waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really don't care.
Really.
I did it. Thousands of other pilots I know did it. Upcoming pilots can, too. Don't like it? Go do something else for a living.
200 Multicrew means they have to get a JOB that REQUIRES them to be in the aircraft, not just hopping back and forth in a Cessna/Piper/Cirrus to see your hot girlfriend/boyfriend in grad school upstate. That means a jet that requires an SIC (over 12,500 or in Part 135 operations) or in an aircraft that requires an SIC in lieu of an approved autopilot by Ops Spec.
It will take them that much longer to get through the requirements, give them some REAL WORLD experience to go with it, and add another bar to reach in the pursuit of a flying career. The only downside is operators like GIA would still have a way to function. I can see the ad now:
"Want to get that airline job? 200 Multicrew the only thing standing in your way? Come pay us $75,000 and we'll give you what you need!"
All-in-all, I wish the multicrew requirement were higher, say half that 750 hours required TT. Hope it makes its way into the bill.
No fewer or more than there were when I was trying to do it in '94 after I graduated college and spent 2 years instructing while beating the bushes and networking on the field to get that first Part 135 King Air job.I see. Do you realize how few opportunities there are to fly in a multi-crew environment that isn't A) 121 already or B) a 135 or 91 operator that won't look at you without an ATP, which is what you're trying to get.
Granted. But you'd have to write that into the legislation. Instead of 250 multi-crew, let 500 hours of single-engine Part 135 PIC time count 1 hour for every 2 towards that 250. I don't have a problem with that, but you have to specifically and STRICTLY delineate that requirement and not just 500 hours be-bopping around Part 91 in a Cherokee or Seneca.There is plenty of opportunity for pilots to become exceptionally skilled and experienced without being in a crew - in fact I would much rather fly on a regional where the FO got their time flying single pilot freight instead of being a gear bitch on a King Air.
Is alpa ever going to stop shooting it self in the foot?
ALPA is acting like an Association and putting the best interests of those IN the 121 profession in mind. It is protecting its members.
Looks that way to me too.Yes, thank you. That's what they're doing exactly. Raise the bar significantly high and just maybe restore the profession.
ALPA volunteers work very hard to improve the safety of our profession. The fact we can't always accomplish change due to the counter-actions of the ATA, RAA and other business leaders doesn't mean we are not trying hard enough.
From the ALPA EASC page: http://crewroom.alpa.org/safety/Default.aspx?tabid=2427
From the public page ALPA Safety & Security: http://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2010/FastRead_20100305.htm#02
From the public page ALPA advocacy link: http://www.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/PressRoom/PressReleases/2010/PraterJPMorgan_3-12-10.htm
While I support members rights to voice opinions, I ask that they remember "ALPA" isn't like King George III ruling taxing America from afar. ALPA is a volunteer organization where every pilot volunteer comes from the same cockpits and airlines as the rest of us. Except for those appointed by an MEC or the Executive Council to be on full time union leave, ALPA volunteers do most of their work on their own time. Occasionally they will be given union leave to attend an event, a meeting or other important function, but day-to-day activities are on their own free time. Those that love to toss rocks at ALPA are actually tossing those rocks at these same volunteers who are in the same cockpits as the rest of us.
The growing angst with ALPA has nothing to do with the volunteers, It has everything to do with the absurd pay with National.
I know many of you disagree- but if you're not current and flying a trip now and then - I don't want you representing me.
Nothing like taking your top leadership out of the MEC offices during critical times....Many MEC's have voted to make that a requirement of their elected leadership. Did yours?
Agreed. Nothing there that conflicts with the idea of having reps "current and flying a trip now and then". ALPA National is a little different, but at the MEC level I think it is best to keep the reps current and flying.Nothing like taking your top leadership out of the MEC offices during critical times....
I 100% support full-time buy during negotiations for my MEC leadership. The rest of the time? No, they can go fly. During negotiations? No way...
Reps? Absolutely. There's no reason they can't fly a FULL line except for the occasional trip buy because they couldn't bid off for MEC meetings, SPSC events, etc.I want my reps passionate about the job and connected to what it's like on the line.