Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[thebest]

Answer: All of them!

 

[quinnlake]

The Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009

The bill would:
• Require that all airline pilots obtain an Airline Transport Pilot license, which is currently only needed by captains. Pilots must have a minimum of 1,500 flight hours to obtain the license. Co-pilots may now be hired at airlines with as little as about 200 hours, though most begin airline work with more experience.
• Mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within 90 days set up a new database of pilot records so that airlines will have access to more information before they hire someone for the cockpit. The captain of the jet that crashed near Buffalo had failed several FAA-mandated tests of his piloting skills, but his airline did not know about all of them when it hired him.
• Direct the FAA within one year to rewrite the rules for how long pilots can work. Several attempts to rewrite the rules to make piloting less prone to fatigue have failed in recent decades. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt also has vowed to update the rules.
• Require airlines and travel websites when they sell tickets to disclose the name of the carrier operating the flight. About half of all flights are operated by regional airlines working under contract to major carriers, but those regionals almost never sell tickets directly to passengers. Most of the regional flights are flown with the name of the major carrier painted on their aircraft.
• Set up numerous studies and task forces to examine how best to train pilots, minimize pilot fatigue and run a safe airline.


What would happen at the regionals when a new hiring phase like two years ago occurs?

 

[skyaddict]

I hope this passes..... obviously regionals would want some phase-in relief but unintended consequences be dxmned, this is great news for both long term pay and airline safety .

 

[ThisistheDream]

all 121 pilots should have the ATP and be typed in the aircraft they currently fly period!!!!

 

[Tchinson]

The bill would:
• Require that all airline pilots obtain an Airline Transport Pilot license, which is currently only needed by captains. Pilots must have a minimum of 1,500 flight hours to obtain the license. Co-pilots may now be hired at airlines with as little as about 200 hours, though most begin airline work with more experience.
• Mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within 90 days set up a new database of pilot records so that airlines will have access to more information before they hire someone for the cockpit. The captain of the jet that crashed near Buffalo had failed several FAA-mandated tests of his piloting skills, but his airline did not know about all of them when it hired him.
• Direct the FAA within one year to rewrite the rules for how long pilots can work. Several attempts to rewrite the rules to make piloting less prone to fatigue have failed in recent decades. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt also has vowed to update the rules.
• Require airlines and travel websites when they sell tickets to disclose the name of the carrier operating the flight. About half of all flights are operated by regional airlines working under contract to major carriers, but those regionals almost never sell tickets directly to passengers. Most of the regional flights are flown with the name of the major carrier painted on their aircraft.
• Set up numerous studies and task forces to examine how best to train pilots, minimize pilot fatigue and run a safe airline.


What would happen at the regionals when a new hiring phase like two years ago occurs?

Say they do pass this bill, you'll have ATP rated pilots that just emptied out there wallets going to make $20,000 a year...Though pilots should be paid way better, the truth of the matter is that the small margins regionals operate on would not allow them to pay pilots any better than they do now. On top of that, come 2012 when all of your age 65 guys retire and the hiring picks way up, this bill will probably just end up being thrown out the window...

 

[wmuflyguy]

Say they do pass this bill, you'll have ATP rated pilots that just emptied out there wallets going to make $20,000 a year...Though pilots should be paid way better, the truth of the matter is that the small margins regionals operate on would not allow them to pay pilots any better than they do now. On top of that, come 2012 when all of your age 65 guys retire and the hiring picks way up, this bill will probably just end up being thrown out the window...

You mean the small margins that they use to buy other airlines with? My regional just posted a 15.3 million dollar profit for the quarter, they can afford the raise.

 

[PA44Jockey]

I say no. I say the FAA should require all airlines to make the ATP mins their hiring mins, and that's it.
This shouldn't be like SWA, wwhere you have to pay for a type or ATP to get a job.
The airlines should be the one forking out the cash for the types and ATP ratings.

No? Then why did I have to shell out for the commercial certificate. Should the airlines have paid for me to get that too? I think many want to avoid the ATP because of significance of the check-ride. IMO failing your ATP ride is a little different than failing your Multi Commercial ride. I think it should be standard. It's and "Airline Transport Pilot" certificate not and "Airline Captain Pilot" certificate.

 

[BoilerUP]

No? Then why did I have to shell out for the commercial certificate. Should the airlines have paid for me to get that too?

