1500 ATP Minimums for 121

Well, crap. I forgot to mention the ER grad who continued to buzz me with pax. Yeah, I knew him and he thought it would be cool to get some aerial pics. This I agreed to. But he just had to take it several steps more...he came up on my 4 o'clock, then he went over the top out of my sight. He didn't come back on freq when I asked his position and intentions. The next thing I know he comes hauling ass at my 9 o'clock high then he was gone below my belly. I turn away and my front seat pax sees he's matching my turn at my 2 o'clock low. Again on freq I basically say WTF? No response. It got much worse. A couple ladies on myflight were shaking in terror, I announced a break left for aircraft separation. No response.

It got way worse. Back on the ground the dude was grinning ear to ear. I said I assume you knew what you were doing but I didn't and he didn't communicate and we hadn't briefed. And you terrified my pax. He said, Whatever as he walked away.

Anecdotal, yes. But it was another episode, although more severe, with an ER grad. It's all ego, man. And ego will get you killed in this pursuit. Thinking you are the shi-t is a dangerous proposition.
 
I'm all for the 1500 for the ATP, but an age limit? I agree with people earlier who said it should be 21. 30? Why? Don't agree with that, but can't complain about the mins. And an ATP to be an F/O in say a B1900? Can't say I agree with that either...at all. If I read right, I believe thats what people are getting at, holding an ATP to occupy the right seat at a regional. Thats funny.
Correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I have it wrong, but the hedge fund manager who bought KMart which bought Sears was *ahem* 25 yrs old. I'd think a guy like that could kill a lot more peeps than a plain ol airline pilot.
 
It is not my intent to bust your chops but my experience with ER grads, MS inclusive, is they think like USAF pilots; their **** don't stink. And I know of what I speak, I have flown with many USAF pilots including several DFC veterans in formation--with them it's always the other guy who screwed up.

.

That a pretty moronic generalization.
 
I disagree. Frequency of service is the lesson Southwest taught everyone, and the reason to have 6 daily RJ flights between a city pair instead of one 757. Pax want to travel on their timetable, not the airlines'.

Have you learned nothing, man? Southwest doesn't know what the heck their doing!
 
It is not my intent to bust your chops but my experience with ER grads, MS inclusive, is they think like USAF pilots; their **** don't stink. And I know of what I speak, I have flown with many USAF pilots including several DFC veterans in formation--with them it's always the other guy who screwed up.

I've been staying out of this thread, and I agree with the minimums being raised. But your comment got my ire up. I've been flying for a long time, flown with many different folks over the years, some of the most professional, safest and most humble pilots out of that group were USAF pilots. My uncle being one of them, he flew F86s and EC-121s in Korea and Vietnam. Another was a birddog pilot in Vietnam and I learned alot about flying from both of them. Many others as well.

Every group has its idiots and morons (As demonstrated here) and I've flown with a few of those too, but the VAST MAJORITY have been outstanding pilots that I learned from.

:soapbox:
 
I disagree. Frequency of service is the lesson Southwest taught everyone, and the reason to have 6 daily RJ flights between a city pair instead of one 757. Pax want to travel on their timetable, not the airlines'.

Yes, passengers want to go on their timetable, but if the airlines can't make money doing it, well, I doubt it will stick around. SWA has made it happen by being smart. Everyone else copied it, but didn't fix their infrastructure. It COSTS less to run bigger airplanes less frequently than 3 or 4 RJs. Same number of seats, less cost. Unless we see an uptick in the ticket prices to offset the larger cost, that's the way I see it going. Passengers are gonna have to make a choice: higher ticket prices or more frequent flights.
 
I've been staying out of this thread, and I agree with the minimums being raised. But your comment got my ire up. I've been flying for a long time, flown with many different folks over the years, some of the most professional, safest and most humble pilots out of that group were USAF pilots. My uncle being one of them, he flew F86s and EC-121s in Korea and Vietnam. Another was a birddog pilot in Vietnam and I learned alot about flying from both of them. Many others as well.

Every group has its idiots and morons (As demonstrated here) and I've flown with a few of those too, but the VAST MAJORITY have been outstanding pilots that I learned from.

