PILOT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS- Public Comment Process

[JonnyKnoxville]

Flyby1206,

Do you really want such low barriers to entry for this career? Why not drop the requirements to a private pilot level that way anyone who thinks it might be cool to fly can replace your job with a few months of training?

I could argue that if the FAA certifies a private pilot is safe to carry passengers than what is the difference if it is 1 or 100 or if the pilot is paid for it or not.

Rather than chiming in on the Flight Info banter of why this career is so bad, spend a little time studying some economics and learning how your job can become a career again. The direction lawmakers are heading with this is a good thing, don't fight it.

 

[Abernathy]

To answer your second question, 1600 hours and 200 multi to be hired at my airline. Of the other people interviewing, I was the youngest and most inexperienced by far! As far as instructing, if those requirements were raised as well, it would lead to better pay.

You know, in the future, if you don't want to answer my question because you know you've been trapped in your own bullsh**, just leave it at that. My question wasn't "how many hours did you have when you got your first airline job," and you know that wasn't my question. My question was how many hours did you have when you first got paid to fly. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay for 1600 hours, 200 of which were multi...right?

 

[WayBack]

Wrong, the private pilot license should apply. At 250 hours you should not be in a position to earn money with your vast mastery of aviation skill. [sarcasm]

Just because you should have never been at the controls of a "for hire" airplane with 250 hours, doesn't mean others shouldn't either.
Even with all your suggested flight times, even seasoned military pilots wouldn't qualify.
Along with your other flawed thought process, this would never increase pilot pay. They have already cut the mainline pilots pay in half, and they still have guys beating down their doors to fly for them. Management knows for a fact that they will always find some sucker to fly their planes for dirt cheap.

 

[Flyby1206]

Flyby1206,

Do you really want such low barriers to entry for this career? Why not drop the requirements to a private pilot level that way anyone who thinks it might be cool to fly can replace your job with a few months of training?

I could argue that if the FAA certifies a private pilot is safe to carry passengers than what is the difference if it is 1 or 100 or if the pilot is paid for it or not.

Rather than chiming in on the Flight Info banter of why this career is so bad, spend a little time studying some economics and learning how your job can become a career again. The direction lawmakers are heading with this is a good thing, don't fight it.

Buddy,
Im going to break out the box of crayons to try to make this more simple.

Im saying we need to RAISE the min requirements to fly for a 121 airliner. Everyone who flies 121 should have an ATP. ALSO, that ATP certificate should be a hell of a lot harder to get (ever seen the JAA ATPL process?).

That being said, there are still plenty of great jobs in aviation that people can do quite safely at a lower experience level (CFI, Banner tow, etc etc). These jobs should require a commercial license that can be attained with much lower experience levels and then build experience to continue to a 121 carrier if they desire.

And please dont try to talk to me about economics of the airlines as it is clear you have no understanding of the issue. The real effect of increased minimum requirements to fly airliners will result in fewer airline jobs. Many regional routes are marginally profitable (at best) and if the crew operating cost rises then it will not be feasible for the airline to continue flying that route. Still, I believe safety is more important than having quick upgrades (quality over quantity).

 

[WayBack]

You know, in the future, if you don't want to answer my question because you know you've been trapped in your own bullsh**, just leave it at that. My question wasn't "how many hours did you have when you got your first airline job," and you know that wasn't my question. My question was how many hours did you have when you first got paid to fly. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay for 1600 hours, 200 of which were multi...right?

but that was way back in the day when he started flying. He wasn't like the other guys today, he was much better.
I'm sure when he started this thread, he thought he was going to start some epic thread where everyone will agree with him, and he'd be hailed as one of FI.com greatest members ever!
Instead I have a feeling this might turn into 6 pages of good ole FI fun.

 

[NWaviator]

I'm all for tighter mins and more qualifications but I believe that a person should be able to get a commercial at the time needed now. We need CFI, banner towers, crop dusting, ect... Johnny, 1,500 hrs for cropdusting, that isn't right. If it is going to be 1,500 then why should some pay for all those flight hrs? If someone does pay lets say they find a C-172 for $100 per hour. That is $150,000 for all the flt time. Let people make $ and not have to pay for every hr. Wouldn't it be a paid for training type thing. (Gulfstream comes to mind).
I propose: Leave the commercial the way it is. Let people try to make a living as they build Flt time. Make a min time, for a 121, ATP and not allow the regionals to hire guys with 250hrs. Make it 1,500. Thats my take.

