probability of H.R. 3371 going through...

Would suck for newbies trying to break in, but ultimately I think it would have to lead to better pay and QOL.
 
My guess is once the FAA/airline/union recommendations are out (which was supposed to happen today) the FAA will put together recommendations and start moving forward with that. Congress will then no longer need to act on this issue, or they will rewrite it so it matches the FAA's new proposal so they can also take credit.

Remember the pdf you linked is nothing more than what the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee spit out to be attached to the FAA re-authorization funding bill later this fall. This is far from the finished product, and I doubt the congressmens' staffs bothered to speak to a single airline, union, or the FAA while drafting it. Meaning none of the ramifications of those changes have been studied, and no lobby groups have had a chance to influence what the final bill looks like.
 
intern_mike said:
What are the chances this thing is going to be passed? More specifically the proposed; "Requires airline pilots to hold an FAA Airline Transport Pilot license (1,500 minimum flight hours required). This could jam a lot of things up.
http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Aviation/Airline_Safety_Act/Airline%20Safety%20and%20Pilot%20Training%20Intro.pdf
Click to expand...

Passed? Good chance.

Maintaining the current language after conference between the Senate and House, slim.

It'd also be important for you to note that the requirement for 121 pilots to hold an ATP comes with it a three year grace period for which the companies operating as such have to come in compliance.
 
Not to be pessimistic, but more realistic; training, experience, hours, training, hours, failed checkrides, hours, training, experience, hours, and lets forget about pay. Does anyone really think this will lead to better pay, and a better QOL?:mad:
 
Most things really are not this simple, but, it really comes down to the traditional supply vs. demand curve.

Age 65 retirements, coupled with the (should the language stand) new requirement for ATP rated pilots, a number of companies entering Section 6 negotiations over the next 3 years, and it's a wonderful opportunity for pilot's to negotiate improved pay, work rules, and benefits; otherwise their respective companies are going to have a very hard time getting the entry level candidates from their cushy 135 or Corporate gigs that already pay 150% as much to start.
 
surreal1221 said:
level candidates from their cushy 135 or Corporate gigs that already pay 150% as much to start.
Click to expand...
Or the instructors that stuck it out to ATP mins and realize that they can actually take home a decent paycheck when the ink on their CFI certificate isn't wet anymore.
 
surreal1221 said:
It'd also be important for you to note that the requirement for 121 pilots to hold an ATP comes with it a three year grace period for which the companies operating as such have to come in compliance.
Click to expand...

So, what would happen if a sub 1000 hour FO got furloughed, was unable to get to 1500 then subsequently gets recalled when the grace period ends?

Personally, I think 1500 should mean 1500 if that's what the rule is.

I think 1500 is dumb, I'd rather see the frozen ATP return and any applicant be required to show they can perform at the ATP level.

Then again, that's only based on my experiences as someone involved in hiring, training and safety for the majority of my time at the commuters.
 
Polar742 said:
So, what would happen if a sub 1000 hour FO got furloughed, was unable to get to 1500 then subsequently gets recalled when the grace period ends?

Personally, I think 1500 should mean 1500 if that's what the rule is.

I think 1500 is dumb, I'd rather see the frozen ATP return and any applicant be required to show they can perform at the ATP level.

Then again, that's only based on my experiences as someone involved in hiring, training and safety for the majority of my time at the commuters.
Click to expand...
whats the "frozen ATP?"
 
Amazingly, Pinnacle's trying to get AHEAD of the game on this one. We're already getting a training plan in place to deal with what they term "higher risk" pilots. Translation: guys with less than 1500 TT. It's basically a hyper-training curriculum that doesn't end when you're done with IOE. There's bench marks in there such as flying with OE check airmen at specified times, more frequently line checks and more PCs. Some guys will probably see this as unfairly singling out low time guys, but honestly, I see it as a good thing. Might shake up some of the 300 hour guys that came here asking "When am I going to upgrade so I can get my 1000 TPIC and go to Southwest?" if they know they'll actually have to perform well on a regular basis rather than once a year in the sim.
 
