1500 ATP Minimums for 121

[WalterSobchak]

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....

The same way they dealt with the over 60 people prior to age 65 passing here. Worked forever that way.

Comm-ASEL, MEL, Inst.
CFI, CFII, MEI
TT: 1000
Part 121 CRJ700/900 FO

Basically you don't like the fact that it is an 'in your face' to low timers like you?

 

[JKJCKSN]

It's becoming very obvious you don't quite take your job seriously enough.

I don't understand your attitude toward this bill. It's one of the few steps forward (and against the ATA!) that we've had in a very long time.

The regionals try to cut cost by any means, and that means hiring the lowest time pilots possible that will accept the lowest wages possible "because it's a jet, dooood!" It's been overdue to cut those scum sucking thieves off.

I take my job seriously; I, apparently, just have a different perspective towards the hiring criteria of F/O's than you do. I think a Commercial certificate is just fine for F/O's. To be a captain, one should possess an ATP certificate. The fact that ATP stands for 'Airline Transport Pilot' is probably just one of circumstance. It very well could have been labelled something else; and if it meant that all pilots at an airline should have an ATP, the requirement would already exist, but it doesn't! Probably because the SIC (F/O) is a required crewmember, not the PIC. As previously mentioned in another post, Commercial certificates allow pilots to fly for hire, hence the reason, perhaps, that F/O's are required only to possess a Commcercial certificate, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get paid.

Every company in this industry tries to cut cost to remain competitive, wherever possible. I don't believe that means that they hire the lowest time pilots, as you have stated, to do so. I believe companies will hire the most experience pilots they can find, but by doing so at the lowest cost possible to the company. Based on your assessment, Legacy/Major carriers should be hiring low-time pilots, but we all know that doesn't happen.

As I see it, pilots themselves accept the low wages that a company provides. No one forces that pilot to fly for that company when they could clearly go elsewhere--even if it means avoiding the profession altogether. Since many pilots don't, companies keep their wages low. Why? To keep cost down. Requiring pilots to meet ATP mins to get hired won't force companies to raise the wages they would offer. Why, would it?

As far as jets are concerned, I think pilots flock to jets versus props for many reasons; one being the perceived career-advancement opportunities that seem to exist. Additionally, jet pilots tend to get paid higher wages, probably yet another reason for the higher desire to fly them.

Finally, it sounds to me that you just have a personal vendetta against airline companies and are looking for any means possible to "stick it to 'em". To justify the passing of this bill based on your motive is simply opportunistic.

 

[JKJCKSN]

Beyond the "xxxEchoRomeo" there were always clues that a RiddleRat was in the vicinity. Whatever their level of colliegate achievement.

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.

My experience with ER grads include: a 22 yr old Chief pilot at a 141 school who was just dying to get on with the majors (everyone he met was a network opportunity); a 100 hr dual given CFI who proudly proclaimed he was "too good to be a flight instructor ever again"; one of my CFIs who got lost (under the hood within 20 nm of a Class C) when he turned off the GPS to show me a good lesson in SA. And, the creme a la creme, the ER CFI out of Prescott who flies up to KPGA and thinks she has right of way over all aircraft, all the time, no matter her position. I hope she's reading this.

I really don't want to be derogatory of ER but my experience has been when an ER grad announces, Watch out! I don't know what line they feed y'all but hey, guess what, you might know the 3rd hyd system on the 767 better but it aint helping what you're doing right now in the traffic flow.

BTW: Congratulations on achieving your Masters. I mean it. Well done.

RICHARD5, your post makes you sound like a bigot.

Yes, I received my Masters (not my Bachelors) from Riddle--I didn't learn to fly at Riddle. Not sure what gave you that perception, but then again, perhaps I shouldn't expect much from a non-Riddle grad.

 

[zmiller4]

Yes, I received my Masters (not my Bachelors) from Riddle--I didn't learn to fly at Riddle. Not sure what gave you that perception, but then again, perhaps I shouldn't expect much from a non-Riddle grad.

That's pretty funny. I appreciate your sacasm, even if you didn't use the tag.

 

[JKJCKSN]

That's pretty funny. I appreciate your sacasm, even if you didn't use the tag.

Yes, I forgot to add the "sarcasm" tag, but I believe most anyone could of picked up on it. :laff:

 

[Trip7]

The same way they dealt with the over 60 people prior to age 65 passing here. Worked forever that way.

