Alpa endorsed hour reduction plan.

n57flyguy said:
Well, my masters in English isn't finished yet so it's not my fault. :)
Click to expand...

You should sue your school for how they misled you about how much better you would be compared to everyone else and how marketable your chosen skill set would be when you graduated. I mean they literally guaranteed you a job if you took their super special education program for the low low price of 90,000K with ultra low interest rate of 20% that can't be discharged in bankruptcy even if you are living on the street in a cardboard box. :bang:

But good news everybody! You'll have that piece of paper to start a fire to keep warm with! :rolleyes:
 
Wardogg said:
Is this legit? Are they really talking about this? Is ALPA really onboard?

http://www.aviationnews.net/index.cfm?do=headline&news_ID=269199
Click to expand...

The 250 hour credit that ALPA is on board with seems more than reasonable to me. There's a bit of a bottleneck in low-time jobs and getting pilots to the regionals and maybe it's just me, but a lot of the single pilot frieght jobs out there could be more intense than an FO at the regionals and you can fly twin turbine at 135 IFR mins so the 1500 number isn't the most important. I appreciate ALPA realizing that the law's going to be changed and getting on the side of a smaller more reasonable rule change than a larger one. I wish they'd rework some of the other issues with the regulations as the 5k to get your ATP written seems obscene. Even Canadian ATP holders who have flown for the airlines couldn't convert their ATP to FAA without taking one of those classes which just doesn't make any sense.
 
Am I the only one who used their degree program to provide a solid bedrock of the theory of the profession, which in turn puts the things I’ve seen in the real world in their proper context and gives me a toolbox of fundamentals to turn to when assimilating new information?

But I guess “it’s a useless piece of paper” and “it’s just checking a box” are good too.
 
BCTAv8r said:
First of all, the requirement to have a degree to get hired at certain airlines are set by the airlines themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether having a degree makes you a better pilot or not is irrelevant. If a company wants its pilots to have a degree, you get the degree or you look for employment elsewhere.

The issue here is the government giving those who got aviation degrees the benefit of earning an ATP at lower hours.
Click to expand...

That is sort of the rub, but as much as I hate cliches its the pigeon and the statue analogy - someone has to get screwed. I won't go as far as a conspiratorial inference between lending and approved schools (though I can see the follow the money - its a small sub sect however), but somethings are just not fair. You and I both know the relative de-valuation of non STEM degrees, and approved programs only offer further 'valuation' subsidy by less tangible means over those with even better experience.

So - even more debt from an accredited institution for a quicker pace to the regionals with AP and chill, or have less debt and fly swanky turboprops for a second?

Also, some lesser known FAA approved accredited institutions are much more affordable than the bigger obvious names in aviation education. But hell - good chance well have RATPs at some point anyway.
 
From page 4 of the recommendations doc:

"In addition to ATP CTP, several aviation colleges, universities, and pilot schools teach the
theoretical aspects of air carrier inter-departmental relationships and operations. However,
these academic organizations generally do not address these topics in significant depth, and
very few degree programs offer practical experience in air carrier inter-departmental
relationships and operations before a new hire pilot is introduced to these concepts during air
carrier initial new hire (INH) training. The EQP is designed to bridge these gaps and better
prepare applicants for the air carrier INH curriculum.

Neither an ATP CTP nor collegiate coursework is intended to ensure that an ATP certificate
applicant with a multi-engine class rating is fully competent to operate in air carrier operations
before entering into air carrier employment. While the EQP does not eliminate the need for INH
training, the ATP WG believes that the training the applicant receives and successfully
completes via the EQP pathway will better prepare the applicant to successfully complete the air
carrier’s INH program and enhance the operational safety of the graduate in his or her early
years of air carrier operational experience."

