Low Time Pilots

[wheelsup]

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.

when the 'mins' were a LOT higher to get into the regionals/commuters, there were a lot more low paying jobs around. In addition, the commuters back then paid a LOT less than what they do now. I have heard stories from CA's that were making $9-$10/hr as an FO in TP's (BE99, 1900). The current crop of TP operators pay about double that now.

raising the mins will just add to an increase in the number of low tier operators (such as pre-RJ era), which would be needed to 'build time'.

IMO.

 

[wheelsup]

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?

pleasure travelers make up a good percentage of people flying. raise the fares, and they go away.

If it cost a family of four $1200 to fly RT, or $200 to take a car and two days worth of travel, most cash-strapped families today would take the car, I believe.

Business travlers will still travel, yes, but don't ignore pleasure travlers and their buying power.

It doesn't make sense for one airline to raise a fare. But they ALL need to raise fares.

As far as everyone raising the prices...why? SWA and US Air posted profits. They don't need to raise prices, yet.

 

[SteveC]

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.

Sorry, the airlines do not have two options, they only have one - lower costs. There is no room left in the market to unilaterally raise prices, and there is no way that all the airlines will do it together, even if you disregard the potential for price fixing allegations.

If Airline A raises its fares to try to cover its costs, its revenue will go down because of reduced ticket sales and they will lose even more money than they are now. An airline that raises its fares in the hope that the others will join is much more likely to see all the other airlines sitting on the sidelines (rubbing their hands in glee becasue of the increased revenue due to higher ticket sales because of the people that bailed on airline A's higher fares), waiting for Airline A to go out of business which it may very well do in short order when their reserve cash is gone. When airline A goes under, airlines B, C, D, and E now have a market with slightly reduced competition and can incrementally raise their fares and revenues. The only question will be which airline becomes desperate enough to make the gamble? In actuality I'm guessing that the current game of brinkmanship will continue until someone breaks and goes under for good. Its a giant game of Russian roulette with each movement in airfare, either up or down, another pull on the trigger.

As much as we like to bag on airline executives, they are not stupid. If there were another penny to be made by raising (or lowering) the fare on any single flight number they would do it. In a heartbeat. Thus the current war against employee wage levels.

 

[Snow]

That's where the government comes in, fix the price. Maybe on a $ per mile basis or somthing.

In Australia, the fares are higher, the service is better, the employees are paid better, and in general, everyone is happier. You get what you pay for afterall. Who has befefited from deregulation? the passingers? they got some lower fares, but at what cost?

 

[B767Driver]

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 .

I'm not waging a labor battle. I honestly feel that the pipeline into some of the regionals via the flight training academies does a disservice to the long term maturation of a pilot as a professional. Two years for the ratings...two years instructing...two years as FO...zero time to airline captain in 6-7 years is not an acceptable maturation process for an all weather, 24-7, Part 121 airline captain.

A more logical maturation process would be for a new hire to train in the RJ...move up to narrow body then wide body FO...then make captain on the RJ and climb the ladder again. Our industry has 15,000 hour narrow body FOs and 2000 hour RJ captains. It doesn't make any sense.

I fault the government for allowing commerce to take place whereby a customer buys a ticket from a brand...and then that brand sends the customer over to another company to provide the service. What's up with that? If I spent $300 on a new Taylor Made driver and then they brought out a Kmart special for me to take home...I'd be pissed. Both drivers may work just fine...but one definitely has more quality standing behind the craftsmanship. I don't think it sets the framework for an ideal level of safety.

 

[killbilly]

pleasure travelers make up a good percentage of people flying. raise the fares, and they go away.

If it cost a family of four $1200 to fly RT, or $200 to take a car and two days worth of travel, most cash-strapped families today would take the car, I believe.

Concur. However, I don't think the fare increase needs to be drastic, and I also think that there will be 'discount' carriers out there. I read somewhere that SWA makes $4.55 profit per passenger. At $5.55 profit how much better off are they? Passengers aren't going to quibble over $5 per ticket, and frankly, if they DO, I would submit that their priorities are somewhat out of whack - that's just my opinion, and I could very likely be wrong. The real question, I suppose, is what the break point is...$5? $10? $100?

