How will Pilot shops survive the purposed FAA mandate of 1500/ATP

[deadstick]

the girl at ASA that always ends with " have a good day ya'll" very annoying if following her

It's " y'all " for "you all."

 

[cldsfr79]

Apparently they'll have to do it the old fashioned way like many of us did. Putting 300 hour wonders in the right seat was a bad idea, anyway.

For many years, one couldn't be competitive for the right seat of a regional without 2,500 hours or so, let alone tipping the scales at barely qualified for the ATP.

Raising the bar a little isn't going to hurt anything that doesn't need hurting, and it's certainly not going to compromise or damage the industry.

I completely agree. I think 1500 hours and an ATP is a good requirement for a professional pilot.

When I was hired at a regional back in 02' I had 2300 hours and 275 multi. Yes, I didn't have my ATP but....I met all the requirements and could have (I just wanted to save a little $$$$ and have the airline give it to me). But if an ATP was required, it would not have been a problem.

I worked hard for those hours and felt like I earned my $17k a year job flying turbo props. I felt well trained, learned, experienced, and knowledgeable. I feel sometimes that the 300 hour wonder pilots haven't earned their keep and I question the skills and experience at that level. Twenty years ago guys had to fight each other to get a regional job and had thousands of hours of experience which usually consisted of late night freight jobs. Those guys had it rough and earned their job.

I just watched a Northwest CRJ 200 attempt to land in White Plains, NY today during a thunderstorm, gusty winds and a 15+ knot tailwind. I was in disbelief watching this and almost shouted out "go around". Thankfully the pilots at that point did so as they went floating down the runway 20 feet above it. I'm not knocking their skills, but what training an experience would have lead you to even attempt such a thing?

 

[brokeflyer]

I just watched a Northwest CRJ 200 attempt to land in White Plains, NY today during a thunderstorm, gusty winds and a 15+ knot tailwind. I was in disbelief watching this and almost shouted out "go around". Thankfully the pilots at that point did so as they went floating down the runway 20 feet above it. I'm not knocking their skills, but what training an experience would have lead you to even attempt such a thing?

its the regionals.....they allow for a certain percentage of "losses"

the 1500 hour wonder pilot "can" be just as dangerous without any kind of real worl experience in crappy weather.

He probly thought, well it looks ok, if it gets bad we'll go around. Well fine, but then what?

I think 1500+ ATP is still cutting it a bit thin. Pay those pilots top dollar and you'll get the best.

i dont shop arounf for the cheapest heart surgeon, I go to cleveland clinic.

 

[waka]

Wrong.

Free markets do always 'balance' themselves. The problem is we may not like what that balance turns out to be. It could be a monopoly or a complete collapse of all players, leaving a clean slate for a new start-up to take advantage.

Both scenarios are brutal and ugly, but so is the ultimate balance of entropy.

"Wrong"? Well, no. It is correct.....correct in that you're prefacing your argument on your definition of "balance". Monopoly to complete collapse of all players leading to the same cycle is the widest possible range. That is not saying much to the blind faith in the market insofar as using the market to guide public policy (big mistake). These variables would certainly not fall into my definition of balance. True balance of the market can only be achieved through a well regulated market. However, your opinion is duly noted.

 

[waka]

For the most part, free markets do achieve equilibrium, all on their own, and much more efficiently than "regulators" ever could. Prices set themselves such that supply and demand are always in balance.

I couldn't disagree more. Equilibrium in the market can only be achieved through well placed regulation.

I challenge you to show me how the free market would not achieve balance in this new proposed situation, in which ATPs would be the new requirement yet not enough currently exist.

I suppose it would in the proposed situation. I just took issue about your statement in general encompassing the free market concept as a whole.

 

[414Flyer]

That is the x-factor here. If QOL and wages do not increase, regional carriers and some major carriers will not be able to hire anyone once all the furloughed guys are re-hired.

