Low Time Pilots

[surreal1221]

Whoa, that's quite a succinct and philosophical answer to a significantly convoluted situation. . .and unfortunately, unless something more concrete is provided, that's not the right answer.

Then Sir, please tell me what you feel is the correct answer? Feel free to ask for more concrete from 76driver concerning his "questionable hiring practices" comment. I did, and he doesn't want to continue, and I'll respect that.

I'm not here to prove a point, I'm here to give my opinions. Have I missed something?

 

[MFT1Air]

Then Sir, please tell me what you feel is the correct answer? Feel free to ask for more concrete from 76driver concerning his "questionable hiring practices" comment. I did, and he doesn't want to continue, and I'll respect that.

I'm not here to prove a point, I'm here to give my opinions. Have I missed something?

. . .and like you, I'll respect his point as well. And the answer you're requesting of me can't be conveyed in a paragraph or two on a forum. It's not that easy. If it were, I'd charge a consultant fee for that information.

:nana2:
Hey, it is all about finance and the bottom line, right.

Short of putting themselves in the same position as the Air Traffic Controllers did long ago, I would say a detailed analysis of those airlines who have profited during these times should be performed to mimic what they are doing right. It may not be a panacea for all, but that would be a perfect starting point. Not all pilots in the ALPA are complaining.

 

[MDPilot]

So where is the news that this FO was from GIA?

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

Ridiculous, huh?

Here is the FAA Airman Cert Info for the FO (with his name deleted, you can find it elsewhere easily enough.) Notice he has ratings in the CL-65 and B-1900. Supports that he flew for somebody on the 1900, doesn't it? BTW, I never said he PFT'd, he may have been a street captain for all I know. My source just said that he worked at GIA with the FO, and I believe him. Standing by for your apology.

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Address

Address is not available




Medical

Medical Class :FirstMedical Date:07/2006
MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.​

CertIficates
1 of 2
12

DOI :11/03/2005CertIficate:AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT

Rating(s): AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
CertIficates
2 of 2​

1 2​

DOI :11/20/1996CertIficate:FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR

Rating(s): FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE​

​

Type Ratings

A/BE-1900 A/CL-65​

Limits

CL-65 SIC PRIVILEGES ONLY. CL-65 CIRC. APCH. - VMC ONLY.​

​

 

[sm203900]

I am sorry but I feel the need to chime in. Some of you feel the need to sh*t can on the FO with regards to his training and how airlines are responsible for this and that. The fact is that we don't know all of the answers on the cause. For the love of god realize that 49 people died today. Take some time to understand the gravity of the situation. Give thoughts and prayers to the families and friends. There will be plenty of time in the coming months and years to say the crew should have done this or the controller was responsible for that, but for today let's try to be respectful.

 

[derg]

My statement isn't in reference to the Comair accident, so please don't connect the two.

But we need minimum qualification standards for Part 121 flying.

The only problem is economics because the passengers don't want to pay for it and even if they were, most airlines look at pilots in terms of unit cost.

If you can't fill a ground school, instead of increasing pay and benefits to attract more pilots, they lower the minimums to replenish the hiring pool.

If we make a minimum baseline of 2500 hours for 121 SIC at an airline, the people who meet those minimums don't want to work for the pay/benefits structure of a regional.

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

 

[MFT1Air]

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

Well, in this particular situation, I am John Q. Public. Yep, I want the LAX to BOS for $49 with two pals free. . .

. . .now, reality. Like gas prices? If they continue to rise, I'm not riding my bike to work. I'll still buy gas. I won't carpool, for I do appreciate my personal time behind the wheel.

I'll pay the $150 for a three week advance ticket, for I'll NEVER ride the bus nor will I drive it.

As for my two friends, there'd better save up their coins or get left behind.

Bottom line? We'll complain. . .but we'll pay. As a general aviation guy, it's still cheaper and less of a hassle to sit, relax, and let you do the work for me. . .and I still feel comfortable with you guys up front.

 

[Dugie8]

grrr, emotions and posting, not a good mix.....

 

[Seggy]

I put this in one of my posts in the main cmr thread earlier today but edited out after some thought.

I really don't think being a GIA grad had much to do with any pilot errors in this case. The guy had over 4000 hours. Sure, those first 1000 or so out of the 1900 are sketchy I would think after that amount of time in an RJ he would be a competent pilot.

