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

[Firebird2XC]

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.

Crandall backed off because he was plotting collusion and the government slapped him back.

People will still go, and other businesses will cave to let them. Hotels, for example, depend on travelers. That's why when airfare dropped after deregulation the hotel business blew up.

*shrugs* Think what you wish.

 

[Mike H]

Crandall backed off because he was plotting collusion and the government slapped him back.

Well, at least you recognize that collusion is not part of the free market. You do, don't you?

People will still go,.

RIght. That's why all those 50 seat CRJ's are so profitable. Oh, wait... they aren't.

 

[BobDDuck]

RIght. That's why all those 50 seat CRJ's are so profitable. Oh, wait... they aren't.

Actually people flying or not flying has absolutely nothing to do with 50 seaters and profits. Compared to all the other MORE efficient per seat mile aircraft out there, they aren't going to make money with the current fare structure and as such, as long as there are other aircraft flying out there to compare them to, they are going to suck. If 50 seaters were the only plane flying around then you could try to make some sort of statement like that.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Well, at least you recognize that collusion is not part of the free market. You do, don't you?

Duh. What does the profitability of 50 seaters have to do with people still going at higher fares?

At higher fares, the 50 seaters might be profitable. Where are you going with this topic?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

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.

I agree. I completely agree with 1500 hours to fly an airliner, but 21 would be appropriate as an age rule.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Well, at least you recognize that collusion is not part of the free market. You do, don't you?

That would depend on your definition of "free," sir.

 

[elmetal]

If they like flying with you, not only will they continue to do so, they'll refer their friends too. That part of the market is not going anywhere, but it does take some time to develop your customer base.

I plan on never leaving the GA side of things but this sentence rings so true to my experience. I have probably flown with 12+ instructors in my time, and there is still one guy at FXE that if I am ever in the area and renting, he's coming with me. He's by far the best instructor I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I only wish he was qualified to give me my ASES when I get it eventually.

 

[Mike H]

Duh. What does the profitability of 50 seaters have to do with people still going at higher fares?

At higher fares, the 50 seaters might be profitable. Where are you going with this topic?

At higher fares, the 50 seaters will never be profitable, because they'll be empty

 

[jtrain609]

At higher fares, the 50 seaters will never be profitable, because they'll be empty

Fares don't determine whether 50 seaters are profitable when they operate on a fee for departure model.

 

[Maurus]

I agree. I completely agree with 1500 hours to fly an airliner, but 21 would be appropriate as an age rule.

Personally I was hoping for a 1500TT rule rather than requiring an ATP. No real need for an age restriction.

 

[Maurus]

Fares don't determine whether 50 seaters are profitable when they operate on a fee for departure model.

In this case wouldn't mainline be covering the costs of fuel and in turn being the ones losing money? Someone is likely losing money with 50 seat flying depending on the contract for the flying. Delta is scaling back for a reason.

 

[Mike H]

Fares don't determine whether 50 seaters are profitable when they operate on a fee for departure model.

So they could conceivably fill the seats for free and be profitable? OK

 

[jtrain609]

So they could conceivably fill the seats for free and be profitable? OK

For the regional, yes.

 

[jtrain609]

In this case wouldn't mainline be covering the costs of fuel and in turn being the ones losing money? Someone is likely losing money with 50 seat flying depending on the contract for the flying. Delta is scaling back for a reason.

It's hard to look at an entire fleet and say, "THIS ENTIRE FLEET IS LOSING MONEY, WE MUST STOP FLYING THIS ENTIRE FLEET," because if that were the case, then they'd stop flying the entire fleet tomorrow.

The issue really revolves around the route. To go from DTW to EWR one way on United costs $385 if you go one month from today. Multiply that by 50 and you're making $19,250 on one leg that takes 1.5 hours. Even if the plane costs $3,000 an hour to operate, you're making money on it. Combine what you make from customers connecting to international destinations and the amount of money made goes up even further, and that's all assuming all tickets are sold for that price, and in my experience, the numbers for this route go up dramatically as you approach the departure date.

Now, DTW to ORD, one way, in a month on United costs $100. It's the same plane (well, possibly, but let's say it is, and with that the same regional), on a flight that takes about an hour. If the plane costs $3,000 an hour to operate, your profit margins if you fill the thing up are MUCH less.

