ALPA backing "restricted" ATP? WHY??

[Superpilot92]

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."

 

[GuppyWN]

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.

Gup

 

[cale42]

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.

 

[Kharma Police]

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.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

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,
and
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.

 

[LearLove]

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.

 

[cale42]

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.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

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.

 

[cale42]

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.

cale

 

[ACL65PILOT]

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.

 

[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.