1500TT minimums ?

My understanding is Eagle is going to have 6 pilots not meet the age requirement and it could be as high as 30+ not meet the time requirement. Because of the way Eagle runs bids we have a lot of FOs that have spend more time in training then on the line.
What happens to them? I wouldn't think they would be able to be furloughed.
 
How the hell do you figure? It was my Remember 3407 Project that started the whole ball rolling. The ATP requirement, new rest rules, everything- starting the push for those was entirely my idea. But hey, the guy who gets wasted and jumps in the pool with his clothes on at a networking mixer thinks I'm clueless. Cheers to that.
Hmm, do I want to spend a 4 day with someone who goes to Vegas and talks about nothing but airplanes the entire weekend or someone who is actually fun to hang out with and can keep it professional where it's appropriate? Not a really tough call for me.
 
Shows how lacking in forward thinking the regionals are... And not able to get 1000 or so hours in 3 years? Yikes! I've got a pretty lazy life, and I fly about 400 a year...

We have no age liabilities here but about 10 pilots (out of a list of 500) who are going to be close on the flight time. Some have to average 120 hours a month to get the number. Others need 80 or so. The problem is that they are all mostly on reserve and if there aren't a lot of uncovered trips, they don't fly. The company has been offering other FOs unpaid leaves in order to increase the available flying for the low timers, but there haven't been that many guys willing to take a 20 hour pay hit. I think the company really only planed poorly with one or two new hires who where way too low in flight time to make it. These guys were already employed at the company in non flying positions. The rest were hired based on the assumption that they would fly 80 hours a month and be fine, but there has been less movement than planned and they got stuck on reserve flying 40 hours a month.
 
We have no age liabilities here but about 10 pilots (out of a list of 500) who are going to be close on the flight time. Some have to average 120 hours a month to get the number. Others need 80 or so. The problem is that they are all mostly on reserve and if there aren't a lot of uncovered trips, they don't fly. The company has been offering other FOs unpaid leaves in order to increase the available flying for the low timers, but there haven't been that many guys willing to take a 20 hour pay hit. I think the company really only planed poorly with one or two new hires who where way too low in flight time to make it. These guys were already employed at the company in non flying positions. The rest were hired based on the assumption that they would fly 80 hours a month and be fine, but there has been less movement than planned and they got stuck on reserve flying 40 hours a month.
Wasn't there at least one about 250TT new hire about a year, year and a half ago? I'd heard it but it seemed really strange because it was about the time everyone was going up in minimums to gear up for August.
 
Shows how lacking in forward thinking the regionals are... And not able to get 1000 or so hours in 3 years? Yikes! I've got a pretty lazy life, and I fly about 400 a year...
Waste away on reserve in an outstation base and suddenly, "oh yeah...uh...preassigned min block value..."
 
Wasn't there at least one about 250TT new hire about a year, year and a half ago? I'd heard it but it seemed really strange because it was about the time everyone was going up in minimums to gear up for August.

I think it was closer to 500, but yes. There was one super low time guy who was already working for the company elsewhere and was transitioned to a flying position well below the stated hour requirements at the time. He has been busting his ass though to get the time, unlike some other people who are going to be short and are intentionally bidding reserve lines and requesting last out, when they can hold actual lines of flying.
 
Derg said:
Two statements:

Bands a make her dance.

And

I got the ball rolling on this thing called CompuServe.
 

Attachments

  • image-1639822903.jpg
    image-1639822903.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 110
Now wait a second Charlie. The 'ball was rolling' on the new rest rules LOOOONG before the accident. Also, the ATP Requirement was really born out of the ALPA Submission AND it was originally more encompassing than putting a solid hour requirement that was later mandated by Congress.

Take a look at page 176 of this report...

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf

Please clarifiy? The numbered page, or the page of the data document? I can't find what you're looking for. What I did find was a date on the signature page- 2010. Long enough for ALPA to adopt the bullet of R3407 Project after the fact. And yes, the hour requirement (which is one the key issues I'm asserting was my idea) was mandated by Congress. Where do you think that idea came from?

Fatigue has been an issue that the NTSB has wanted better managed since the inception on their NTSB Most Wanted List in 1990. FRMS and science based rest rules have been around for years. Randy Babbitt, when he was ALPA President (early 1990s), tried to have the rest rules rewritten. He had some success, but not enough. When he was made head of the FAA, he wanted to finish what he started when he was ALPA President. The Colgan Accident gave him ammunition.

Here is a White Paper from 2008, concerning rest rules (among other items), which was before the Accident...

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/FatigueRiskMSWP_6-2008.pdf

ALPA has in fact been involved in number fatigue study initiatives stretching back decades. I spoke to a number of the pilots that were involved in the Short Haul fatigue study done in 1995. Ultimately, however, ALPA failed to make any cumulative change.

