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

Aviation industry tries to undercut key change

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

TEXAN AVIATOR

Bewbies
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,132
Aviation industry tries to undercut key change

By JOAN LOWY




WASHINGTON
The aviation industry is trying to water down a key safety change recently passed by Congress in response to a regional airline crash last year that killed 50 people.


A Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel dominated by airlines, companies that employ pilots to fly corporate planes and university flight schools wants to reduce by two-thirds a requirement that airline co-pilots have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flying experience -- the same experience threshold that captains must meet.


The key issue is money, according to officials familiar with the panel's deliberations. Airlines worry that if the FAA raises the threshold for co-pilots -- also called first officers -- from the current minimum of 250 hours, airlines will be forced to raise pilot salaries and benefits in order to attract more experienced fliers, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.


Most airline pilots have far more experience than 1,500 hours. But industry analysts have forecast a pilot shortage if the economy starts to expand, which could create a premium for experience. The salaries of corporate and other private pilots are affected by airline salaries.


University flight schools are similarly concerned that if beginner pilots have to accrue 1,500 hours of flight experience before they can be hired by an airline, they'll skip expensive university training in favor of amassing flight time through per-hour instruction.


Using a provision in the new law that allows the FAA to give prospective pilots some credit for flight school training, the panel proposed allowing airlines to hire university-trained first officers with as few as 500 hours, according to a copy of the panel's recommendations.
The roles of airline captains and first officers have changed over the years. Today, both pilots are expected to be able to fly a plane equally well and to share duties.


The FAA formed the committee this summer just before Congress passed a far-reaching aviation safety bill, including the boost in required flight hours.
The law was prompted by a regional airline crash near Buffalo, N.Y., in February 2009 that killed 50 people. The flight's 24-year-old first officer earned about $16,000 in the year before the accident. She lived at home with her parents near Seattle, but flew across the country in order to reach the airline's base in Newark, N.J., in time for the flight.


A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded the first officer and the flight's captain were likely suffering fatigue at the time of the accident. Neither had slept in a bed the night before -- the first officer napped in a cockpit jumpseat, the captain in a crew lounge where sleeping was discouraged. Pilots, particularly at regional airlines, often can't afford to live in the communities where they're based. Some share cheap apartments near their base so they can grab sleep before flights. Others simply nap wherever they can.


Lawmakers who proposed the 1,500-hour requirement last year said at the time they hoped it would lead to higher salaries.
"The new safety law explicitly requires 1,500 flight hours," Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure aviation subcommittee, said this week. "Any modification of that number has to be justified as making safety stronger than current ... requirements."


Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who pushed the requirement in the Senate, said Congress was "crystal clear" that 1,500 hours was to be the minimum level required for co-pilots.
FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said in a statement that the panel's recommendations won't be the sole factor in the agency's determination of how to implement the new law.


FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, a former airline pilot, has expressed skepticism about the 1,500 hour requirement, saying it is more important to improve the quality of the pilot training than to increase the amount of experience in the cockpit.


That has also been the industry position. "The number of hours flown should not be the sole measure of qualification and proficiency," said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association.
Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, said money had nothing to do with the recommendation. He said academic training is "far more useful in training pilots for modern airline operations" than hours amassed "towing banners above the beach."


The two pilot organizations on the panel were divided on the issue. The Air Line Pilots Association, whose members include pilots at both regional and major airlines, backed the recommendations. But the Coalition of Airline Pilot Associations, whose members include pilot unions at major airlines and cargo carriers, dissented, saying that even enhanced training isn't a substitute for experience.


The panel also proposed enhancing pilot training programs so that pilots are exposed to greater variety of flight scenarios, and requiring that first officers pass a proficiency test specific to the type of airliner they'll be flying.


Only captains have to pass that test now.
 
ALPA rolls over and takes it without lube again! This is not surprising.
 
I was just talking with a Fedex Capitan and by the way they are normal just like U and me. He was saying that his daughter might go into the AF academy but he was strongly favoring Emobry Drible. Normally I would have been all over it but I was just staring at his Fedex badge.
 
If it adds a cost to the airline, it will cost jobs. There is an important part of the equation. The marginal ticket buyer, you know the one who buys the 90 day advance $99 ticket, will elect not to travel on the airlines. I know it is hard to imagine anyone would elect to drive when they could fly. But a lot of people do it. The market and individual self-interest will dictate what wages should be. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer, but better paid pilots. As with many regulations, good for senior, not so good for everyone else.
 
I thought companies lost money on those 90 day advance $99 ticket, they are just promotional. How is losing a customer that they lost money on going to hurt the airlines? Seeing that all the planes are already full it looks like it would open up a seat for a last day full fare ticket.
 
It only takes 1 or 2 road trips to realize that no matter how bad airline travel is, it's still light years ahead of any other forms. I took a Greyhound last month instead of flying to Jacksonville in the interest of saving $150. Worst mistake of my life. Quite frankly the bus is for the lowest forms of life on earth to take. I'd rather see those people on a bus than at the airport. Screw it drive the fares up even more.
 