Now, I honestly have no idea what an EMB-145 costs to operate, and I'm pulling a number out of my butt. But the number probably isn't that far off, and it's more to demonstrate that "how profitable" a given fleet type is has more to do with just the number of seats in it. Is the average cost per seat mile cheaper on a larger aircraft? Sure, but if you go by that metric alone, you should operate 747's on every leg because IF you pack it full of people, it'll have the lowest cost per seat mile on average. But if you only put 50 people on a plane that seats 400, you're likely to lose money.

Routes need to be right sized, both in gauge and frequency, in order to turn a profit. But for the regional operating the flight? They're paid no matter what as long as they depart.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Further complicating things, some routes are only profitable seasonally.

 

[seagull]

It would be damn near impossible to run a civilian training program that does the same thing and be able to stay in business or make a profit.

And let's not even compare accident rates...

 

[Hacker15e]

And let's not even compare accident rates...

...which are more closely related to the significant core differences in risk, intensity, and mission-focus than some deficiency in training, currency, or competency.

None of the commentary was intended to be a schwanz-measuring or which is 'better'. It was discussing how the military is able to regularly churn out a higher-quality, more skilled 250-hour pilot than civilian programs do in that same time period.

Those quality differences all have to do with money and mission, as previously mentioned.

Differences in accident rates -- although I sure don't know what those differences actually are -- would be attributable to the differences in events accomplished (with the military training being significantly comprised of more inherently risky events) and the mission-focus of the accomplishment of those events. In the military, high performance flying has to be part of basic flying training so that higher performance flying necessary for mission accomplishment may be taught later in the training pipeline. There are inherent risks to that.

If the #1 job was to "be safe", then there would be different standards and different curriculum. Since the job is to accomplish the mission as safely as possible, the acceptable level of risk is naturally going to be higher.

I'd be interested to see what the comparative numbers actually say; of course, you'd have to include all of the accidents/incident rates in civilian aerobatic training, instrument training, and formation flying training undertaken by students with sub-250 hours in order to really make a legitimate comparison.

IMHO the USAF, at least, does its undergraduate training extremely safely given what is being trained, how regularly it is taught, and to the volume of students it is taught to.

 

[seagull]

Can't argue there. I guess I was trying to make the point that having more hours is not going to make you a better user of a checklist or better at reading runway signs. Between 250hrs and 25,000hrs you are not going to get any better at using a checklist.

Strongly disagree, and that is based on a lot of analysis of accidents and mishaps with direct focus on human factors issues.

 

[seagull]

...which are more closely related to the significant core differences in risk, intensity, and mission-focus than some deficiency in training, currency, or competency.

None of the commentary was intended to be a schwanz-measuring or which is 'better'. It was discussing how the military is able to regularly churn out a higher-quality, more skilled 250-hour pilot than civilian programs do in that same time period.

Those quality differences all have to do with money and mission, as previously mentioned.

Differences in accident rates -- although I sure don't know what those differences actually are -- would be attributable to the differences in events accomplished (with the military training being significantly comprised of more inherently risky events) and the mission-focus of the accomplishment of those events. In the military, high performance flying has to be part of basic flying training so that higher performance flying necessary for mission accomplishment may be taught later in the training pipeline. There are inherent risks to that.

If the #1 job was to "be safe", then there would be different standards and different curriculum. Since the job is to accomplish the mission as safely as possible, the acceptable level of risk is naturally going to be higher.

I'd be interested to see what the comparative numbers actually say; of course, you'd have to include all of the accidents/incident rates in civilian aerobatic training, instrument training, and formation flying training undertaken by students with sub-250 hours in order to really make a legitimate comparison.

IMHO the USAF, at least, does its undergraduate training extremely safely given what is being trained, how regularly it is taught, and to the volume of students it is taught to.

I agree with you. The mission is quite different, and a large part of that difference starts from before a student ever gets close to an aircraft. The screening process, which includes the training (both aviation related and military) weeds out the majority of "problem children" at the outset. The structure is dramatically different as well, as the military is not trying to make a profit off selling their training. The quality control is much higher, and the students actually learn aerodynamic theory before flying.

The accident rate is important though, but not because of what might be implied at first read. It is important because, unlike in civilian training (except for rare events), the military pilot is keenly aware that they can, and will, die if they mess up. That has a fairly dramatic impact on how seriously they take things and how they approach their roll, mission and flying.

 

[seagull]

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.

All that may be true, but we have to look at averages in behavior. There is a reason that the military first targets people in their late teens and early 20s in terms of being "fearless".