SkyWest RJ Captain down to 1 year!!

[Midnight Flyer]

Very sad.....

hope no SKYW spikey hair, sunglasses resting on their forehead wonderpilots start making mistakes.

13 months, shoot, some of them'll probably upgrade without having ever de-iced. yay.

Sad. Isn't it, though?!?h

IMO, if these regionals keep hiring nothing but low time wonderpilots, they will have no choice but to hire street captains as their f/o's won't have the mins to upgrade.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IMO, if these regionals keep hiring nothing but low time wonderpilots, they will have no choice but to hire street captains as their f/o's won't have the mins to upgrade.

But that is not a problem, that is the solution from a cost standpoint. The closer you can keep pilots to zero seniority, the better. Less time off and less pay. If a street Captain will work for first year pay to get PIC, terrific!

SkyWest guys think they are immune. They are not. They are next.

Name one non branded regional airline that has grown and sustained that growth / size? Nobody has except Eagle, which did so using their scope.

This is going to be a cycle. Some airlines have survive the first purge and are on a mild upswing, but understand the purge occurrs. ASA is getting purged right now and they are chasing folks like me out simply because I'm $30,000 more a year than a junior Captain upgrade. SkyWest will be next, as soon as the currently booked RFP flying award is staffed. (Delta, Continental, NorthWest and United have all performed purges at one time or another. Delta did the honorable thing and bought pilots out with early retirement, others achieved similar financial goals through the Bankruptcy process. At least they were able to maintain some job security.)

Labor is often touted as the single greatest controllable cost at an airline. Obviously contracts are under attack, but what is much more insidious and dangerous is the attack on your longevity. The only way to combat this cycle is to organize & use our unity to compel one list.

It is a real credit to our profession and the professionals that operate these jets that management can get away with statements like "we consider safety a given." We have to do a good job to preserve our own hides and airlines literally bank on our professionalism and sense of self preservation. But, as Midnight Flyer points out pushing things this hard is running very close to the edge.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

To play devils advocate...
The GIs at war? They don't make decisions, their commanders do.

I told you guys this guys an idiot. All he does is spew used blue juice out of his trap.

 

[BigLebowski]

Sad. Isn't it, though?!?h

IMO, if these regionals keep hiring nothing but low time wonderpilots, they will have no choice but to hire street captains as their f/o's won't have the mins to upgrade.

Lowtime??? this guy used to fly the 737 overseas. Several thousand hours under his belt. Rellocated for personal reasons.

Why don't you do some research before you bash...idiot.

 

[DGdaPilot]

Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.

 

[Midnight Flyer]

Lowtime??? this guy used to fly the 737 overseas. Several thousand hours under his belt. Rellocated for personal reasons.
Why don't you do some research before you bash...idiot.

What guy overseas and who's 737 are you talking about?

All I did was make a statement about regional airlines hiring no-time spikey haired wonderpilots who don't have the minimum hour requirements to upgrade. Has nothing to do with this 737 pilot you're talking about.

Looks like you got your panties in a wad because you happen to fall into that group, Mr. Wonderpilot. :laugh:
Don't worry Lebowski, they'll let you upgrade on that barbie jet once you're qualified. In the meantime, why not get your ipod out of your backpack and listen to some Justin Timberlake or something.

 

[viper548]

Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.

It does just fine flying 250 to .74 That transition happens at about FL350.

 

[Weasil]

Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.

Sounds to me like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I was flying at .30 the other day, so what, I was also indicating 250KIAS. His mach number is not necessarily an indication of the "energy" state of the wing. In fact Bombardier even recommends this climb profile in their Aeroeconomics course, have you taken it? No?.. I used to teach it. Perhaps next time you should ask around and maybe you'd learn something instead of shooting your mouth off.
Now if you said he was doing .67 and indicating about 180 kts in the mid FL300's then I would be concerned. There have been several stick shaker events with guys doing stuff like that.

