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

Should an ATP be required for both 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

Should a ATP be required to fly for an airline?

  • Yes

    Votes: 792 83.2%
  • No

    Votes: 144 15.1%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 16 1.7%

  • Total voters
    952

rustypigeon

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Posts
98
This is a subject developing in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.

I think that if the regs were to change and require an ATP for both PIC and SIC, a couple of issues at the regional level would be addressed.

First of all we have the experience factor. One cannot make an effective arguement against the fact that a 250 hour pilot should not be flying a transport catagory aircraft. Sure the military and some foreign airlines do it, but they have a highly competitive selection process. The first 1500 hours of a pilots career should be spent improving his airmanship as a cfi and 135 light twin pilot. I can't help but think that tragic events would be reduced if pilots spent at least their first 1500 hours teaching stalls in a 152, or flying a baron single pilot through the ice at night.

I am not saying that having an ATP makes one a superpilot. I also know that some will manage to accrue 1500 hours having never earned their CFI or gain any 135 experience. The ATP requirement would just ensure that most of the newly hired pilots will have had a little bit of exposure to the system.

An ATP requirement would also force wages to increase. Imagine if the regionals could no longer hire from the puppy mills. The feed of 250 hour pilots willing to take any job for any wage would be cut off. Those who were not dedicated to aviation would reconsider it as a career if they were not gauranteed that job with just a couple hundred hours.

I see many statements being made that pay needs to increase, and believe me it does. We are never going to see the day that airlines feel sorry for us and increase our pay. The government is never going to set a minimum wage for pilots, this I assure you. The only way to increase the pay is to lower the supply. An ATP requirement is not only reasonable, it is logical.
 
Last edited:
I believe it shoud, yes. I had an ATP when I started at my regional and strongly feel the experience gained between getting my commercial and my ATP (and after getting the ATP as well) were extremely valuable in making me a far more competent pilot. Of note in your first paragraph though, that Baron PIC would have to gain 1200 hours before flying those bank checks, yet can legally sit right seat in a 90-seat RJ with 250 hours and a fresh Comm/Multi rating. Something is pretty jacked up there.
 
Last edited:
Sure.
But the airline pays for it. The average Joe can go to any ATP flight school and get theirs in a weekend, as long as they pay $2500. But places like these tend to pass the applicant whether they can fly the airplane or not.
 
I slightly disagree... I believe you should be ATP qualified at a minimum for hiring, however if you don't already have your ATP, it should be up to the company to pay for the rating for you in the simulator. Professionals shouldn't have to pay for ratings.
 
So should a company pay for your private, instrument, commercial, and multi ratings as well?
 
This debate will break to guys with ATPs saying yes you should, and guys with out them saying no you shouldn't.

Yep.........and the difference is, guys with ATPs were once commercially rated, yet commercial pilots have not been ATPs.
 
So should a company pay for your private, instrument, commercial, and multi ratings as well?


You aren't a professional yet when you've got your private and such, are you?

I stand by my post.
 
No but if an ATP was required to get hired, then what's the difference if you get hired with a commercial or private - either way you just got hired into a job for which you'll need training to get the appropriate rating. I thought this whole "airline as a flight school" business isn't working out so well. Reference GIA and all the bottom feeders that hire wet commercial ticket holders (like Pinnacle).
 
This debate will break to guys with ATPs saying yes you should, and guys with out them saying no you shouldn't.

I would love to hear from those guys as well. If a pilot with less than 1500 hours thinks they have had the experience neccesary to fly in a transport catagory aircraft with nearly 100 people on it, I want to know why.

I spent my early days looking for as much valuable experience as I could find. I did the traditional cfi, then moved on to 135 where I earned my ATP. It was by far the most valuable time I have ever experienced.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top