Flying Blind: Deregulation reconsidered

[olympus593]

How would you lower costs while increasing wages and reducing productivity?

Please stop feeding this f ing troll!

 

[Flopgut]

How would you lower costs while increasing wages and reducing productivity?

We're not going to do anything for free, first of all. Basically, imagine there was only one B737 training program and operators didn't have to run individual programs? Airline training costs could be trimmed significantly. And then on top of that we could do contract training. In the very near term, training would be better, cheaper, and more standard. We could win over manufactures and oversight easily IMHO.

 

[pilotyip]

Good idea, a lot of smaller airlines do contract training. However there seems to be a cost advantage when you reach a certain size to bring training in house.

 

[AC560]

We're not going to do anything for free, first of all. Basically, imagine there was only one B737 training program and operators didn't have to run individual programs? Airline training costs could be trimmed significantly. And then on top of that we could do contract training. In the very near term, training would be better, cheaper, and more standard. We could win over manufactures and oversight easily IMHO.

Isn't that called FlightSafety?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Guys... saying ALPA should control the supply of pilots is radical....

But lets say there is a pragmatic vision....

You've got to lay out how ALPA or an organization is going to gain control of a free market fundamental: supply.

Don't just say "ALPA should do this... or when ALPA does that..." You've got to lay out specifics...

In addition, doesn't this fly in the face of free enterprise?

 

[pilotyip]

Rez?

Guys... saying ALPA should control the supply of pilots is radical....?

Is this you Rez, or did you leave a public computer while still logged in? A real dose of reality, unusual from you.

 

[olympus593]

In addition, doesn't this fly in the face of free enterprise?

Free enterprise works for a lot of things but for the airline industry it's been a disaster for everybody but the trash that fly to orlando for 29$ round trip, nuff said.

 

[igneousy2]

Guys... saying ALPA should control the supply of pilots is radical....

But lets say there is a pragmatic vision....

You've got to lay out how ALPA or an organization is going to gain control of a free market fundamental: supply.

Don't just say "ALPA should do this... or when ALPA does that..." You've got to lay out specifics...

In addition, doesn't this fly in the face of free enterprise?

Okay you want specifics...because you asked...

1. Everybody needs to stop thinking like "pilotyip" and we have to call out anyone among us who does. This whole thing about hurting people's feelings is getting us nowhere. Defending this profesion needs to be ALPA's number one priority. If a few panties get twisted along the way so be it. So what if we are saying that half the current airline pilots aren't qualified to do there job.

As far as worrying about the airlines having enough pilots...damn it THATS THE F-in point. What is most clear right now is that the number of pilots available does not determine the amount of air travel. If an airline needs 500 pilots and they can't get them by offering $20,000 a year...well guess what? I guess they just might have to offer $25k or heaven forbid $30k a year. Wages keep increasing until they fill there 500 positions. Fly-by-night operators can't count on hiring a whole bunch of guys for nothing with the promise of something years from now.

2. We need to start a PR campaign that makes it clear to everybody that we are the ONLY ones in the aviation industry that truly give a damn about safety because OUR as*es are the only ones that are on the line to.

3. We need to train an army of properly trained pilots to be part of an army of spokespersons for ALPA. When we have an opportunity like the Colgan accident or the Sully incident we need to have OUR people, giving OUR message from first thing Sunday with Meet the Press to the Friday edition of Nightline.

4. We need to have a reporting system to document "SAVES". There needs to be a stream of press releases from ALPA every time we handle a light and NOTHING happens which is EVERY day. It also will give the Army created in 3 above a reason to be called into the news room. Our message needs to be FLYING is ONLY safe because of the properly trained and experienced crews.

5. We need to have SPECIFIC solutions to the current days problems. Can anybody tell me what ALPA's position is on fatigue beyond "it needs to be fixed." Can anybody tell me what ALPA's position is on what an airlines pilot qualifications should be or what a proper pilot training program should look like beyond "it's inadequate."

We need specifics...Here is the exact language that we want the regulations to be changed to...no more than X hours on duty...no more than X hours on duty if our duty crosses a WOCL...the window of WOCL is between X:00 hours and X:00 hours...all backed up by science of course...

A properly qualified airline pilot...has an ATP....has X,000 hours...has X years of 91/military flying experience...was trained at an ACCREDITED FLIGHT SCHOOL....all backed up by the proper studies in simulators.

