Delta ponders pilot sources (Flightglobal article)

[Bandit_Driver]

What about getting the trip dropped with pay and being able to accomplish the work from home? I actually did that at my previous operation as an instructor (before going "fullish" time) and it was quite nice: paid, $250 instructor override, and at home.

Most airlines would be against that, security issues with remote logins, have to find another pilot to fly your trip, bean counters would see you has making too much $$ per hour....Mgmt will also expect you to be available to answer calls, etc on your days off too as you will not have a set schedule then.

I have a second job that is work from home and having family duties makes it hard to work at home efficiently...

 

[C150J]

Most airlines would be against that, security issues with remote logins, have to find another pilot to fly your trip, bean counters would see you has making too much $$ per hour....Mgmt will also expect you to be available to answer calls, etc on your days off too as you will not have a set schedule then.

I have a second job that is work from home and having family duties makes it hard to work at home efficiently...

Your points are certainly well taken. For stuff like internet-based training development, I still think it's a good idea (have the guys who are actually out there in the system creating curriculum), but you're DEAD ON about management thinking you're obligated to answer your phone. That is actually the primary reason why I moved on to a management/flying position at a different operator: I will have an office to "leave work at work."

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Your points are certainly well taken. For stuff like internet-based training development, I still think it's a good idea (have the guys who are actually out there in the system creating curriculum), but you're DEAD ON about management thinking you're obligated to answer your phone. That is actually the primary reason why I moved on to a management/flying position at a different operator: I will have an office to "leave work at work."

I have nothing againt CBT and think it is a great tool when used correctly and can cut down on mgmt expenses. Several airlines and type ratings schools use it. You do X number of hours at home of CBT and then come to ground school ready to go with questions and a good understanding of everything. It cuts training time down and gets people on the same page fast. I worked in the office before at an airline when I was a reserve pilot and I can tell you it sucked and the politics were amazing, to say the least.

I just see more negatives than I do positives from it. The mgmt positions that would benefit from a pilot doing them usually already have union or a committee oversight on them. Having a pilot do them wouldn't necessarily help as they would bend the item i the pilots favor. Where as a mgmt person bends it the other other way....

Sometimes we screw the company and sometimes the company screws us. We are both closer for the expereince and round and round we go.

 

[FL900]

You really don't have personal liberty as an employee. The employer says "fly to Omaha" you can't say "Welp, we're going to fly to Lincoln instead." The FAA says 1600RVR is below your minimums, you can't pull the liberty card and shoot a Cat-I.

You have personal liberty as a PERSON. I am not talking about telling your employer to shove it and do whatever you want; that would obviously be a violation of the contract or agreement that exists between employer and employee. I am saying that the concept of a national seniority list (which someone else suggested), imposed by the federal government on all individual PERSONS of a certain profession, is a bad idea. Either you are intentionally confusing that point, or it is being lost in the internet. I hope it's the latter.

 

[WacoFan]

As a passenger I don't want a merit-based system. I want a "standard" pilot, with the standard being excellent. I don't want Eddie Haskell in the left seat simply because he can kiss ass better than the guy in the right seat.

As a manager/owner, I'd like the same thing, but with some form of merit-based upgrade. I think a seniority based system would need to be the base - nobody can upgrade until they have the seniority. Then, when that person's number comes up, perhaps look at a set of metrics.

For example:
1) Performance on training events: how many re-trainings has this guy had?
2) How many complaints has this guy had from other crew members, and did they have merit?

And you can maybe come up with other criteria - I have little knowledge of other areas of measurement that would be relevent. The idea would be to pick some kind of standard that all the pilots are adhering to anyway, and start to use that for a basis of upgrade. This eliminates the ass-kissing portion of the merit based upgrade but places a standard on performance against your peer group, performance in interacting with your co-workers, and couples that with the seniority system. Perhaps some kind of system like that would have kept Renslow out of the left seat of 3407? I'm not sure of the specifics of what measurements you'd use, I only left those as an example - but I wouldn't want any metrics that had to do with kissing up to management.

TWA in the fifties I believe would make all FO's pass Captain upgrade at 5 years. That didn't necessarily mean they could hold captain, but they had to pass that upgrade training or be fired - TWA didn't want anyone that couldn't upgrade. Some kind of system like that, with expanded criteria maybe. At some point they quit doing that five-year thing, but their upgrade used to last six-months I've heard, with numerous opportunities and tests within that six-months to be fired. I believe any score lower than 80% on a written test was grounds for dismissal as well as performance in the sims/flight portion of the upgrade. That would pretty much accomplish the same thing as a merit based upgrade I would think.

