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

NPRM: 1500hr Minimum for Airline Pilots!

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

AvroJockey

Go Pack Go!
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
432
Disclaimer:
This post has nothing to do with the skills (or lack thereof) of certain crewmembers that choose to utilize cookie cutter flight schools to advance their professional agendas (i.e. Gulfstream, PanAm, etc.).

There’s been one thing that’s bothered me about pilots with less than 1000 hours flight time being hired at regionals, and it has nothing to do with skills and experience (please read disclaimer above). It has everything to do with the economics of our profession, and this is one area, I feel, that ALPA has misrepresented.

Remember, I have nothing against the 300 hour pilot personally or professionally, and I’m sure most of them can fly the s#!t out of a CRJ.

From an economic standpoint, part of the union’s job is to either increase the demand of its skilled labor and/or change the supply of that labor in order to secure a higher equilibrium price (wage rate). Look at any Microeconomics book. The easiest way for ALPA to control this is to manipulate the supply, and the easiest way to do this is to restrict the quantity of qualified pilots with a narrower definition of “qualified.” ALPA should start an initiative to change language in amendable contracts that would prohibit, lets say, pilots with less than 1500 hrs of flight time from employment. This would economically decrease the supply, increase the demand for others in the workforce, and eventually lead to higher wage rates. I say eventually, because airline pilot wages rates high inflexible upward, and slightly inflexible downwards due to labor contracts.

Look, airline managements would put monkeys in the flight deck if the FAA let them, and if I was running an airline I would too! This is capitalism!!! We need to fight fire with fire, and apply the same principles to our product that airline management applies to theirs. One of the main reasons why it’s good to have a single union representing all of us is because it can act like a monopoly. The problem is ALPA is not taking advantage of its leverage on the market by implementing control over its product. This is particularly important now, because profits are exclusive to regionals. (With some exceptions) They must put an end to the hiring of low time pilots, for the longevity of a worthwhile profession.

The only reason pilots with this level of experience are getting hired is because they CAN! Given the right circumstances, I would do the same thing that many Gulfstreamers and PanAmers did. The problem is, most don’t know the real reason why this ruins our profession. Hell, it seams ALPA doesn’t even know!
 
From an economic standpoint, part of the union’s job is to either increase the demand of its skilled labor and/or change the supply of that labor in order to secure a higher equilibrium price (wage rate). Look at any Microeconomics book. The easiest way for ALPA to control this is to manipulate the supply, and the easiest way to do this is to restrict the quantity of qualified pilots with a narrower definition of “qualified.” ALPA should start an initiative to change language in amendable contracts that would prohibit, lets say, pilots with less than 1500 hrs of flight time from employment. This would economically decrease the supply, increase the demand for others in the workforce, and eventually lead to higher wage rates. I say eventually, because airline pilot wages rates high inflexible upward, and slightly inflexible downwards due to labor contracts.


No offense, but that is the worst idea I have ever heard.
 
No offense, but that is the worst idea I have ever heard.

Dito!! What about all the pilots with less than 1000TT that XJT and Eagle have hired. They both have hired a lot of low timers over the past year and a half. The better half of those have no turbine or 121 time!!!

I've always said, take your concerns to your chief pilot or DO and tell them not to hire these pilots if they are so unsafe!! It's capitolism at its best!!!!
 
I'm sorry, but I think your logic is somewhat flawed. IF ALPA's ultimate goal should be to reduce the supply of "qualified" pilots, well, there are multiple ways in which to do this. How about if the airlines only hire military pilots again. We'd both be out of jobs but I'm sure that would "raise the bar." How about if they required a PhD in aeronatical engineering ? I 'm guessing we'd both still be out a job. I know I would be.........so, don't beat around the bush, tell us how you REALLY feel...
 
Good intentions. 'Not sure if it's the best way to go about it. Alpa's never had much say on who airline's hire. Had I not been hired with low time I would have eventually become part of the supply, just a little later. The key maybe for specialized labor to walk away from the profession or shut down the airlines if not able to improve the profession, although an unlikely solution.
 
Temporary solution

I understand the need to increase wages but this method would only work for a short period of time. If the only jobs required 1500tt then there would be a shortage for the period of time that it took for the first group to get from 300 to 1500. Everyone in trail would simply fall into line after the first group. Just my two cents.
 