Comm-ASEL, MEL, Inst.
CFI, CFII, MEI
TT: 1000
Part 121 CRJ700/900 FO

Basically you don't like the fact that it is an 'in your face' to low timers like you?

It doesn't matter because 1500 will never happen. Enough said.

 

[SmoothLanderJ]

Forget Riddle, its all about F.I.T. baby YEAH!!!!

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

The bill says that within 3 years from signing of the bill into law all crewmembers must have an ATP. I think current crewmembers are safe.

 

[kellwolf]

I think a Commercial certificate is just fine for F/O's.

But a commercial cert with wet ink and no experience is NOT fine. The problem with have is regional airlines saying "Well, we meet the FAA requirements," which is true. Problem is, you have to look at when those requirements were written. It's long past time to re-vamp the whole system. As long as regional management can get away with hiring guys that should barely be flying a King Air into RJs, Saabs, Q400s and what else, for peanuts just so they don't have to instruct, tow banners, do survey work or any other job that might actually net them a bit of knowledge before rushing to the airlines, we're gonna have issues. I shouldn't be teaching guys how to land in a crosswind in a CRJ, but I've had to do it numerous times in the past year or more.

 

[JKJCKSN]

But a commercial cert with wet ink and no experience is NOT fine. The problem with have is regional airlines saying "Well, we meet the FAA requirements," which is true. Problem is, you have to look at when those requirements were written. It's long past time to re-vamp the whole system. As long as regional management can get away with hiring guys that should barely be flying a King Air into RJs, Saabs, Q400s and what else, for peanuts just so they don't have to instruct, tow banners, do survey work or any other job that might actually net them a bit of knowledge before rushing to the airlines, we're gonna have issues. I shouldn't be teaching guys how to land in a crosswind in a CRJ, but I've had to do it numerous times in the past year or more.

I'm not sure that I disagree with some of the points you mention above in your post, but I do believe that your airline company has appeared to of failed you. If you have read a previous post of mine, the one where I mention the company AND the Line Check Airmen doing their jobs, then I don't believe you'd be having the problems that you've mentioned having to play pseudo-instructor.

Some new-hire F/O's may be able to bluff and pass through a company interview process and get hired, but I'm not sure that sim instructors and Line Check Airmen would be so easy to sign-off on someone who doesn't even know how to land an aircraft under crosswind conditions.

Maybe they could of lucked their way through sim training, as it isn't entirely representative of actual flight conditions--it is just a big computer after all. It's hard to believe, though not impossible, that a Line Check Airmen would not pick-up on the new-hire's poor level of airmanship and still sign him/her off anyway to fly the line. If you've consistently had to teach F/O's how to land an RJ in crosswind conditions, then I'd have to conclude that your Line Check Airmen are lacking the much needed ability to ascertain whether a new-hire F/O should be even flying at your company without receiving more training.

I don't know how your company operates, of course, and if they only fly one or two legs with a new-hire and then sign him/her off, then it's highly possible that there will be those that "slip through the cracks". But to be fair, if your new-hire F/O's have managed to go from student pilot to commercial pilot, and have convinced every instructor, Check Airmen and/or FAA Inspector(s) while doing so, and you say you have to consistently teach these F/O's, then maybe, just maybe, you're the one that doesn't know how to land an aircraft in crosswind conditions. It's just an alternative possibility, as there are a few captains out there that believe it's their way, or the highway. I'm not trying to be funny; I'm just saying.

 

[kellwolf]

I'm not sure that I disagree with some of the points you mention above in your post, but I do believe that your airline company has appeared to of failed you. If you have read a previous post of mine, the one where I mention the company AND the Line Check Airmen doing their jobs, then I don't believe you'd be having the problems that you've mentioned having to play pseudo-instructor.

Some new-hire F/O's may be able to bluff and pass through a company interview process and get hired, but I'm not sure that sim instructors and Line Check Airmen would be so easy to sign-off on someone who doesn't even know how to land an aircraft under crosswind conditions.

Part of the problem is our sim instructors aren't seniority list pilots. It's entirely possible they get the "pass this guy 'cause we're short on FOs and we'll fix him on the line....or you're fired." I could see it happening here. As for the check airmen....yeah, there are some that will sign off anyone with a pulse as long as they get their little pay bump for being check airmen.