 

[DGdaPilot]

Sounds to me like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I was flying at .30 the other day, so what, I was also indicating 250KIAS. His mach number is not necessarily an indication of the "energy" state of the wing. In fact Bombardier even recommends this climb profile in their Aeroeconomics course, have you taken it? No?.. I used to teach it. Perhaps next time you should ask around and maybe you'd learn something instead of shooting your mouth off.
Now if you said he was doing .67 and indicating about 180 kts in the mid FL300's then I would be concerned. There have been several stick shaker events with guys doing stuff like that.

Please re-read my second post. I stated that he was doing .67 to .70 in the FL300s. Not shooting my mouth. Just stating what I saw and my cause of concern. I agree, there have been a number of shaker events in the -700, ask Comair.

 

[Weasil]

Please re-read my second post. I stated that he was doing .67 to .70 in the FL300s. Not shooting my mouth. Just stating what I saw and my cause of concern. I agree, there have been a number of shaker events in the -700, ask Comair.

I know what you said, but he was still indicating 250kts right? So what if this was mach .67? ( By the way I find it very difficult to believe that he was doing both 250 and .67 in the mid 30's so either you are exagerating about the .67 part or he was flying much slower than 250 indicated.
250 usually is equivalent to mach .67 in the upper 20's not in the mid 30's unless there is a serious ISA deviation.

 

[DGdaPilot]

I think my point was that he was doing 250, then after he met .74, his speed drifted below that. But I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[tlax25]

To play devils advocate...

I would look back and say the decision to have children in my 20s was not the best idea.

GW was a great man, but back in his day, the average life expectancy was what, 50 years? The 20s were your peak years then.

The GIs at war? They don't make decisions, their commanders do.

But I agree some of the 50 somethings tend to make poor decisions too. I believe studies have shown that you reach your mental and physical peak somewhere in the mid to late 30s.

Ah, even the youngest private makes life and death decisions daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Often those decisions have life and death consequences. You think the "commanders" are standing around with them all day telling them when to pull the trigger?

On another note, I am pretty sure the Air Force and Navy have more than a few pilots flying tactical aircraft and making decisions about dropping live ordanance on a daily basis who are in their early to mid 20's.

 

[rtmcfi]

I think my point was that he was doing 250, then after he met .74, his speed drifted below that. But I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

Just so we are all on the same page...
Are you saying that he pilot climbed out at 250 kias, untill he met up with .74. He then continued to climb at 250 kias, but the mach number fell off to something less than .74?

 

[Gandalf]

Who is this Moron?

Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.
DGdaPilot :


Who is this idiot? The -700 does just fine at 250 to .74. Do it all the time. As Weasil correctly posted earlier, 250 and .67 has nothing to do with anything, you moron! It has nothing to do with "energy on the wing" or "way too slow for the wing" - dude - do you use that line on the skanky flight attendants??? Oh, and at 290 to .74 you are burning more fuel, so unless you are at ORD, ATL, LGA, etc where you need to get the f out of dodge, 250 is just fine. Keep burning that fuel "dude" - costing your customer - mainline- money!

The transition to mach is a function of altitude and temperature - it will vary. Mach Number M = airflow velocity V/speed of sound a -
"...Because the property of air depends on altitude, flight speed ALONE IS NOT a reliable indicator of compressibilty effects. When referenced to the speed of sound however, a unique measure of altitude effects on aircraft aerodynamics is provided. This ratio of airflow velocity and speed of sound is termed Mach number..." - Jet Engines, K. Huneke ...
Translation for you DGda - the speed of sound varies with altitude because air density and temp. varies, therefore the IAS at which the transitions to certain Mach numbers will vary. Why do think profiles state 250/290 to .74 - if it was a set altitude the profiles would be 250/290 to FLXXX.

When you mention "too slow for this wing" - "...sweepback will delay the onset of all compressibility effects...sweepback will reduce the magnitude of change in the aerodynamic force coefficients due to compressiblity. Any change in drag, lift, or moment coefficients will be reduced by the use of sweepback...Thus the use of sweepback on a transonic (Transonic = Mach numbers from .75 to 1.20) aircraft will reduce and delay the drag rise and PRESERVE the maneuverability of the aircraft in transonic flight." - Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, 1965...maybe you were talking about something else...

