1500hr Rule - Do you think the industry will adjust? If so, how?

[drunkenbeagle]

For the record, I would trust all of you with my car. And have in many cases - I need the insurance money.

Play nice - serious topic - no need to say anything about anyone personally.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

More than you know. Why else would there be age requirements for Commercial and ATP Certificates? Or to be President?

Trust me- you'll see things differently in a decade. There are matters of experience and biochemistry in play here.

Rest assured, I am "getting old" as fast as is biologically possible.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

No. It's somewhat of a bad investment to.

...I won't actively disagree with this, either...

 

[z987k]

Meh. I don't agree with any of that nonsense. I had somewhere around 3500 to 4000hrs when I was 23, I'd have been fine at 20 and 1500hrs. It's an ATP, it's not even that hard of a rating to get for fs sake. It doesn't make you "super duper sky-god." On top of that, age is a poor indicator of quality - there are plenty of guys who are in their 30s who I wouldn't let borrow my car - let alone fly an airplane. There are age limits for ATPs and Presidents because someone, somewhere said, "well? what's the limit going to be?" and someone else said, "How about 16 to solo, 17 for a private, 18 for a commercial, and 23 for an ATP?" I sincerely doubt there was any science done - which is how this sort of thing should be determined - rather it was all anecdotal hunches done by people who didn't have their crap together when they were 20.

tl;dr You know who thinks age related discrimination is reasonable thing? People who didn't have their crap together when they were that age.

My ATP ride was by FAR the easiest ride I've ever taken. And really it should be. At 1500 hours as a professional, you have way too much experience to have difficulty in anything on the ride. The caveat to that being if it's a band new airplane you have no experience in and systems out the wazoo that you're not used to, I'm sure it'd be a handful.

 

[BobDDuck]

My ATP ride was by FAR the easiest ride I've ever taken. And really it should be. At 1500 hours as a professional, you have way too much experience to have difficulty in anything on the ride. The caveat to that being if it's a band new airplane you have no experience in and systems out the wazoo that you're not used to, I'm sure it'd be a handful.

This is so true. Take out the new airplane bit and every single checkride you take in 121 career should be simple as hell. You know exactly what they are going to be testing you on. You've had the same exact checkride X times before. You've had a certain number of practice sessions where they train you TO THE CHECKRIDE (which is something you probably shouldn't be doing for any other rating). And, you have a whole bunch of experience to draw upon.

And yet people manage to fail spectacularly.

 

[dasleben]

This is so true. Take out the new airplane bit and every single checkride you take in 121 career should be simple as hell. You know exactly what they are going to be testing you on. You've had the same exact checkride X times before. You've had a certain number of practice sessions where they train you TO THE CHECKRIDE (which is something you probably shouldn't be doing for any other rating). And, you have a whole bunch of experience to draw upon.

And yet people manage to fail spectacularly.

Yep, every professional checkride I've taken has been, as they say, "plain vanilla." Heck, I took my initial PC last night here at the new gig, and it was far more straightforward and boring than any of the training events leading up to it. Passing a checkride doesn't mean much; it's the sum of your experience that makes the difference, which may or may not directly correspond with hours (i.e. a 2,500 hour RJ pilot will more than likely be much more suited to going to SWA than a 5,000 hour career CFI).

 

[BobDDuck]

I took my initial PC last night here at the new gig

Congrats on that. I saw an Atlas 767 landing at 6 in the morning in GPT last week just as we were starting to push for our first flight. Different world ya'll live in.

Speaking of/unrelated... if you are cool with it, can you drop me a PM with your email? An FO I was just flying with *may* have an interview at your old gig and was looking to talk to somebody to get some knowledge. He's good people.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

An FO I was just flying with *may* have an interview at your old gig and was looking to talk to somebody to get some knowledge. He's good people.

Trying to get rid of Paul? 8)

 

[dasleben]

Congrats on that. I saw an Atlas 767 landing at 6 in the morning in GPT last week just as we were starting to push for our first flight. Different world ya'll live in.

Thanks, and yeah, it sure is interesting. That hit me one night overflying Iraq at about 3am, watching the fires from the oil wells down below. I like it, which is why I'm looking forward to doing more of it here.

Speaking of/unrelated... if you are cool with it, can you drop me a PM with your email? An FO I was just flying with *may* have an interview at your old gig and was looking to talk to somebody to get some knowledge. He's good people.

No prob!

 

[Mike H]

... and this limit is? People pay the cheapest available of what the market offers. If costs go up universally, people pay the lowest of that.

You couldn't be more wrong. As the price of a thing goes up, the demand will go down. That's called the Law of Supply & Demand in case you've never had an economics class.

The price limit is different for everybody. For example: say ticket prices go up 10% across the board. A certain number of people just won't travel- lets say they're 10% of the traveling public. Of the 90% remaining, another- lets say another 10%- will still travel, but not by air (they'll go by car or train). Right away, air travel goes down by 20%. Name an airline that can stay in business very long with 20% fewer passengers, AND not lay off pilots, ramp workers, gate agents, and not reduce the size of their fleet. Lets say on top of that 10% across the board fare hike, tickets to some destinations go up 20%... or 30%. Do you seriously think the same number of people will keep on buying those more expensive tickets? If things worked the way you seem to think they do, Bob Crandall wouldn't have had to back off his fare hikes. In fact, airline fare wars happen precisely because there's a free market- not in spite of it.

