We can only hope.
Please explain unions to me.
- Thread starter Nark
- Start date
We can only hope.
DeltaAVL
New Member
How 'bout 10 pages, a thread lock, and placement in Mind Numbing Topics?
It's threads like these that give n00bs like myself an opinion on things. Go ALPA.
N00b to N00b, are you being sarcastic?
Number1atNumber2
Tries to keep it fun.
Agreed, I'm just sayin this thread, I think, is gonna get rollin.
Entertaining? Sure. Educational? Already is. Drama filled? I'm thinkin it's likely.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Its threads like these that make me happy I fly part 135. We're not big enough for a union. I'm all for unions, but the militant tendencies are a serious turn off for me. The idea that a union will solve all an airline's problems is crazy, so is the idea that management is the enemy. Management is there to make money, pilots are there to make money, if the company makes money everybody wins. Most companies don't want to break airplanes and kill pilots, its too expensive, a safe operation is actually much cheaper than a dangerous one. Most companies know this, that is way they play by the rules. Pilot pushing is real to an extent, there is the "you should go," by the bean-counter, but really, when things are seriously dangerous there's no reason to go. Interestingly enough, most writeups happen at mx bases so it seems that a lot of pilots understand the game too. Not that its right, but that's how it goes.
You want to change this industry for the better? You want to see this industry change in ways beyond our imagining? Change 121 mins, and CFI mins. You should have at least 1000TT to be a CFI, and 1000TT to be an RJ FO. That would keep a shortage of 1000TT plus pilots, which would be good. Also, require that to operate as PIC of an aircraft requiring a type that someone have a decent amount of PIC time (e.g. 1000PIC) so that their first experience with PIC time after flight training is the left seat of the CRJ. I'll probably get flamed for that, but that's my $.02.
-Pat
ladder360
Well-Known Member
Not implying you are wrong Pat, but this is much easier for you to say when you've already hit those mins. Kind of like when you are 19 or 20 years old and the drinking age of 21 seems ridiculous and unjust. Then, once you are 21, you don't care anymore about the plight of those under 21.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
This whole thread is hilarious.
If you don't want a union, fine, go work for a non-union company. Blah blah blah. . .
But, when you're being put into the fire by your employer for following SOP and are subsequently fired for following procedure, good luck defending yourself.
If you don't want a union, fine, go work for a non-union company. Blah blah blah. . .
But, when you're being put into the fire by your employer for following SOP and are subsequently fired for following procedure, good luck defending yourself.
I disagree. Having 1000TT should not be a requirement for being a CFI. That's like requiring a janitor to have a master's degree. I would much rather have a CFI with 600 hours and 400 dual given than a CFI who got his 1000TT at the FBO renting a 172 and flying straight and level to Martha's Vineyard for breakfast. This is another misconception of total time=experience + judgment.
This would also result in an artificial shortage of pilots. It would be job protection for those who already made it to the next level.
Number1atNumber2
Tries to keep it fun.
1000TT to CFI??? Gotta disgree with you there. Although 1000tt for an FO on an RJ isn't a bad idea at all. IMO.
There are plently of CFIs that are more than capable after a few hundred hours, just like there are some that have over 1000 that probably aren't worth a crap and never will be. 1000tt to CFI would kill most everyone's ability to get anywhere. How in the world would anyone be able to build their time to that? There aren't that many areial mapping, pipeline patrol, or banner towing jobs out there.
ladder360
Well-Known Member
Actually Surreal, I think this thread has been pretty good. As someone who would like to enter the 121 world at some point, the union issue has been something that I've wrestled with since beginning heavily researching the state of the profession a year ago.
It's hard to always be reading between the lines with some of the hotly debated threads.
I've learned a lot of great points (pro-labor) from guys like yourself, PCL, Velo and Jtrain. It was refreshing to get the input from Seagull - I found that to be one of the most well-balanced things I've read on here in quite a while. Seggy's been a well-balanced steward of labor as well.
You are correct though, the choice is everyone's. To me, it comes down to long term goals, and my thought is that long term the unions are beneficial for the 121 pilot. JMO.
It's hard to always be reading between the lines with some of the hotly debated threads.
I've learned a lot of great points (pro-labor) from guys like yourself, PCL, Velo and Jtrain. It was refreshing to get the input from Seagull - I found that to be one of the most well-balanced things I've read on here in quite a while. Seggy's been a well-balanced steward of labor as well.
