Looks Like 1500 Hours May Become the New Hiring Minimum Among Other Things:

[AC560]

Ask the pilots on this forum about what they've seen over the past decade. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, patterns are developing that need to be reversed before someone becomes a statistic? We're all shooting for a *zero* accident rate, right?

Which would be a highly biased informal poll. Statistically again accident rates have continued down.

I think Obama, Congress, and Santa Claus should do *nothing* to regulate pilot salaries. Zero. Nada. Ultimately, the free market will determine pilot salaries. All the three you mention should do is regulate as little as possible, keep free market practices safe for passengers, and bring presents to me on December 25th. Job security? I chose to work in the private sector. If I wanted job security, I'd take a government job.

On that we can agree. Though I suspect you would like to see some safety regulations which would have the indirect effect of increasing your salary. While I don't doubt you wish for the flying public to be safe, a large potion of the safety argument also falls back into pay/work rules.

Do you think you'd be the only ex-pilot who can succeed in another field if their airline goes away?

Ex-airline employee not ex-pilot. We all joke in our business due to the low % of college degrees (no comment Randy) that if we were qualified to be doing something else we would.

Maybe I'll become a freight forwarder.....

We are always looking for sharp guys

 

[ualdriver]

We are always looking for sharp guys

Who said I was sharp?

 

[ualdriver]

We're going to go round and round on the seniority/merit based thing. To tell you truth, the merits of one vs. the other are the least of the airline industry's concerns right now.

Well it has been 30yrs since deregulation and again safety has improved, prices have decreased, and air travel is readily available to everyone. There is no data which supports your idea that safety is being compromised. I certainly agree pay has decreased, work conditions have changed, job security has decreased largely as a result of deregulation. The data though just doesn't support your agrument.

No and I believe training records are required to be reported and made available to hiring parties today under existing regulations. Particularly in a union environment it is very critical to hire the best person as once they get the job it is extremely difficult to fire them.

There is no data which supports my idea that safety is being compromised? Let me ask you a question. Let's say you were wealthy enough to own your own personal business jet. Your wife, your children, your loved ones, and your friends would be flying on this jet. You're a pilot, so you're going to hire professional pilots to fly these very important people around. Would you hire a low time, inexperienced pilot, with less than a few hundred hours to fly your family around? Would you hire a guy with a history of check ride failures? Or would you be willing to pay "a little extra" for a highly qualified guy/gal with experience? How would you feel about those pilots flying your family/friends around into the 15th hour of their duty day? Keep in mind that for the past 2 decades there has been a huge surplus of pilots on the market, so finding qualified pilots is as easy as pie. Who are you going to hire to fly the most important people in your life? I would BET MONEY that you wouldn't hire a low time F/O or a Captain with a checkered past. I would BET MONEY that you would spend more time investigating both of your pilots' background, even though it's "not required" by the FARs.

Do you think that Pinnacle RJ would have spun with at least one more qualified pilot in either seat? Not enough people died in that one to catch anyone's attention, however.

Now let's take a look at Colgan. They hire the 2 pilots involved in the accident, not because they're the best the industry has to offer, but because they're willing to work for a crappy company, with poor wages. Do you see a problem there? Should I wait for statistics to tell me that, yeah, it probably isn't a good idea to put certain types of pilots in the Captain's and First Officer's seat? Why should the airline industry be any different than a rich guy flying around in his jet? Fifty people in the back of a RJ can afford better. These regulations will hopefully fix this.

So again, do we sit around and wait for "data" (i.e. more people to die) before we change things?

Yes and so have unions. I think unions in some ways have actively fought in some ways against safety. Clearly one of the core problems behind the Colgan incident was rest issues due to commuting. Airlines I am sure have fought against some safety issues as well which I am sure you can point out. This is why the industry still has regulation through the FAA to keep the flying public safe the question is what is reasonable regulation and what is unreasonable regulation.

The unions fight some things, like cameras in the cockpit, for example. But it's more a matter of trust than anything else (Vanity Fair anyone?). You're right about the commuting thing. NEITHER the airlines nor the unions will touch that with a 10 foot pole. The ATA, in my opinion, will fight tooth and nail against anything that costs money, but they'll do it very quietly and behind the scenes as they're going to fear public perception with Buffalo fresh in everyone's minds.

My personal opinion is yes. At 250hrs you get a pilot with very few bad habits. That pilot can then be trained over the next 1250hrs by the airline in a structured fashion that specifically addresses things like CRM, airline practices, specific equipment requirements, etc. I have a couple of students who got on Eagle with very low time and I am amazed at the quality of their training and in many ways their knowledge and expertise in certain areas far outweighs mine. Had they gone the CFI to 135 route there is greater potential for macho tendencies and the issues with the law of primacy that probably would need to be overcome.

Nah, don't buy that argument for the "average" pilot. There may be some gifted pilots at 250 hrs. who can handle flying a jet with no experience, but as a passenger, I didn't pay my airfare so that a pilot can "practice" with my family. I don't get a discount for flying with a new pilot. Like many on this forum, I've been an instructor in various capacities on and off since graduating from college. A good training program and a good instructor can fix bad habits. I'd still take the 1500 hr. pilot with some habits to fix than a 250 hr. pilot with no habits.

