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

Senate hearing re Regional airlines

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
It's all smoke and mirrors boys.

I'll bet nothing is going to change.

701EV
 
So give me a proposed regulation that would fix this....

Pay pilots wages that afford them to live in their domiciles discouraging the need to commute from places where their wages afford them a livable standard. Congress should force wages upon the airlines much the same as they do a general minimum wage.
 
Pay pilots wages that afford them to live in their domiciles discouraging the need to commute from places where their wages afford them a livable standard. Congress should force wages upon the airlines much the same as they do a general minimum wage.
People from the Northwest will not live in the NY or Atlanta area not matter how much you pay them. Many pilots want to work from a large city hub, but live in Mayberry where their wife grew up.
 
So give me a proposed regulation that would fix this....

I'll try to make it sound FARish...

"No person shall make human mistakes while acting as a required flight crew member of a transport category aircraft."

I agree with the idea of raising the bar where hiring standards go, but the human element will always be there no matter what the experience level. I'm sure the geniuses in the Congress will find a way to regulate human error and forever remove it from aviation. Well, or at least they'll hold some hearings, do a little grand-standing, and just enjoy listening to themselves babble.

Come to think of it....maybe a "sin tax" on low-time airmen would fix it. Whether it's on the airline or the employee is for someone smarter than me to decide.
 
Yeesh. Some of those postings on ABC's blog have the potential to be quotable, but man, couldn't you have sent them to one of FI's grammar Nazis first?

"I iz a pylut. Dey dont pay me reel gud. I fell sad."

ALPA has media spokesmen for a reason, but I love the fact that we can shoot off emails to the media while the topic is hot.
 
Last edited:
I know there are many hurdles to overcome with my ideas, but here goes anyway.

1. change the rest to "behind the door" rest.

2. eliminate all discipline for "sick calls".

3. requirements for crew meals or time off to get them ourselves regardless of how late we are.

4. make continous duty overnights illegal. I have no problem with red-eyes, but most I know do stand-ups so they can perform another job during the day.

5. Virtual basing. Or even a step better, national seniority. Rebecca Shaw should not have to fly to EWR from SEA on the red-eye to go to work. She should have hopped on her Q-400 in Horizon paint, right there in Sea-Tac. Eliminating or reducing commuting would help both company and pilots (F/A's too).

As for the pay. I think most would agree that it starts and stops with the level of pay on the wide bodies. Kinda hard to justify paying a Saab 340 capt the same as B-747 capt. The Saab guy is working harder, but the media attention will be the same for an incident in each. First year pay has almost been an institution in this industry. Age 65 has only prolonged a looming crisis coming in retirements. There just aren't that many willing to shell out almost $250,000 to Embry-Riddle for an education and training to get a job at a 121 carrier making less than $20,000 per year. It use to be justified when you knew that there was a light at the end of the tunnel with a few years at a major that paid really well. I do like how the media as finally decided to focus on what first year pay is rather than 777 capt pay and making us assume that all pilots made that. I flew with a kid last year that was making $1100 per month payments on his student loans with 15 years to pay it off. In 10 years, where are the "Regionals" going to recruit from? I know Kit Darby was a too optimistic for his own reasons, but I agreed with him on this. As for the military, who is going to get out early these days? I'd stay in and get my pension for sure before ever looking at the airlines.
 
This is a hot topic today, so the Congress is all hot to hold hearings and make the voters think they are earning their pay raises. Two or three years from now, this crash will be a distant memory (aside from those of us in the industry and those who lost friends/relatives) and nothing will have changed.
 
I support the ATP thing for both pilots. But if you are talking to people outside of aviation, make sure you put into lay mans terms. For example: You need nearly five times the experience to fly boxes around in a Cessna than you do to fly passengers in a jet. That will get a lot of attention.
 
If you are going to be an AIRLINE PILOT, you need to have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT License. Sorry to the low time guys, but you can build time pass the checkride, then get your Airline job.

Also I agree that if there were higher pay available, more qualified pilots might come back. I left aviation for years because I could make better money elsewhere, and not be gone as much. I was stupid enough to come back at a bad time.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top