DCTNstudentpilot1987
New Member
I have a few questions about ALPA with this ATP for hire thing and want to see if you guys can help me out
Why in the world would ALPA send out a white paper last week supporting MPL programs but at the same time support ATP for hire? It seems silly to even mention it as a possibility if you are against having low time pilots in the right seat. Why even put out a white paper on MPL training if you do not support or expect low timers in the flight deck anymore? Why support ATP for hire if you are convinced of the inevitability and are supportive of MPL training that would have pilots with even less than even CMEL hours in the right seat? If they think it is inevitable as their white paper says why not do it now while we have the time to make a good system of it? It doesnt make sense to me
Now is the best time to make these kinds of changes since there is broad support for a complete overhaul. Dont simply support a band aid measure (really, that is all ATP for hire is if ALPA thinks MPL is the future), do MPL now when you can do it the right way and with all the right measures instead of later when you might not be able to design it for the greatest possible pilot benefit. At that point, MPL will likely hurt pilot pay and safety as it likely wouldnt be designed to meet the high standards we could do now rather it would be to help management get an easy stream of cheap labour. I say make the changes now so you do not have to change it again later if ALPA truly supports this and believes this is the future of pilot training. What is the truth here? Honestly, I cannot support ATP for hire because I think ALPA only is looking out for pay with the measure (safety is not the reason if they support MPL) and I cannot support AABI because they only are against it because they are afraid nobody will want to pay for their overpriced programs. If both support MPL (I doubt AABI would be against it) then they should be working out a system for MPL that benefits both of them instead of bickering over ATP or 250 hour for flight deck. But maybe I have too much common sense for this industry.
http://alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/ProducingProfessionalPilot_9-2009.pdf
Why in the world would ALPA send out a white paper last week supporting MPL programs but at the same time support ATP for hire? It seems silly to even mention it as a possibility if you are against having low time pilots in the right seat. Why even put out a white paper on MPL training if you do not support or expect low timers in the flight deck anymore? Why support ATP for hire if you are convinced of the inevitability and are supportive of MPL training that would have pilots with even less than even CMEL hours in the right seat? If they think it is inevitable as their white paper says why not do it now while we have the time to make a good system of it? It doesnt make sense to me
Now is the best time to make these kinds of changes since there is broad support for a complete overhaul. Dont simply support a band aid measure (really, that is all ATP for hire is if ALPA thinks MPL is the future), do MPL now when you can do it the right way and with all the right measures instead of later when you might not be able to design it for the greatest possible pilot benefit. At that point, MPL will likely hurt pilot pay and safety as it likely wouldnt be designed to meet the high standards we could do now rather it would be to help management get an easy stream of cheap labour. I say make the changes now so you do not have to change it again later if ALPA truly supports this and believes this is the future of pilot training. What is the truth here? Honestly, I cannot support ATP for hire because I think ALPA only is looking out for pay with the measure (safety is not the reason if they support MPL) and I cannot support AABI because they only are against it because they are afraid nobody will want to pay for their overpriced programs. If both support MPL (I doubt AABI would be against it) then they should be working out a system for MPL that benefits both of them instead of bickering over ATP or 250 hour for flight deck. But maybe I have too much common sense for this industry. http://alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/ProducingProfessionalPilot_9-2009.pdf
