I couldn't agree more. I've been in this industry for over 20 years. This is one of the most demanding jobs I've had. Not only because of long legs and remote locations all over the world, which many you do not see repetitively. But like others have said, you get very little hands on time each month of flying, actual landing and taking off.

The lower experience levels coming in, and high going out is a recipe for disaster. We've already had several hard landings last year.

Re: FL West Certificate.... They put out a press release last year announcing the certificate was sold. It didn't say who it was sold to...

yes this too...albeit quite exaggerated....."Army".....sheeeeesh.

(and I hope that rational thinking people would know that to recklessly spout off on a public forum that there are "pilots predicting a crash" is also irresponsible. It just serves as media fodder and thinking into the future it may serve as a tool to allow the feds into the cockpit; i.e., cameras.

Have faith in the training. To publicly criticize a 1500 hr pilot regardless of the operation is forgetting from where we all originated. I think it is FAR more dangerous to scud run single pilot in a piper lance in Central Valley CA than fly a two man crew in any equipment anytime!

Besides, it's 2000TT or 1500TT with a sic/pic turbojet rating.

How quickly you've all forgotten that you were all once rookies at intl. flying. The only difference is that this hiring environment is different and we want a contract so people are obviously dumbfounded why the company won't come to the table. The equipment is better than 20 years ago when guys were flying the classic to the same places we go today. At one point it was a rookie in the right seat.....just like today....the microscope is just a lot bigger.

Training will never replace aviation experiential maturity. It will be great the day it does but it never has.

...and never will. So there in lies the conundrum. What would you have the company do? Raise the mins? If they do what will change?....will those that have 10,000 at the regionals somehow become more qualified to fly intl.? What do you expect these CA's do....not fly with new hires?

Vigilance is the key...if you find yourself in a position where you have a new hire at your side shouldn't we take it upon ourselves to increase safety through awareness. Isn't that the cornerstone of CRM TEM? Complaining on a web board about predicting accidents won't stop the company from hiring pilots with zero intl. experience nor will it make them raise the mins.

The same could be said for those pilots hired at legacies with no CA time.....does it decrease safety? Increase risk? There are perhaps those that would argue that point but it won't stop legacies from hiring low time pilots. So what is the difference between a legacy airline hiring a pilot with no CA time vs Atlas hiring a pilot with no intl. time? How do we measure risk or say that "because I am taking more risk I should be paid more"?! That may be true but regardless of the level of risk that we take, it is what we do because it all falls under of the purview of CRM TEM principles of risk that we are trained to accept, mitigate and execute......and no amount of pay is going to change the level of risk that we take.

Some people have a hard time understanding the value of experience, especially in aviation, because it often time does not become evident until you have it and can look back with some degree of knowledge. Higher pay and work rules attracts individuals that are better suited for a job that involves a substantial amount of decision making that is rooted in years of incremental education and experience operating aircraft commensurate with that time.

Just cause you can fly an ILS...while a required skill, means very little. Your example implies that a candidate at a legacy with no CA time is equal to a minimum time new hire about to embark on a 747 internationally. I understand what your trying to explain but this example fails to acknowledge the years of experience said pilot has been flying before getting to that position, albeit in a very controlled domestic passenger environment.

Now put your self in the shoes of that captain flying internationally with Excellent CRM and TEM skills. You have 3 inexperienced FO'S with you (on the 747 we don't operate with just 2 pilots very often). You are about to depart on a 14 hour flight that includes complex weather, oceanic procedures, sensitive cargo considerations, and perhaps a slightly altered operating envelope restriction due to a recently issued bulletin for the aircraft (a very average day, btw). At what point in that flight do you as a Vigilant CA go to sleep. At what point do you comfortably take your crew rest with a sufficient degree of confidence that your aircraft and crew will not cause damage/injury to someone or worst of all get violated and have your license endangered [slight sarcasm....very slight].

There's a reason you don't give a 15yr old with a restricted license the keys to an 18-wheeler full of cargo on an icy road. Will he/she be capable of starting the engine and driving off...probably. The liability, however, is not as tangible and the cost, is immeasurable when human lives are at stake.

My apologies....one more to your original question....

Yes. If they were a normal airline, they would offer adequate compensation and be able to hire those that have acquired incremental experience leading up to this level to limit the level of risk that already exists at this operation(...another form of TEM, btw)

If the opposite were true, then all the airlines would drop all minimum requirements and hire the cheapest available graduate directly from school.

The reason that legacy airlines don't currently hire ab-initio is because they can still poach what resources are left. That trend is changing however.

But more to the point, raising pay rates at Atlas may attract and retain highly qualified pilots but not necessarily those with the requisite qualifications. There are so few pilots out there with the flying experience that we do. I can only think that the military trains pilots to do this kind of flying and that pool is all but exhausted. My point is this: Even if Atlas raised pay to attract let's say a slew of legacy pilots how many of them would have intl. experience to the places that we go? Probably very few considering the routes that legacy airlines fly. So we are back at square one....what is the solution? The solution lies with us as professional pilots to remain vigilant. It is our reality and our profession. We chose it. Complaining that pay rates are low and therefore not attracting intl. pilots is missing the point.


...and btw, TEM is a cockpit/flight operations concept...not a hiring philosophy.

You make it seem like the last 250 pilots hired here are the dregs of society....give them some credit. I AGREE that nothing can compare to a lifetime of experience....but pay won't automatically attract those with a lifetime of experience. In all likelihood, those with the lifetime of experience are going to stay parked where they are currently sitting.


Yes.....a legacy candidate with no CA time will face just as many challenges as a new hire here would with respect to a few differences. A 14hr flight and an ops bulletin saying "this switch should be on prior to flight" is not hard to comprehend. Are there no dmi's or ops bulletins on the 747's at other carriers?

I get what you are trying to say but in a "very controlled passenger domestic environment the WX is just as extreme as anywhere and with regards to sensitive cargo......are passengers not sensitive cargo? And what is so hard about plotting? and radio calls? So what you are saying is that legacy pilots have learners permits and we mighty Atlas pilots are the semi drivers?!!!.............(withdrawn).

I am not taking anything away from our plight to continue to fight for better work rules and pay rates but it is frustrating that guys on this forum seem to exaggerate to such an extent to make it seem that we do a job SOOOOOOOOO much different than the legacies that we should be paid more. Yes we should be paid more. But our operations are not so drastically different. They move metal...we move metal, farther.

please clarify