Come on now...the COM is the entry-level qualification that lets you get paid to fly. The ATP, even with these new proposals, isn't a basic entry-level qualification.

I think many want to avoid the ATP because of significance of the check-ride. IMO failing your ATP ride is a little different than failing your Multi Commercial ride.

I think many don't want to make the ATP a prerequisite for hire because of the financial cost of obtaining it yourself...not because of the risk of failure. An ATP ride ain't that damn tough...

If the FAA and airlines were really concerned about improving safety (HA!) they'd fully type every single pilot in the airplane they fly. A full type ride vs. an SIC ride aren't radically different (a no-flap landing and a circling approach IIRC) so the cost wouldn't be much if any greater. And whaddaya know, you can do a joint ATP/type ride because the standards are the same. No additional cost incurred for training & checking but it saves the candidate a substantial sum of money.

 

[q100]

What would happen at the regionals when a new hiring phase like two years ago occurs?

Answer: Who cares? The world was a much better place for pilots when the regionals truly were that, no jets more than 50 seats, and those only in tightly scoped numbers. The only benefit RJs really bring is to allow increased frequencies at UNcongested airports. Passengers hate 'em. The mainline jets and jobs they replaced paid better, had better QOL, etc. etc. You really care if Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJets, Republic, etc go T/U? Only if you work at such a place, of course. And to you who do, I am furloughed right now and would not wish it on anyone. Hopefully you'll find something better before any downsizing and it won't be an issue. What you may even find is that they have to improve their T&Cs to get qualified applicants - win/win.

 

[JustaNumber]

Say they do pass this bill, you'll have ATP rated pilots that just emptied out there wallets going to make $20,000 a year...Though pilots should be paid way better, the truth of the matter is that the small margins regionals operate on would not allow them to pay pilots any better than they do now.

Okay, let's follow your logic, which is not necessarily wrong. In order to get hired at a regional, someone would have to invest a lifetime's worth of savings, and/or spend many years building experience at odd pay-nothing flying jobs, which is the way it used to be done to get an airline job. In the past, people were willing to do this because the airline job paid enough to make it all worth while. This time around, though, fewer people will be willing to do all that to make $20,000 a year. You are correct, regionals in their current form would not have the resources to increase pay significantly enough. What do you think will then happen?

When this passes and regionals eventually need more pilots, they will not be able to attract enough pilots. They will have to cancel flights they can't cover, or not fly new flights they would like to add. Assuming the economy has eventually turned around and demand is actually rising again, ticket prices will rise on the remaining flights. Airlines will have more revenue, and will see demand for additional flights that they don't have pilots to fly. It doesn't take a Nobel-winning economist/rocket scientist to see that payrates will go up--it would be in the airlines' best financial interest.

Unfortunately, I believe we have a long way to go before the economy improves, as well as working through all the furloughees, though.

 

[JustaNumber]

Answer: Who cares? The world was a much better place for pilots when the regionals truly were that, no jets more than 50 seats, and those only in tightly scoped numbers. The only benefit RJs really bring is to allow increased frequencies at UNcongested airports. Passengers hate 'em. The mainline jets and jobs they replaced paid better, had better QOL, etc. etc. You really care if Mesa, Pinnacle, GoJets, Republic, etc go T/U? Only if you work at such a place, of course. And to you who do, I am furloughed right now and would not wish it on anyone. Hopefully you'll find something better before any downsizing and it won't be an issue. What you may even find is that they have to improve their T&Cs to get qualified applicants - win/win.

Unfortunately, you're living in yesterday's world. We will never again see jets only at major airlines, with pilots paid like movie stars. The new reality is that our union has allowed and encouraged the ultimate B-scale to be created, and it's not going away. What we can hope for is that, just like in the past, the B-scales get brought closer to the A-scales. You very well may retire from a regional, but in the future it won't be such a crappy place to work.

I also think your "passengers hate 'em" comment may not be entirely accurate. Would you rather sit in the back of a DC-9-10, or anywhere on an E-170 or even CRJ-900? I would argue that today's modern RJ's are acceptable means of transportation for most of the flying public. Of course, if you ask them, they all want to fly 747's to Dothan Alabama, but that's not reality.

By the way, good luck with your employment situation-- I mean that.

 

[CoolSidePillow]

Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Hell yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[Nevets]

I also think your "passengers hate 'em" comment may not be entirely accurate. Would you rather sit in the back of a DC-9-10, or anywhere on an E-170 or even CRJ-900? I would argue that today's modern RJ's are acceptable means of transportation for most of the flying public. Of course, if you ask them, they all want to fly 747's to Dothan Alabama, but that's not reality.

