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
Comair news and upgrade
- Thread starter DOGTIRED
- Start date
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
samballs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Posts
- 1,511
DrewBlows
Go Tigers!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,031
When the next upgrades come out, 2 1/2 yr senoirity will hold JFK cpt. GSO goes as junior as 100 from the bottom (always hear rumors about GSO and MCO closing but not in the near future). Attrition has slowed to about 15 a month according to soapers little puppet.[/quote]
Unfortunately that is not the case as far as upgrades in JFK go. I'm at 3 1/2 years and am still 100 #'s junior to the most junior award which is scheduled to begin upgrade training in July. That doesn't account for all the FO's in Cincy that could have upgraded in the past either that always seem to trickle into JFK. In conversations with crew forecasting they are not expecting any significant upgrades for the duration of the year. Obviously any growth Comair may receive, the attrition level increase after the bankruptcy claim payout, and the possible sale are unknown factors that could influence the situation but I am told that is the plan for now.
Unfortunately that is not the case as far as upgrades in JFK go. I'm at 3 1/2 years and am still 100 #'s junior to the most junior award which is scheduled to begin upgrade training in July. That doesn't account for all the FO's in Cincy that could have upgraded in the past either that always seem to trickle into JFK. In conversations with crew forecasting they are not expecting any significant upgrades for the duration of the year. Obviously any growth Comair may receive, the attrition level increase after the bankruptcy claim payout, and the possible sale are unknown factors that could influence the situation but I am told that is the plan for now.
captainv
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2002
- Posts
- 572
you might consider this, from the director of crewmember services, dated 4/13/07:
Crew Bases
Candidly, every month we grow in the northeast the need for a MCO or
GSO base diminishes. We are forcing block time into those bases that
would be better suited for CVG or JFK. Currently, we are looking at a
way to flow the aircraft differently to continue operating those bases,
as we recognize the social implications of moving people around the
country. I hope to have a definitive answer to the base question in
May. As for BOS, we are proceeding cautiously. Today we could easily
justify a crew base there, but we have seen this before with DFW, ATL,
MCO and GSO. I’m not a proponent of this move, but we will keep an
eye on the long-term stability of that market.
JFK and CVG are now stabilized.
Pilot Hiring
Our pilot hiring need of 60/month was driven by sick calls and
attrition. Our sick calls are now comparable to 2005 numbers, and our
attrition has fallen from 31/mo. to 13. Consequently, our current need
to hire has fallen off dramatically. That said, we continue to
aggressively hire to cover risk associated with attrition spikes that
could occur in the coming months.
Crew Bases
Candidly, every month we grow in the northeast the need for a MCO or
GSO base diminishes. We are forcing block time into those bases that
would be better suited for CVG or JFK. Currently, we are looking at a
way to flow the aircraft differently to continue operating those bases,
as we recognize the social implications of moving people around the
country. I hope to have a definitive answer to the base question in
May. As for BOS, we are proceeding cautiously. Today we could easily
justify a crew base there, but we have seen this before with DFW, ATL,
MCO and GSO. I’m not a proponent of this move, but we will keep an
eye on the long-term stability of that market.
JFK and CVG are now stabilized.
Pilot Hiring
Our pilot hiring need of 60/month was driven by sick calls and
attrition. Our sick calls are now comparable to 2005 numbers, and our
attrition has fallen from 31/mo. to 13. Consequently, our current need
to hire has fallen off dramatically. That said, we continue to
aggressively hire to cover risk associated with attrition spikes that
could occur in the coming months.
imacdog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Posts
- 4,196
Ha! Comair doesn't give a crap about any "social implications" regarding anything they do. In fact, they've proven that they are willing to go out of their way to make their employee's lives as miserable as possible.
DrewBlows
Go Tigers!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,031
Reminds me of my last day flying before I was furloughed. This is an actual (paraphrased) conversation I had with crew scheduling.
"Hello."
"First Officer DrewBlows, we need to extend you into tomorrow."
"Uh, I'm furloughed starting tomorrow."
"Yeah I know, but we're short staffed. I can't make you do it but if you agree it will be junior man pay and we may have something else for you tomorrow."
