ALPA files Oppostion to Part 135 Operation
08-06-2022, 09:09 PM
#22
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Posts: 14
Like I clearly said. Delta and United didn’t care. Obviously it was ALPA. I agree with ALPA and the safety standards applied with the FAA ruling and glad it was changed. Was just saying that back then, The main line carriers didn’t care if their regionals were 135.
08-06-2022, 09:55 PM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by BrockPiston
Skywest was originally a 135 operator when they only flew the turbo props. (Metro and EMB 120’s). Delta and United didn’t seem to mind that it was a 135 operation that could hire very low time pilots.
I recall actual hiring mins for 135 prop jobs at 1500-2500 TT and 300-500 ME. I'm sure somebody somewhere hired 250 hour pilots but I couldn't find any of those jobs
Also back in the day, commuters usually didn't wear mainline's paint, it was typically a true codeshare.
I tend to think that regional operations which are dressed up to look like mainline should probably comply with the same rules. Truth in advertising.
08-07-2022, 04:50 AM
#24
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Posts: 14
My aunt was hired by mainline United in the early 90’s. She had just under 500hrs then. My point being, airlines don’t care about your hours. They are even trying to push legislation through to lower the 1500. It’s ALPA that cares.
08-07-2022, 07:22 AM
#25
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by BrockPiston
My aunt was hired by mainline United in the early 90’s. She had just under 500hrs then. My point being, airlines don’t care about your hours. They are even trying to push legislation through to lower the 1500. It’s ALPA that cares.
There’s only one reason OO is floating this. They are unwilling to pay their pilots current market rate. Pay your people! So there’s that too.
Any pilot liking this will probably vote “yes” on your first contract.
08-07-2022, 08:15 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 382
Originally Posted by rickair7777
There's a difference between "could" and "did".
I recall actual hiring mins for 135 prop jobs at 1500-2500 TT and 300-500 ME. I'm sure somebody somewhere hired 250 hour pilots but I couldn't find any of those jobs
Also back in the day, commuters usually didn't wear mainline's paint, it was typically a true codeshare.
I tend to think that regional operations which are dressed up to look like mainline should probably comply with the same rules. Truth in advertising.
I recall actual hiring mins for 135 prop jobs at 1500-2500 TT and 300-500 ME. I'm sure somebody somewhere hired 250 hour pilots but I couldn't find any of those jobs
Also back in the day, commuters usually didn't wear mainline's paint, it was typically a true codeshare.
I tend to think that regional operations which are dressed up to look like mainline should probably comply with the same rules. Truth in advertising.
This is a good point. The Express I (Northwest Airlink) accident in Hibbing, MN in 1993 (one of the accidents that led to the "one level of safety" regulation changes) was a 19 seat Jetstream 31 and had a captain with over 7,000 hours and a new-hire first officer with a little over 2,000 hours (who had just paid $8,500 out of his own pocket for J31 training for an $18k/year job).
08-07-2022, 09:09 AM
#27
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by zycho
And the families of those killed by crap, low hour pilots. Last I checked, we are in an unprecedented era of aviation safety.
While one might make justified criticisms about Colgan operations, selection, and training, these people were scarcely low time. I would be amazed if the median CA and FO in most regionals today have more flight time than those two.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR1001.pdf
08-07-2022, 10:48 AM
#28
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 94
OO pilots should be thanking ALPA over this. Not sure why any current SkyWest pilot would support the company going down this rabbit hole. I’d think the only people in favor of this would be the company and people who don’t have 1,500hrs.
08-07-2022, 10:57 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
I used to fly for USAJet. They are a -121 supplemental carrier. They had Falcon 20s, that operated part -135, for freight. I believe they also operated pax -135 charter, -91 charter, as well as -121 charter.
They had, for pax charter: One Falcon 20, two Sabreliners, two Learjets, one King Air, and one GII, and a number of DC-9s, then added MD-80s. They don't do the pax DC-9 or MD-80 anymore. Not sure about pax charter on the smaller aircraft that they may or may not have anymore...
They had, for pax charter: One Falcon 20, two Sabreliners, two Learjets, one King Air, and one GII, and a number of DC-9s, then added MD-80s. They don't do the pax DC-9 or MD-80 anymore. Not sure about pax charter on the smaller aircraft that they may or may not have anymore...
08-07-2022, 02:51 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by Alpiner
OO pilots should be thanking ALPA over this. Not sure why any current SkyWest pilot would support the company going down this rabbit hole. I’d think the only people in favor of this would be the company and people who don’t have 1,500hrs.
It's sad to say but not surprising that some Skywest reps have openly shrugged it off as "Inc. can and will do as they wish". I wonder how Delta, United, and Americans reps would react to news of their respective Inc. starting up a new operation with pilots not on the seniority list?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