Price of labor does not always directly equate to skill.

Absolutely. However, I know that if I pay $20K/year to my pilot applicants, I'm certainly not going to get anything close to the best the industry has to offer (normal economic conditions).

 

[Skippy]

if gary coleman were in the house he'd say," whatutalkin'boutwillis."

so is babbit caving on the 1500 hour rule or not.

i heard that united brought all the asst chiefs, chiefs, flgiht managers etc frmo the express carriers in to train them in the new faa requirements-- absolute fact.-- i think they are doing it on this friday and then each airline will have the responsibility to pass that knowledge on to their own pilots

 

[dirkdigler]

Will the new requirement for ATP to act as a SIC mean that everyone will have to carry current 1st Class medical? That would be a big bummer for the guys who had to downgrade for medical reasons..

 

[AC560]

We're going to go round and round on the seniority/merit based thing. To tell you truth, the merits of one vs. the other are the least of the airline industry's concerns right now.

It will become very critical should there be a collapse by one or more legacy carriers. Currently the options available are for pilots who are unemployed due to a liquidation are to sign onto another carrier making $20K a year or leave the industry. There needs to be a way to keep the highly skilled people in the industry.

Let's say you were wealthy enough to own your own personal business jet. Your wife, your children, your loved ones, and your friends would be flying on this jet. You're a pilot, so you're going to hire professional pilots to fly these very important people around.

Your argument is to hire a pilot based on merit, I agree with that so no need to bet. In the corporate world this is largely how it is done. In the airline world though what you get isn't determined by merit it is again seniority.

Do you think that Pinnacle RJ would have spun with at least one more qualified pilot in either seat? Not enough people died in that one to catch anyone's attention, however.

Are you talking about the two guys who tried to 410 it? That wasn't an issue of qualifications that was an issue of stupidity, there have been more then a fair amount of those in the Majors as well. Straw men arguments are easy "Would the FX M1F have maybe not crashed in NRT with a less experienced crew?", but clearly pointless. Statistics indicate increased not decreased safety since deregulation.

Now let's take a look at Colgan. They hire the 2 pilots involved in the accident, not because they're the best the industry has to offer, but because they're willing to work for a crappy company, with poor wages. Do you see a problem there? Should I wait for statistics to tell me that, yeah, it probably isn't a good idea to put certain types of pilots in the Captain's and First Officer's seat? Why should the airline industry be any different than a rich guy flying around in his jet? Fifty people in the back of a RJ can afford better. These regulations will hopefully fix this.

We have thousands of pilots going $100K in debt to get a $22K a year job. What do you think the result will be when we triple or quadruple the wages? Do you think there will be less pilots seeking those jobs, or will even more people try to get an airline job? Let's go one step further, I am sure there are pilots you know at UA that shouldn't be in the right or left seat but the union will make it almost impossible to remove them. Do you think that is right as well?

When I was first flying many of my fellow students were looking to get to the airlines which at the time all had 500 ME time requirements. All of them without exception pencil whipped a good chunk of that into their books. I am a good pilot but my ATP check ride basically consisted of me handing somebody $1500, wasn't much of a check ride.

If you want a meaningful regulation change which will impact safety it is simple. All check rides with the FAA and the FAA starts pulling certificates of people who shouldn't be flying. Much like commuting, nobody is going for that. I suspect roughly 30% of the GA population and 15% of the commercial population would be eliminated in the first year. Certainly would do more for safety then requiring 1500 arbitrary hours which are logged via the honor system.

So again, do we sit around and wait for "data" (i.e. more people to die) before we change things?

You have a foregone conclusion in your head that is safety has decreased or will be X number of years in the future even though nothing supports the argument. I don't know how you expect anyone to prove how something won't happen that hasn't happened and statistics tend to indicate the opposite of what you suggest.

You're right about the commuting thing. NEITHER the airlines nor the unions will touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Because nobody really wants meaningful improvements in safety. You want more pay the airlines want less cost. Both sides use safety as a wedge issue but it really has no impact. I still chuckle every time somebody makes the argument about age 65 and safety, as if safety really has anything to do with either side of the argument.

Nah, don't buy that argument for the "average" pilot. There may be some gifted pilots at 250 hrs. who can handle flying a jet with no experience, but as a passenger, I didn't pay my airfare so that a pilot can "practice" with my family. I don't get a discount for flying with a new pilot.

When you moved to a new aircraft type at UA did you land it for the first time with people in it? Isn't IOE done with passengers on board? All the airlines train on the job in addition to classroom/sim time, there is nothing inherently dangerous to it. Ab inito programs are very much the flavor outside the US and something that industry here should look more at doing. Train people right from day one.

Absolutely. However, I know that if I pay $20K/year to my pilot applicants, I'm certainly not going to get anything close to the best the industry has to offer (normal economic conditions).

That wasn't the point though. You made the case that because somebody in as example China is paid $1 a day that the maintenance they perform will be less. So it would appear we agree on this point.

 

[crashpad]

Will the new requirement for ATP to act as a SIC mean that everyone will have to carry current 1st Class medical? That would be a big bummer for the guys who had to downgrade for medical reasons..

Agreed, but there would probably be some kind of waiver.