Business travlers will still travel, yes, but don't ignore pleasure travlers and their buying power.

Absolutely. However, business travelers, due to the need to travel on shorter notice, generally pay higher fares anyway.

As far as everyone raising the prices...why? SWA and US Air posted profits. They don't need to raise prices, yet.

Is the QOL for pilots and FAs and rampers getting better as a result? Remember, I'm postulating fare increases as a method of increasing pay/QOL for people in the airline industry as a whole. Pilots and FAs have been pressured into concessions to keep the airlines alive, right? If fares increase revenues which increases (or gets one to) profitability, then the airline can no longer reasonably ask for those concessions, right?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm out of my depth going much further in discussions about where the money gets spent. I can only say where I think it should be spent, both for selfish reasons (I would like to be a pilot someday) and for the pilots and FAs who bust their collective arses for relatively little compensation compared to what they do and the achievements to get there.

It just seems...well...simple...to me that fare increases would help. I cannot accept that people would stop flying - America, at least, is addicted to it, just like oil and television. I may be oversimplifying it, but I'm trying real hard to learn.

 

[wheelsup]

I read somewhere that SWA makes $4.55 profit per passenger. At $5.55 profit how much better off are they? Passengers aren't going to quibble over $5 per ticket,

keep in mind there have been numerous fare increases. $1.00 here is in addition to another $50-$100+ increase in fares. Have you heard the phrase "the straw that broke the camels back?"

 

[derg]

I wouldn't necessarily say A LOT more in the general sense. I made a little under $15,000 my first year as Beech 1900 first officer in 1996. And in 1996, the airline was still using an old YV pay schedule for when we used to be part of Mesa.

Long story, gnashing of teeth, some maintenance issues in RFD and Astral Aviation was born.

Ten years later, considering inflation, it takes about $18,662.55 (Ref.) in 2006 to match the my buying power back in 1996.

That's was a 19-passenger turboprop.

What's starting salary in 2006 on a 50-seat turbojet?

 

[wheelsup]

What's starting salary in 2006 on a 50-seat turbojet?

as posted in another thread, I made around $27.5k total compensation my first year.

I personally would say it was a lot easier living on 27.5k this year than is was living on the 17k I made instructing for my first year, and that was when gas was $1.30-$1.70/gal.

 

[kellwolf]

Um, I also have to lay some fault us, the pilots. Remember when RJs hit the scene? Major airline pilots didn't want to fly those "little planes" so they went to the regionals. I don't honestly think too many FOs would want to go from a 757 to an RJ, even if it meant going as a CA. After all, it's still a "little plane." If that were the case, scope wouldn't be much of an issue.....

 

[Seggy]

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.

Thats what I figured you meant.

Thanks.

 

[A300Capt]

In the grand scheme of things, all RJ pilots are "low time pilots".

Not true. There are guys still flying for Chautauqua that were there before I was hired by CHQ..20+ years ago. I'd venture to guess they have a lot more time than I do today.

 

[CapnJim]

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.

The FAA does have minimum requirements for part 121 ops. They are listed in the same place as the requirements to hold a commercial certificate. The only question is, are those minimums too low to be safe? I beat this one to death a few months back, and came to the conclusion that despite the "common sense" intuition to the contrary, there is just no data to support the idea that the low-timers are less safe than the high-timers. In fact, from the NTSB reports I studied, it appeared that the high-timers were marginally less safe that the low-timers. Naturally, I was l was lauded as using "USA today-style statistics..." among other things, yet no one was able to show me the common-sense results of their common-sense belief, namely, a higher rate of accidents among the low-time "RJ kids".

Now, of course, someone will pull up an NTSB reports or two showing low-timers doing something stupid to plead their case that "these darn kids in their RJ's" are unsafe. The thing is, I found that for every one of the low-timer reports pulled, there were nearly two times as many high-timer reports. "No good!" the old guys said "Figures lie and liars figure!!"
There seems to be no way out of it, least of all logic and reason.

