gone on to be a CFI himself. ONE out of scores of student pilot I taught. You can't fill seats if you don't have any pilots going through training.

What about all those folks who did structured academic training and then taught in those same environments. I'd argue that most people who are doing airline training are doing just that.

airlines and greedy management are afraid that there will be less money in their pockets....so they are starting to cry...the first lesson that i learnt in aviation is that money moves aircraft forward...so doesn't look good.

At my airline those people are few and far between amongst the new ranks. Perhaps this is because we fly old turboprops and most Riddle and UND grads are chasing the shiny jet.

Sullenberger called the industry’s concerns “spin.” He said that more pilots would be entering the system if the industry paid better, noting the $16,400 salary of the primary pilot of Flight 3407.

I LOVE THIS GUY. He doesn't need to do this, he could retire to the south seas, but he cares about those coming up behind him, just as those ahead of him, helped him.

I would make this deal with the RAA, reduce mins to 1200 hrs, but then the regionals have to add that "structure" they want so badly. 100 hrs multi-instrument on their dime. What they really want is more "structure" and get the govt. to give loans for it.

What's their defense about lack of structure when they were hiring pilots with no less than 2000 hours awhile back?

Let's be honest here, does anybody actually think the regionals are going to raise pay? Only money these clowns are paying out now is the fancy signing bonuses to get people in the door and suck them in like the rest of us. I hope I am wrong.... The regional business model needs to finally fail and it's time for the tides to turn in favor of us pilots. Fly safe!

I watched the video from the congressional hearing, (and by the way, Sully was absolutely brilliant), and it occurred to me that NO ONE asked the most important question: "WHY?"

WHY,.......... does that RAA, (and the cowardly regional airline executives hiding behind it) want congress believe that some kind of "structured educational requirement" would serve the nation's airline passengers better than requiring all airline pilots to have Airline Transport Pilot licenses? WHY???

Would anyone care to take a guess? WHY would the RAA (doing the bidding of regional airline management) want to see the 1500 hour/A.T.P. requirement replaced with some kind of heretofore undeveloped, untested, unrecognized "structural educational requirement"?

For those who are in contract negotiations, the signing bonus' are a violation of the "status quo". For those with a contract it is a violation of the contract unless the contract allows such compensation. People have tried to argue with me that the airlines are making the bonus offers before the pilot starts and therefore the contract does not apply. That is BS, there is nothing in any of the contracts that allow a company to pay certain pilots outside of the contract. Additionally, every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and using such a tactic to get around the contract would violate that.

I don't know why the unions don't want to push this issue. They need to simply file in court for an injunction to stop the companies from making these outside deals. If their lawyers are telling them that the companies can do this they need to get competent lawyers. I suspect the unions merely think its in their best interests.

There are more than enough pilots out there with 1500 hrs to fill the empty seats.. but the pilots who will accept that low pay is different. So the argument is not if there is enough pilots and they should lower the requirements.. the argument should be about paying a qualified pilot a suitable wage.

I think the problem is more complex than just Pay. At least in terms of restoring the pipeline.
Ms. Black mentioned how EAS contracts are being won by 135 carriers nowadays.

Rather than regulation to reduce ATP mins further, why not lift the 9 seat cap on 135 commuter and raise it to like 19 or 25 seats. They could use 2 pilot aircraft/fly under IFR, and hire FO's with commercial/multi creating a "seamless" pipeline from flight school to ATP once again. The 135 carriers could greatly increase capacity.
It's probably not economically feasible to fly these routes with just 9 seats in most cases unless EAS subsidized. The other problem is there are no aircraft in development in this category.
CAPE Air alone cannot produce the FO's the 121 carriers need.

From what I've seen, most graduates aren't taking crop dusting jobs, no, but the part 91 flying has diminished greatly, as evidenced the AOPA president's testimony. Part 135 is mostly single pilot as it stands. So you do have a gap (from 250-700 or so). This I believe does influence career decision making at the very outset.
Everyone says get a CFI but it is an additional expense that people don't always have. As a side note, I believe the CFI mins should be something like 500 hours anyways.

Many people on here want the regional model to implode but its such a haphazard way of solving the issue.

There are all sorts of facets to the puzzle but essentially if first year regional pay was 40k, second year 60k, and captains topped at 130k with decent work rules, and some soft pay, open time, overrides for the ambitious, the "problem" would be over. Speaking as a bench sitter, that would work for me. It seems as if regional management has the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" mentality.

Ms Black's entire testimony was a talk about apples and oranges. She tried to persuade the committee into thinking that the new regulations are making things less safe calling things the "unintended consequences" of the regulations.

