ALPA backing "restricted" ATP? WHY??

[bizicmo]

how loose a definition is multicrew? I mean a flight instructor can't give instruction without a student and a student can't receive instruction without a flight instructor? Could that be multicrew? I just wondering how watered down this is going to get.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

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.

MPL does not work. Trust me, from the sources crafting the NPRM. The Europeans are backing away from it. Partly from the large supply of out-of-work Pilots but most importantly because lessons were learned from the Sterling Airlines debacle.

MPL was created to cheaply get around actually having trained pilots come to the airlines, instead, they train them from the ground up. Unlike Ab-initio, these pilots cannot leave the airline with this MPL in say a 737 and goto another airline....that ticket reads "Limitations: B 737 Second In Command opearting under Sterling Airlines Certificate #_______". Sterling went bankrupt and now those pilots are hosed with no PIC time to show for it. The MPL is not cost-effective to the INDUSTRY (think like a scum Airline Manager) if the supply of cheap pilots dry up because their airlines fold. They are really looking at it as a rating needing improvement. Training times and costs were greatly underestimated at inception since at the end of the day a PILOT has to sign them off and if Skippy can't jerk gear properly, then back to OE. It ends up costing the airlines more in most cases.

Trust me, this MPL isn't over but I'm glad ALPA is paying attention!!

 

[cale42]

Well, I can answer your rhetorical question.. but I can only do so by opening a whole new can of worms that was not really the intent of this thread

While barriers to entry in the profession are a nice first step towards restoring, the profession will NEVER enjoy anything like the careers that doctors and lawyers have until our jobs become portable and merit based, which of course means abolishing the seniority system.

Do you think doctors and lawyers are so well compensated because it is hard to become one? Of course not, it is because the most talented people are sought after. Law firms and hospitals are willing to pay millions to have top people on their staff because of the money and the prestige that they bring in. Take Capt. Sullenberger. In the world of doctors and lawyers he would have made a killing because of the prestige he brought to the firm. In the airlines this would have been the equivalent of United and Delta fighting over who could pay him the most to the a 777 Captain on their LHR routes so they could advertise it and people would pay a premium. But what really happened.. he went back to the line making 12 yr bus capt pay at US and retired shortly later because it wasn't worth it anymore.

Anyway I digress farther than I intended. Barriers to entry are a step in the right direction, but if we want to do it right it needs to be more like doctors and lawyers actually. Any 4 year degree is fine and then you get accepted into a graduate level program, maybe 1 to 2 years to do your aviation certification and training(similar to what we use for career change teachers). I would have no issue with that. Although I can't wait until pilotyip get's ahold of that paragraph.

cale

 

[Full of LUV]

This is where you go astray....

Take Capt. Sullenberger. In the world of doctors and lawyers he would have made a killing because of the prestige he brought to the firm. In the airlines this would have been the equivalent of United and Delta fighting over who could pay him the most to the a 777 Captain on their LHR routes so they could advertise it and people would pay a premium.

cale

This is where your logic is flawed.... Unfortunately, the public mostly sees the safety of airline travel as industry standard, making no judgements as to particular safety records. Who could blame them by the way the flights are marketed. Comair is "Delta connection" right up until they takeoff on the wrong runway, then they are Comair again in the press, and the list goes on. Even when Majors have an incident, things don't really change, there was a spate there in the late 90's where AA lost something like 4 hulls in major events, but people still bought tickets just the same if they were $5 cheaper.
There is not the same personal connection that you have with a lawyer/doctor than as you do with a pilot. People view us as highly skilled bus drivers with added responsibilities. US Air could have put Sulley on every one of their ads (if they have any ads) and all it would have done is serve to remind people that US Air crashed.
Problem with this profession, the better you do your job, mostly goes unnoticed by the public, it's usually when you f up that you get the spotlight, Sulley the exception. But for every Sulley, there have been some chumps trying to fly drunk, sleeping on the job, etc.....