 

[z987k]

If ticket prices went up 10% tomorrow, I'd still be flying because it's still cheaper than driving for anything beyond about 5 a hour drive.

 

[Mike H]

If ticket prices went up 10% tomorrow, I'd still be flying because it's still cheaper than driving for anything beyond about 5 a hour drive.

What the heck do you drive anyway?

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

What the heck do you drive anyway?

Time is money!

 

[z987k]

What the heck do you drive anyway?

Ford Ranger.

pdx-ord is $205 right now. It'd cost me over $400 and a TON more time to drive that.
You can do LAX-JFK for $150. You'd need a car that got 70mpg to equal that. Include wear and tear and hotels and it's more like 100mpg+++ to be equal.

 

[JordanD]

Ford Ranger.

pdx-ord is $205 right now. It'd cost me over $400 and a TON more time to drive that.
You can do LAX-JFK for $150. You'd need a car that got 70mpg to equal that. Include wear and tear and hotels and it's more like 100mpg+++ to be equal.

Really depends on the area too. It seems like there's a lot of lower fares between the big west coast cities (tons of competition, obviously). Out here in the Midwest though there's a good amount of places that ARE cheaper to drive to. Delta had a ridiculous monopoly on SDF-ATL for years until Southwest moved in, and the ticket prices reflected that. My family always drove. Which brings me to another point... Some people aren't savvy enough to do the cost break downs and end up driving anyway. Looking at my own "Ma and Pa Kettle".

 

[DragonStar45]

Meh. I don't agree with any of that nonsense. I had somewhere around 3500 to 4000hrs when I was 23, I'd have been fine at 20 and 1500hrs. It's an ATP, it's not even that hard of a rating to get for fs sake. It doesn't make you "super duper sky-god." On top of that, age is a poor indicator of quality - there are plenty of guys who are in their 30s who I wouldn't let borrow my car - let alone fly an airplane. There are age limits for ATPs and Presidents because someone, somewhere said, "well? what's the limit going to be?" and someone else said, "How about 16 to solo, 17 for a private, 18 for a commercial, and 23 for an ATP?" I sincerely doubt there was any science done - which is how this sort of thing should be determined - rather it was all anecdotal hunches done by people who didn't have their crap together when they were 20.

tl;dr You know who thinks age related discrimination is reasonable thing? People who didn't have their crap together when they were that age.

Exactly, a 21 year old that has more than 1500 hours is not the average kid that everyone sees everyday. They had to work at getting their hours, the same way everyone else did. To turn around and say that they have to wait a few years more because they are not old enough is just unfair. 1-3 years of waiting to turn 23 for the 121 experience is the difference between a good QOL or a pathetic QOL.

 

[JustinS]

Really depends on the area too. It seems like there's a lot of lower fares between the big west coast cities (tons of competition, obviously). Out here in the Midwest though there's a good amount of places that ARE cheaper to drive to. Delta had a ridiculous monopoly on SDF-ATL for years until Southwest moved in, and the ticket prices reflected that. My family always drove. Which brings me to another point... Some people aren't savvy enough to do the cost break downs and end up driving anyway. Looking at my own "Ma and Pa Kettle".

Yeah between Longview, and Austin you're looking at 4 hours at $244, or I could just drive for 4 hours and spend $35 at current gas prices ($3.69 per gallon).

So it's not always cheaper to fly.

 

[Richman]

You couldn't be more wrong. As the price of a thing goes up, the demand will go down. That's called the Law of Supply & Demand in case you've never had an economics class.

The price limit is different for everybody. For example: say ticket prices go up 10% across the board. A certain number of people just won't travel- lets say they're 10% of the traveling public. Of the 90% remaining, another- lets say another 10%- will still travel, but not by air (they'll go by car or train). Right away, air travel goes down by 20%. Name an airline that can stay in business very long with 20% fewer passengers, AND not lay off pilots, ramp workers, gate agents, and not reduce the size of their fleet. Lets say on top of that 10% across the board fare hike, tickets to some destinations go up 20%... or 30%. Do you seriously think the same number of people will keep on buying those more expensive tickets? If things worked the way you seem to think they do, Bob Crandall wouldn't have had to back off his fare hikes. In fact, airline fare wars happen precisely because there's a free market- not in spite of it.

I love it when people get a B- in Freshman Economics and think it bears any relation to reality.

Richman

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I love it when people get a B- in Freshman Economics and think it bears any relation to reality.

Richman

Nothing incorrect there, and air travel does have elastic demand. Companies (including mine), have travel budgets. If it costs more than $900 to fly someplace, my beancounters will just walk away from the business.

 

[ppragman]

Nothing incorrect there, and air travel does have elastic demand. Companies (including mine), have travel budgets. If it costs more than $900 to fly someplace, my beancounters will just walk away from the business.

Well, air travel has elastic demand, but I doubt that it's in equilibrium. Also, the question is a lot more complicated than that. By how much does price have to go up for a company to say, "nope, we can't service this market." The problem with economics is that it makes artificial assumptions about the real world and expects to get real results. In reality there are a lot more factors at play than simply supply and demand, and while those are good indicators, ultimately they are less than satisfactory to display the whole picture.

Also, contrary to popular belief, things like culture and psychology - which are decidedly un-economic factors - heavily influence the efficacy of economic models. So, while in principle, you are "correct," you are only technically correct (the best kind of correct) because it's air-travel is probably not in equilibrium.