Delta, CAL, UAL and AMR will need to replace 28923 pilots between 2010 and 2031. As of 7/30/2009, there are 6322 pilots on furlough from Majors, Regionals, Cargo, Charter and 135. This number does not include unannounced or rumored fuloughs. That leaves 22601 pilots to be hired in the next 20 years from only 4 legacy carriers, and that does not include any airline re-growth from this last few years of shrinking due to falling demand. That also does not include USAir, FedEx, UPS, Southwest, and a bunch of other carriers with substantial retirement numbers.

A larger chunk of those guys needed at the higher 121 level will come from regionals, the other portion from military, and the smaller percentage will come from other areas. Assuming the legislation passes, but pay/QOL stay the same as they are now, what do you guys think will happen?

If you think you can guess the future of airline hiring from 2010 to 2031, you should not be in aviation anyways, I would go start playing the lottery or becoming a professional gambler. Most normal people do not seem to be able to predict aviation with any certainty even a few days in advance, and you can do it out to 2031, even knowing what airlines will be around.

 

[CFI2766]

You're going to see alot more false entries in log books as people try to get up to 1500 hours. Getting an ATP is not good enough. How can the quality of flying be monitored?

This is the basic premise of FOQA.

In the future, it will be critical to have non-punitive, constructive safety based language in each each contract so that FOQA doesn't bite us.

 

[laserman2431]

isn't that counteracted by the change to age 65? at least until 2012

I think the difference is that our current situation reflects the change in age 65 retirement requirements and the ATP requirement has not happened yet. One has changed our present for a limited time. The other would change our future.

 

[laserman2431]

1500 hours TT and an ATP rating are not really good indications of a persons ability to be a safe airline pilot. There are so many other factors that go in to the mix of who we are. Intelligence, decision, self confidence, bravery, leadership, etc. Unfortunately, those things are hard to measure. TT and an ATP rating are easy to determine.

I had 1800 hours and some corporate turbo prop and jet time before I went to a regional 121 job. Maybe I'm not the sharpest guy to go through it but I found the initial 121 training to be challenging. For that reason, I have to respect the pilot who can make it through a 121 training program with only 300 hours in his logbook. Maybe low hour 121 pilot deserve more respect because they had the ability to complete the training with less experience.

I don't really think an ATP rating is necessarily a reliable indicator of ability in the same way that a failed checkride should be considered an indator of lack of ability. We all know there are the "brother-in-law" type examiners out there who will give the easy checkride and there are the bad day scenarios that can leave a permanent bad mark on your record. Neither one should be considered a true reflection of our ability.

It looks like the lawmakers are going to make some changes. Requiring an ATP may not be the perfect solution but it will probably have a positive impact.

I think any move that increases the requirements to get a job will be a positive for our pay and benefits.

 

[xjcaptain]

First let me say that good training at airlines is incredibly important, but perhaps we have lost sight of what an airline is/does. It exists to make money by transporting people in aircraft. They do not make money training pilots and are not in the pilot training business.

An airline should hire qualified pilots just as any other person should be qualified for the position they apply for. The terminology isn't FAR correct, but I view any training event at an airline as "differences" training. What do you need to know about operating this aircraft that is different from other types you have operated. I see way too many of our younger/inexperienced pilots assuming that if the airline doesn't tell them something, then they don't need to know it. Because of the lack of previous experience we tend to spend way too much time teaching skills that should have been mastered YEARS before somebody is put in a position of flying passengers for hire under FAR 121. I'm sorry but I should not be drawing out holds and DME arcs on REVENUE flights because the low time pilot is not proficient in basic instrument skills.

People that come in with many more hours, having flown many many different types of aircraft tend to take more personal responsibility for their own competence. Perhaps this was learned by FLYING many hours on their own with no net.