Could you clarify that a little more please? Are you saying flying around in a 1900 is sketchy and that you need time in an RJ to be good?

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

My statement isn't in reference to the Comair accident, so please don't connect the two.

But we need minimum qualification standards for Part 121 flying.

The only problem is economics because the passengers don't want to pay for it and even if they were, most airlines look at pilots in terms of unit cost.

If you can't fill a ground school, instead of increasing pay and benefits to attract more pilots, they lower the minimums to replenish the hiring pool.

If we make a minimum baseline of 2500 hours for 121 SIC at an airline, the people who meet those minimums don't want to work for the pay/benefits structure of a regional.

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

And the airline management is (stereotypically) so terrified of raising prices that they see, in the end, bankruptcy as preferable! After all, a bankruptcy court can dissolve collective bargaining agreements, right?

 

[surreal1221]

And the airline management is (stereotypically) so terrified of raising prices that they see, in the end, bankruptcy as preferable! After all, a bankruptcy court can dissolve collective bargaining agreements, right?

We have a winner!

 

[Foxcow]

If we make a minimum baseline of 2500 hours for 121 SIC at an airline, the people who meet those minimums don't want to work for the pay/benefits structure of a regional.

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

Thats not a bad idea but the jobs we need to work to get to that level of experience need to pay more. It is nearly impossible to make ends meet on a CFI wage. I know for a lot of my friends and I, motivation to get to the airlines is to make enough money to start making ends meet. I would gladly instruct for 3-4 years if I were able to start paying back my student loans and eat a decent meal each night.

 

[killbilly]

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

Since investigating flying as a career, I've had to alter my perception of airfares.

John Q. Public thinks this way because he has been allowed to. Brand loyalty is very difficult to establish when the flight from DFW to ATL is exactly the same be it Delta, AA, United or anyone else. There isn't much differentiation, so the airlines don't exactly create brand loyalty. FF programs DO create some loyalty, but it's only among business travelers, who are the only ones who can use the programs.

Couple this with John Q. Public being accustomed to dirt-cheap fares. SWA has been slightly increasing fares over the last few years and it hasn't hurt them, mostly because they've created a good value proposition in the mind of the pax and they deliver what they promise. I've found that other pax who hate SWA have only flown them once before. Fly enough, and you appreciate what they do.

Right now, I'm allowed to buy a ticket up to $350 without having to get it approved, and usually I can make a case for up to $500 - my company generally will make me re-schedule something if the ticket is over that because that's what we factor into the cost of the revenue I generate as a sales rep. If we blow out travel budgets, we get in major trouble.

But I swear to you, with every fiber of my being, that if the 'low' fares were $500 instead of $149, we biz travellers would still pay it...eventually. We'd be more selective about how we plan travel to get better fares, yes, but we'd get used to it, to the point where a $500 fare looked good, and it was a $1200 fare that was out of the question.

We've been allowed to expect low fares. A gradual increase across the board is a good idea, IMHO. Reminds me of the parable about boiling frogs.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

f/o was forty when hired by comair
captain, 28

no spring chickens

 

[surreal1221]

Well put Killbilly.

The fact remains that airlines that charge 5-10% of what the service actually costs, will never come out of bankruptcy.

If travellers still want to pay $50-150 to go cross country Amtrak and Greyhound are still viable options. If you can't afford to fly on the "jets" anymore, well. . . shucks, but SWA and JBU will still be around selling you cheap(er) tickets than everyone else.

 

[kellwolf]

Yeah, the FO was from GIA, but I don't think that had anything to do with the accident.

I don't think JetU has had one person interviewed at PCL, much less hired. So far, it's all been hype to get people to buy into their program. Personally, I'm getting tired of being cast as the bad guy b/c I happen to fly for PCL. I stopped reading FI for that reason, I really don't want to get into that crap over here now.

CAs do have an apptitude test for being PIC, it's called a fed ride. If that's not enough, then maybe we should be talking to the FAA, not individual airlines. If that's not enough, then all of our talk about "it doesn't matter where you get your certificates" goes out the door. Believe me, plenty of people bust that ride, so don't think it's just some formality you go through before getting that fourth stripe.

Mins at 121 carriers, that I would agree with. The probem is management often sees pilots as a cost they need to keep down instead of talent to be maintained. They'll give bonuses at the management level to retain "talent," but they don't want to pay decent wages to do the same with labor. They'd rather lower the mins to attract people more willing to work for lower wages. What do I think the hard min should be? There shouldn't be one. It should be based on the QUALITY (not quantity) of time, interviewing skills, educational background, etc.