Dutch said:
I understand the need to increase wages but this method would only work for a short period of time. If the only jobs required 1500tt then there would be a shortage for the period of time that it took for the first group to get from 300 to 1500. Everyone in trail would simply fall into line after the first group. Just my two cents.

Actually, the fact that we have a mandatory retirement at 60 does lead me to believe that this would work. Most of economics is theory, but I can guarantee you that part of the unions job is to change the supply and demand of its product. Read any microeconomics book, it will say this.

Again, for those who didn’t read my disclaimer and just spouted off, I have nothing against the experience level of most 300 hr pilots! Just saying ‘That won’t work, you’re a dumb a$$’ doesn’t cut it. Tell me, INTELLIGENTLY, why this won’t work. Is it not the purpose of this board to have INTELLIGENT dialog.

BTW. Many said ‘That won’t work!’ to the Wright Brothers. Image where we would be if they would have listened to all the cynics!
 
AvroJockey

My opinion is your plan would not work for this reason: The longer you make someone toil in the freight or CFI business, the more desperate they will be to get out, and the less discriminating they will be about where they go and what they get paid. They'll just want to be done with instructing or single pilot IFR in ice, and they won't care about anything else. Therefore, regionals could still pay just about whatever they wanted because guys getting hired would just be relieved to finally get to an airline.
 
limodriver1 said:
great idea, I would be behind it 100%

I wonder if you would have been behind it when you were a low time pilot.
All the low timers and regional pilots get all the blame for the paycuts, for mainline losing routes, and for everything esle.
It's all supply and demand, if the airlines lower the mins is because they are not finding enough qualified pilots, not because the want to hire 500 hr pilots, I'm sure they want people with more experience, and I'm sure we have enough, but maybe their attitude doesn't fit what the company wants, or they didn't prep for the interview.
The pay will only go higher when we don't have enough pilots for the jobs, or when the airlines stop cutting costs instead of increaseing them (oil goes up, prices goes up, everything else goes up, even grayhound goes up higher then SWA)
 
Avrojockey,

Aren't you all about George W? If so why are you proposing more government regulations that would take away from the "free market?"

Your idea sounds (gasp) like it could be from a Democrat!
 
scabseeker said:
Avrojockey,

Aren't you all about George W? If so why are you proposing more government regulations that would take away from the "free market?"

Your idea sounds (gasp) like it could be from a Democrat!


Outspoken unionized neoconservative republicans are a very strange, twisted breed infested with internal conflict and contradication.
 
Flight time has nothing to with qualifications. I was flying patrols the in left seat of a P-3 off the coast of Vietnam with less than 400 hours total. Military pilots routinely check out as A/C's in C-130's, C-5's etc with less than a 1000 hrs of flight. So the military pilot with 1300 hours of MEL turbine in a C-130 could not be hired but the civilian with 1500 hours VFR C-150 time would be more qualified? Besides hiring minimums are also redefined based upon Market conditions. When hiring is hot, the competitive minimums are refined to ensure an adequate pool of potential candidates.
 
scabseeker said:
Avrojockey,

Aren't you all about George W? If so why are you proposing more government regulations that would take away from the "free market?"

Your idea sounds (gasp) like it could be from a Democrat!

Why, yes I am!
However, what I'm proposing is on a organized labor level not FARs. Its the job of the union to change supply and damand of its product not the Feds.
 
I tend to agree with Avro. The very qualified crowd of military aviators notwithstanding, most CIVILIAN pilots with 300-500 hours simply don't have the experience to make the jump from light piston twin to high performance transport category jet.

For a lot of these pilots - especially those from "pilot factories" - they've spent their entire flying "careers" in Florida or Arizona. They've never seen ice or flown in mountainous terrain. They've been restricted (by their flight school) from flying in high-winds. they've never flown approaches to minimums and been faced with an actual "decision" at decision height.

In the training environment decisions are made for you.

I'm not saying that each and every individual needs to go the route I went and fly single pilot night freight. There are certainly a lot of different means to an end.

The point, I think, is that in 1995 the "premier" regionals at the time (Allegheny, Piedmont, American Eagle) required 3000TT and 1500 ME in order to be competitive. What changed? These were competitive times to fly a Dash 8 or a Saab 340.