"Why are you furloughing me if you are short staffed?"
"I don't know, we really need you."
"I need the money, I guess I'll do it."
Looking back, I should have told them to blow it out their ass, but I really wasn't sure how I was going to pay the bills at that point.
agonyairfo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Posts
- 116
I am at 3+ years and still 120 numbers from the most junior guy who has been awarded JFK capt.There are probably one or two hundred more senior FO's passing it up which I will assume will continue. At the current attrition rate I will assume another year until I upgrade unless something else happens. That means 4+ years to upgrade, not 2 1/2.
As everyone knows, the time it currently takes to upgrade is about as accurate at predicting the future as a really erratic trend vector.
(Just like when the fa asks how long the flight time is and the *witty* captain says' "it is the time from takeoff to landing." The time to upgrade is the time between getting your SIDA picture taken and your Fed ride.)
As everyone knows, the time it currently takes to upgrade is about as accurate at predicting the future as a really erratic trend vector.
(Just like when the fa asks how long the flight time is and the *witty* captain says' "it is the time from takeoff to landing." The time to upgrade is the time between getting your SIDA picture taken and your Fed ride.)
Did you get those numbers off the Comair website or Airline Pilot Central? In my ground school class, there's maybe 1 or 2 people that actually meet those minimums.
bvt1151
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 12, 2002
- Posts
- 937
CarjCapt
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2003
- Posts
- 179
Low time new hires
Back in the Metro days CMR hired pilots with about 400hrs total time from a Flight Safety program that gave them SA227 simulator experience that amounted to about 40 hrs.
They did a great job and are now experienced Jet Captains with Comair or have gone on to Major airlines.
Back in the Metro days CMR hired pilots with about 400hrs total time from a Flight Safety program that gave them SA227 simulator experience that amounted to about 40 hrs.
They did a great job and are now experienced Jet Captains with Comair or have gone on to Major airlines.
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
Oh, I can do ya one better.
When Rick Dubinski was hire at United, he had less than 300 hours total. He went on to be a 747 Captain and United MEC Chairman who subsequently sued ALPA and settled.
I wonder if he PFTed like some of the RJDC leadership? Somehow I doubt it.
His lawsuit did not attempted to circumvent or abrogate the collective bargaining agreement of an ALPA pilot group, he did however file a claim against the UAL MEC for defamation and false light invasion of privacy when some questions were raised over attorney fees.
Back in those days, pilots hired at the majors with that amount of experience were sitting sideways watching gauges....not even talking on radios.
Back in the metro days, these guys were shuttling in and out of CVG and MCO. A captain could assign the easier "back to the hub" legs to the low-time guy. This helped new pilots contribute to the operation in an environment more forgiving of mistakes.
Today, these 300 hour pilots are based at JFK. Now I've nothing against these guys who are being hired with this experience level...or more appropriately, lack thereof, after all it's a great opportunity for them, but seriously...what is a Captain supposed to do with one of these seat-warmers who can't even operate the radios proficiently, let alone fly the aircraft? The level of tolerance for incompetence is almost zero in the New York area. Obviously, some will do better than others, but seriously...300 hours in nothing faster than a 172 or Seminole around the traffic pattern vs. flying an RJ in some of the busiest airspace in the world?
A Captain's role is to be a leader, perhaps even a mentor, but not a flight instructor. Single-pilot IFR in a regional jet may be possible for a handful of pilots out there, but throw in keeping an eye on the person next to you to make certain they're not trying to kill you, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I do agree that given enough time, these low-experience level pilots can mature into low-experience level Captains. Given even more time, they can mature into experienced Captains. Hopefully this experience will be acquired without increases in certificate violations, incidents, and accidents...but I'm skeptical.
Just because someone can be trained to push a couple of buttons on an autopilot and set a heading bug doesn't mean they bring skills to the flightdeck that are of value to the operation. It's unfortunate Comair can't seem to attract applicants of higher experience levels and quality anymore...you get what you pay for...and this company has developed a taste recently for devaluing experience.
If you're one of the new-hires with non-existent experience levels, please understand that the Captains you fly with will bend over backward to help you through your early days, but there are limits to how much they should have to assist.