She said that the regionals are now having to do a lot more training because the pilots are no longer coming from aviation schools directly, they are having to go to non commercial aviation jobs to earn hours and that is causing them to need to be "retrained". The retraining means more hours of training. Not the case. In the past all of the new hires were not low time guys. A new class would have a lot of pilots from Comair, Midwest Express, and other defunct airlines. There were also a lot of pilots going from American Eagle to other carriers for quicker upgrades. They all had a lot of experience. Now the classes are mainly new pilots to aviation. They take the same training or less than the ones of the past coming out of aviation schools with 210 hours. So yes, on the average a class takes more hours to train but if you are comparing new pilot to aviation to new pilot to aviation they required training is far less. The 1500 pilot does much better than the 210 hour pilot. Every pilot with 3000 will tell you that he was a safer pilot with 1500 hours than with 210.

The only comments that matter in the article are Chuck Schumers. The ATP bill was his baby, and as long as he is the second (soon to be the most once Harry Reid leaves) most powerful Democrat in the Senate, and the Democrats have 40 votes this isn't going anywhere.

Unless Schumer changes his mind, leaves the Senate, or Republicans get a filibuster proof majority you can forget any changes to this law.

It is because they believe they can get around paying higher wages if it is lowered. Regionals are throwing every idea against the wall to avoid permanent pay raises. Sooner or later they will get around to permanent pay increases because that is the only way to attract more people to this profession.

Higher requirements didn't stop banks from making flight loans, lower requirements won't cause banks to make loans.
Still the fiddling is ridiculous.

I think we may have reached this point. Word on the street is that Reverend Bedford and RAH will be throwing unheard of money at the F.O.'s in the latest proposal to the I.B.T. to get guys in the door. Take it with a LARGE grain of salt of course but the source is pretty reliable.

The Union isn't going to negotiate for pilots not yet on property. They are going to have to offer it to all pilots on property otherwise how would a contract pass?

The airlines are probably spending more on training pilots... Because new hires are doing a pic type ride, instead of an sic type, which is practically a joke. But that has nothing to do with how they got their hours.

The number of passengers is completely irrelevant, and these rules should apply to EAS carriers as well as 121. "We can put inexperienced pilots on 135 routes, cause they would only kill 15 passengers, not 50"!! (Not saying this would happen, but stated for argument sake...) The basis for these rules is to ensure safety to ALL passengers, not just those fortunate enough to get a flight on a 19 or 25+ seat jet. Raising the 135 cap would be just another way of getting around the current rules, and not actually solving the underlying problem.

This is all about bringing the "Euro Plan" to the States. Over there, they call it "self-funded training schemes".

I know it's a quirk of Euro English that "scheme" is used for "program", but it's really pretty ironic how it "translates" into American English.

In the Euro model, you pay your own way through training (anyone remember the PFT from the 1990s? It's back again!). You then get an MPL which essentially locks you into the carrier you go to work for, OR, you get a CMEL equivalent, do type specific training (self-funded again) and then get "placed" by a staffing company.

In either case, you are locked into the type of aircraft you train....on your own nickel.

Why do they want this here?

1) Training is almost entirely self-funded.

2) The "structural educational requirement", Euro style, practically locks you to your employer for a significant period of time. You gonna rock the boat when if you get let go, you're a low time wannabe who can really only fly FO on a specific type?

Say "buh bye" to any kind of negotiating leverage with that plan.

There are some Euro pilot forums. Check them out and see what you think of how the Euro industry treats their low time guys. It will make CFIing, towing gliders/banners, or pipe line patrol, for a year or two, while getting paid to do it, look like a walk in the park.

Nu

Just finished watching the video and Black continually tried to stick to the talking points Bedford prepared for her and Sully just blew her out of the water. Particularly in reaction to why regional airlines are still struggling with bonuses. The look on Black's face after Sen Manchin said they were probably going to lean with following the recommendations of the guy with 20,000 hours was hilarious....

Sully Rocks :)

Point taken.
121 SICs should have all the experience and capabilities Sully talks about. My question is how will they (in significant numbers) get it ?
Banner and pipeline, and other part 91 is out there but maybe at 30 % of what it needs to be? It think think this is a component of the "underlying issue" .
You can't have people with 50-100k in debt fighting tooth and nail for a couple low paying positions. It leads to pay to play and other cheapening of the profession.

How many 40-55 year old atps are gonna restart their career in flying?

If he thinks just upping the hourly rate is going to somehow get people in the door, he is a complete moron. I'm doing well where I'm at, but I wouldn't even consider jumping ship to RAH until there is serious changes to EVERYTHING else besides pay. While an hourly rate is nice, last I checked pilots still aren't covered for cancellations and pay stupid amounts for insurance. Hopefully he does this right and actually figures out if he want so stay in business he needs to treat his employees with respect.

Not to get all religious, but I often wonder what Jesus would think of all the BS this guy (and plenty of other high ranking religious folks) pulls in F'ng over his employees the way he does. Hmm...