 

[mwflyer]

Indeed. Put very simply, if you consider how many qualified applicants there are, and that every mainline company is STILL looking at ab initio programs, the answer is clear; they're afraid of running out of pilots, and believe that the possibility is real.

weren't you one of those who claimed there would never be a shortage?

 

[WacoFan]

weren't you one of those who claimed there would never be a shortage?

His point is correct though. Kit Darby, Gulfstream International and all the pilot-mills proclaim shortage. Age 65 seems (for now) to be a hard number - so you can predict retirements. What you can't predict is work-rule changes, airline growth (or shrinkage), and things of that nature. If Kit Darby, GIA, or ATP are screaming shortage, I'm understanding they make money selling that dream. If DAL sets up their own ab-initio program (expense) - then it is an actual imminent thing.

 

[dasleben]

It's a shame that everyone jumps to "kissing ass" when talking about a merit-based system. Naturally, a poorly-designed system could easily become useless, but is it truly impractical to create a system that actually rewards achievement and competence?

Even stranger to me is that people would willingly drag themselves down in order to give even the most unmotivated and apathetic candidate a "fair shot." Though I might find that strange, the thing that makes me downright appalled is the idea that this is considered a positive thing to do. Again, ask yourself: As motived, hard working pilots who strive to excel, to whom is a seniority-based system fair?

I'm absolutely a union supporter (I write my dues check every month), and believe that unions are very useful in this industry for a number of things. However, seniority-based systems have never made sense to me; they reward mediocrity and cut everyone else down to the same level.

All the best,

 

[Boris Badenov]

is it truly impractical to create a system that actually rewards achievement and competence?

I think it's essentially impossible to create a system that rewards achievement and competence in the absence of other criteria. And those other criteria are going to be 100% subjective, and therefore subject to certain abuse. Is it possible to create a merit-based system that is sane in the abstract? Sure. In reality? Not in my opinion. I think you underestimate the pettiness of human beings.

 

[dasleben]

I think you underestimate the pettiness of human beings.

Perhaps so. I suppose I underestimate a lot about people sometimes.

 

[WacoFan]

I think it's essentially impossible to create a system that rewards achievement and competence in the absence of other criteria. And those other criteria are going to be 100% subjective, and therefore subject to certain abuse. Is it possible to create a merit-based system that is sane in the abstract? Sure. In reality? Not in my opinion. I think you underestimate the pettiness of human beings.

And this goes back to my pointless post about TWA. Change upgrade training. Make it uniformly difficult - a ball buster. Also make it an up and out program. Minimum scores on written tests, exceptional sim work, IOE lasting a month or so. Sure, it will cost more, but the result of going through that is a Captain that has been through a difficult process and passed. FO's will work harder and pay better attention because they know if they don't get through the upgrade they'll be bagging groceries or saying hello to people as they enter Walmart. The captains should be better in all aspects, which will trickle down to the FO's becuase they'll be learning from better captains. Most importantly, you never get a Renslow wearing four stripes. This isn't a "merit based upgrade" but to get through the upgrade takes a great deal of merit. That's why TWA had such a long upgrade program I think.

 

[derg]

You have personal liberty as a PERSON. I am not talking about telling your employer to shove it and do whatever you want; that would obviously be a violation of the contract or agreement that exists between employer and employee. I am saying that the concept of a national seniority list (which someone else suggested), imposed by the federal government on all individual PERSONS of a certain profession, is a bad idea. Either you are intentionally confusing that point, or it is being lost in the internet. I hope it's the latter.

You do have the realize that the federal government doesn't give a poop about national seniority lists and cannot impose the concept.

 

[Gonzo]

but is it truly impractical to create a system that actually rewards achievement and competence?

Seeing how I have ask you now three times to show me how it could work with a pilot group of +3K and you have yet to answer it, you tell me.

Even stranger to me is that people would willingly drag themselves down in order to give even the most unmotivated and apathetic candidate a "fair shot." Though I might find that strange, the thing that makes me downright appalled is the idea that this is considered a positive thing to do. Again, ask yourself: As motived, hard working pilots who strive to excel, to whom is a seniority-based system fair?

Can you give me a list of things and traits that make up a unmotivated and apathetic pilot and an motived, hard working pilot.

Like I said I think 90%-95% of the pilots at Eagle would fall under the hard working group and if that is the case how do you fill 70 upgrades with 1200 equally qualified pilots base on a merit-based system.

 

[dasleben]

Seeing how I have ask you now three times to show me how it could work with a pilot group of +3K and you have yet to answer it, you tell me.