I find it hard to comprehend why anybody would be against the proposed standards. Having been a check-airman for over 10 years, I have trained 300 hour pilots and 30,000 hour pilots. Some of the 300 hours guys have done O.K. but by and large people with more experience bring much more to the cockpit beyond just being able to flip a switch at the appropriate time. I personally feel 1500 and an ATP is very little to ask for when you have unsuspecting paying passengers behind the cockpit door.

 

[CaribPilot]

If you think you can guess the future of airline hiring from 2010 to 2031, you should not be in aviation anyways, I would go start playing the lottery or becoming a professional gambler. Most normal people do not seem to be able to predict aviation with any certainty even a few days in advance, and you can do it out to 2031, even knowing what airlines will be around.

Those are hard numbers, not guesses. A whole entire generation is getting ready to retire, and the economy is beginning to turn around. You would be a fool to not realize the next boom in hiring coming.

My main point is that pilot factories are going to be toast if the legislations passes, and alot of regionals will be toast too, if they do not increase wages and QOL.

 

[dooork]

I completely agree. I think 1500 hours and an ATP is a good requirement for a professional pilot.

When I was hired at a regional back in 02' I had 2300 hours and 275 multi. Yes, I didn't have my ATP but....I met all the requirements and could have (I just wanted to save a little $$$$ and have the airline give it to me). But if an ATP was required, it would not have been a problem.

I worked hard for those hours and felt like I earned my $17k a year job flying turbo props. I felt well trained, learned, experienced, and knowledgeable. I feel sometimes that the 300 hour wonder pilots haven't earned their keep and I question the skills and experience at that level. Twenty years ago guys had to fight each other to get a regional job and had thousands of hours of experience which usually consisted of late night freight jobs. Those guys had it rough and earned their job.

I just watched a Northwest CRJ 200 attempt to land in White Plains, NY today during a thunderstorm, gusty winds and a 15+ knot tailwind. I was in disbelief watching this and almost shouted out "go around". Thankfully the pilots at that point did so as they went floating down the runway 20 feet above it. I'm not knocking their skills, but what training an experience would have lead you to even attempt such a thing?

I don't know.....why don't you ask the AA pilots that actually did it in LIT!

 

[flyslow24]

I like how people on this board think that landing this 17K per year job should be "earned" through many years of experience.

I say make a 17k per year job as easy to land as a McDonald's job. Why would a job with so little pay be difficult to obtain?

I think we are also missing the point that pay was higher at some and most regionals "back then." Example Fo's at Air Wisconsin made $60+ per hour on the BAE 146 after a few years in the right seat.

You barely break that as a captain at Republic now in the left seat flying an aircraft with just as many seats!

 

[BoilerUP]

I think we are also missing the point that pay was higher at some and most regionals "back then." Example Fo's at Air Wisconsin made $60+ per hour on the BAE 146 after a few years in the right seat.

$60.29/hr to be exact, at the top of the B146 FO scale (10 years), effective Aug 1 2005 in the 2001 CBA. Unfortunately, concessions which went into effect on Oct 1 2003 (the same date the CHQ 2003 contract went into effect) meant that rate was never recognized.

The highest rate any AWAC BACjet FO would have seen was the Aug 1 2003 rate of $55.48/hr at 10 years longevity...and the highest payrate under the concessionary contract before the 146s were parked was at 8 years longevity and was $47.28/hr.

 

[BigPappa]

All you people bashing the regionals (some corporate dudes on here), get a grip! I did my flight training in the military (fighters). I am a CA for a regional now and can tell that you need to quit hammering the regional pilot. Most of the people I work with are very skilled professionals.
Corporate Flying: been there done that too. I remember a lot of guys that were far more dangerous in corporate aviation than the most inexperienced 121 guys that I've flown with (trying to please their boss).
I dare to argue that most regional pilots at my company are equally as good as any major pilot out there.
Now shut up and go fly something!

Ohhh, and forgot to mention that the Citation is sooooo slow that a Baron could beat it if it wanted to.