:soapbox:
Sir, I respect your opinion and agree there are some fine pilots in the USAF. Never has it been my intention to insult. The context of my comments was a comparison of attitudes I've seen exhibited by experienced pilots. However, my experience stands as noted. Granted, I have not flown with the vast majority of USAF pilots, my experience involves that handful with whom I've flown whether it be in a single cockpit or in formation. Humble is not a word I would use to describe them. Yeah, even some 'big names' are included on my list of pilots I will not fly with again. Flight should not have to be death defying every time we launch. Ego, pride, what ever the hell it is, it's the first sign of a smoking hole soon to happen. I wish to not see that again. May you accept my apologies that I offended you. Good day, sir.
 
Actually, now that I think about it, as far as a group goes, the most stable pilots I've flown with are the dual rated UH-1 pilots. All are VN vets and have the carefree but precise attitude to which I aspire. One can always do better. Likewise, I am inspired by their deft control of their ship. I don't know what to make of that, I mean that they should share a common flight history yet all exhibit a commanding proficiency and lght touch.
 
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but I don't feel like reading through 10 pages of stuff to find an answer.

A lot of the news articles are saying they're going to make the minimum for a commercial certificate 1500 hours instead of 250. Is this just a badly worded way of saying that instead of just a commercial to be an airline pilot you'd have to have an ATP, or are they actually saying that you need 1500 hours before you're even eligible to be get your commercial and be CFI?
 
While this post has more curves than bed full of Playboy bunnies, I want to bring up another idea.

Instead of regulating pilots, why not do what REALLY needs to be done. While I agree with seaav8tor that there needs to be quality individuals with proper training and experience, just as there was in the past, people will take the "next step" as they see fit, no matter their time or qualifications.

Instead of getting 250 hr FOs, it will go back to 2000+ hr FOs for the same entry to 121 jobs (as is seen at CJC for competitive resumes).

Regulate slots into busy airports.

Why you ask?

If there are only so many slots into key airports, you will fix a myriad of problems within the airline transportation structure.

Fewer slots mean that there will be a need for less, but higher capacity airplanes. This flood the market with 50 seat RJs is a bunch of crap. I sat through it in the late 90s in my RJ in line with all the other RJs for ever at LGA.

Being number 44 (at least what my best guess was) on a VFR day through the system is dumb so we can have 4 airlines fly the same route in 4 airplanes hourly to a market that might need 240 seats all day. Dumb.

Ideally slots will be matched to the capacity of the airport. Obviously, there will be far less traffic at LGA than ATL.

Less traffic numbers inbound to an airport will mean less delays due to weather and congestion. A 747 requires just as much airspace as a SAAB in holding, so that is a pure numbers game. Also, as a lower number of airplanes are in the air, then a shutdown of a departure or arrival fix due to storms will have a lower impact system wide to delays. Think a storm over ABE going to the east coast!!

How does this benefit the pilots, or further our goals, you might ask? I'd say that's a great question, but the answers should be obvious.

1) Fewer airplanes in the system means: 1) Less jobs (but that's bad you say...hold my beer for a second, I say) 2) Less jobs to get hired at makes the jobs more competitive 3) More competitive will mean the competitive minimums will be that much higher, which will filter out those (like me) with less than perfect records or low experience.

2) Fewer airplanes will mean they will need to upgauge equipment, which traditionally means more money for pilots.

3) Scope ills will be cured if the airline isn't allowed to flood hubs with <100 seat jets. I'm not against small airplanes, in fact I see them as absolutely essential to a well run transportation system. However, the tendency of some operators to use them with no appearant game plan other than clog the system, is stupid.

Downsides?

The ATA will cry foul and will get their "grassroots" supporters to waive the "monopoly" flag like they did in when the Port Authority did the slottery.

There won't be hourly service from Omaha to NYC

No collecting dolla bills sitting in line for hours.

Or, just regulate out "pilot mills".....


Then again, until a new niche, that I fail to see (not like it's not right in front of me) opens up, there will not be the same hiring boom like there was for the last 10 years.
 
While this post has more curves than bed full of Playboy bunnies, I want to bring up another idea.