To me that sounds like they're saying that an aviation degree in itself is not enough to prepare someone for airline training, which is why they're proposing the EQP. Then why the reduced minimums for an aviation degree? If the EQP is a a way to bridge a commercial pilot into airline training, then it should be available to every commercial pilot. You could argue you can get a commercial at a lower time requirement under Part 141 so this isn't any different, but this isn't even Part 61 vs. 141. I could get all my ratings at a university Part 141, and if I don't get a degree from them, I'm not getting the lowered minimums.
 
av8tr1 said:
You should sue your school for how they misled you about how much better you would be compared to everyone else and how marketable your chosen skill set would be when you graduated. I mean they literally guaranteed you a job if you took their super special education program for the low low price of 90,000K with ultra low interest rate of 20% that can't be discharged in bankruptcy even if you are living on the street in a cardboard box. :bang:

But good news everybody! You'll have that piece of paper to start a fire to keep warm with! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well - I'm a slight oddball out, I knew it was just a checkbox. Even then I made it much more difficult on myself. I may have kicked and screamed and fought at it being a waste of time and money, but ultimately it won. I'll bow to the social stigma because it gave me an entrance to the stage that I needed and I knew how to use it for what I want.

Sorry for all the "I's" but it's in the eye of the beholder (had to pun that) and up to the graduates skills to put it too use in 2017 and for more years to come till maybe enough protest the fallacy.

Like flying airplanes and want to do it for most Major Airlines? get a degree. Don't want to fly for the Majors? Don't need a degree. No guarantees either way, but its a good hedge for a catch 22.
 
n57flyguy said:
Outside of the degree what separates the competitiveness of FA applicants?
Click to expand...

I literally have no idea how they go from 100,000 applicants to 1,000 new hires, but most of the ones that I've met have at least a bachelors AND speak at least two languages fluently.

What befuddles me is that JC, including the blogosphere, have been bitching at our respective audiences about four year degrees in order to qualify for the best jobs since a lot of todays users were in diapers and it's "magically" still a "WHAAAAAAAAAA? So unfair!" issue.

There will be a preference for some university aviation programs because of the structure and the 'known quantity' of the candidates. Do non aviation university programs have structure? Yes. Does part 61 training have structure? Yes. Do I necessarily agree with the preference for university aviation? Not necessarily, but the machinery continues cranking out interview invites with no regard to my opinions.
 
Derg said:
I literally have no idea how they go from 100,000 applicants to 1,000 new hires, but most of the ones that I've met have at least a bachelors AND speak at least two languages fluently.

What befuddles me is that JC, including the blogosphere, have been bitching at our respective audiences about four year degrees in order to qualify for the best jobs since a lot of todays users were in diapers and it's "magically" still a "WHAAAAAAAAAA? So unfair!" issue.

There will be a preference for some university aviation programs because of the structure and the 'known quantity' of the candidates. Do non aviation university programs have structure? Yes. Does part 61 training have structure? Yes. Do I necessarily agree with the preference for university aviation? Not necessarily, but the machinery continues cranking out interview invites with no regard to my opinions.
Click to expand...

Over a hundred thousand applicants for roughly a thousand jobs - wow. That was just Delta. I had no idea the volume of applications they received.

Surprisingly, in a small Indoc class I was one of two with a college degree with one of those just having finished their degree later in life. In time with the company the percentage of those with a B.S./A dropped. I just assumed most got their degree as part of the process. My issue isn't that its a requirement - that is a simple equation to solve for the prospective applicant. It's actually easy to obtain, and institutions probably won't run out of ways to make it easier. The cost benefit ratio of the debt to earnings and potential earnings in aviation (at least now) in regards to 121 airlines does make it worth it. But that's an individual choice paired with that same individuals reality of their value to employers all things even.

I have issues outside of the requirements that major airlines and the military require a degree that apply on a broader spectrum outside of aviation. $40K now plus interest is worth millions in the future flying good equipment with good schedules. Why is getting a four year degree a difficult decision to make when pursuing a 121 airline career?
 
A flight attendant at my company told me that, generally speaking, it is harder to get hired as a Flight Attendant at a legacy than it is to get admitted to an Ivy League university.

The fact that you don't need to have FAA certificates beforehand, that are time-consuming and incredibly expensive to attain like pilot certificates are, means there is a vast pool of eligible applicants. The barriers to entry to be eligible are lower in many respects. So the bar to be hired out of this huge pool for one of the relatively few openings is exceedingly high.
 