Any way you cut it DGda you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, and while we are here, upgrading in 13 months at SKW is not nearly as scary as putting someone at 300 TT and 50 ME in a jet in a 121 environment. When a majority of those upgrading "fast" at SKW are coming from other 121 carriers and have plenty of experience. Just because we don't have smoking holes from the guys/girls flying around everyday with 300 hours doesn't mean it is a "safe" operation. And just because someone upgrades in 13 months doesn't mean it is "unsafe".
I would hands down fly with a captain who has had a fast upgrade at my current airline, but has had a lot of other experience, 121/135, than sit next to a 300 hr wonder. Not that I think that the 300 hr guy isn't smart enough or a good enough person, but he/she doesn't have the EXPERIENCE level. And of course having thousands of hours doesn't mean you will be a excellent pilot - however when the sh!! hits the fan, my confidence level that you and I as a crew can handle it is increased if I know that you have had more time in an airplane than the minimum hours to get your license. Just my 2 cents -

So, DGdaPilot in your words do all of us a favor ..."I mean seriously...Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut.."


"Never enter into a contest with a Sicilian when death is on the line."

 

[BoilerUP]

When you mention "too slow for this wing" - "...sweepback will delay the onset of all compressibility effects...sweepback will reduce the magnitude of change in the aerodynamic force coefficients due to compressiblity. Any change in drag, lift, or moment coefficients will be reduced by the use of sweepback...Thus the use of sweepback on a transonic (Transonic = Mach numbers from .75 to 1.20) aircraft will reduce and delay the drag rise and PRESERVE the maneuverability of the aircraft in transonic flight." - Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, 1965...maybe you were talking about something else...

Not to get in the middle of somebody else's pissing match, and I don't have a copy of Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators close at hand...but the compressibility effects about which you speak in this paragraph in relation to a swept wing in transonic flight are from high-speed operations, not from "flying too slow" on a swept airfoil...

 

[Nightrain_080]

Uncle Rico

its gives me a warm feeling to know that SKYW will put some 23 year old punk in charge of a 90 seat jet! Just keep lowering the standards, jerry!

I think it is really Uncle Rico (BH) that is the scourge, not Jerry. Uncle Rico will float us all down the river in order to prop up his bonus and ego.

 

[txpilot1974]

I think it is really Uncle Rico (BH) that is the scourge, not Jerry. Uncle Rico will float us all down the river in order to prop up his bonus and ego.

Uncle Rico!! LMAO!! Classic!

 

[poor2thecore]

Strong and important life decisions as well as a high maturity may be quickly fading in young civilians, but it is only getting greater in the lives of the young people serving in the military today.

I'm in the Navy and work as a main propulsion engineer on a 40 year old steam powered ship. The "immature" 18, and 19 year old "punks" who are working tirelessly down in the engine room are directly related to the operation of the ship and its safety. One wrong turn of a valve, start a pump too soon, lose fuel oil pressure going into the boiler... these are all events that may happen because of the actions of these 18 and 19 year, but it doesn't because these guys have the maturity to get the job done in some very unforgiving circumstances.

As a mature of fact I'm one of those 19 year old "punks" who keeps the fire burning and the screws turning onboard USS Shreveport. The amount of responsibility placed in my hands and my fellow shipmates is amazing. And for those like me who aspire to join you all in the skies as airline pilots will greatly benefit from the time we did serve in the military.

And most of all... my division officer may only appear once or twice a week. He is an Econ major as is, get this, 23 years old.

Please don't slam the younger people in the service because of the general thought they aren't mature enough to handle a situation if/when the $hit hits the fan, because your entirely wrong.

 

[SSDD]

People always mix apples and oranges. I'm not saying that younger people are stupid and incapable, only that they lack experience. In the example above, the engineer praises the 18 and 19 year olds for keeping the engines running. That's great, within their expertise.

But these are the important questions: Would you say they're qualified to captain the ship? To design the battle plan? Probably not...THEY LACK THE EXPERIENCE!

 

[xpdriver]

Well ok 13 months, ORD CRJ CA 5/06 hire date!! WOW

How's the pay?