An ACCREDITED FLIGHT SCHOOL requires X years with X semester hours, before you can even get into this school you must have X years college, x years work experience, etc. etc. etc....you guessed it...studies studies studies.

If we have SPECIFICS it is impossible for the enemy of safety...the ATA...to have reasonable defenses to this except it will cost more money, which makes us look better.

6. Once we have 5 in place and established...when Buffalo happens again, and we are called to testify before congress...we can say "see Mr. Congressman we knew this was going to happen...let's enact these SPECIFIC things into law today...oh look what we have written up already in our brief case...Let's pass this into law so that way we can prevent this from happening again."

Because we don't have specifics this is what ALPA has to release...

“The FAA’s aggressive timeline and commitment to alleviating pilot fatigue is welcome news for airline pilots across the country,” said Capt. John Prater, ALPA’s president. “ALPA stands ready to work with the airlines and the regulators to create the innovative solutions we need to make a safe industry even safer.”


Work WITH the airlines....NO! the message needs to be...we've been warning all of you for YEARS about this...now people are dead...now you are going to implement what we have been advocating for years based on science...here's the rule...sign here...there is NOTHING to discuss...because there is NOTHING INNOVATIVE about sleep, humans have been doing it since we first scurried out of the ocean.


Anyway...I rant.


Later

 

[acpilot]

Okay you want specifics...because you asked...

1. Everybody needs to stop thinking like "pilotyip" and we have to call out anyone among us who does. This whole thing about hurting people's feelings is getting us nowhere. Defending this profesion needs to be ALPA's number one priority. If a few panties get twisted along the way so be it. So what if we are saying that half the current airline pilots aren't qualified to do there job.

ALPA's primary priority is to generate revenue.

As far as worrying about the airlines having enough pilots...damn it THATS THE F-in point. What is most clear right now is that the number of pilots available does not determine the amount of air travel. If an airline needs 500 pilots and they can't get them by offering $20,000 a year...well guess what? I guess they just might have to offer $25k or heaven forbid $30k a year. Wages keep increasing until they fill there 500 positions. Fly-by-night operators can't count on hiring a whole bunch of guys for nothing with the promise of something years from now.

Yes...fewer pilots is the only real solution to this problem. Artifically inflating the price for labor is not.

2. We need to start a PR campaign that makes it clear to everybody that we are the ONLY ones in the aviation industry that truly give a damn about safety because OUR as*es are the only ones that are on the line to.

That would be nice. Do you think ALPA will shell out the dough to help you there? Do you think the campaign should include 91 and 135?

3. We need to train an army of properly trained pilots to be part of an army of spokespersons for ALPA. When we have an opportunity like the Colgan accident or the Sully incident we need to have OUR people, giving OUR message from first thing Sunday with Meet the Press to the Friday edition of Nightline.

Interesting.

4. We need to have a reporting system to document "SAVES". There needs to be a stream of press releases from ALPA every time we handle a light and NOTHING happens which is EVERY day. It also will give the Army created in 3 above a reason to be called into the news room. Our message needs to be FLYING is ONLY safe because of the properly trained and experienced crews.

That will scare the crap out of the flying public. They think everything works perfectly all the time. Why would you want to broadcast that airliners have problems on a daily basis?

The FAA will love that though! A daily supply of reports made available to the public. I smell enforcement action!

A properly qualified airline pilot...has an ATP....has X,000 hours...has X years of 91/military flying experience...was trained at an ACCREDITED FLIGHT SCHOOL....all backed up by the proper studies in simulators.

REALLY? What about pt61 trained pilots? What about the competent 1500hr ATPs?

I'm with yip on the aptitude test idea. In fact, just about everything yip has said it on track. 30 on ACTs or 1300 on SATs. Sounds great to me! Flying is the easy part.

An ACCREDITED FLIGHT SCHOOL requires X years with X semester hours, before you can even get into this school you must have X years college, x years work experience, etc. etc. etc....you guessed it...studies studies studies.

This will drive costs up. There are already students graduating with $100K in loans...what makes you think that the "accredited" school will change anything. It sounds great, but in the end, the $29 fare will win every time.

 

[pilotyip]

This would hurt a lot of pilots

I'm with yip on the aptitude test idea. In fact, just about everything yip has said it on track. 30 on ACTs or 1300 on SATs. Sounds great to me! Flying is the easy part.