BCTAv8r said:
First of all, the requirement to have a degree to get hired at certain airlines are set by the airlines themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether having a degree makes you a better pilot or not is irrelevant. If a company wants its pilots to have a degree, you get the degree or you look for employment elsewhere.

The issue here is the government giving those who got aviation degrees the benefit of earning an ATP at lower hours.
Click to expand...

Yes it was previously set by the airlines themselves, now it is trying to be lobbied into legislation. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. The one dimensional mindset that a 4 year degree automatically implies somebody went into 160,000 dollars worth of debt is ignorant. I went in the military and didn't pay a dime for my degree, so it is a free tool to separate me from those that don't have one in the aviation world, that is all I have used it for short of getting hired at my current airline that required it up until now (it is now preferred).

You guys are taking this too personally, think of it from a business standpoint. The majority, I mean vast majority, like 90% or more career track airline pilots have degrees. Most career track pilots are getting degrees and their certificates through aviation colleges. This is a way to get reduced hour pilots, PERIOD. They are not actually implying that having a degree makes you a better pilot, they are trying to get around having somebody with 1500 hours from the biggest slice of the demographic, which is the career track university pilot.
 
Inverted said:
Yes it was previously set by the airlines themselves, now it is trying to be lobbied into legislation. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. The one dimensional mindset that a 4 year degree automatically implies somebody went into 160,000 dollars worth of debt is ignorant. I went in the military and didn't pay a dime for my degree, so it is a free tool to separate me from those that don't have one in the aviation world, that is all I have used it for short of getting hired at my current airline that required it up until now (it is now preferred).

You guys are taking this too personally, think of it from a business standpoint. The majority, I mean vast majority, like 90% or more career track airline pilots have degrees. Most career track pilots are getting degrees and their certificates through aviation colleges. This is a way to get reduced hour pilots, PERIOD. They are not actually implying that having a degree makes you a better pilot, they are trying to get around having somebody with 1500 hours from the biggest slice of the demographic, which is the career track university pilot.
Click to expand...

Again, the argument is not having to have a degree or not, it is having to have an aviation degree specifically to get rATP minimums. I have a master’s degree in another field, so I’m not against getting a degree (although looking back I’d probably rather have the money in my pocket than having paid for the degree).

Sure the military requires a degree if you want to become a pilot, but it can be any degree.
 
BCTAv8r said:
Again, the argument is not having to have a degree or not, it is having to have an aviation degree specifically to get rATP minimums. I have a master’s degree in another field, so I’m not against getting a degree (although looking back I’d probably rather have the money in my pocket than having paid for the degree).

Sure the military requires a degree if you want to become a pilot, but it can be any degree.
Click to expand...
Derg said:
I literally have no idea how they go from 100,000 applicants to 1,000 new hires, but most of the ones that I've met have at least a bachelors AND speak at least two languages fluently.

What befuddles me is that JC, including the blogosphere, have been bitching at our respective audiences about four year degrees in order to qualify for the best jobs since a lot of todays users were in diapers and it's "magically" still a "WHAAAAAAAAAA? So unfair!" issue.

There will be a preference for some university aviation programs because of the structure and the 'known quantity' of the candidates. Do non aviation university programs have structure? Yes. Does part 61 training have structure? Yes. Do I necessarily agree with the preference for university aviation? Not necessarily, but the machinery continues cranking out interview invites with no regard to my opinions.
Click to expand...

That last paragraph is what most have an issue with. Yes, one could argue that their aviation degree has made them a better pilot, by allowing them to correlate real line pilot situations with certain subjects they learned in class. Whether it was a CRM class, Laws and Regs or Meteorology. Students from these schools dug more in depth than someone from Burts flight school. However, pilots who came from smaller flight schools shouldn't be required more flight time for any given job. The fact that there is already a lowered requirement for certain programs is showing favoritism for special interests within the industry.

Perfect example, I have a two year aviation science degree from a community college. I took the same Laws and Regs class, the same Aerodynamics class and all the general courses that other programs required. Now why is it that our program is not part of the 1250 hour R-ATP?? People with money and pull in our industry could care less about the program as it really doesn't have the capacity to teach the volume of students that other programs have. That is what most have issues with..