You are correct though, the choice is everyone's. To me, it comes down to long term goals, and my thought is that long term the unions are beneficial for the 121 pilot. JMO.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Don't mix words. I didn't say the thread was going badly. I just find some of the things being said as hilarious, that's all. . .and that being said. . .makes the thread hilarious to me. 
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I tend to think that CFI'ing shouldn't be for time building. A shortage of pilots (a real shortage) would actually raise wages too. There are VFR 135 gigs, there are part 91 gigs, and there aren't that many of them true, and it would kill most people's attempts.
I dunno, maybe there should be a 500TT CFI requirement, or maybe to get an MEI you should have 1000TT, however, I tend to believe that 250TT is not when you should be teaching, not that my CFIs were bad, but I learned so much more from those with more time, than those who had merely anecdotal experience.
DeltaAVL
New Member
Not a bit. But my opinion isn't based on this thread alone.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that unions "will solve all an airline's problems". When it's all said and done, yeah, it's up to the management to run a successful airline. But sometimes running a successful airline means treating its pilots unfairly. That's where the unions come in. They're there to make sure the management runs a successful airline without short-cutting the pilots. At least, that's what I've concluded from my very limited knowledge on the subject.ppragman said:
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
That's great, that you learned a lot from those who had more time than 250 hours. I also learned a great deal from my primary instructor who was an ATP-ME, Gulfstream and Lear type rated corporate pilot who flight instructed on the side. But I also learned a great deal from my instrument, commercial, and CFI instructor(s).
But - anyway - not the point of this reply.
So what about the guy who is moving into a market that lacks an MEI, and he sees a great business opportunity to secure more clients - but - under your rules, since he only has 265 hours (he holds a CMEL, CSEL, IA, and CFI), he would have to wait until he has 1000 hours to get his MEI. . .thus. . .losing a great deal of income potential because of your little rule restricting the earning of a certificate to a certain TT hour requirement.
You see the holes in your positions now?
If you don't like the FAA standards, then lobby to get them changed. . .AOPA right? Or EAA? Or some other lobbying element. . .or. . .create your own if you feel so strongly about it.
Just an observation (and not saying that this is you): CFIing is the usually the first thing trotted out for time buidling here on JC.
Agreed, a shortage (real or artificial) would raise wages. An artificial shortage would raise wages while excluding otherwise qualified pilots. The accounting profession has been doing this exact thing for years.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
So has the ABA and the AMA.
Must be nice to have a professional association with some teeth to set hiring and training standards. Perhaps one day.
Must be nice to have a professional association with some teeth to set hiring and training standards. Perhaps one day.
jhugz
Well-Known Member
You are not aloud to have an opinion about unions at 20 hours just like I'm not at 300. It is a forum rule. I am pretty sure it is a sticky in general topics.
But then again since you agree with certain people maybe you are aloud to have an opinion. I don't know...the double standard may or may not be there. Get it? Got it? Good.
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
I know what you're talking about. If you work in a small group you usually don't need representation. You know everybody and you work on a more personal level. When groups do get quite large, you can see first hand why representation is necessary to make sure everyone's needs are met. Things become quite a bit more complicated. You not only need protection from management, you need protection from fellow pilots and yourself, sometimes. I think regimented is a better term than militant. Militant suggests more of a mentality and it does turn people off. Regiment is more of a systematic approach and makes sense for large groups of people. The less desirable militant mentality would be more appropriate for a situation, like a strike, for example and doesn't necessarily reflect only unionized groups. It's just the non-desirable result of a compaign that has a specific goal. It isn't the only reason unions exist and not a good enough reason to dislike them.
Some people do fit better in smaller pilot groups. I wouldn't debate that. I've flown with people who probably would fit better in a much smaller corporate department. They're not bad people just not a good fit for a large 121 pilot group. I've also flown with the opposite. I can see why some people would not desire the more regimented, large pilot group, but with large groups, regiment improves life in the group and a union does make things much less complicated.
You are not aloud to have an opinion about unions at 20 hours just like I'm not at 300. It is a forum rule. I am pretty sure it is a sticky in general topics.
But then again since you agree with certain people maybe you are aloud to have an opinion. I don't know...the double standard may or may not be there. Get it? Got it? Good.
Allowed?
/grammar police, I'm sorry, I had to.... it was like nails on a chalkboard....