Are the regionals angling for a repeal of the ATP rule?

jtrain609 said:
This, of course, belies history.

Before the regionals existed, Airways was flying around F100's, Northwest was flying around small DC-9's, and Delta had 737-200's, as did United. The mainline carriers used to do this feed, and then they found it to be cheaper to farm it out to the regionals. The moment it's cheaper for the mainline carriers to do the flying back at mainline, the regionals will go away. They were always a temporary solution, and will only be kept around as long as they're useful.

.
Click to expand...

America West was flying mainline-operated Dash-8-100s.
 
MikeD said:
Cabotage is likely on its way......
Click to expand...
I actually think that would be a more difficult sell for a legislator than the reversal of the ATP law.

With a middle class that has been destroyed in part due to the out-sourcing of many jobs, allowing cabotage seems pretty dang sketchy.
 
pete2800 said:
I actually think that would be a more difficult sell for a legislator than the reversal of the ATP law.

With a middle class that has been destroyed in part due to the out-sourcing of many jobs, allowing cabotage seems pretty dang sketchy.
Click to expand...

It'll be sold as in-sourcing bringing mx & pilot jobs
 
Not saying RAA or Mainline carriers aren't going to try, but good luck selling this to the COLGAN families, who have the media's attention.

FAA Administrator David H. was just in a hearing before congress saying he likes the 1500hr law, and it makes the sky's over America safer. His boss, the Secretary of Transportation Fox during his confirmation hearing has made the passage and enactment of the congressional mandate one of his top priorities! He routinely touts that the enactment of the rules and others are his priorities to make America safer. They're are many strong supporters of the 1500 ATP rule, and rest rule in both the Obama Administration, Senate, and Congress. Good luck changing it.

If they try to lobby on partisan lines it will not be successful. I don't see Senator Chuck Shummer of NY, John D. Rockefella, and the many Republicans in congress committing political suicide. Many of these Congressman were strong supporter of the COLGAN family victims touting the media and camera. Making strong statements on Capitol Hill in support of Safer Sky's. It would be POLITICAL SUICIDE.

It would be like George W. Bush giving up on the Patriot Act 1, & 2. Or Obama giving up on Obama Care.

One of the top 5 rule in politics: You created a bipartisan law that passed both houses, you standby it no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine if they did repeal the 1500 hour minimum and someone with 800 hours happened to ball it up somewhere and there were a few fatalities?

Families and passengers would not know who to sue first.

The liability of making this rule 'less safe' seems extreme and therefore unlikely to me.
 
Nick said:
Can you imagine if they did repeal the 1500 hour minimum and someone with 800 hours happened to ball it up somewhere and there were a few fatalities?
Families and passengers would not know who to sue first.
The liability of making this rule 'less safe' seems extreme and therefore unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly....Its political suicide!

 
I do not believe the 1500 rule will go away. It's here to stay. (for better or worse)

However, I do believe airlines will be able to put a 142 program together that will allow lower time pilots in the right seat. Delta may have to start up their academy again as will other airlines.

Joe
 
Not to sound all "conspiratorial" here... But I think MikeD nailed it. Cabotage is well on its way and this "pilot shortage" is merely setting the stage for it. Americans don't care who is in the cockpit anymore than they care who is in the factory making their cars. They just want it cheaper.

Raising pay doesn't change the numbers over the next decade and the big wig airline execs know that. It would solve the problem for the next few years but then after that what? Loans for flight training are still non existent and people willing to go 100K plus in debt for a career that amounts to nothing more than a roll of the dice are becoming fewer and fewer. There are more complex market forces at work but those are a starting point.
 
ndakcfi said:
I don't think that matters all that much.

If the RAA started a campaign labeling the 1500hr rule as "big government" and "anti business", they'd likely be able to get votes for a bill modifying the rule to be effectively useless (by allowing an MPL instead of an ATP for example), and the success of Wall St. at rewriting or otherwise neutering regulations that had overwhelming popular support shows that Congress isn't that hard to buy off.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was talking more about the safety side of it with the "tough sell" language. Not necessarily from a lobbyist perspective.

"We just passed a rule to in theory make airlines throughout the country safer via stricter experience requirements. We'd like to immediately repeal that law due to a pilot shortage, the hell with safety".

Doesn't seem like it would sit well with the public. Unless, of course, congress could somehow spin it to where the consumer would save a few bucks.
 
chrisreedrules said:
Not to sound all "conspiratorial" here... But I think MikeD nailed it. Cabotage is well on its way and this "pilot shortage" is merely setting the stage for it.
Click to expand...

A smarter pilot than me asks, "where do the middle eastern and Asian carriers get all of their pilots now?"

What would change under cabotage? They'll still need US pilots. They'll just be based in JFK rather than Dubai.
 
When a foreign carrier is willing, able, and allowed to flying that JFK- CLE route which our regional feeders, and majors do not (due to pilot shortage/staffing issues along unprofitable routes)...:bounce:

Ahhh yes yes I know who can do it for cheap to "satisfries" the general public in the U.S of A, your favorite airline #Norwegian.
 
Last edited:
Nick said:
Can you imagine if they did repeal the 1500 hour minimum and someone with 800 hours happened to ball it up somewhere and there were a few fatalities?

Families and passengers would not know who to sue first.

The liability of making this rule 'less safe' seems extreme and therefore unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

Even better, what happens when an 800 hour pilot causes a "near miss" and it comes out that it's because of their low experience? Honest mistake, the kind of stuff that we ASAP, what kind of liability exists?

Or what happens when that 800 hour pilot grenades an engine on an engine start because of an oversight? Like the guy that turned on the ignitors during a start at XJT a whole lot of years ago and turned the turbine section into a giant fused piece of metal. What's the insurance company going to say?

Or what happens when that 800 hour pilot does something simple like a tail strike? What's the insurance company going to tell the airline? "Sorry, we're not fixing this, it was clear before that these guys shouldn't have been doing this, and it's clear now."

Now that the standard is set, it'll be the easy target if the government goes back on this and then something goes wrong. We don't even need to ball up an airplane, just damage one.
 
jtrain609 said:
Even better, what happens when an 800 hour pilot causes a "near miss" and it comes out that it's because of their low experience? Honest mistake, the kind of stuff that we ASAP, what kind of liability exists?

Or what happens when that 800 hour pilot grenades an engine on an engine start because of an oversight? Like the guy that turned on the ignitors during a start at XJT a whole lot of years ago and turned the turbine section into a giant fused piece of metal. What's the insurance company going to say?

Or what happens when that 800 hour pilot does something simple like a tail strike? What's the insurance company going to tell the airline? "Sorry, we're not fixing this, it was clear before that these guys shouldn't have been doing this, and it's clear now."

Now that the standard is set, it'll be the easy target if the government goes back on this and then something goes wrong. We don't even need to ball up an airplane, just damage one.
Click to expand...
This. The fear of litigation is greater than the fear of cancelled flights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top