If this was made the standard about 95% of the pilots flying, myself included would be out of a job. I only wrote a 29 and 1280, 50 years ago. BTW in the end the consumer will determine how much airline pilots are paid. If regulation raises prices, there will be fewer riders that will result in fewer pilots. All that being said it is still a great job, and puts you in the upper end of income earners in the US.

 

[Flopgut]

I agree with everything Igneausy2 has to say.

I would expand with: CAL trained a couple thousand 737 pilots with 1 new gen sim and two old sims that wouldn't cost 5 grand on ebay. The heavy lifting in a training environment is the human effort (software). Especially in an AQP environment. ALPA could train double that amount with the same amount of hardware. We have the human side of the equation very well covered. Individual airline training programs are indeed superlative. Imagine bringing the best training minds together across all ALPA carriers? Wow! Some of the brighter minds in this business have recently insisted standardizing the way we equip and maintain airline fleets needs to be standardized. The same could be argued for how we train to fly them. ALPA should merchandize that and go forward. I'm less inclined to believe we need to delve into initial flight schools. (ALPA should have years ago, but it's too late) 3-4 years and there will be a shortage of transport category pilots available to fly, we want to be in position for that.

As far as flow charting initial steps? Here is what I have on my brain right now, but I'm still playing with it: The world is flat (Friedman says so), so let's take advantage of that. An ALPA training program doen't need to necessarily be here. We should shop that around. Matter of fact, I think we all need to be in a position to have certification we know will be in place down the road. Even if ALPA didn't try to be a player in numbers of pilots, regular supply and demand might lure a large number of us to fly in other parts of the world. But when did this economy and govt allow us (airline pilots) the fundamental right of supply and demand??! I wouldn't doubt for a second that if enough US pilots left for greener pastures, oversight would do something to make that impossible for us. We need to think of ourselves as a nation. A Nation of pilots and we need think big picture. There is a lot we can do with this operationally that would make things better for everybody. Consider as well: ALPA getting involved in dispatch functions? Outside the box, I know, I'm just putting that out there. The more things we get involved in operationally, the better.

 

[acpilot]

If this was made the standard about 95% of the pilots flying, myself included would be out of a job. I only wrote a 29 and 1280, 50 years ago. BTW in the end the consumer will determine how much airline pilots are paid. If regulation raises prices, there will be fewer riders that will result in fewer pilots. All that being said it is still a great job, and puts you in the upper end of income earners in the US.

There's no reason one can't make multiple attempts. If I remember correctly, they only take your best score. I don't think it's averaged like the LSAT.

In any event, you're right:

-Regulation will eliminate pilot positions...and that will leave an even larger surplus of pilots willing to work for pennies.

-The vast majority of consumers will ALWAYS choose the lowest fare.

 

[jmreii]

If this was made the standard about 95% of the pilots flying, myself included would be out of a job. I only wrote a 29 and 1280, 50 years ago. BTW in the end the consumer will determine how much airline pilots are paid. If regulation raises prices, there will be fewer riders that will result in fewer pilots. All that being said it is still a great job, and puts you in the upper end of income earners in the US.

I got to hand it to you yip, for some reason people do not understand this consumer driven economy which will determine what fares are charged and excepted in-order for the market to pay their employees. I thank my lucky stars that I got a degree in something other than aviation. The 70's had a few airlines and a few airplanes with even fewer pilots, mainly military. I did not ride on a commercial airplane until I had all my ratings and had been flying for 10 years.

 

[pilotyip]

-Regulation will eliminate pilot positions...and that will leave an even larger surplus of pilots willing to work for pennies.

-The vast majority of consumers will ALWAYS choose the lowest fare.

I got to hand it to you yip, for some reason people do not understand this consumer driven economy which will determine what fares are charged and excepted in-order for the market to pay their employees.

I not understand why when you post this kind of stuff which, in my humble opinion, reflects reality, you are often set upon as being part of the problem, unprofessional and a flame baiter?

 

[igneousy2]

quoting...acpilot


That would be nice. Do you think ALPA will shell out the dough to help you there? Do you think the campaign should include 91 and 135?

No absolutely not...this is the AIR LINE Pilots Association...If you want to help out the 91 and 135 guys join AOPA.