I don't know how your company operates, of course, and if they only fly one or two legs with a new-hire and then sign him/her off, then it's highly possible that there will be those that "slip through the cracks". But to be fair, if your new-hire F/O's have managed to go from student pilot to commercial pilot, and have convinced every instructor, Check Airmen and/or FAA Inspector(s) while doing so, and you say you have to consistently teach these F/O's, then maybe, just maybe, you're the one that doesn't know how to land an aircraft in crosswind conditions. It's just an alternative possibility, as there are a few captains out there that believe it's their way, or the highway. I'm not trying to be funny; I'm just saying.

If it were just me, I'd agree. It's not. Ask any Pinnacle CA and prepared to be regaled with the horror stories. Problem is for a while we were hiring guys that paid major dollars to go to a school with in-house examiners, were shown more or less the answers to indoc and had their hands held all through initial. When they hit the line, sure, they've passed the exams, etc. However, how many of them would have passed outside of that arena. I'm a firm believer that many of these guys would have busted most of their rides in a Part 61 environment. We get guys here that ask in the interview "So, when do you think I'll be able to upgrade." Sadly, THEY STILL GET HIRED!?!??! Let's think about getting the job and making it through training before upgrading.

 

[JKJCKSN]

Part of the problem is our sim instructors aren't seniority list pilots. It's entirely possible they get the "pass this guy 'cause we're short on FOs and we'll fix him on the line....or you're fired." I could see it happening here. As for the check airmen....yeah, there are some that will sign off anyone with a pulse as long as they get their little pay bump for being check airmen.



If it were just me, I'd agree. It's not. Ask any Pinnacle CA and prepared to be regaled with the horror stories. Problem is for a while we were hiring guys that paid major dollars to go to a school with in-house examiners, were shown more or less the answers to indoc and had their hands held all through initial. When they hit the line, sure, they've passed the exams, etc. However, how many of them would have passed outside of that arena. I'm a firm believer that many of these guys would have busted most of their rides in a Part 61 environment. We get guys here that ask in the interview "So, when do you think I'll be able to upgrade." Sadly, THEY STILL GET HIRED!?!??! Let's think about getting the job and making it through training before upgrading.

Then I'd have to conclude that your airline is failing you guys. They're hiring pilots and not allowing the checks and balances that they've put in place to weed out the not-so-competent and the result is what you've mentioned.

I would also guess that there is very little that ALPA can do to assist you guys in the matter? Maybe it's not something that ALPA CAN even assist you guys with. Ultimately, it just seems as if 'Pinnacle Airlines' is NOT the place to be if you're a regional airline pilot.

Good luck, man!

 

[Polar742]

As long as regional management can get away with hiring guys that should barely be flying a King Air into RJs, Saabs, Q400s and what else, for peanuts just so they don't have to instruct, tow banners, do survey work or any other job that might actually net them a bit of knowledge before rushing to the airlines, we're gonna have issues.

I don't understand this mentality. All the airplanes mentioned carry passengers and the pilots are usually professionals. All will kill you if you aren't up to snuff. To me, it's very binary. You can or you can't. No barely qualified.

I shouldn't be teaching guys how to land in a crosswind in a CRJ, but I've had to do it numerous times in the past year or more.

I used to do that. For Captains. It was called OE. Trust me, if I lost my job and was slinging your gear at PCL, you'd be giving me crosswind pointers in the CRJ. Because it's not an Embraer or a 747, I'd prolly screw it up. Then again, I'm probably a bad example since I'm not the ace of the base either.

 

[ChasenSFO]

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?

I'm wondering that too...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

-If that's true, the bill is destined to fail, right? After all, who's got the deep pockets to lobby congress? Airlines or pilots?

Actually, ALPA's political action committee (PAC) contributes more money to congressmen than any other aviation PAC in the country, including ATA PAC. ALPA PAC usually gives out about $2 million each election year.

You know what??

No tri hole experience here...although I have jumpseated on the L1011

I am at Ryan out of RFD on the 76..How about yourself?

From March 2009



How did you go from Eagle to Ryan in less then four months? Ryan has guys on the street too.:crazy::crazy:

Classic!

This will have absolutley no impact on pay. Remember when ASA's mins were 2500? Starting pay was still 16k, and you had to pay for training.

There's a key difference here: mins were high in that case because there was an oversupply of pilots. Airlines could set the minimums at whatever they wanted, and even charge for the job, because there were tons of pilots out of work and begging for jobs. If the mins are high at a time when there is a shortage of pilots (ie. in 2012 after the retirements start again), then pay will have to increase to encourage more applicants. Simple supply/demand curve.

Im curious to see what ALPA and other orgnaizations think of this

ALPA is supporting it.

let the status quo remain.

No thanks. The status quo is a joke.

