Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[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.