I've been trying. Like I've been saying, it would take work to set such a program up. I have an idea of how it should work, but not all the answers. This would be an undertaking that would require more than just a guy who's been up all night typing away on a web forum. :dunno: Being difficult doesn't make it impossible, however. Waco brings up good points, but again, such a system would have to be carefully planned and controlled.

10am here...currently on a really screwy rotation, so it's time for bed.

 

[Center_Mid]

Change upgrade training. Make it uniformly difficult - a ball buster. Also make it an up and out program.

I agree that such a program could probably be implemented, but damn. That would really change things. Very few people could afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more) on college, ratings, etc. only to get bounced after five years on the job because they failed to pass a ball busting upgrade test. Most professions allow you to fail a licensing or currency test and try it again. Maybe if someone failed to make captain after three tries that'd be one thing, but taking away someone's livelihood is a very high penalty for failing a single test.

 

[WacoFan]

I agree that such a program could probably be implemented, but damn. That would really change things. Very few people could afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more) on college, ratings, etc. only to get bounced after five years on the job because they failed to pass a ball busting upgrade test. Most professions allow you to fail a licensing or currency test and try it again. Maybe if someone failed to make captain after three tries that'd be one thing, but taking away someone's livelihood is a very high penalty for failing a single test.

I understand your point here. But that's how TWA used to do it (and I imagine the other carriers had somewhat similar policies). People talk about the "good old days" and how pilots were perceived and certainly how they were paid. A lot of people write off the degradation of the industry to de-regulation - and certainly that had a negative effect on pay, etc. De-regulation didn't necessarily have to do with the degradation of the profession from the perception point of view though - that's taken a lot longer. It seems there are a lot of threads about "Are Pilots professionals" and "Are pilots glorified bus drivers" etc. In the old days it wasn't a question. Part of the "good old days", in my opinion, was that the barriers to entry were higher, and to keep your job the performance factors were higher. Therefore pilots didn't question whether they were professional or not, they knew it...and since they knew it, they acted that way and they demanded to be paid that way.

Someone goes $100k in the hole to finance training, spends years at food stamp wages CFI'ing or Regional'ing...only to get to a major and wipe out at some point...that's sad, but also - tough titty. That's the choice you made. I guarantee that you will end up with a potentially better pilot/captain and the industry will become more exclusive via attrition. With the higher quality of captain/leader, everything should improve - including union membership and the demand to be paid better - because these guys aren't going to have confidence problems, they'll walk. Further, after time (it will take time) - enough weak sisters are scared out of the profession at the beginning that their will probably not be a willing pool of scabs, or at least a willing pool of people that will work for peanuts AND be able to get through this training regimen.

This is just an idea - not sure how much merit it has but it would seem to accomplish a few things. The "good old days" were that way for a reason - and that reason isn't 100% de-regulation/regulation related in my view.

 

[Center_Mid]

Part of the "good old days", in my opinion, was that the barriers to entry were higher, and to keep your job the performance factors were higher.

Perhaps the testing was more rigorous, but I don't think the financial barriers to entry were as high in the 1950s as they are now. Maybe that's a reason why Delta's ab initio program could make sense - to produce qualified pilots without the huge personal debt load. On the other hand, if airlines like Delta currently benefit from having a large pool of "people that will work for peanuts," then they'll be reluctant to go back to those good old days.

 

[WacoFan]

Perhaps the testing was more rigorous, but I don't think the financial barriers to entry were as high in the 1950s as they are now. Maybe that's a reason why Delta's ab initio program could make sense - to produce qualified pilots without the huge personal debt load. On the other hand, if airlines like Delta currently benefit from having a large pool of "people that will work for peanuts," then they'll be reluctant to go back to those good old days.

I think the barriers to entry were higher for selection (mostly ex-military) as well as keeping the job. Financially it probably wasn't as limiting, but they also didn't have Sallie Mae then either.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

The thing is I don't think there are 30K qualified pilots. I have ran some numbers and only think there is maybe 15K-20K pilots that are qualified for a mainline and better LLC job.

I take qualified to mean 1,500 TT,college degree, nothing bad on their record and under 50.

I don't think there are more than 20000 regional pilots in the US...

 

[Bandit_Driver]

I'll believe a pilot shortage when I see actually see one. So far I have been hearing about this so called shortage for 15 years now...According to what my school sold me I should be 747 Captain at Delta by now making 300K. Everyone is forgetting there are highly qualified guys sitting on the sidelines because they aren't going to fly at the regionals for peanut dust...