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.

SWA, ATN, and JBU don't provide world-wide network service. At ATN, we only serve 55 markets right now. The legacies that provide network service to international markets are all losing money, and most are teetering on bankruptcy. The system is long since broken.

The free market system works. What we need is a capacity reduction and the govt staying out when companies go bankrupt.

What we need is a return to regulation and the CAB. The CAB would limit capacity and set fares, as it should be.

It doesn't matter because 1500 will never happen. Enough said.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot right now, based on the briefing I got from ALPA Leg Affairs. The House bill includes it, but the Senate bill doesn't, so it will be reconciled in conference. It could go either way.

Then I'd have to conclude that your airline is failing you guys.

No, the government is failing to institute the proper safeguards.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

How much would it cost to include the ATP ride, as part of the final checkride? Thus only requiring all the ATP requirements, but not the actual ticket for hire.

If you are already spending 60k on the flight training, why are you worried about spending another 1k on the ATP?

 

[BobDDuck]

I used to do that. For Captains. It was called OE. Trust me, if I lost my job and was slinging your gear at PCL, you'd be giving me crosswind pointers in the CRJ. Because it's not an Embraer or a 747, I'd prolly screw it up. Then again, I'm probably a bad example since I'm not the ace of the base either.

He's not talking about that sort of thing. He's talking about stuff like remembering to (slightly) deflect the controls into the wind and to apply forward pressure for better NWS and rudder authority and to hold a crab down to the ground.

And yes, it IS called out. And there are OE captains that get paid extra to do stuff like that and (in theory) have extra training. I don't get paid override when I fly with somebody who has no idea what they are doing in the jet. Granted, it hasn't happened in a while as we don't have guys with super low time anymore.

 

[kellwolf]

I used to do that. For Captains. It was called OE. Trust me, if I lost my job and was slinging your gear at PCL, you'd be giving me crosswind pointers in the CRJ. Because it's not an Embraer or a 747, I'd prolly screw it up. Then again, I'm probably a bad example since I'm not the ace of the base either.

Sorry. I worded it wrong, and I was running out the door. Yeah, it's normal to teach guys how to land in a crosswind in a specific airplane. That's fine. But when the FO is landing in a 20 kt crosswind with NEUTRAL rudder and no airleron correction, there's a problem.

As for the "airline failing" us, actually they're setting everyone up to fail and don't really care. When I went through training, I asked a LOT of question in initial. The answer to most: "Don't worry about it. You'll learn it on the line." The other answer was "Oh, don't worry about that yet. That's a captain question." If it wasn't on the test, odds are good they didn't even cover it unless it was required by the FAA. You can't do that with guys that barely have any PIC time in a 172 and expect them to be fully functioning and contributing members of the flight crew.

Management will go out and tell Congress they're meeting the FAA requirements. That's not enough when you're hiring guys with as low time as we are. There have been SEVERAL times I've basically been single pilot in the CRJ b/c the FO either couldn't keep up with what was going on or lost SA totally. If it was within the realm of profiles or emergencies taught in the sim, things were good. After all, that's what they drill for all the time. Anything else, and it's nuts. Going into Helena, MT? No problem. Do that in the sim. Going into Roanoke, VA were the mountains aren't as tall but are a LOT closer to the airport.....no dice. I discovered they really only gloss over performance issues in training, and some OE CAs just talk about it in cruise and check it off the sheet. What happens then is the FO comes out the other side of training not understanding why you can't use flaps 8 when it's 105 degrees in SAT and the runway is 8000' long.

When I went through OE as an FO, it was a "If you can't operate and land this plane if the CA croaks, then you're not getting signed off." About 6 months later, when the hiring boom started, it seemed like it changed to "Get 'em out there. We're canceling flights b/c we can't keep FOs."

 

[SpiceWeasel]

He's not talking about that sort of thing. He's talking about stuff like remembering to (slightly) deflect the controls into the wind and to apply forward pressure for better NWS and rudder authority and to hold a crab down to the ground.

What? You don't need to do that first part.... you're flying a jet! That's how at least one Captain flies the airplane in Memphis..... hands off the yoke until the wing starts to dip on takeoff!

 

[kellwolf]

What? You don't need to do that first part.... you're flying a jet! That's how at least one Captain flies the airplane in Memphis..... hands off the yoke until the wing starts to dip on takeoff!

Lemme just say I'm glad I upgraded so I don't have to fly with toolbags like this. I'm sure THIS guy is one of the "my way or the highway" CAs.