I remember how far behind the airplane I was going from a C402 into a Jetstream 3100... and how that airplane (at 223 knots) was eating my lunch. I remember how I thought it was the biggest thing I had ever seen and I couldnt believe how fortunate I was to be flying it. I remember how steep the learning curve was as I flew 8 legs a day (sometimes 10 on Sundays) into tiny little uncontrolled fields in the middle of Pennsylvania. I remember approaches to 200 and 1/2 in blowing snow with poor braking action in Johnstown -- and needing a follow-me to guide us to the gate.

What prepared me for that?

Night after night of approaches to minimums in Lances, Barons, and C402s. Breaking out at minimums on an ILS. Circling at minimums on an NDB, struggling to keep the runway in sight. Deicing the airplane with a weed-sprayer and antifreeze...DESPERATE to get the frost off and get on schedule before the boss started screaming again. Watching ice insidiously build on the wing and struggling to keep the prop clear by cycling the prop RPM. Tightening the cargo net so much that my hands would bleed because I KNEW that I was going to get the crap kicked out of me crossing that line of weather and I didnt want any of these boxes nailing me in the head.

These are experiences that simply can't be learned in a 152 in the traffic pattern talking a student through yet another touch and go. Flight instruction builds a good foundation for what is to come. Each weather condition you experience... every mistake you make in aircraft loading... every real-world missed approach you fly... all build you an aresenal of experience that you can draw upon when you need it.

So yes. I agree with Avro (although not for economic reasons). I think its prepostrous to take light aircraft pilots -- especially those with no background outside of flight instruction -- and stick them into an regional jet. The single pilot freighters and the turboprop regionals were pilot builders. They helped make that transition go more smoothly. The difference being a pilot who could be a part of the crew -- a strong first officer that his captains can rely upon.... or just a seat warmer waiting for yet more instruction from the left seat.

Just my opinion. I was there too. I felt the same itch to get out of instructing that many of you do. When you're flying passengers or freight around for compensation your customers deserve a higher level of professionalism in the cockpit. They're paying you for when the poop hits the fan.... and it rarely happens the way it does in the sim. Hopefully when it does, you have some experience to draw upon to help make the right decision.

Good luck.
 
FurloughedAgain,

Good post. What is even more "interesting" than the inexperience you mention in the right seat is that it is often duplicated in the left seat and paired with even less on the right.

The prospect of an "airline captain" with 2000 - 2500 hours total time of which 1000 or more is in a 172 and paired with a copilot with 500 hours in a 172 and 100 in a seminole is bliss to many (pax) who have no idea but frightening to many pilots who know better.

Anyone can learn to move the controls in the right direction and that is not the issue. However, seasoned judgment, more often than not, comes from seasoned pilots and experience is the seasoning.

I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know how to choose the airlines on which I am willing to be a passenger. When things go very wrong I don't relish the thought of being a passive part of the captain's learning curve betting on "luck". I'd rather he "learn" carrying somebody else.

When the experience bag is empty or nearly so the scattered aluminium increases exponentially. Yes, it can happen to anyone but your chances are better when the front office is occupied by seasoned people (if not both at least one).
 
Last edited:
The sh!tty pay at regionals, on-demand 135, etc is not a function of flight time and everything about the pilot's perception that his compensation is the TJ PIC that WN, B6, and FL need. If you guys got it out of your heads that you would do anything to build PIC time for "the next job" and start bargaining as if your current job is your last job, you'd raise your pay overnight. But no... You all want to be at WN, B6, or FL. Frankly, if I had a decent seniority number and was making $100k/yr on a regional jet, I'm not sure I"d be looking to leave, and thus TJ PIC time is moot. In fact, ACA had pay scales like that before the whole UAL BK and FlyI debacle.
 
AvroJockey said:
However, what I'm proposing is on a organized labor level not FARs. Its the job of the union to change supply and damand of its product not the Feds.

How about having the union push to LOWER the mandatory retirment age to 55 and limit Part 121 flight time to 500 hours per year along with raising the minimum flight experience to, say, 2500 hours TT? That way, there will be a nice, tight pool of qualified candidates for the airline jobs and the airlines would have to hire practically everyone that meets the "raise the bar" requirements.

I hope the sarcasm is apparent...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top