 

[cale42]

This is where your logic is flawed.... Unfortunately, the public mostly sees the safety of airline travel as industry standard, making no judgements as to particular safety records. Who could blame them by the way the flights are marketed. Comair is "Delta connection" right up until they takeoff on the wrong runway, then they are Comair again in the press, and the list goes on. Even when Majors have an incident, things don't really change, there was a spate there in the late 90's where AA lost something like 4 hulls in major events, but people still bought tickets just the same if they were $5 cheaper.
There is not the same personal connection that you have with a lawyer/doctor than as you do with a pilot. People view us as highly skilled bus drivers with added responsibilities. US Air could have put Sulley on every one of their ads (if they have any ads) and all it would have done is serve to remind people that US Air crashed.
Problem with this profession, the better you do your job, mostly goes unnoticed by the public, it's usually when you f up that you get the spotlight, Sulley the exception. But for every Sulley, there have been some chumps trying to fly drunk, sleeping on the job, etc.....

You are dead on about this.. which brings me to my other serious gripe with this industry. We are the most regulated "de-regulated" industry out there with the exception of possibly the pharmaceutical industry. The industry can't have it both ways.

So here is a proposal.. let's truly de-regulate the industry. You can hire anyone you want to fly your plane, doesn't matter if they have a pilots license or not. You can do or not do MX as you choose. You can pretty much do whatever you want. That's unregulated right. Two things will happen.. first someone will really try it.. you could actually make a good profit with $39 each way working under those rules. Second it would make quality pilots in demand and an ability to advertise your pilots talents.

For all those on here you like to biatch about supply and demand.. there you go.. lets really implement it.

cale

 

[beagle pilot]

Is alpa ever going to stop shooting it self in the foot?

I'm not completely happy with it either, but it's called playing ball. Do you really think our own Union was the one who came up with this idea?:

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."

It was the schools. Probably supported by the airlines. Facing a decision of fighting this for the next few years and risk an "all or nothing" solution or opting to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution, the smarter decision is to negotiate.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Well, I can answer your rhetorical question.. but I can only do so by opening a whole new can of worms that was not really the intent of this thread

While barriers to entry in the profession are a nice first step towards restoring, the profession will NEVER enjoy anything like the careers that doctors and lawyers have until our jobs become portable and merit based, which of course means abolishing the seniority system.

Do you think doctors and lawyers are so well compensated because it is hard to become one? Of course not, it is because the most talented people are sought after. Law firms and hospitals are willing to pay millions to have top people on their staff because of the money and the prestige that they bring in. Take Capt. Sullenberger. In the world of doctors and lawyers he would have made a killing because of the prestige he brought to the firm. In the airlines this would have been the equivalent of United and Delta fighting over who could pay him the most to the a 777 Captain on their LHR routes so they could advertise it and people would pay a premium. But what really happened.. he went back to the line making 12 yr bus capt pay at US and retired shortly later because it wasn't worth it anymore.

Anyway I digress farther than I intended. Barriers to entry are a step in the right direction, but if we want to do it right it needs to be more like doctors and lawyers actually. Any 4 year degree is fine and then you get accepted into a graduate level program, maybe 1 to 2 years to do your aviation certification and training(similar to what we use for career change teachers). I would have no issue with that. Although I can't wait until pilotyip get's ahold of that paragraph.

cale

Doctors and lawyers work in a field with generally high rates. This is partially why they get paid well. This is NOT the case with airlines. Airlines charge very little for their product.

Also, an airline pilot is really not on par with what it takes to become a doctor. It just isn't.

BTW, automation has helped drive down wages as well.

 

[Lear70]

You guys need to stop before just jumping on the ALPA bashing wagon... Again...

I have first-hand knowledge of this because I not only filled out the email to my Congressman and Senator,,, I actually had Senator Corker call me about 2 weeks ago about this very issue that I had written about. I personalized the letter to reflect my experience at PCL as an off-the-street Captain flying with the 250-500 hour wunderkids and the threat they are to safety, which I'm suspecting is why I received the phone call. In that letter I had also spoken in support of HR 3371, which was the push for an ATP to fly Part 121 in any capacity (something I've been pushing for over 10 years).

We spoke for an hour, in which I learned that HR 3371 was being incorporated into the FAA Reauthorization bill to speed its passage. I thought that was excellent news, as the FAA Reauthorization Bill had just passed and was being sent to the House for final tweaking and passage. What the Senator DIDN'T tell me was that they were modifying it under pressure from the ATA - the lobbying machine for airline management throughout the country - to REMOVE or soften the ATP language requirements.