Back in the metro days, these guys were shuttling in and out of CVG and MCO. A captain could assign the easier "back to the hub" legs to the low-time guy. This helped new pilots contribute to the operation in an environment more forgiving of mistakes.
Today, these 300 hour pilots are based at JFK. Now I've nothing against these guys who are being hired with this experience level...or more appropriately, lack thereof, after all it's a great opportunity for them, but seriously...what is a Captain supposed to do with one of these seat-warmers who can't even operate the radios proficiently, let alone fly the aircraft? The level of tolerance for incompetence is almost zero in the New York area. Obviously, some will do better than others, but seriously...300 hours in nothing faster than a 172 or Seminole around the traffic pattern vs. flying an RJ in some of the busiest airspace in the world?
A Captain's role is to be a leader, perhaps even a mentor, but not a flight instructor. Single-pilot IFR in a regional jet may be possible for a handful of pilots out there, but throw in keeping an eye on the person next to you to make certain they're not trying to kill you, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I do agree that given enough time, these low-experience level pilots can mature into low-experience level Captains. Given even more time, they can mature into experienced Captains. Hopefully this experience will be acquired without increases in certificate violations, incidents, and accidents...but I'm skeptical.
Just because someone can be trained to push a couple of buttons on an autopilot and set a heading bug doesn't mean they bring skills to the flightdeck that are of value to the operation. It's unfortunate Comair can't seem to attract applicants of higher experience levels and quality anymore...you get what you pay for...and this company has developed a taste recently for devaluing experience.
If you're one of the new-hires with non-existent experience levels, please understand that the Captains you fly with will bend over backward to help you through your early days, but there are limits to how much they should have to assist.
I'm sorry, but how much more experience does a flight instructor with 1200TT flying a C172/PA44 have than a 300TT flight instructor? Or even a flight instructor with 3000 hours? Sure the higher time flight instructors might be better at demonstrating a Lazy 8 or steep turns. The problem is at some point you're going to have to make the transition to the bigger, faster, more complex aircraft. It doesn't matter if you have 300 hours or 3000 hours, if you've never flown a jet before, you're going to have a difficult transition. Also, isn't the purpose of IOE to have a captain babysit you to make sure you are bringing everything together you learned from training. If you aren't competent enough, you aren't getting through.
Last edited:
In all that post you quoted, I never advocated hiring 1200-hr. instructors. I would hope that in a thousand hours or so, one would develop skills and abilities beyond what they had at 300 hours. I know that's not what's in vogue with today's "I just got my commercial license, it's my god-given right to fly an RJ,...they told me so at the academy" mentality. If fact, if all an instructor is doing while riding shotgun in the right seat of a 172 is dreaming of flying RJ's, the system is broken. There's nothing wrong with having a career goal, but I guess I just feel that goal should be improving one's skills so they'll be a truly qualified candidate for a position somewhere.
The purpose of I.O.E. is not for the Captain to "babysit" the new-hire. The purpose of I.O.E. is to introduce the new-hire to how airline operations work. Radio communications and basic airmanship should be second nature before the candidate arrives for the job interview...not items that should be taught while on I.O.E. or line operations by Captains. Unfortunately in today's environment, when 200 hour pilots have been taught by 300 hour pilots, there's really not a lot of actual experience for the student to learn from. In time, these 200 hour pilots are teaching the next generation of "airline pilots".
I don't have an answer for the problem, as long as the traveling public is more interested in saving $10 on their ticket than ensuring they have a higher level of experience caring for their safety. I will say again that the environment the new breed of low-experience pilots is operating in is markedly different than it was in the past. JFK is not CVG, MCO, or SFB.
I agree that the transition into jet aircraft is somewhat difficult. I think if you have the ability to see the situation from a different perspective, you'd agree that a 300 hour CFI is going to have a much tougher time with that transition than a 3000 hour pilot whose been flying single-pilot IFR freight runs in a Baron or Chieftain for the last 1500 hours. I will tell you from experience that the decision-making ability of that individual, as well as the ability to perform well when a curveball is thrown their way, is far superior to those skills of the 300-hour CFI. Given the choice, I know without a doubt who I'd rather have as a teammate while operating into and out of JFK.