I thought companies lost money on those 90 day advance $99 ticket, they are just promotional. How is losing a customer that they lost money on going to hurt the airlines? Seeing that all the planes are already full it looks like it would open up a seat for a last day full fare ticket.
The ailrines have to fill seats on T-W-T in order to make money, if they do not sell the cheap seats they will loose money. I read SWA's profit depends upon 1.7 advance booking seats. There is a science to this, and without those seats, prices on everything has to go up, result fewer riders, fewer flights and fewer pilots
 
If it adds a cost to the airline, it will cost jobs. There is an important part of the equation. The marginal ticket buyer, you know the one who buys the 90 day advance $99 ticket, will elect not to travel on the airlines. I know it is hard to imagine anyone would elect to drive when they could fly. But a lot of people do it. The market and individual self-interest will dictate what wages should be. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer, but better paid pilots. As with many regulations, good for senior, not so good for everyone else.

Simple math:

Let's say a Regional Airline Captain makes $65/hr and a First Officer makes $40/hour. Let's also say they are flying around in a 50 set RJ with an 80% load factor (40 passengers). On a 2hr flight if you charged each passenger an extra $4 you could raise the Captain's payrate to $105/hr and the First Officer's to $80/hr. That is less than the price of a latte'. Now as the aircraft gets bigger, the surcharge gets smaller.

Sorry Yip, but your doom and gloom scenario of properly compensating pilots does NOT add up.
 
Simple math:

Let's say a Regional Airline Captain makes $65/hr and a First Officer makes $40/hour. Let's also say they are flying around in a 50 set RJ with an 80% load factor (40 passengers). On a 2hr flight if you charged each passenger an extra $4 you could raise the Captain's payrate to $105/hr and the First Officer's to $80/hr. That is less than the price of a latte'. Now as the aircraft gets bigger, the surcharge gets smaller.

Sorry Yip, but your doom and gloom scenario of properly compensating pilots does NOT add up.
Then go for it, perhaps I am all wrong and the public will not will change any of their purchasing plans based upon the price of a ticket. Now if you think that pilot can be paid more without raising prices then that is for you to work out with your union and management. But remember there has to be a certain level of profitibility in order to have access to funds. It all boils down to economics. Best of luck. BTW I really do wish that you made $250K per year and your F/O $125K per year
 
The real problem, as it always is: government. Far too much of the ticket price is taxes the airlines are forced to collect for the government(I include fees as taxes). If the government would reduce their fees by $4/pax, all would be well. Let me know how that works for ya!
 
Then go for it, perhaps I am all wrong and the public will not will change any of their purchasing plans based upon the price of a ticket. Now if you think that pilot can be paid more without raising prices then that is for you to work out with your union and management. But remember there has to be a certain level of profitibility in order to have access to funds. It all boils down to economics. Best of luck. BTW I really do wish that you made $250K per year and your F/O $125K per year

Explain how your thinking applies to WN and soon to be UAL and AAI? Please show your work.
 
Has it ever occurred to anyone that ALPA genuinely believes that safety would be served better by being able to substitute some of the hours required for an ATP with relevant courses offered by ABBI accredited institutions?
 
No. Of course they immediatly try and belittle the 1500hr requirement by saying that one gains nothing by towing banners or launching meat-bombs to reach the magical 1500. Those jobs are few and far between, and the majority of canditates will have to gain the 1500hr the good old fashioned way, flying single pilot IFR in demanding conditions and actually learning something. Heaven forbid we get some new hires at the regionals that can actually track a VOR radial while handflying, or land in a crosswind without endangering 53 souls. I don't care how you get 1500hrs. At then end of the day, you'll have learned and experienced a lot more than sitting in a classroom at riddle.
 
The real problem, as it always is: government. Far too much of the ticket price is taxes the airlines are forced to collect for the government(I include fees as taxes). If the government would reduce their fees by $4/pax, all would be well. Let me know how that works for ya!
Get back to the non-aviation chat where you belong. Who do you think owns and operates the airports?

Jesus Chr*st, you teabaggers would have us landing on dirt strips and living in anarchy if it would save you a nickel in taxes.
 
Last edited:
The ailrines have to fill seats on T-W-T in order to make money, if they do not sell the cheap seats they will loose money. I read SWA's profit depends upon 1.7 advance booking seats. There is a science to this, and without those seats, prices on everything has to go up, result fewer riders, fewer flights and fewer pilots










Where can I find this "loose" money you speak of???
 
Where can I find this "loose" money you speak of???
barely based 4th grade speeling, shows what a cuople of college degrees will do for you, anyway you kown what I meant.
 
Simple math:

Let's say a Regional Airline Captain makes $65/hr and a First Officer makes $40/hour. Let's also say they are flying around in a 50 set RJ with an 80% load factor (40 passengers). On a 2hr flight if you charged each passenger an extra $4 you could raise the Captain's payrate to $105/hr and the First Officer's to $80/hr. That is less than the price of a latte'. Now as the aircraft gets bigger, the surcharge gets smaller.

Sorry Yip, but your doom and gloom scenario of properly compensating pilots does NOT add up.


How much does a regional currently make on each flight? How much does a major currently make for each flight? My guess is they difference in pay is more than the airline is making on a flight.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top