Instead of regulating pilots, why not do what REALLY needs to be done. While I agree with seaav8tor that there needs to be quality individuals with proper training and experience, just as there was in the past, people will take the "next step" as they see fit, no matter their time or qualifications.

Instead of getting 250 hr FOs, it will go back to 2000+ hr FOs for the same entry to 121 jobs (as is seen at CJC for competitive resumes).

Regulate slots into busy airports.

Why you ask?

If there are only so many slots into key airports, you will fix a myriad of problems within the airline transportation structure.

Fewer slots mean that there will be a need for less, but higher capacity airplanes. This flood the market with 50 seat RJs is a bunch of crap. I sat through it in the late 90s in my RJ in line with all the other RJs for ever at LGA.

Being number 44 (at least what my best guess was) on a VFR day through the system is dumb so we can have 4 airlines fly the same route in 4 airplanes hourly to a market that might need 240 seats all day. Dumb.

Ideally slots will be matched to the capacity of the airport. Obviously, there will be far less traffic at LGA than ATL.

Less traffic numbers inbound to an airport will mean less delays due to weather and congestion. A 747 requires just as much airspace as a SAAB in holding, so that is a pure numbers game. Also, as a lower number of airplanes are in the air, then a shutdown of a departure or arrival fix due to storms will have a lower impact system wide to delays. Think a storm over ABE going to the east coast!!

How does this benefit the pilots, or further our goals, you might ask? I'd say that's a great question, but the answers should be obvious.

1) Fewer airplanes in the system means: 1) Less jobs (but that's bad you say...hold my beer for a second, I say) 2) Less jobs to get hired at makes the jobs more competitive 3) More competitive will mean the competitive minimums will be that much higher, which will filter out those (like me) with less than perfect records or low experience.

2) Fewer airplanes will mean they will need to upgauge equipment, which traditionally means more money for pilots.

3) Scope ills will be cured if the airline isn't allowed to flood hubs with <100 seat jets. I'm not against small airplanes, in fact I see them as absolutely essential to a well run transportation system. However, the tendency of some operators to use them with no appearant game plan other than clog the system, is stupid.

Downsides?

The ATA will cry foul and will get their "grassroots" supporters to waive the "monopoly" flag like they did in when the Port Authority did the slottery.

There won't be hourly service from Omaha to NYC

No collecting dolla bills sitting in line for hours.

Or, just regulate out "pilot mills".....


Then again, until a new niche, that I fail to see (not like it's not right in front of me) opens up, there will not be the same hiring boom like there was for the last 10 years.

I agree. It's called regulation. It needs to come back.
 
Or, just regulate out "pilot mills".....

Then again, until a new niche, that I fail to see (not like it's not right in front of me) opens up, there will not be the same hiring boom like there was for the last 10 years.


I think that if the 1500/ATP requirement passes, we'll see an end to pilot mills. Why? The cost to bridge the gap between wet commercial ratings and any serious employment will just be too great a cost. The economics of it will iron out the rest of the problems. The 'two or three hundred hours invaluable turbine experience' in a 1900 or whatnot will be insufficient to put you in a paying 135 or 121 job in almost all cases.

Net result? A new genre of pilot jobs between commercial license and ATP mins. Employers will find a way to market the seat, and people will do that, or instruct longer.

The 1500/ATP requirement will do a good deal more to the nature of the current training/hiring industry than just change who gets an interview.

I think it'll be a good thing.
 
the 1500 req would be a GREAT thing. But lets be realistic folks. There aint a chance that part of the bill will pass. The ATA, RAA etc lobbyists will flash dolla signs and low time safety statistics at the congressmen and that bill will be amended real quick. Not to mention we're trying to match ICAO rules. How they gunna make a 1500 rule when we got 500 hr heavy bus drivers coming in from Europe every day. IMO we're much closer to ab initio than 1500 req. I bet every member of JC a round on me if 1500 passes....
 
I agree. It's called regulation. It needs to come back.

Please. This is not the 1970s when only the rich flew. SWA, ATN, and JBU have all proved that money can be made flying Joe Six pack around.None of them would be around in a regulated environment. Be careful what you wish for.

The free market system works. What we need is a capacity reduction and the govt staying out when companies go bankrupt.
 