Unfortunately, pilots of this experience level are less likely to pursue employment at the regional level today, because they can command higher salaries elsewhere.
Once again, I never wrote a 1200TT flight instructor is the ideal candidate for this job. I also never wrote a 300 hour pilot can't eventually become an asset on the flightdeck. The concern is for the level of safety oftentimes sacrificed to fill that seat.
Respectfully.
The purpose of I.O.E. is not for the Captain to "babysit" the new-hire. The purpose of I.O.E. is to introduce the new-hire to how airline operations work. Radio communications and basic airmanship should be second nature before the candidate arrives for the job interview...not items that should be taught while on I.O.E. or line operations by Captains. Unfortunately in today's environment, when 200 hour pilots have been taught by 300 hour pilots, there's really not a lot of actual experience for the student to learn from. In time, these 200 hour pilots are teaching the next generation of "airline pilots".
I don't have an answer for the problem, as long as the traveling public is more interested in saving $10 on their ticket than ensuring they have a higher level of experience caring for their safety. I will say again that the environment the new breed of low-experience pilots is operating in is markedly different than it was in the past. JFK is not CVG, MCO, or SFB.
I agree that the transition into jet aircraft is somewhat difficult. I think if you have the ability to see the situation from a different perspective, you'd agree that a 300 hour CFI is going to have a much tougher time with that transition than a 3000 hour pilot whose been flying single-pilot IFR freight runs in a Baron or Chieftain for the last 1500 hours. I will tell you from experience that the decision-making ability of that individual, as well as the ability to perform well when a curveball is thrown their way, is far superior to those skills of the 300-hour CFI. Given the choice, I know without a doubt who I'd rather have as a teammate while operating into and out of JFK.
Unfortunately, pilots of this experience level are less likely to pursue employment at the regional level today, because they can command higher salaries elsewhere.
Once again, I never wrote a 1200TT flight instructor is the ideal candidate for this job. I also never wrote a 300 hour pilot can't eventually become an asset on the flightdeck. The concern is for the level of safety oftentimes sacrificed to fill that seat.
Respectfully.
Last edited:
imacdog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Posts
- 4,196
If you don't know the difference, then you aren't ready yet.
dvmthwsvan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2004
- Posts
- 124
My 02 cents - V-1 has the right idea but is asking the wrong questions and therefore getting the wrong answers.
If you ask - 'can a 300 hr pilot learn how to do the job'? The answer is YES.
If you ask - 'If I take the guy/gal in the left seat out of the picture, can that 300 hr pilot get us home? The answer is most probably, NO (not unless you're very lucky).
We survive these aberrations for two reasons only - most airplanes never have a serious problem in flight and very nearly all airplanes arrive at their destinations with both pilots alive, well and functioning. Therefore the problem solves itself over time and the window of exposure gets smaller with each flight.
There is a window where the risk factor is much higher than it should be but that is a realitively small window. Risk management (if it even exists at the particular airline) knows this and decides to take the risk. Most of the time they don't even think about it one way or the other.
Statistics tell us that the probability of losing an airplane or having it involved in a serious incident - due to the experience level (low) of the First Officer is virtually nonexistant - it 'never' happens. In fact, statistically, most serious incidents and hull losses occur in aircraft whose cockpit crews are highly experienced.
Accidents very rarely occur due to serious mechanical failures or inexperienced first officers. They almost never occur due to collapse of the captain and a 300-hr FO having to 'save the day'. I'm not sure, but my guess is you couldn't produce a single airline accident where the probable cause was attributed to the low flight time of the co-pilot. If it does happen, it will be blamed on the captain anyway; thus no statistic.
Result: there is no evidence to support the need for serious consideration against hiring low-time pilots (other than a possible increase in training costs, which is offset by very low entry level pay).
Yes, it is harder on the captain who has to endure the learning curve of an inexperienced crewmember and often very frustrating for that captain. This is especially true when the captain h/herself is relatively inexperienced (often the case in the small airlines - due to the rapid upgrade syndrome/reality).
The number crunchers don't measure 'captain frustration' and don't care about it. Statistics tell them that what they're doing is not a serious safety problem and therefore they don't worry about it.