...



That will scare the crap out of the flying public. They think everything works perfectly all the time. Why would you want to broadcast that airliners have problems on a daily basis?

Because I want people to know that it matters who your pilots are and give a damn and decide what airline they buy their ticket on based on if they are ALPA pilots in the cockpit or not. I want people to look in the cockpit and praise Jesus that we are there.

Right now the word on the street is that flying is SAFE! In fact, the airplanes they fly THEMSELVES...in fact...flying is safer than driving a car! So what else is a lay person to believe. Joe Average can drive a car...shoot why do we even have pilots up there at all...if it's so safe, and if it's so automated...and if it's EASIER than driving a car that even I can do everyday...then why SHOULD they get any more money then a Real Estate Agent or a Payroll Clerk or an Assistant Manger at Wal Mart?

I also challenge you to show PROOF that people would fly less because they felt flying was more dangerous. People still drive everyday and every day on the news I watch there is the story of at least 1 fatal accident EVERYDAY. After 9/11 people only stopped flying for less than a year before the loads returned. Continental has had one near-miss (Denver) and one fatal in less than a year and they are still going strong. In 6 months no lay person that doesn't live in Buffalo will remember the crash. I haven't spoken to a single person that has ever not taken a trip because they didn't feel safe. The people that are so afraid to fly that they would avoid a trip ALREADY don't fly.

REALLY? What about pt61 trained pilots?

There are too many of them.

What about the competent 1500hr ATPs?

There are too many of them.

This is exactly what keeps us paralized...everybody knows an uber-qualified Part-61 guy flying in the Alaskan Bush that wouldn't be qualified. First, he probably doesn't WANT to fly for an airline, second, if he wants to then the message is YES he needs to go to a special school.

While in college I worked at a State Circuit Court. Everybody at the courthouse knew that if you wanted to know what the law was or what the procedure was in our section of the law you asked one of a few court clerks that had been there FOREVER. Even the attorneys went to the court clerks with questions. These were not trained Attorneys, however, they knew the law and every applicable precedent front ways, side-ways, and back-wards. If I needed an attorney I would prefer to be represented by one of these clerks then most of the attorneys there, most of whom were less than 5 years out of law school. I wouldn't be able to hire them ONLY because they were not graduates of an ABA approved law school nor had any of them passed the bar exam...even though I know they would be of far better assistance then one of the "real lawyers."

The fact that a certain individual that could do the job, maybe even be great at the job would or would not be qualified is IRRELEVANT.

Besides...there obviously would need to be grand-father provisions as there is in any rule. We don't have the schools yet and we certainly aren't going to fire every current airline pilot. How many people on here have your High Performance or your Complex airplane endorsement signed? I don't. The rules changed, but only for the up-and-comers. That's how it has always worked.

...


This will drive costs up. There are already students graduating with $100K in loans...what makes you think that the "accredited" school will change anything.

Exactly - Barriers to entry... just like the lawyers and doctors...I love it. You shouldn't be able to be an airline pilot without a $150k-$200k investment and 3-5 years of your life...just like the lawyers and doctors.

...

It sounds great, but in the end, the $29 fare will win every time.

Right now this is correct...so we can either a. continue doing the same thing which is essentially nothing...or b. try to do something different. Damn, why do we even bother to pay the 1.9%?

What if we could get it so that consumers actually DID give a damn which airline they bought there seats on. Not possible? Perhaps...but hey we'll never know because it's never been done.

Is Coca-Cola or Pepsi the cheapest Cola at the Super-market? Are they number 1 and number 2? hell yea!

We as Airline Pilots have a brand problem...we haven't made people CARE about who is flying the airplane they are on because we have towed the line with the industry that flying is safe...all airlines are safe..."Airline flying is safe"...All Airline flying is the SAME...yada...yada...yada.

We need to MAKE people care...if we make them care then the $29 fare ISN'T going to win and we may even create some people willing to pay a little extra.

 

[pilotyip]

What about non-union airlines?

We need to MAKE people care...if we make them care then the $29 fare ISN'T going to win and we may even create some people willing to pay a little extra.