And it seems, again, that the low-timers are under fire-- and they haven't even done anything! The Comair crew was by all accounts well experienced, but still, guilty of flying a "Regional Jet", and so plastered with the applet "Low timer", and the regionals blasted as having less than desirable hiring practices. I can attest personally to the quality of applicants hired at my regional (a few knuckleheads aside, but what hire class doesn’t have those?), and to the quality, thoroughness, and difficulty of the training. I can further attest to the hiring practices of a few majors, hiring interns and the "check airman's son", some with much less experience than the regional applicants. I've also talked to several friends in the industry who, in comparing the training and work environment between regional and national (major) flying, who have stated flatly that the training is almost precisely the same, and that the only difference in the flying environment is niceties like first-class meals and auto-throttles.

Nevertheless, just as I predicted months ago, when a regional plane goes down hands are yet again thrown up with calls and accusations that "these darn RJ kids are the scourge of the skies." It didn't make sense then, it doesn’t make sense now, but there seems to be utterly no shaking it.

 

[Dugie8]

The FAA does have minimum requirements for part 121 ops. They are listed in the same place as the requirements to hold a commercial certificate. The only question is, are those minimums too low to be safe? I beat this one to death a few months back, and came to the conclusion that despite the "common sense" intuition to the contrary, there is just no data to support the idea that the low-timers are less safe than the high-timers. In fact, from the NTSB reports I studied, it appeared that the high-timers were marginally less safe that the low-timers. Naturally, I was l was lauded as using "USA today-style statistics..." among other things, yet no one was able to show me the common-sense results of their common-sense belief, namely, a higher rate of accidents among the low-time "RJ kids".

Now, of course, someone will pull up an NTSB reports or two showing low-timers doing something stupid to plead their case that "these darn kids in their RJ's" are unsafe. The thing is, I found that for every one of the low-timer reports pulled, there were nearly two times as many high-timer reports. "No good!" the old guys said "Figures lie and liars figure!!"
There seems to be no way out of it, least of all logic and reason.

And it seems, again, that the low-timers are under fire-- and they haven't even done anything! The Comair crew was by all accounts well experienced, but still, guilty of flying a "Regional Jet", and so plastered with the applet "Low timer", and the regionals blasted as having less than desirable hiring practices. I can attest personally to the quality of applicants hired at my regional (a few knuckleheads aside, but what hire class doesn’t have those?), and to the quality, thoroughness, and difficulty of the training. I can further attest to the hiring practices of a few majors, hiring interns and the "check airman's son", some with much less experience than the regional applicants. I've also talked to several friends in the industry who, in comparing the training and work environment between regional and national (major) flying, who have stated flatly that the training is almost precisely the same, and that the only difference in the flying environment is niceties like first-class meals and auto-throttles.

Nevertheless, just as I predicted months ago, when a regional plane goes down hands are yet again thrown up with calls and accusations that "these darn RJ kids are the scourge of the skies." It didn't make sense then, it doesn’t make sense now, but there seems to be utterly no shaking it.

:yeahthat:

Ok first off, get out of flying and into writing, you will make much more money and be home a lot more, then you can buy a plane and fly for fun. Damn boy, you can write.


I agree 100%. Anytime, well this and PNCL, an RJ crashes the fingers are pointed at low time, no experience, should be out flying checks, blah blah blah. Then the cries for higher standards to get into the 121 world start.

I can think of at least 2 accidents off the top of my head where the captain involved was known as Mr. ________ insert airplane type here.

This thing we do is all about discipline, if you don't have it all the TT in the world will not save you.

 

[CapnJim]

Dugie, first of all, thanks a lot! I guess I can turn out a decent paragraph or two when I'm not acting like an idiot. Second, I love your sig line. It's disturbingly delightful!

 

[DE727UPS]

"there is just no data to support the idea that the low-timers are less safe than the high-timers."

I don't need any data to know that sitting in a jet next to a guy with 250 hours, just out of IOE, won't give me the warm fuzzies. Same guy six months later will be okay. He has more experience. The less experience a guy brings to the cockpit, the less useful he is. The more the better. It's simple.

Good training makes up for it, to some degree, but the "line in the sand" needs to be rasied, not lowered.

