ALPA backing "restricted" ATP? WHY??

[acaTerry]

Yes, but those foregin airlines have an extremely stringent selection and weeding out process that lasts a long time. In 2007 USA, the 'selection process' at bridge programs was your ability to pay $$$$$. I saw drunk DUI pilots coming through, and the school took them for their $$$. At a foreign airline, they wouldn't even give you the time of the day if you had even a speck on your record. There are plenty in competition. If you're lucky enough to get hired at that foreign airline as a cadet pilot, you are sent away to a place like Australia or USA to begin flight training, and that can last anywhere from 12-24+ months. Then you come back and begin sim training. When you're finally on the line, you spent a loong time as a relief officer, and then one day finally, a regular FO. Make no mistake about it, this is much different than the 250 hr Gulfstream Academy graduates.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[acaTerry]

Bull********************, there is no replacement for experience, no amount of training. When I was an instructor I knew everything, when I was an FO I knew more than my captain, when I became a captain I understood the complexity of my job, when I became a check airman I realized how weak a pilot I was, when I became an OEO I feared for my family. With any luck you will mature, understand what this job entails, and in the end wish that the minimums were much more stringent than an ATP.

This is a level of maturity and professional attitude that many will never reach because they simply don't want to look at themselves.

 

[AC560]

I mean to get to 700 they will be instrucing anyways so whats another couple of months to ge to 1500?|

No they will just be exercising their writing hand.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Seems to me this takes away the option of going to a flight school in Florida and going from zero to hero in 6 months. Isn't that a good thing?

Maybe. It remains to be seen. You may be singing a different tune when your regional begins to lose business because it cannot staff aircraft in 2-3 years.

 

[Tristar]

Maybe. It remains to be seen. You may be singing a different tune when your regional begins to lose business because it cannot staff aircraft in 2-3 years.

The only reason they won't be able to staff is if they are unwilling to offer adequate compensation to attract qualified pilots. There is no shortage of pilots with an ATP and thousands of hours time. There probably will be a shortage of them willing to work for $20K a year in a couple of years.

If a few of these dirt bag operators go out of business, it will be good for the entire industry.

 

[Rally]

Can anyone show me the text of what ALPA recommended?

 

[ASA_Aviator]

The only reason they won't be able to staff is if they are unwilling to offer adequate compensation to attract qualified pilots. There is no shortage of pilots with an ATP and thousands of hours time. There probably will be a shortage of them willing to work for $20K a year in a couple of years.

If a few of these dirt bag operators go out of business, it will be good for the entire industry.

In a few years there will be more jobs than candidates due to retirements. Pay will go up to some extent, but how much do you think a 50, 70, or 76 seat jet can support? The 50 is already uneconomical. Maybe if pay at the top end came down, but YOU won't vote that in, will you?

 

[Tristar]

In a few years there will be more jobs than candidates due to retirements. Pay will go up to some extent, but how much do you think a 50, 70, or 76 seat jet can support? The 50 is already uneconomical. Maybe if pay at the top end came down, but YOU won't vote that in, will you?

To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

I wasn't hired to mismanage the airline. I didn't make the poor choice to purchase uneconomical aircraft. Those would be management's problems, not mine.

My problem is how to feed my family, pay my mortgage, fund my retirement, and so on. I'm not going to feel sorry for a bunch of a$$h@les who have worked to destroy the industry.

And you are correct, I'm not going to vote to drop pay at the top. It wasn't that long ago that -10 series DC-9's, F-100's/F-28's and such were mainline aircraft paying mainline wages. The larger RJ's essentially serve the same portion of the market - they should be compensated accordingly.

 

[Flightdawg]

In a few years there will be more jobs than candidates due to retirements. Pay will go up to some extent, but how much do you think a 50, 70, or 76 seat jet can support? The 50 is already uneconomical. Maybe if pay at the top end came down, but YOU won't vote that in, will you?

Untrue. It depends on the market. True, costs come down the larger the aircraft, but there are limits there too. Is it economical to fly a 767 from Gary, IN to Peoria, IL with 50 passengers? Or does it make more sense to do it with a 50 seat jet if the ticket prices cover the costs of operation?