The degree argument will always be that, an argument with both sides not really listening to each other. A degree is important in most professions, even just having any degree can now get people jobs as long as they have some experience in the field they are applying for. It is just some of the "preferrences" that this industry seems to have is what irritates some people. However, that's life. Life isn't fair, one can either pi$$ and moan while packing their bags for overnights to Des Moines for the next 20 years. Or, one can find a solution to their own issue, find a way to get the degree and make themselves marketable to that next level type job.

As far as the FA requirements, they have more applicants only because they have less specialized training requirements. 100,000 people applied, ranging from the college student who wants to travel more to the mid 50's bored house spouse trying to find purpose and fulfillment in something new. Not many as young children put all of their hopes and dreams into being an FA, they don't sell their vehicles or donate blood/plasma in order to get money for that instrument or commercial rating. Not knocking that job, as it is a good job for many people, it does not compare at all to the job on the other side of the flight deck door, neither should the hiring practices IMHO
 
av8tr1 said:
You're missing the point. Both have the same in cockpit training. Say for the sake of argument they both solo at 15 hours, and pass private at 50 hours.

Pilot B has 4000 hours of actual experience.

Pilot A has 500 hours of experience and 4 years of reading books only some of which relate to aviation, likely less than 2 years of the total 4 years. Most of the other 2 years is that "well rounded" experience which includes, english, art and other electives which are required for the degree. And that's only if Pilot A specializes in something aviation related. Apparently if Pilot A studies basket weaving and took aviation electives Pilot A still gets a pass when Pilot B doesn't.
Click to expand...
Define "actual experience"

If "actual experience" is flying the pattern in a 172 for 3500 hours, no, I'm not missing the point.

I think MY point is that experience is not all the same.

Now as far as the degree goes I semi agree, it's BS yours doesn't count but that is how laws are written and we have unintended consequences.

Big picture guys should pass training and if they are, and the training dept isn't afraid of busting guys and firing them, the system works and experience is sorta irrelevant. All that matters, regardless of background, is that guys are safe and competent and can bring experience to th cockpit.
 
BCTAv8r said:
Again, the argument is not having to have a degree or not, it is having to have an aviation degree specifically to get rATP minimums. I have a master’s degree in another field, so I’m not against getting a degree (although looking back I’d probably rather have the money in my pocket than having paid for the degree).

Sure the military requires a degree if you want to become a pilot, but it can be any degree.
Click to expand...

So what really is your point here? Are you just mad because you couldn't take advantage of the proposal here?
 
chrisreedrules said:
I don’t think this is going to really do much to solve the regional staffing problem.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It'll be a little bit like bumping the retirement age. If I pull the wrapper down on my burrito I can take a bigger bite, but my burrito is still the same size. Enrollment at aviation universities might get a good bump, but their cheap instructor cadre will be unsustained so while they may be able to attract more applicants their capacity will actually decrease.

Lawman said:
Lowering starting airline pay will serve as less incentive and take pressure off the military while they run critically short of aviators. The generals have gone before congress begging them to do something to make it less attractive to ditch the service.
Click to expand...

An excellent way, I might add, to cause the more principled among us to walk away even faster. Dirtbag leadership who won't do the honorable thing and keep the faith.

wheelsup said:
Now if the pilot training program was reorganized and worked more akin to the military I would be all for it. MAPD started private students in Bonanzas and put a time limit on passing training, which weeded out the weaker students. The ones left were great pilots and while I never flew a jet with them I'm sure they made excellent copilots.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. The T-34 was just a Bonanza with a tandem cockpit and a turbo-prop. If I evaluated PPL/Instrument students the way I evaluate my mil students I think most of them would crumple, though. Some would cry.

BCTAv8r said:
Again, the argument is not having to have a degree or not, it is having to have an aviation degree specifically to get rATP minimums. I have a master’s degree in another field, so I’m not against getting a degree (although looking back I’d probably rather have the money in my pocket than having paid for the degree).

Sure the military requires a degree if you want to become a pilot, but it can be any degree.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the aviators I fly with have STEM degrees. Such is not the case across the officer corps. Food for thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top