I am still in the camp of it's not ENTIRELY quantity, it's quality. The military is one extreme (lowest time, highest quality), where the part 91/61 arena is quantity over quality after a short time (more time, lowest quality). 121/135 is a median of quality/quantity.

My personal opinion is to have min time to get into the 121 world- say 750TT WITH 200multi, 50 actual, 250 XC, 100 night. There needs to be a level of learning above basic ground school- the fire hose technique works but it's a quantity of knowledge instead of quality. If the FAA wants a standard level of knowledge, run a universal class- you interview with an airline, they "hire" you and you go to a program run by the FAA BEFORE you attend the airline's ground school. The program would be for ALL 121 pilots (who already DON'T have 121 experience). The airline has to pay for each pilot. A general program (just like OKC for ATC) before being shipped to each individual ground school. From ground school have more sims with more training (yes, this also costs more money for airlines), and finally- pair up the FO with a "mentor CA" (who has say a min of 500 PIC at the company) for the first 250 hours at the company AFTER OE with a Check airman.

This idea would add 3 months to the hiring process, and some interesting contract language since a brand spanking new FO would be a "lineholder" for a months or so, but it beats the heck out of just having "consolidation of knowledge" many times flying with new (also reserve) Captains. This process also would benefit training downline in the area that Check airmen would come from flying with new guys- say 1000 hours worth (roughly a year to be eligible to be a check airman). Raise the standards across the board.

For existing crews- FO's and CA's should be in the sim together every 6 months. A rotation of a LOFT and a PC would be fine- after your initial ride you would go at 6 month intervals, for your PC you would have a day in the classroom reviewing issues on the line (and in the industry) from ASAP reports and FOQA, then a LOFT in the sim with realistic issues (V1 cut, engine lost in climbout, go arounds, Cat I/II to mins, etc.). The next 6 month would be your yearly recurrent ground and your PC (checkride items).

For upgrades- go to the upgrade ground school, sims, OE, then complete the first 50-100 hours with a mentor CA or Check airman (maybe this would be for check airmen who were mentor CA's- first assignment kinda thing).

We need to have high standards ACROSS THE BOARD. Not just hiring; it's training, recurrent, and always ongoing.

We need stronger hiring, but it needs to be both realistic and TO THE POINT. 1500 hours around the same airport instructing would not get the mins needed- which constitute some REAL WORLD flying to get to the "airline" mins. Training would improve across the board.

We also need better duty/rest requirements. Pay would come up by competition alone- the argument of "offsetting training costs" for your first year at an airline need to be gone. The first to second year pay transition needs to disappear. If second year is 35, third year 38- first year should be in the $32/hr neighborhood. ALPA and groups need to push for rigs and payrates above the poverty line. 80 hours of pay when you are working 20 days a month needs to go away- the "jet age" has been upon us for decades, we need to move away from the slow prop pay technique. Hourly works, but there needs to be safeguards of pay in relation to trips- this is accomplished by trip/duty rigs and min day. For mid and senior level trips the actual block/pay is already above the typical rigs so it wouldn't be earth shattering for the majority; but it would help overall.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.
 
I think the mins should be 150 hours. The friggin job is so easy a private pilot could do it. When I am management, I will try hard and push for LOWER PAY. I think $50/FLIGHT HOUR is just fine for captains who fly 50 seats or less and FO's should make $10/hour. Don't like it?? Tough! Go buy your own airplane, or PAY $100/hour for a Cessna 150 if you have the "BUG" to fly. PILOTS ARE GENERAL LABOR who talk on a radio and push "AP" to fly the airplane. Oh yeah, FO's order catering and call for rampers and "ASSIST" the captain as to the safe operation of the aircraft. As a matter of fact I think Airlines should hire ex taxi cab drivers from New York and Chicago to fly the planes. The more stink the better. These guys have what it takes to cope with stressful situations. Not like Timmy Softnuts who just graduated cum laude from 747University.com and skips down the sidewalk and sings that song from "The sound of music" "The sky is alive with the sound of music......" Anyway,

Feel free to try some of the other aviation forums if you enjoying trying to bait people so much.
 