The rest of us just have to roll with the punches, control the pucker factor and live with the frustrations for awhile.
Before too long that 300 hour guy will grow into a 10,000 hour guy that makes twice as many mistakes due to complacency, and is too proud to admit most, if any, of them.
It's all a part of this 'game' that we choose to play.
If you ask - 'can a 300 hr pilot learn how to do the job'? The answer is YES.
If you ask - 'If I take the guy/gal in the left seat out of the picture, can that 300 hr pilot get us home? The answer is most probably, NO (not unless you're very lucky).
We survive these aberrations for two reasons only - most airplanes never have a serious problem in flight and very nearly all airplanes arrive at their destinations with both pilots alive, well and functioning. Therefore the problem solves itself over time and the window of exposure gets smaller with each flight.
There is a window where the risk factor is much higher than it should be but that is a realitively small window. Risk management (if it even exists at the particular airline) knows this and decides to take the risk. Most of the time they don't even think about it one way or the other.
Statistics tell us that the probability of losing an airplane or having it involved in a serious incident - due to the experience level (low) of the First Officer is virtually nonexistant - it 'never' happens. In fact, statistically, most serious incidents and hull losses occur in aircraft whose cockpit crews are highly experienced.
Accidents very rarely occur due to serious mechanical failures or inexperienced first officers. They almost never occur due to collapse of the captain and a 300-hr FO having to 'save the day'. I'm not sure, but my guess is you couldn't produce a single airline accident where the probable cause was attributed to the low flight time of the co-pilot. If it does happen, it will be blamed on the captain anyway; thus no statistic.
Result: there is no evidence to support the need for serious consideration against hiring low-time pilots (other than a possible increase in training costs, which is offset by very low entry level pay).
Yes, it is harder on the captain who has to endure the learning curve of an inexperienced crewmember and often very frustrating for that captain. This is especially true when the captain h/herself is relatively inexperienced (often the case in the small airlines - due to the rapid upgrade syndrome/reality).
The number crunchers don't measure 'captain frustration' and don't care about it. Statistics tell them that what they're doing is not a serious safety problem and therefore they don't worry about it.
The rest of us just have to roll with the punches, control the pucker factor and live with the frustrations for awhile.
Before too long that 300 hour guy will grow into a 10,000 hour guy that makes twice as many mistakes due to complacency, and is too proud to admit most, if any, of them.
It's all a part of this 'game' that we choose to play.
Astute as always, Surplus.
I'll leave this debate with a question your comments raised:
If our example 300-hour pilot is not capable of operating the aircraft single-pilot in the event crewmember incapacitation occurs, why are they even there?
Perhaps only because the 2000-hour pilot has taken a better job elsewhere?
Safety and economics are at two ends of a rope in a tug of war competition. One side is winning the battle right now, and it's not the side I'm rooting for.
I'll leave this debate with a question your comments raised:
If our example 300-hour pilot is not capable of operating the aircraft single-pilot in the event crewmember incapacitation occurs, why are they even there?
Perhaps only because the 2000-hour pilot has taken a better job elsewhere?
Safety and economics are at two ends of a rope in a tug of war competition. One side is winning the battle right now, and it's not the side I'm rooting for.
On that sir, I couldn't agree with you more.
In my experience, safety has never been able to compete with money as the decision maker. Money wins every time.
You just have to grin and bear it, stay on your toes and keep your fingers crossed.
Be careful out there and cya - the life you save may be your own.
Blue skies and tailwinds to ya.
In my experience, safety has never been able to compete with money as the decision maker. Money wins every time.
You just have to grin and bear it, stay on your toes and keep your fingers crossed.
Be careful out there and cya - the life you save may be your own.
Blue skies and tailwinds to ya.
Spoken like a true 300 hour wonder.
I spent a good bit of time teaching and watching guys make the same mistakes over and over. It makes you humble and brings an awareness that you are capable of any mistake made by other pilots.out there. (After the Comair incident, I looked at the chart and knew that if the circumstances were right, I could make the same bad choice)
So as flying a jet... It is still an airplane. Just because it has turbine strapped to it, does not change the basic principle of flying.
Go back to your job you bought.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