I talked to my ALPA rep and found out that this push-back from the ATA was anticipated to be successful; they are throwing a LOT of money at this to try to keep the ATP requirement from becoming law.

This is ALPA's response. Initiate a controlled response that seems appropriate to law makers who DO value education, and appears to give the airlines SOME kind of relief for when the pilot pool empties significantly. What you guys aren't thinking about is what this DOES for requirements:

The new pilots can still get the ATP after about 4-5 years of flight instructing, banner towing, crop dusting, whatever, and oh yeah, you have to go to an ACCREDITED, 4-year college and get the degree PLUS the flight time. Very few people are going to get more than 200-300 hours per summer, so what this does is realistically make it to where no one can get into an RJ without being 24-25 years old by the time they get the degree AND the flight time, AND have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing it.

This is a HUGE change from some of the kids I flew with who were 19, straight out of college, with a wet commercial certificate, in the right seat of an RJ. Those days are gone if this gets passed.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It's to prevent a huge loophole in the legislation being pushed by management at the airlines across the nation. As it still presents a large barrier to entrance to the profession that didn't previously exist, I support it. It's making the best of a crappy situation - and yet another reason more of you need to contribute to ALPA or CAPA PAC. The more lobbying power we have, the more we can go head-to-head against the ATA on things like this with what we ORIGINALLY wanted - the 1500 hour hard limit on the ATP.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Agreed that portability needs to be looked at, but you can not change everything at once. This is a necessary first step. What comes next us up to us, but to do as you suggest you need to restrict the flow. That is what this is attempting to do.

Bill, we are in complete agreement, but that does not mean that the ATA will not try here. This half measure will withstand a stress test. A few modifications to make exceptions for some with a previous degree may be needed, but overall this is a good way to slow the flow, increase the overall applicant baseline qualifications and by economies of scale up the floor.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

You guys need to stop before just jumping on the ALPA bashing wagon... Again...

I have first-hand knowledge of this because I not only filled out the email to my Congressman and Senator,,, I actually had Senator Corker call me about 2 weeks ago about this very issue that I had written about. I personalized the letter to reflect my experience at PCL as an off-the-street Captain flying with the 250-500 hour wunderkids and the threat they are to safety, which I'm suspecting is why I received the phone call. In that letter I had also spoken in support of HR 3371, which was the push for an ATP to fly Part 121 in any capacity (something I've been pushing for over 10 years).

We spoke for an hour, in which I learned that HR 3371 was being incorporated into the FAA Reauthorization bill to speed its passage. I thought that was excellent news, as the FAA Reauthorization Bill had just passed and was being sent to the House for final tweaking and passage. What the Senator DIDN'T tell me was that they were modifying it under pressure from the ATA - the lobbying machine for airline management throughout the country - to REMOVE or soften the ATP language requirements.

I talked to my ALPA rep and found out that this push-back from the ATA was anticipated to be successful; they are throwing a LOT of money at this to try to keep the ATP requirement from becoming law.

This is ALPA's response. Initiate a controlled response that seems appropriate to law makers who DO value education, and appears to give the airlines SOME kind of relief for when the pilot pool empties significantly. What you guys aren't thinking about is what this DOES for requirements:

The new pilots can still get the ATP after about 4-5 years of flight instructing, banner towing, crop dusting, whatever, and oh yeah, you have to go to an ACCREDITED, 4-year college and get the degree PLUS the flight time. Very few people are going to get more than 200-300 hours per summer, so what this does is realistically make it to where no one can get into an RJ without being 24-25 years old by the time they get the degree AND the flight time, AND have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing it.

This is a HUGE change from some of the kids I flew with who were 19, straight out of college, with a wet commercial certificate, in the right seat of an RJ. Those days are gone if this gets passed.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It's to prevent a huge loophole in the legislation being pushed by management at the airlines across the nation. As it still presents a large barrier to entrance to the profession that didn't previously exist, I support it. It's making the best of a crappy situation - and yet another reason more of you need to contribute to ALPA or CAPA PAC. The more lobbying power we have, the more we can go head-to-head against the ATA on things like this with what we ORIGINALLY wanted - the 1500 hour hard limit on the ATP.

Great post. I agree.