"Nevertheless, just as I predicted months ago, when a regional plane goes down hands are yet again thrown up with calls and accusations that "these darn RJ kids are the scourge of the skies."

If you're talking about this thread, I really don't see where you're coming from. Nobody here said the Comair crew was low time. Your rant would have be better off in a new thread, I think.

 

[DE727UPS]

"This thing we do is all about discipline, if you don't have it all the TT in the world will not save you"

Couldn't agree more. I think the act of renting a job at Gulfstream or being in such a hurry that you find yourself in the right seat of an airline jet at 300 hours shows a lack of discipline. It takes time to aquire the experience to be a useful jet F/O. It takes discipline to not shortcut yourself, your pax, and the guy sitting next to you.

 

[CapnJim]

See what I mean?

 

[Dugie8]

See what I mean?

I do, and I see what Don is getting at. I don't want to start picking on Don, but I will for the sake of argument use him as an example.

There are people who, for whatever reason, cannot look at a person for who they are. I truly believe in self fulfilling proficies. If you constantly tell someone or give someone the impression they are not good

The less experience a guy brings to the cockpit, the less useful he is.

I realize Don, you would probably not say this directly to somones face, but body language, side (not snide) comments, etc can leave that impression.

We keep focusing on jets and low timers, and why I don't know. A jet is an airplane, it simply goes faster. The systems on the DC8 are no more complicated than the systems on the Dash8, so that isn't it. Factors to consider on a jet, weather in my opinion is the biggest one since you can go so far so quickly.

I have always had these thoughts about this, to myself. If I am good enough to fly single pilot 135 ops carrying checks in all kinds of crap weather and less than desirable equipement (not a slam here folks) then I am good enough to fly pax in a 121 op. If I am good enough to teach the art of flying with little or no real world experience, then I am good enough to fly for hire as a crew member. We do it backwords in this industry, you teach to become a professional, where in the business world a teacher with no real world experience wouldn't be very effective or sought after.

Artificially raising the standards to get a 121 job to some kind of flight time limit is not the answer. The answer lies at the feet of those in the training department, IOE captains, and line captains and to some extent line FOs. We have a responsibility to keep people who do not belong in the air out of it.

These few pilots who are getting jobs at low time are taking a risk, even if they don't know it or understand it fully, by attempting training at their experience level. A 121 training or IOE washout isn't something to brag about. I won't go so far as to assume that because a good portion of these guys are making it through training that they are being "allowed" through, I will be the professional and say these guys earned their way through training and deserve to be in the seat they are in. They made it through the screening process. Sure people fall through the cracks, happens at every airline. I bet you can think of one person at UPS Don, that you don't think should be where they are.

 

[kellwolf]

There are guys at the airlines that make it through training on a wing and a prayer, then go lax again. Doesn't matter if they're low time or high time. Those are the guys that are potentially dangerous.

As far as training, we had several guys wash out of training in my class. Three of them were 135 guys. On the flip side, we had a guy from CAPT bust his butt the whole time and make it through. Now, if he's not performing to line specs, then the CAs he flies with either need to help him along, or file a report. Saying things like "low timers shouldn't be in the 121 world" is like complaining about the weather. Lots of guys say it, but do nothing to either back it up or, even better, FIX it.

There shouldn't be a magic "line in the sand" where the angels descend and you're now okay to be a 121 pilot. It should be based on the QUALITY of the applicant, not the QUANTITY of hours in his logbook. You could have a CFI with 10,000 hours apply at a regional. Yeah, he's got 10,000, but 9,000 of it is in a 152, and the rest is in a Seminole. He hasn't done anything to prepare himself for the 121 world. No research, no self study on turbine equipment, no training in a crew environment. Yet, some people will say "He's qualified" just b/c of the numbers in his logbook. Then you've got someone with 700 hours, 200 in a Seminole, 500 in a variety of other single engine planes. He's done long cross countries over several states in a variety of weather, he's read up on turbine equipment, and he's bugged people he knows in the industry to tell him whatever they know. You gonna kick him out the door just b/c he doesn't have enough time in his logbook?