When XJT was doing the Branded, we would here almost unanimous positive comments about the ERJ. In fact, one the things they liked about it is that it didn't take as long to board or de-board as a 747. So I don't think that comment that they all want to fly 747s is necessarily true.

 

[q100]

Unfortunately, you're living in yesterday's world. We will never again see jets only at major airlines, with pilots paid like movie stars. The new reality is that our union has allowed and encouraged the ultimate B-scale to be created, and it's not going away. What we can hope for is that, just like in the past, the B-scales get brought closer to the A-scales. You very well may retire from a regional, but in the future it won't be such a crappy place to work.

I also think your "passengers hate 'em" comment may not be entirely accurate. Would you rather sit in the back of a DC-9-10, or anywhere on an E-170 or even CRJ-900? I would argue that today's modern RJ's are acceptable means of transportation for most of the flying public. Of course, if you ask them, they all want to fly 747's to Dothan Alabama, but that's not reality.

By the way, good luck with your employment situation-- I mean that.

Thanks for the sentiment. I was, by the way, once upon a time at a regional that was a great place to work. But there were plenty of other contract regionals that were more than happy to undercut us, management that was only too happy to let them, and all of a sudden we got "merged" into a sister company that, from all accounts, is not such a great place to work. I moved on to what I thought were bigger and better things, or so I thought...

Maybe there will be regional carriers that can treat their employees well in the future, especially if the barriers to entry are raised so that it becomes harder for bottom-feeders with an impoverished bunch of SJS-suffering indentured servants to undercut them...

 

[CoolSidePillow]

Unfortunately, you're living in yesterday's world. We will never again see jets only at major airlines, with pilots paid like movie stars. The new reality is that our union has allowed and encouraged the ultimate B-scale to be created, and it's not going away. What we can hope for is that, just like in the past, the B-scales get brought closer to the A-scales. You very well may retire from a regional, but in the future it won't be such a crappy place to work.

I also think your "passengers hate 'em" comment may not be entirely accurate. Would you rather sit in the back of a DC-9-10, or anywhere on an E-170 or even CRJ-900? I would argue that today's modern RJ's are acceptable means of transportation for most of the flying public. Of course, if you ask them, they all want to fly 747's to Dothan Alabama, but that's not reality.

By the way, good luck with your employment situation-- I mean that.

I would much rather sit in the back of a 170/190 that is flown at a major airline by major airline pilots with at least 10,000 hours between them. I would not fly in the back of a 777 if it had a regional pilot with 400 hours was sitting next to a regional pilot with 3000 hours. I am a commuter and I drive farther to an airport that is served by mainline flights rather than take the toy jets flown by two dorks from "The Real World"

 

[brokeflyer]

I also think your "passengers hate 'em" comment may not be entirely accurate. Would you rather sit in the back of a DC-9-10, or anywhere on an E-170 or even CRJ-900? I would argue that today's modern RJ's are acceptable means of transportation for most of the flying public. Of course, if you ask them, they all want to fly 747's to Dothan Alabama, but that's not reality.

its not the plane, its the "below average" captain america flying it.

I would rather sit in the back of a dc9 than a RJ....dc9 pilots aren't 400 hour wonders just up from vero beach....it takes a lotta skill and good instrument discipline to fly non glass these days.

 

[j41driver]

I also think FO's should go to the sim every 6 months like captains. Its idiotic to think FOs do stall recovery only once a year, have an engine failure once a year, fly a non-precision approach once a year, etc.

Did that at ACA back in the day. Not so much at the 'Tran.

 

[JustaNumber]

No posts in this thread in a while, but lots of people still taking the poll. I would like to know why 112 people don't think requiring the ATP would be a good idea. If you voted no, could you please explain?

 

[cjdriver]

Because they don't have the min's to get one, or just don't have one if they do.

 

[FO 4 Life]

No posts in this thread in a while, but lots of people still taking the poll. I would like to know why 112 people don't think requiring the ATP would be a good idea. If you voted no, could you please explain?

I voted no because that is not the fix. The ATP is a piece of paper/plastic. If the poll would have said "Should ATP minimums be required" I would have voted yes.

I took my ATP in a Seminole along with an Eagle driver. I flew so much better the next week in the 72 after that.