Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ALPA backing "restricted" ATP? WHY??

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


Nov 7, 2004
Is alpa ever going to stop shooting it self in the foot?

In regards to requiring an ATP for 121 ops,

"Also in the Safety realm, last week we submitted comments to the FAA’s docket for an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on new pilot-certification requirements for air carrier operations. You will recall that I provided a draft of those comments to the Executive Board a couple of weeks ago to inform you of this activity and to give an opportunity for you to share your perspectives.

In our finalized comments, we called on the agency to amend FAR Part 61 to make several needed changes to the certification requirements that will, if enacted into regulation, provide both safety and industrial benefits to our members. In response to questions posed in the ANPRM, we have recommended to the FAA, among other things, that all future airline pilots hold an Air Transport Pilot certificate with a “121 Air Carrier Endorsement.”

To earn the ATP, the pilot would have no fewer than 1,500 hours of total flying time, including 200 hours of multicrew and multiengine operating experience, plus accredited aviation instruction from a college or university. We have endorsed an exception for graduates of accredited aviation programs with a bachelor of science degree, which would permit those under the age of 23 and having at least 750 hours to be issued a “restricted” ATP with the 121 Air Carrier Endorsement."
Holy smokes. Glad I already have my "121 ATP" grandfather! How unsafe is it that I earned mine without any "accredited aviation instruction from a college or university?"

That's a load of crap.

Sounds like a way for more people to get degrees that won't do them a lick of good when they want out of the industry in 8 years. It's amazing working at an airline about to be shutdown how often I hear the words, "man, I wish I'd gotten a real degree" the aviation universities must be salivating.

I'd forgotten about the age 23 thing though.. I mean if you get your commercial at 19 and haul checks at night while slogging through school and have your 1500 at age 21 it does seem a touch unfair that you aren't eligible to go to an airline. A tweak there might be in order.
I think ALPA is trying to be proactive. They are trying to offer something that hopefully congress will buy off on to hopefully keep the government from enacting some new ridiculous airline legislation.
This should not be a surprise. ALPA National was down at ERAU a few weeks ago promoting the business of piloting.

This is two fold. They are:
1) Getting in front of the MPL license which imo they see as a eventuality if something is not done,
2) Trying to get on board with the way the new law will look.

It makes them look proactive and safety conscious.

I like the idea of a 1500 hr atp requirement, but it is a house of cards that will fall and quite miserably in a less than 10 years. The void will be filled by the MPL and as a result will put us in a worse position than we will be in with what they are recommending.
What this recommendation does, is it preserve a realistic bar that can be used and enforced going forward. It funnels pilot applicants in to degrees and course work that works well for the profession or trade if you will, of piloting, it gets applicants to be degreed from accredited universities, and it puts an attainable bar for those that wish this to be their career.

For those of us in the field it seems like a half baked effort that has scummed to big business pressures, but I suggest you look at the big picture.

Like I have said, it funnels pilots in to degrees from accredited universities, and as a result puts that barrier on many of the future applicants in to this career. It "professionalizes" the profession. That my friends is a huge plus. It is the first small step that needs to be taken to truly make this a profession and ALPA a true association. 750 hrs is a teaser and as a result will make this "law" or regulatory change stand the stress test as the retirements kick in. It is sustainable.
As for the last part, making a suggestion that will more than likely become law thwarts the MPL initiative that will more than likely rear its head in the USofA in the next 10 years. This is a stop gap that is will allow low time applicants a road to the 121 world and will not fail at big business pressure as the airlines need thousands of pilots in the late twenty teens and 2020's. Keeping the bar at this moderate level will in effect mitigate the MPL which by all intents and purposes will allow 250 hr pilots in to 121 cockpit. In effect it is a sustainable long term position to raise the bar in this industry

It is not perfect, but it actually is working to solve a few issues on many levels.
yet another f'up/load of crap from ALPA. Seriously, do they strive to f@#k things up? The average person couldn't f'up this much even if they tried.

All this will do is make some "flying college" rich(er). what a crock of sh!t.
I think ACL makes some great points about heading off what very well may be an inevitable MPL at some point, however this is extremely short sighted in a huge area... career change pilots. I would argue 30-40% of pilots came from other professions. We have made the barriers of entry for them unbelievably high.

I decided 3 years after I graduated that I wanted to fly.. luckily I was able to pursue my certificates, flight instruct, and go to the airlines. Same scenario under these rules I would need 200 hrs of multi crew, multi engine experience? Where am I supposed to get this? That experience is practically impossible to come by. Or I can go to another 4 year degree? No way. This regulation creates a huge barrier for folks in this situation.
Multi Crew does not mean 121.

There will be a stagnation point for a year or so, but after that things will flow. Most career change pilots go to FSI and drop 80-100K on their ratings. I know many that have.
Go to a university get a masters degree etc and get on with an airline.

What ALPA is asking is to funnel the entry points. Much like Dr's and Lawyers. If I wanted to be a Dr, I have to go redo my premed undergrad courses like Organic Bio--yuck, then med school, then residency, etc. If I wanted to be a lawyer after being a doctor or airline pilot, I need to take the L-SAT get in the law school go for three years, pass a bar then look for job. Or get the job conditional on the passing of the bar.
See where this is going????!!!!

ALPA is acting like an Association and putting the best interests of those IN the 121 profession in mind. It is protecting its members.
I understand that multi crew doesn't mean 121 but that's still near impossible time to come by, unless we allow pilots to log SIC time in a Baron or something like that? Multi crew time means a multi crew airplane in the present time, though that may change as part of this.

The comparison to a doctor or lawyer is an apt one, except for the simple fact that both of those careers have an earning potential of 100K plus within a year out of school, so the big debt isn't a problem. How as an industry can we ask people to spend a comparable amount on education to get a 19K a year job.

The point about putting the best interests of those in 121 is completely valid, however I have a hard time reconciling myself to a rule that absolutely would have prevented me from ever pursuing the career.

Last edited:
A rhetorical question if you will....

How do you expect to restore this profession unless the barriers to entry are raised and ALPA or the like becomes more of an Association like the AMA?

FWIW, the lenders like Key loans to do not want to lend to applicants seeking piloting licenses now anyway. We are a poor debt risk as we do not make enough to repay the debt. Raise the bar, restrict entry and economies of scale will take place.

I know what your beef is, but for the profession as a whole this is needed. With a set up like, this airlines will be paying for people to get the training. I am sure it will be something along the lines of a four year accredited degree in X.Y.Z, then some sort of advanced ALPA/Government approved course work for the multi crew portion. (Think FSI stuff) I highly doubt that it will be for 750 hrs you need to go to ERAU, Auburn, etc. It will be an applied science requirement and or specified course work along with X credit hrs in crew training to meet the requirements.

Latest resources