If you add too much cost to a ticket, you provide an opportunity for new airlines to start up. The UAW tried to control the marketplace for years. You see what I got them. Here is how the UAW does it; they reach a deal with a single company, then go to the next company and say match it or you will be shutdown and all the new cars being sold will be built someplace else, then they go to the next company and repeat. When the auto companies where rolling in money it was a good deal for all. But over the last 30 years it has eliminated 70% of the union jobs, gave great raise to non-union companies, and now it is concession time. Now the Airlines could follow the same path as the UAW and it would be great for 30% of those who still had jobs. This is also great for the non-ALPA airlines that would fly all the passengers when the ALPA pilots were on strike.

 

[Lear70]

If you add too much cost to a ticket, you provide an opportunity for new airlines to start up. The UAW tried to control the marketplace for years. You see what I got them. Here is how the UAW does it; they reach a deal with a single company, then go to the next company and say match it or you will be shutdown and all the new cars being sold will be built someplace else, then they go to the next company and repeat. When the auto companies where rolling in money it was a good deal for all. But over the last 30 years it has eliminated 70% of the union jobs, gave great raise to non-union companies, and now it is concession time. Now the Airlines could follow the same path as the UAW and it would be great for 30% of those who still had jobs. This is also great for the non-ALPA airlines that would fly all the passengers when the ALPA pilots were on strike.

Not if you have LEGISLATION that PREVENTS a start-up from using anyone but pilots accredited through this process. Renders this part of your argument moot.

Again, similar to the legal and medical professions. You don't see competing U.S. hospitals starting up and getting doctors out of Mexico or Brazil to come and operate on Americans. It's because the doctors MUST have come from an AMA accredited school with specific requirements to practice.

Yes, it would drive up ticket prices. Yes, fewer would fly. Yes, many would lose their jobs, but most would stay employed, and it would make the jobs that DO remain worth having.

Something has to change, YIP... you may be happy for things to continue this way... I'm not, and neither are the majority of pilots out there.

 

[pilotyip]

So Re-reg is the answer

Something has to change, YIP... you may be happy for things to continue this way... I'm not, and neither are the majority of pilots out there.

It is not that I am happy or unhappy, that is irrelevant. Few people have had as rocky of a career as me. But I am coming out just fine into retirement. I am just looking the impact of regulation and its effects. I am looking at the reality of the situation as I see it. So Re-reg is the answer is that what you are telling me? There is down side to re-reg in the elimination of jobs. I would suppose that as long as your job is not one of the jobs eliminated, you would support. Too bad about all the other guys that loose their jobs. Is that what I am hearing? Again back to my solution what is wrong with using the ACT of 30 and SAT of 1300 as the screening tool to limit the supply of pilots?

 

[Lear70]

So Re-reg is the answer is that what you are telling me?

It's one of the options, yes. I've been preaching re-regulation or FULL government DE-regulation (and the associative airline failures that would come with no one bailing them out) for a couple years now.

There is down side to re-reg in the elimination of jobs.

I believe I've already said that.

Repeatedly.

I would suppose that as long as your job is not one of the jobs eliminated, you would support. Too bad about all the other guys that loose their jobs. Is that what I am hearing?

No. That's what you're INTERPRETING.

I believe my track record of biting the bullet for the right reasons is well-documented. If you have any questions about it, feel free to read back over my posts regarding AirTran the last 2 years.

Again back to my solution what is wrong with using the ACT of 30 and SAT of 1300 as the screening tool to limit the supply of pilots?

Because it doesn't adequately address the supply issues.

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean they have the aptitude to be a pilot. Hell, I scored a 32 on the stupid ACT back in '89; it's not that difficult of a test, there's probably study gouges for it, and with an unlimited number of retries, eventually most would pass it.

You need a true governing body that can actively restrict the number of pilots coming through the pipeline, just like the ABA and AMA do, to make this idea work. Restrict the supply, restrict the ability of airlines to recruit foreign pilots or push an MPL solution to solve their staffing problem, and the problem gets fixed. No more whipsawing, no more lowest bidder, and a TRUE threat of company shut-down when a pilot group goes on strike.

Tougher to implement. Doctors and attorneys back in the early part of this century were smart enough to do it before the bureaucracy of our government system became so big that it now becomes almost problematic...

 

[pilotyip]

It's one of the options, yes. I've been preaching re-regulation or FULL government DE-regulation (and the associative airline failures that would come with no one bailing them out) for a couple years now..

Truely best of luck in your efforts to restrict what is now a free market.