Flying Blind: Deregulation reconsidered

[Lear70]

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

Our only hope is for airline management to continue screwing up badly enough to get Congress, Senate, and the President to have to re-regulate the industry.

There's too much lobbying to ever convince them to COMPLETELY deregulate the industry... The ATA providing loads of cash to ensure their access to bankruptcy protection when they need it to reorganize again every decade or so.

 

[acpilot]

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

I see your point. However, considering the "public image" concerns, shouldn't all professional pilots be represented equally?

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.

Will they praise Jesus that you are there or curse you for raising their fare $X?

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?

Flying is safer:
Fatalities per million trips (on a single trip)
Airliner: 0.019
Automobile: 0.130

Side note:
I just googled "Driving vs Flying" and all but one link on the first page were related to COST comparisons, not safety comparisons. Even googling "driving vs flying safety 2009" yielded a suprising amount of cost-related links. COST is the primary concern of the public...particularly in this economic environmet.

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.

I don't think anybody is saying driving is safer than flying.

REALLY? What about pt61 trained pilots?

There are too many of them.

Pay no attention to the "FAA Approved" pilot mills behind the curtin...

What about the competent 1500hr ATPs?

There are too many of them.

Too many competent ATPs??!! We can't be having that now, can we?

I think your point is that there are too many pilots seeking employment on the street. I agree.

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.

So, eventhough he posseses some hardcore flying experience and survived life as a bush pilot, he needs to go to school to be taught how to fly? "Sure, you can fly a plane, but can you engage an autopilot?"

I'm using your example. You can substitute in single pilot 135 guy, Ag pilot, etc...

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."

Great story!

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.

So, a 15,000 pilot with 4,000 PIC in a 737 who isn't a member of ALPA would not get a job while a 5,000 hour pilot who IS a member of ALPA would get the job?

I think skill is very relevant.

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.

I think we all assumed this. I went out of my way to get my endorsements signed.

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.

Barriers to entry ALREADY EXIST! Apparently, these "barriers" were easily conquered. Learning to fly doesn't take brains...it only takes money.

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.

Since driving is so much more dangerous than flying, do you check the creds of a taxi driver before you get in? Off the top of your head, which is the safest cab company? You trust your life to that driver (particularly when you're blasted and on your way home from the bar). You don't care...you only want the cheapest fare in a car that isn't actually on fire.

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

"Perceived value" works well with stuff that costs $2.00 a can...not so well when it involves hundreds or possible of thousands of dollars. The public sees flying as an acceptably safe way of traveling. Short of public scare campagins (which would be incredibly unethical) or intentionally damaging airplanes (which is a criminal act) this feeling won't change.

The other route involves friendly, informative media highlighting the airlines under the ALPA umbrella. Customers will compare the costs and make a decision...and probably side with the cheaper fare anyway.

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.

Airline flying is safe.

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.

How much money should ALPA throw at this effort?

 

[pilotyip]

Another dose of reality

Airline flying is safe. How much money should ALPA throw at this effort?

As stated before the consumer will determine how much you can charge for an airline ticket. In the end travelers with time flexibility wil always shop the lowest price. They have no airline loyality. If airline prices get too high they elect to not travel, drive or take a bus.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

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?

You STILL haven't read the postion paper.... are you that arrogant or dumb..or both?

 

[pilotyip]

Sure I did

You STILL haven't read the postion paper.... are you that arrogant or dumb..or both?

"Promote more equitable and stable labor practices and return to the pre-deregulation practice of pattern bargaining in order to discourage airline competition based on low wages and high-pressure working conditions"
I read this as higher wages, which will apply to all airline employees, which means higher costs, which means more expensive tickets, which means fewer passengers. Of course this is only my humble opinion. But what did I miss? BTW normally name-calling would be inexcusable, but when you consider the source its OK.

 

[igneousy2]

I see your point. However, considering the "public image" concerns, shouldn't all professional pilots be represented equally?

Not at all...the perils of CFIs, test pilots, fighter pilots, banner tow pilots, ag pilots, bush pilots, sim-instructors, FAA inspectors, traffic reporters, and astronauts is not, and should not be, a concern of ALPA.

Flying is safer:
Fatalities per million trips (on a single trip)
Airliner: 0.019
Automobile: 0.130

I have no doubt about that on AVERAGE...

But right now on AVERAGE the experience level on the flight decks of US airliners is very high so we have a very impresive safety record on average. However, "there are only 3 kinds of lies...lies, damn-lies, and statistics." Right now people only care about the overall average because we haven't made them care about any other measure.

...but more importantly you and the general public are missing the point...and that is the WHY. I don't think our message should be flying is dangerous so STAY AWAY. I think our message should be, and the reality is, that flying is inherintly dangerous unless you have experienced properly trained crews flying the airplane that you are on that day.

Side note:
I just googled "Driving vs Flying" and all but one link on the first page were related to COST comparisons, not safety comparisons. Even googling "driving vs flying safety 2009" yielded a suprising amount of cost-related links. COST is the primary concern of the public...particularly in this economic environmet.

