Any "Latest & Greatest" about Endeavor?

Subscribe
584  1084  1484  1534  1574  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1594  1634  1684  2084 
Page 1584 of 2545
Go to
Quote: 900 FO's, when you have a trip with a check airman, have you been getting bought off of that trip frequently for oe?
Yes. Almost every trip or at least a strong majority of it. I went two months bidding to fly with LCA, got bought off, then picked up for 150%. Credited around 140 both months with 15 and 17 days off.
Reply
Quote: I would argue that a pilot with 250 hours who graduated from an AABI accredited school is a better pilot than someone with 1500 hours who went through a part 61 course at their home field and has now been teaching that course or flying for fun to build hours.
As someone who graduated an accredited part 61 course back in the day, with experience in a part 121 training department, I would argue the part 61 people are higher quality (in most cases) than the part 141 folks. Part 61 is more "you get what you put in" as opposed to part 141 which is generally "I'll be an airline pilot in 3 years." This entitlement mindset difference really starts to show when you get to Initial 121 training
Reply
Quote: As someone who graduated an accredited part 61 course back in the day, with experience in a part 121 training department, I would argue the part 61 people are higher quality (in most cases) than the part 141 folks. Part 61 is more "you get what you put in" as opposed to part 141 which is generally "I'll be an airline pilot in 3 years." This entitlement mindset difference really starts to show when you get to Initial 121 training
Please stop the pee-ing (because APC censors ****) contest. 61 is you get out of it what your instructor puts in to it. 141 is you are backed by a certified curriculum. So yes, some 61 are great but they are equivalent to a backwoods hunting lesson vs. quality instruction
Reply
Quote: Please stop the pee-ing (because APC censors ****) contest. 61 is you get out of it what your instructor puts in to it. 141 is you are backed by a certified curriculum. So yes, some 61 are great but they are equivalent to a backwoods hunting lesson vs. quality instruction
Complaining about generalizations then responding with generalizations...

Both have their pros and cons. They both have the ability to produce great pilots and not so great pilots.
Reply
Quote: This whole flow talk, if real, may just be a ploy by management to get 6 extra seats in those new 70 seat E175's, that Skywest just bought.
Huh? Are you saying Delta would drop the flow talk if mainline ALPA gave them scope for an additional 6 seats in a couple dozen more large RJs?
Reply
Quote: As someone who graduated an accredited part 61 course back in the day, with experience in a part 121 training department, I would argue the part 61 people are higher quality (in most cases) than the part 141 folks. Part 61 is more "you get what you put in" as opposed to part 141 which is generally "I'll be an airline pilot in 3 years." This entitlement mindset difference really starts to show when you get to Initial 121 training
But In the end the applicant is required to fly to practical test standards regardless of training; so who cares??

Excluding some places who have examining authority.
Reply
Quote: But In the end the applicant is required to fly to practical test standards regardless of training; so who cares??

Excluding some places who have examining authority.
In the end yes we are held to the same standards. I was simply stating what I have seen in my experience, but how dare I do so in today's sensitive society.
Reply
Quote: Huh? Are you saying Delta would drop the flow talk if mainline ALPA gave them scope for an additional 6 seats in a couple dozen more large RJs?
Possibly, there is ZERO chance of getting any scope relief from the mainline pilot group, so management may try to use ALPA National, like in the early 90's, to end run it.
Reply
Quote: This is the most ridiculous thing I've read today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote: No, you are missing the point. My post was in response to someone posting a link telling us to contact Congress to tell them not to lower the hours requirement. I do think there were several measures put in place as part of the same legislation, I think they should stay in place, and nowhere does it say that Congress trying to roll back those changes.

In response to your post, I absolutely agree that training is paramount, and that's what the statistics show. I would argue that a pilot with 250 hours who graduated from an AABI accredited school is a better pilot than someone with 1500 hours who went through a part 61 course at their home field and has now been teaching that course or flying for fun to build hours. Why? because I think it's not about hours, it's about quality of training.

To answer someone else's post, I wasn't a part 141 instructor, and I got my ATP before all of these changes came about.
I agree. This poster has one of the dumbest opinions I've ever read about during the span of my life. Perhaps his view brings light to the fact that virtually every airline mishap which has resulted in death was faulted to the errors of crews with between 15-25 years of profession...oh wait, no it doesn't.
Reply
Quote: Huh? Are you saying Delta would drop the flow talk if mainline ALPA gave them scope for an additional 6 seats in a couple dozen more large RJs?
Haha conversely to the dumbest opinion I've recently commented about, this one happens to be the post which draws the most humor neurochemicals from me.
Reply
584  1084  1484  1534  1574  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1594  1634  1684  2084 
Page 1584 of 2545
Go to