I think the issue is deeper than inability to get loans or the expenses or even low pay. I really don't think kids want to become pilots anymore. Up to just 10 years ago being an airline pilot was considered cool. Now you are just a driver. I see the change in society, nobody cares anymore. Even the pilots themselves have been beaten down so much the last decade since 911 they just want to collect their paycheck and go home. People take flying for granted and it's not special. Also being a pilot used to be top 10 career choices now it's barely even ranked on most new polls. It was like number 48 out of 50 best jobs on a recent one.

I agree.

I also find it somewhat ironic that being an AG pilot was brought up as a way for pilots to build time to have a career... I was an active 121/135 pilot for over ten years and left jets for an AG career. Best total compensation I have ever had as a pilot and I actually look forward to going to work. It has been a nice change.

Are you actually suggesting this? First of all, most EAS routes are empty or nearly empty much of the time. I fly with folks who used to do EAS routes and they tell stories of flying airplanes with 1 passenger or doing empty round trips. So why increase capacity? It's my personal opinion that most EAS routes should be eliminated anyway, but that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

Second, making larger airplanes into 135 operations? Are you kidding me? Why not make 50-seaters into 135s? Oh, and since the CRJ700 and 900 are the same type, why not just include them? Voila, the new Beech 1900....... And pay-to-play F/Os.

No thank you. Turning 19-seaters into 9-seaters is already a large step backwards. Just because a plane has 10 fewer seats doesn't make it different to fly.

Racing to the bottom has never helped anyone except a handful at the very, very top and none of those at the top is a pilot. I can hardly think of anything worse for our profession than increasing the scope (there's that word) of a Part 135 operation to include larger aircraft. That's a very slippery slope.

Thankfully, I doubt the FAA would entertain the idea.

All pilots like Sully. He is the best advocate we have had in years for professional pilots. We are very fortunate to have him as the face of our profession.

This is true. Even our passengers don't respect us. They think that the airplanes fly themselves with the automation. I quickly correct someone that tells me that as I feel it is offensive. I bring up all the latest crashes like the Air France over Brazil, the SFO 777, etc. that crashed due to incompetant pilots who were trained to fly automation. I then bring up the point that these types of crashes are not happening in the US because our pilots have basic flying skills and can identify problems when automation fails. I also bring up that I fly airplanes built almost 3 decades ago. I let people know that our job is demanding and the main reason why the US airline industry is the safest and most efficient in the world is because of our pilots. I want people to know we are underpaid. I want more money and more respect. I will not particpiate or flatter passengers in cutting down my own job.

Agreed 100%, this is undoubtedly where the airlines are trying to go. But it should be very important to note the safety record of American-based airlines vs. Euro-based carriers. We see lower frequency of such major tragedies because our pilots aren't hired from high-school into Airbus FO. Some pilots object to the 1500 hr rule saying "oh, 1,000 extra hours of flying the pattern doesn't make airline flying safer"... But the proof is in the results: it does.

But I know we as pilots say "if they repeal the 1500 hour rule, there goes the endless supply of cheap labor". I can't help but feel I disagree with that. If they repealed the 1500 hr rule today, tomorrow airlines would hire every 250-1499 hr. wonder, and 3 days from now we'd still have no pilots. Where the airlines are mistaken is their labor shortage isn't an experience requirement problem, its a much more deep rooted labor supply problem.

As has been previously said, this career isn't being persued by kids out of high school. And until the job is desireable again, there won't be mass young'ns getting into the profession.

Rev. Bedford tried this in his last offer to his pilots. He tendered an offer to raise first-year f.o. pay to $30/hour, as I recall, but threw only pennies at the rest of the pilot group. Of course, the pilot group voted it down.

The most galling thing about it was that after the vote failed, the good reverend went around telling people that he was trying to pay his pilots more money,...... but that the pilots wouldn't accept his generous offering. Of course, he left out the part where he was only offering more money to new first officers while ****ssing on the rest of the group, simply to make it easier for him to continue to hire pilots at severely depressed wages,...... (and allowing him to collect larger and larger bonus checks and stock options).

Isn't there some commandment that says "thou shall not bear false witness", reverend?

Exactly right. Its always amazing to me that people think Major 121 is the be-all, end-all for everyone.

I should have been more clear in my original post. The money is just not for new hires but for the entire pay scale and from what I an hearing on the tom-toms it will be unheard of sums for regional FO's. Again, taken with a large grain of salt.

If you watch the video it's clear that the committee members are very sympathetic towards Sully's professional, experienced point of view and very skeptical of the RAA's.

Mzzz. Black had her rear-end handed to her throughout that hearing.

Sully was a boss. As usual. Never looked better.

Paying new and even FO's in general such low wages is appalling. It's despicable the union is blocking wage increases for 50% of the pilot group. It's also despicable the senior guys get such large wages while the junior guys get such small ones. Time to condense the pay scales significantly.