You are absolutely correct while proving my point. Of course the public doesn't care about airline safety because right now we are operating in an environment where the presumption is that airline flying is safe. Why should they be looking it up? They don't care...they don't need to worry about it because they take the safety of flying for granted just like people before the 1980's took the safety of their tap water for granted. Who's going to pay $6 a gallon for water in a bottle when they already get it for practically FREE pumped straight to there homes?

Do you think that people in the 60's thought about all the lead, anti-biotics, pesticide runoff, etc. getting into their tap-water. No-absolutely not. Somebody MADE THEM CARE and changed enough people's perception about tap-water to create a multi-billion dollar industry out of nothing.

Too many competent ATPs??!! We can't be having that now, can we?

I think your point is that there are too many pilots seeking employment on the street. I agree.

No my point is that there are too many ATP's...ATP's in the sense that they are qualified/should be qualified to pilot an airliner. Way too many.

So, eventhough he posseses some hardcore flying experience and survived life as a bush pilot, he needs to go to school to be taught how to fly? "Sure, you can fly a plane, but can you engage an autopilot?"

Yes...and yes.

I built computer systems in college for myself and a few friends (not to the degree of Michael Dell obviously), however when I was flight instructing I went to a Computer City to get a part-time job as a computer tech...not really a tech, just an installer... I was TURNED DOWN outright. I was told to call back when I got my "A+" certification.

Just because you don't meet the qualifications for a job, does not mean you can't do the job. This is not as far fetched an idea as you make it seem. Is a 1500 hour pilot really that much more qualified then a pilot with 1499 hours?

So, a 15,000 pilot with 4,000 PIC in a 737 who isn't a member of ALPA would not get a job while a 5,000 hour pilot who IS a member of ALPA would get the job?

I never said they had to be a member of ALPA. I advocate following the ABA/AMA model, which does not require lawyers/doctors to be members, however they positioned themselves as the authorities on the certification of law./docs and they convinced almost all 50 states and the federal government to adopt there standards when passing regulations...to the point where if you look up a lawyer job or a doctor job you will see the phrase "graduate of an ABA/AMA approved school..."

Barriers to entry ALREADY EXIST! Apparently, these "barriers" were easily conquered. Learning to fly doesn't take brains...it only takes money.

And people wonder why our pay is falling as the years go by. We are our own worst enemy.

Since driving is so much more dangerous than flying, do you check the creds of a taxi driver before you get in? Off the top of your head, which is the safest cab company? You trust your life to that driver (particularly when you're blasted and on your way home from the bar). You don't care...you only want the cheapest fare in a car that isn't actually on fire.

Not true, however there is no real way for me to determine what the safety record is of a particular driver that picks me up. If I could go on line and see that the driver of cab 666 has killed 7 people in 3 seperate fatal accidents in the past 12 months, you can bet I'm going to take the next cab.

"Perceived value" works well with stuff that costs $2.00 a can...not so well when it involves hundreds or possible of thousands of dollars. The public sees flying as an acceptably safe way of traveling.

Oh really? Then why did the Toyotal Corolla in the 90's outsell the GEO Prizm almost 2 to 1 even though both were made side-by-side on the same assembly line, with the only real difference being the name plate and the price...the Corolla was more expensive!

Short of public scare campagins (which would be incredibly unethical) or intentionally damaging airplanes (which is a criminal act) this feeling won't change.

Especially if we don't do anything different.

The other route involves friendly, informative media highlighting the airlines under the ALPA umbrella. Customers will compare the costs and make a decision...and probably side with the cheaper fare anyway.

Again, this is not about highlighting ALPA...it's about making people care what the qualifications are of the pilots on there airplanes. Maybe the answer isn't ALPA...maybe it's some other organization...maybe a joint venture with APA and SWAPA. At the end of all this the goal is to make Joe Customer CARE if his Captain has 1,500 hours or 15,000 hours and be willing to pay a little extra for it. I disagree with your basic assumption that Joe Customer doesn't care about this. I think that right now he is just a little naive. I think that Joe Customer, after learning that it is important, and given a way to differentiate the two at the time of purchase, would end up paying a little bit extra to fly with a more expeirenced crew.

How much money should ALPA throw at this effort?

As much as it takes.

 

[acpilot]

Forget it.

We disagree.

 

[Nindiri]

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.

Why not just have legislation that directly mandates appropriate salaries for pilots. It would be a lot simpler than all this complicated silliness about ALPA certifying pilots and rules to force airlines to hire only ALPA approved pilots.

 

[bluesideup340]

If you want to be treated as a professional get a job were you are rewarded on the merits of your contributions to the company and not you seniority number.

Amen Brother

 

[pilotyip]

Full Circle

Why not just have legislation that directly mandates appropriate salaries for pilots. It would be a lot simpler than all this complicated silliness about ALPA certifying pilots and rules to force airlines to hire only ALPA approved pilots.

Back to re-reg, just like the good ole days in 1977. Good for a few, bad for many. Like in 1977 Military guys will get head of the line privileges at the good jobs.