Now, take a look at 5.1 'Recommendations to the FAA' in the following link

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=322233&docketID=47271&mkey=73351

Points 3, 4, and 5 point directly at the ATP Requirement. I know you didn't work on the report and I know specifics for the '1500 hour rule' wasn't mandated or discussed by Congress until well after the ALPA Submission was published. But the real reason, I believe, is why Congress acted on the 1500 hour rule, is that the NTSB, a government agency, was pushing for a rule, ANY rule that dealt with low time pilots. Putting a hard number requirement is a lot easier than regulating all encompassing training programs. In the end though, a majority of that rule that was put in place came directly from the ALPA submission. A lot of Regional FOs are getting their SIC type made into a PIC type because of the recommendation on the ALPA Report, that went to the FAA, that went through an ARC, that went into law.

For those reading this thread, notice ALPA didn't say ANYTHING about a time requirement. They knew it would open up a whole can of worms as is being discussed in this thread.

All noted. The date of that document is December, 2009. Over six months after my initiative, at least.

Now, from a timing stand point. During the NTSB Public Hearing in May 2009, Fatigue and Pilot Qualifications were discussed in depth. Your website didn't come online until June of 2009 correct?

I'm not certain that's correct. I can't find the specific start date of the website anywhere- but I find references to it being up in May.

Finally, were you asked to be on any of the Aviation Rule Making Committees (ARCS) or asked to consult any of the ARCS about the above rules?

No. So? The ideas pushed for the surviving families were adopted from the letter campaign used to bombard Congress with the ideas.

Bottom line is, I don't think it is fair to say that 'others carried your ideas'.

Yes it is. Key points addressed that were my idea and were commented on or implemented by the DOT or FAA:

1. Truth in advertising clause for travel websites, clarifying the need for transparency and accountability in the airline world. The point of this was to draw attention to the scope of Regional airline operations and its effect on air travelers.

2. A required minimum wage for airline pilots. The FAA commented on this and basically said "we don't do this." It was never intended to be taken that far, and was a "pie in the sky" suggestion.

3. Prior to the Remember 3407 Project, no one had suggested that the rules be changed by lobbying Congress to pass a law directing the FAA directly. So we did. Shortly after I started the initial Remember 3407 Project, the American Eagle MEC Communications chair approached me about adopting my idea set and launching an official American Eagle campaign.

If ALPA national already had such things fully underway, why do that?

4. You stated above that ALPA pushed for "improved training". At no time did they push for a hard qualification change. That was absolutely my idea.

ALPA lent its full weight to backing the ideas put forward, and the 3407 Families carried the ideas they garnered from media exposure of the Remember 3407 Project bullets as far as President Obama. Ultimately, I believe it was their adoption of and lobbying for the ideas that carried them to fruition.

As for the start date of the Remember 3407 Project, it may have been April or May of 2009. I don't entirely remember. The thread archiving here doesn't go back quite far enough. But this update thread from July, 2009, references the letter writing campaign in May of 2009. *shrugs*

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/remember-3407-project-strikes-a-chord.90887/

"Back in in mid-May I sent a letter to both my Senators and my Congressman regarding the hot button issues for regional airline pilots. I focused my letter on fatigue, qualifications and pay using many of the topic points that FIREBIRD2XC has addressed on his web page Remember 3407 Project"

As is usual, though, ALPA played a hugely pivotal part in this- but based on the time it takes such a large organization to organize and present official information, arguing their reports as the originals is questionable. The idea base launched through my idea campaign were on point here. And we have the end results of the grass roots rabble rousing the effort achieved to thank for our regulatory break through as a result.
 
The ATP requirement to kill the PFJ bottom feeders wasn't exactly Charlie's original idea (I know I had mentioned it a few times prior to 3407), but he was one of the key ones who approached the families of the crash victims to push it to congress.

Nobody cares about rich airline pilots who bitch about their pay, but grieving family members can actually the media, and congress' attention. This was one of the key factors that finally got the FAA to make the pilot rest rules that everyone knew needed to be made.
 
The ATP requirement to kill the PFJ bottom feeders wasn't exactly Charlie's original idea (I know I had mentioned it a few times prior to 3407), but he was one of the key ones who approached the families of the crash victims to push it to congress.

Nobody cares about rich airline pilots who bitch about their pay, but grieving family members can actually the media, and congress' attention. This was one of the key factors that finally got the FAA to make the pilot rest rules that everyone knew needed to be made.

It may not have been my original idea, per se, but approaching Congress instead of the FAA definitely was.
 
Back
Top