satchip

Well maybe the FARs should have required you to hold an ATP. Part 121 should require an ATP for every seat. I'm not quite sure how your examples are germane except to show that school training does not necessarily qualify one for the profession.

Don't get wrapped up in the ALPA name. Should our profession have some say in who and how someone can enter? I just used ALPA because it is easier to type than naming every union. And as for "artificially" shrinking the market, it's not artificial. It's basic supply and demand. Tightening the requirements for operating a Part 121 aircraft is not artificial. Personally I think it is long over due. We are seeing the results of lax training and hiring standards of the small carriers in the accident numbers.

I'm only talking 121 ops. 135 and 91 ops would have their own rules. An ATP is not needed to sit in the right seat of a Beech Jet. An ATP should be required to sit in the right seat of an airliner.

This is just an abstract idea in response to your rejection out of hand to the previous poster. The FAA is failing in it's safety mandate. Maybe a little help from the unions would be beneficial.

250 or point 65

Setting up barriers to entry is a start, but that's not the only reason why unions like UAW are so powerful. The biggest reason why UAW workers make double what an regional pilot makes just to place, not even screw, a bolt in a hole is the RLA. When there's little to no threat of a workforce walking off the job, why even negotiate? ALPA needs to put its resources towards that more than any other program it works on.

Also, I don't believe that ALPA has any sort of long term plan. Do they have any idea what an airline pilot should make an hour to fly a specific type? Have they set goals to meet? I believe its just every MEC for themselves.

I think that for a long term solution, it should be ALPA's goal for every one of its airlines contracts to meet a certain standard. Then it's up to the next pilot group negotiating to set the new standard. The best part about this is that if every pilot group is making about the same, mgmt absolutely cannot complain that they can't be competitive at a certain rate. Period.

yea, nay?

BoilerUP

Maybe so...but they didn't at the time.

Even though I didn't hold an ATP when I flew 121, I think requiring airline pilots to hold an Airline Transport Pilot rating would be a reasonable policy. I also think all 121 pilots should hold full type ratings in the airframe they fly; that would do much to increase safety for negligible cost increases.

My personal belief would be not to have an ATP a requirement for hire, but to fly the line (meaning one could get it on the company's dime, doing a dual ATP/type ride).

Again, enter what? Should airline pilot unions have a say in who flies in airline cockpits? I think a reasonable argument could be made in the affirmative on that. Should airline pilot unions have a say in the requirements or testing for all Commercial or ATP candidates? Absolutely not.

You make it sound like "small carriers" are falling out of the sky left and right. They aren't. Yes, there have been some highly publicized accidents the last few years and the regional incident rate is higher than mainline...but it also doesn't take into account a company safety culture, or work rules more restrictive than FARs, or a multitude of other factors beyond just "lax training and hiring standards" (which I'm sure are contributory, but aren't smoking guns).

Okay, NOW the "marketplace" has been defined. Airline pilots want more say in the qualifications required to fly in an airline cockpit. No, I don't think that's an untenable situation.

TonyWilliams

Requiring an ATP to sit in a part 121 air carrier seat will single handedly solve the puppy mills pumping out 250 hour wonders and Multi Pilot Licenses.

And lower the available applicants for part 121 jobs, possibly raising the entry level income (but I doubt any raises beyond that).

However, imagine how competitive those jobs that bridge the gap between a wet 250 hour commercial license and a wet 1500 hour ATP will be. I predict that there will be MORE pay to play and abuses of people who just want to fly.

250 or point 65

Exactly what is happening at the regionals for that 1000 TPIC "barrier"

However, I somewhat disagree with your pay to play theory. No one can afford to pay for 1500 hrs. Getting to 1500 hrs usually takes a lot of time as a CFI etc. This would reduce the amount of guys trying to do it quick and easy.

sailingfun

The UAW does not work under the Railway Labor Act so any action they would take has no validity in the airline industry period. Those who work for a airline and have never read the RLA really should take the time to read it and weep. Any comparison between a non RLA union and a RLA union is invalid.