I am still in the camp of it's not ENTIRELY quantity, it's quality. The military is one extreme (lowest time, highest quality), where the part 91/61 arena is quantity over quality after a short time (more time, lowest quality). 121/135 is a median of quality/quantity.

My personal opinion is to have min time to get into the 121 world- say 750TT WITH 200multi, 50 actual, 250 XC, 100 night. There needs to be a level of learning above basic ground school- the fire hose technique works but it's a quantity of knowledge instead of quality. If the FAA wants a standard level of knowledge, run a universal class- you interview with an airline, they "hire" you and you go to a program run by the FAA BEFORE you attend the airline's ground school. The program would be for ALL 121 pilots (who already DON'T have 121 experience). The airline has to pay for each pilot. A general program (just like OKC for ATC) before being shipped to each individual ground school. From ground school have more sims with more training (yes, this also costs more money for airlines), and finally- pair up the FO with a "mentor CA" (who has say a min of 500 PIC at the company) for the first 250 hours at the company AFTER OE with a Check airman.

This idea would add 3 months to the hiring process, and some interesting contract language since a brand spanking new FO would be a "lineholder" for a months or so, but it beats the heck out of just having "consolidation of knowledge" many times flying with new (also reserve) Captains. This process also would benefit training downline in the area that Check airmen would come from flying with new guys- say 1000 hours worth (roughly a year to be eligible to be a check airman). Raise the standards across the board.

For existing crews- FO's and CA's should be in the sim together every 6 months. A rotation of a LOFT and a PC would be fine- after your initial ride you would go at 6 month intervals, for your PC you would have a day in the classroom reviewing issues on the line (and in the industry) from ASAP reports and FOQA, then a LOFT in the sim with realistic issues (V1 cut, engine lost in climbout, go arounds, Cat I/II to mins, etc.). The next 6 month would be your yearly recurrent ground and your PC (checkride items).

For upgrades- go to the upgrade ground school, sims, OE, then complete the first 50-100 hours with a mentor CA or Check airman (maybe this would be for check airmen who were mentor CA's- first assignment kinda thing).

We need to have high standards ACROSS THE BOARD. Not just hiring; it's training, recurrent, and always ongoing.

We need stronger hiring, but it needs to be both realistic and TO THE POINT. 1500 hours around the same airport instructing would not get the mins needed- which constitute some REAL WORLD flying to get to the "airline" mins. Training would improve across the board.

We also need better duty/rest requirements. Pay would come up by competition alone- the argument of "offsetting training costs" for your first year at an airline need to be gone. The first to second year pay transition needs to disappear. If second year is 35, third year 38- first year should be in the $32/hr neighborhood. ALPA and groups need to push for rigs and payrates above the poverty line. 80 hours of pay when you are working 20 days a month needs to go away- the "jet age" has been upon us for decades, we need to move away from the slow prop pay technique. Hourly works, but there needs to be safeguards of pay in relation to trips- this is accomplished by trip/duty rigs and min day. For mid and senior level trips the actual block/pay is already above the typical rigs so it wouldn't be earth shattering for the majority; but it would help overall.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a 121 pilot, but I think this is the best idea so far.
 
The free market system works. What we need is a capacity reduction and the govt staying out when companies go bankrupt.

So why has capacity increased so much? Oh Deregulation..........
Why have the wages dropped and every has 50 seaters????? Because every one can fly to each detination in 50 seaters 5 times a day to try to not let the other guy get in the upper hand. It puts every one in the poor house.

Please. This is not the 1970s when only the rich flew. SWA, ATN, and JBU have all proved that money can be made flying Joe Six pack around.None of them would be around in a regulated environment. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe only the rich or those who can afford to fly should. This isn't public transportation. I really don't care if Joe Blow gets a ticket for a price that loses money. What I care a bout is the product fits the demand and capacity is reduced to make a profit. That hopefully would make the jobs more stable. I don't care if every college grad wants to fly a shiny jet. Earn it. Then we wouldnt have to be debating the 1500 hr thread because there would be very little low time( <2000-2500 hr) people coming into the 121 environment. Two problems solved by regulation. Most cities you have to apply for a permit to start a business. I see this in the same light.
 
Back
Top