Alpa endorsed hour reduction plan.

denverpilot said:
People with more money than me. (Don’t tick them off.)
More than me. (Don’t tick them off.)
Whatever they want. (Don’t tick them off.)

:)

Do I pass?
Click to expand...

Yes.

So, in a scheduled operation on the other hand, you're planning on trying to maintain a certain amount of daily/weekly flying to a particular destination. You have a lot of cycles. Joe-blow who walks up expects the Navajo to be as safe as Alaska Airlines. They also are going to put pressure on for timeliness. Beyond that, scheduled flying into and out of communities exposes the people on the ground to risk of you flying over consistently. If a plane on a charter crashes, it'll (theoretically anyway) crash into a random part of the country. If a plane on a schedule crashes, it crashes into the places the DOT has deemed need service (see economic authority and DOT regulations). Anyway - while charter flying may be significantly more challenging as a pilot (and probably more risky) scheduled flying exposes the general public to much more risk - which is really the only thing the FAA and DOT really care about.
 
ppragman said:
Yes.

So, in a scheduled operation on the other hand, you're planning on trying to maintain a certain amount of daily/weekly flying to a particular destination. You have a lot of cycles. Joe-blow who walks up expects the Navajo to be as safe as Alaska Airlines. They also are going to put pressure on for timeliness. Beyond that, scheduled flying into and out of communities exposes the people on the ground to risk of you flying over consistently. If a plane on a charter crashes, it'll (theoretically anyway) crash into a random part of the country. If a plane on a schedule crashes, it crashes into the places the DOT has deemed need service (see economic authority and DOT regulations). Anyway - while charter flying may be significantly more challenging as a pilot (and probably more risky) scheduled flying exposes the general public to much more risk - which is really the only thing the FAA and DOT really care about.
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
Todd, I get what you’re saying, but we all know that the purpose of the training department is to ensure everyone meets the minimum standard. I think in general they do that fairly well. So once the qualification is set at that level, the other things come into play. A happy cockpit is a safe cockpit. You know that. Plus, the “culture” of the group is very important. Flight time alone cannot filter for that.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Todd, I get what you’re saying, but we all know that the purpose of the training department is to ensure everyone meets the minimum standard. I think in general they do that fairly well. So once the qualification is set at that level, the other things come into play. A happy cockpit is a safe cockpit. You know that. Plus, the “culture” of the group is very important. Flight time alone cannot filter for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you know I think the "culture" stuff is BS. Pilots will adapt to the corporate culture. Nor do I really care about it even if I believed it was legit. Competence is most important, especially when it comes to safety-sensitive positions.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yeah, you know I think the "culture" stuff is BS. Pilots will adapt to the corporate culture. Nor do I really care about it even if I believed it was legit. Competence is most important, especially when it comes to safety-sensitive positions.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that the competence of aviators, especially airline aviators, is a deadly serious business and we should expect ALL of them to be able to fly to PTS/ACS/whatever even on the worst days of their careers, not their best days.

I would disagree that "culture" is B.S., as a toxic/indifferent/noncompliant corporate culture can take a bunch of thoroughly competent airmen and put them into dangerous proximity to a mountainside, or create an equivalent "near miss" (choose the scenario; you see the point) anyway.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Negative. ICAO standards are involved there. Until it changes at ICAO, it's highly unlikely to change here.
Click to expand...
I think Japan is Age 67, and New Zealand doesn't have a retirement age for airline pilots. Not sure if Japan Age 67, is ICAO or not.

Anyway unfortunately, I think the Age 67-75 Is coming. Especially in this climate. Everyone said the 1500 hr rule was staying law. Now even ALPA sees the writing on the wall. And at least wants a hand in crafting a compromise.

Just a guess.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I would disagree that "culture" is B.S., as a toxic/indifferent/noncompliant corporate culture can take a bunch of thoroughly competent airmen and put them into dangerous proximity to a mountainside, or create an equivalent "near miss" (choose the scenario; you see the point) anyway.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that corporate culture doesn't exist. It definitely does. My company's culture is very different than that of my competitors. What I'm saying is that pilots, and employees in general, will almost always adapt to the culture of the company, and it's not something that requires a lot of effort on the recruiting end. Management is responsible for creating and fostering the culture. The employees will generally follow.

Maximillian_Jenius said:
I think Japan is Age 67, and New Zealand doesn't have a retirement age for airline pilots. Not sure if Japan Age 67, is ICAO or not.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, while Japan's laws for "commercial pilots" allow retirement at 67, I don't believe any of their airlines operating internationally allow retirement after 65, so it's not an issue. Pilots retire from the Japanese airlines at 65 and then can go fly for a small intra-country operator until later, but there's no flying at JAL until 67. It's possible this has changed, but I doubt it.

Anyway unfortunately, I think the Age 67-75 Is coming.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it. At least in the foreseeable future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bp
I don't understand this whole upheaval about Age 67. All Age 67 does is delay the impending retirements by 2 yrs. A 2 yr shift is nothing and will not solve the "pilot shortage" crunch that's apparently coming.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don't understand this whole upheaval about Age 67. All Age 67 does is delay the impending retirements by 2 yrs. A 2 yr shift is nothing and will not solve the "pilot shortage" crunch that's apparently coming.
Click to expand...

It also forces you to work til 67 in order to make the same amount of money you would have made before, and delays your seniority advancement for vacation, days off, etc.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sorry, but this is just math. It really does.
Click to expand...

Well if it was "just math" as you say, then you will just be able to add 2 years of pay and benefits from combined earnings at 65, and you would get what you would make at 67, and it will be more. THAT is simple math. The pay scale doesn't change, and the percentage of pilots making it to 67 is not high. Hell the average medical out at United is 63.
 
You're ignoring the fact that your extended two years is in the right seat and not the left, or at least in lower paying equipment. The only guy who gets an extended 2 years of pay is the guy already in the captain seat in maxed out equipment. Everyone else has to work longer than he originally planned to work in order to make the same amount of money. Again, it's just math.
 
Inverted said:
Asking obscure ATP questions or Jepp chart questions, as well as a sim eval at that level is very moot and a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Asking obscure questions can be very telling, imho. It is a great way to seek out the boundaries of someone's knowledge, and if he/she has taken the time to learn little details such as seemingly insignificant chart symbol, that person will probably continue to seek excellence for the rest of his/her career.

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don't understand this whole upheaval about Age 67. All Age 67 does is delay the impending retirements by 2 yrs. A 2 yr shift is nothing and will not solve the "pilot shortage" crunch that's apparently coming.
Click to expand...

Kicking the can down the road for two years, not really fixing any problems? This is congress' specialty!
 
Derg said:
66.49 years is the average age of the "permanently defunct" SouthernJetter.
Click to expand...
That assumes they retire at 65. There might be a case that if they were still working it might extend it a few years till they die on the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top