 

[No Delay]

I think 1500 hours is not asking too much. I also like the idea of specialized training (like what is offered at ATP or Flight Safety. But I think it is ridiculous to allow the specialized training to be a substitute for flight time. Isn't that the problem now? I think both should be required. The ATP rating now is one of the easiest ratings to get...almost silly. It really needs to be changed.

I think doing the CFI thing or other commercial operations that are single pilot (banner, etc) would be fine with a commercial rating. But once you are flying paying customers (135 or 121) or jet aircraft... I don't think it is too much to ask for the pilots have 1500 hours and some specialized training.

Is 1500 hours really THAT MUCH???

Just my 2 cents.

Also shared something similar to that at link on the first post.

 

[JonnyKnoxville]

Buddy,
Im going to break out the box of crayons to try to make this more simple.

Im saying we need to RAISE the min requirements to fly for a 121 airliner. Everyone who flies 121 should have an ATP. ALSO, that ATP certificate should be a hell of a lot harder to get (ever seen the JAA ATPL process?).

That being said, there are still plenty of great jobs in aviation that people can do quite safely at a lower experience level (CFI, Banner tow, etc etc). These jobs should require a commercial license that can be attained with much lower experience levels and then build experience to continue to a 121 carrier if they desire.

And please dont try to talk to me about economics of the airlines as it is clear you have no understanding of the issue. The real effect of increased minimum requirements to fly airliners will result in fewer airline jobs. Many regional routes are marginally profitable (at best) and if the crew operating cost rises then it will not be feasible for the airline to continue flying that route. Still, I believe safety is more important than having quick upgrades (quality over quantity).

Okay, so lets color

You may not think you need a lesson in economics but any pilot who can not see that raising the requirements for pilots as a good thing should pick up a book on Adam Smith.

The "real effect" will not be a loss of jobs as you propose. If this were true, it would mean that pilot wages are one of the largest cost drivers for an airline. Management at most airlines constantly tell us this to make us think that a pay raise would bankrupt our company but it is simply untrue.

Southwest pilots make a tremendous amount of money and Airtran pilots make significantly less to fly the same aircraft. So based on your thinking, Southwest should be going bankrupt because of their pilots? An airlines profitability or, lack there of, has very little to do with there pilot's income.

At the regional level, if I remember correctly, Skywest / ASA has a $2600 per an hour block cost. Comair - $2200. Pinnacle and Freedom are at $1900 and $1800, respectively. So a Pinnacle crew could take a $700 dollar pay raise and Pinnacles cost would be that of Skywest / ASA!

At Comair, if the Captain is pulling in $80 an hour, the F.O. is bringing in $40 and the F.A. is making $30 then you have $150 in crew costs out of the $2200 an hour. They could double their pay with a minimal effect to the bottom line.

Higher pilot requirements will directly impact our jobs / careers in a positive way.

 

[WayBack]

I'm all for tighter mins and more qualifications but I believe that a person should be able to get a commercial at the time needed now. We need CFI, banner towers, crop dusting, ect... Johnny, 1,500 hrs for cropdusting, that isn't right. If it is going to be 1,500 then why should some pay for all those flight hrs? If someone does pay lets say they find a C-172 for $100 per hour. That is $150,000 for all the flt time. Let people make $ and not have to pay for every hr. Wouldn't it be a paid for training type thing. (Gulfstream comes to mind).
I propose: Leave the commercial the way it is. Let people try to make a living as they build Flt time. Make a min time, for a 121, ATP and not allow the regionals to hire guys with 250hrs. Make it 1,500. Thats my take.

But that would make sense. Because if you required them to have 1,500 hours to get a CFI or banner towing job, you'll just have a lot more pencil whipped time.

 

[WayBack]

The "real effect" will not be a loss of jobs as you propose. If this were true, it would mean that pilot wages are one of the largest cost drivers for an airline. Management at most airlines constantly tell us this to make us think that a pay raise would bankrupt our company but it is simply untrue.

This is true, but too bad you have the unions who believe managements BS, who then puts the voting for paycuts on the table.

Higher pilot requirements will directly impact our jobs / careers in a positive way.

Like it's been said before. Pilots will not benefit from this at all. Management knows that they can get mainline guys to take pay cuts and keep flying the airplanes. So why would they even consider a pay raise for those pilots? Hell, they'd probably ask for another round of pay cuts, and get them.