 

[BobDDuck]

Could you clarify that a little more please? Are you saying flying around in a 1900 is sketchy and that you need time in an RJ to be good?

I was refering to the people who PFT (which this guy may or may not have) first 1000 hours out of GIAs gulfstreams, not tprops in general. While I have seen people coming out of a 1900 struggle a bunch with automation their flying skills and knowledge is just fine.

 

[flyover]

This might be a good time for the FAA/ALPA to establish entrance criteria for the Part 121 cockpit. Baseline aptitude testing and upgraded minimum experience requirements...a CPA can't do your taxes without the same...so why should a federally licensed commercial airline pilot not meet stricter aptitude testing? While most regional pilots are awesome...I'm not sure the regional airlines are holding a golden standard when it comes to hiring.

Entrance requirements are established. And they've been working well based on the extraordinary safety record of regional airlines and the regional jets. A kneejerk reaction to this accident attacking the credentials of the accident pilots would be a very bad move, imho.

This accident is not the end of a very positive trend in accident statistics. The numbers are still very good.

LEX is like HOU and other airports where the potential for taking off on the wrong runway finally came to reality. The focus should be on addressing that and not waging some public labor battle disguised as a safety issue. These were trained, experienced, qualified ALPA pilots who made a rare mistake. That's all. It could have happened to any of us.

 

[flyover]

But I swear to you, with every fiber of my being, that if the 'low' fares were $500 instead of $149, we biz travellers would still pay it...eventually.

Meaningless. The airlines get continuous, relentless, both immediate and longterm feedback to the fares they charge. They set those fares to achieve maximum revenue and know just how much a $20 fare increase will raise or lower their revenue. You can make all the proclamations like this you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Low fares/high value are the reality going forward. It doesn't mean safety has to suffer, as the continually improving safety numbers suggest.

 

[Snow]

My statement isn't in reference to the Comair accident, so please don't connect the two.

But we need minimum qualification standards for Part 121 flying.

The only problem is economics because the passengers don't want to pay for it and even if they were, most airlines look at pilots in terms of unit cost.

If you can't fill a ground school, instead of increasing pay and benefits to attract more pilots, they lower the minimums to replenish the hiring pool.

If we make a minimum baseline of 2500 hours for 121 SIC at an airline, the people who meet those minimums don't want to work for the pay/benefits structure of a regional.

They'd have to increase compensation, but John Q. Public thinks he deserves to fly from LAX to BOS for $49 and his pals fly free.

:nana2: :nana2: :nana2: :yeahthat: :nana2: :nana2: :nana2:

Doug, that is the most intelligent comment I've heard all month! You're right on, pilots only have themselves to blame for these low paying jobs. why? because they're •, they'll do anything for some multi time, if there was any dignity left in flying, these pilots should know that they're worth somthing and deserve to be paid more than a fast food resturant manager! I'm all for some government time minimums.

Sure, if someone has the option to fly for $49 or $300, they're going to take the lower price, but if there isn't an option, I'd say it wouldn't stop many people from flying regardless. They're just have to spend less money on some other consumer item that they don't really need.

 

[killbilly]

Meaningless. The airlines get continuous, relentless, both immediate and longterm feedback to the fares they charge. They set those fares to achieve maximum revenue and know just how much a $20 fare increase will raise or lower their revenue. You can make all the proclamations like this you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Respectfully, I must disagree with your statement that this is meaningless.

I will concur that the airlines know exactly what impact each and every penny of a fare increase will do. But the fact remains that there are financial difficulties for most of the airlines, no? When a business is in financial difficulty, it has, really, only a couple of basic things it can do. It can lower costs, and it can raise prices.

The latter, especially in light of labor which is already "cheap", seems to be the most logical solution. And we regular travelers absolutely will pay with gradual fare increases. Why?

Because even if driving or, God forbid, Amtrak was cheaper, people place a value on their time. And my time is better spent with clients than it is sitting in a car, y'know?

It doesn't make sense for one airline to raise a fare. But they ALL need to raise fares. Then, if the 'service' still doesn't improve, and the labor QOL doesn't improve, you can be sure that the increased revenues are not going where they need to go. Time and time again it has been proven that happy employees are productive and cost the company less in the long run.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the bottom line is higher fares = better life for most people in the airline industry...including the pax.