kellwolf said:
Amazingly, Pinnacle's trying to get AHEAD of the game on this one. We're already getting a training plan in place to deal with what they term "higher risk" pilots. Translation: guys with less than 1500 TT. It's basically a hyper-training curriculum that doesn't end when you're done with IOE. There's bench marks in there such as flying with OE check airmen at specified times, more frequently line checks and more PCs. Some guys will probably see this as unfairly singling out low time guys, but honestly, I see it as a good thing. Might shake up some of the 300 hour guys that came here asking "When am I going to upgrade so I can get my 1000 TPIC and go to Southwest?" if they know they'll actually have to perform well on a regular basis rather than once a year in the sim.
Click to expand...

Our company is doing that too.

It's under an 8900 notice as to who qualifies as a low time pilot.

Everyone's going to have to comply. And your first CA ride, you're in.

I have over 6k and over 3k PIC mostly 121 turbojet, and I'm a "lowtime pilot" according to the program.
 
Polar742 said:
So, what would happen if a sub 1000 hour FO got furloughed, was unable to get to 1500 then subsequently gets recalled when the grace period ends?

Personally, I think 1500 should mean 1500 if that's what the rule is.

I think 1500 is dumb, I'd rather see the frozen ATP return and any applicant be required to show they can perform at the ATP level.

Then again, that's only based on my experiences as someone involved in hiring, training and safety for the majority of my time at the commuters.
Click to expand...

An individual in a position prior to the signing of legislation that was not enacted when he/she was hired, is not under any responsibility of the new legislation as it matters to time / date requirements. In this situation, the individual was hired under the current legislation of the land, is still on a seniority list (unless they have surrender their seniority number or denied recall) and are not subject to the new requirement as it does not stipulate that any individual hired prior to the legislation must be removed and rehired accordingly. Or so the legal precedence indicates.

Essentially, they're grandfathered in.

Further, it is my understanding that, over the next three years, many companies will be finding ways to get all their FOs certificated as ATPs prior to the new legislation coming into place, incorporating new training programs to provide increased guidance and mentorship to the "low-time" pilots.

As far as the rest, arbitrary numbers are dumb. But they are the best we have. Frozen ATP would be a wonderful compromise. At least at my company, if you can't fly to ATP standards during the interview, you weren't coming to work for our company. If you failed to maintain ATP standards during training, you'll have another attempt, but if you fail. . .you're released. If you fail to maintain ATP standards throughout your career, you'll get additional training, but eventually - you'll find your way to the door.

ASA is also getting ahead of the curve. Much like Pinnacle, similar "low-time" pilot training curriculum. Wonderful decision in my book. One can never have too much training, so long as they continue to learn something new.
 
surreal1221 said:
ASA is also getting ahead of the curve. Much like Pinnacle, similar "low-time" pilot training curriculum. Wonderful decision in my book. One can never have too much training, so long as they continue to learn something new.
Click to expand...

(b)
Require company personnel to demonstrate that they use the company’s procedures to identify, track, and manage low-time flight crewmembers and those who have demonstrated performance problems. Producing company policy and records for a sample of both types of flight crewmembers will meet this requirement.
(c)
Examples of management procedures may include reducing the interval for a captain’s line checks, reducing the interval between proficiency checks or training events for any seat position, or adding line observations for first officers.
(d)
Complete this meeting as soon as possible but no later than July 15, 2009.
Click to expand...

So, since the rule is active, how is it really "getting ahead"?

Also, do you think YOU are qualified to be an airline pilot with less than 1500 hours?

If so, what makes you different than anyone else with less than 1500 hours to make you qualified and them not?
 
Yes, I'm qualified. Successful completion of federally mandated training indicates that I am. Otherwise, how would we know if a candidate is qualified or not?

That is the only benchmark one is able to utilize. Not really sure what my personal opinion of my position has on this debate, but I'm not surprised.

I already indicated numbers are arbitrary, but they are the only thing we have. Current regulatory establishments require a Commercial Certificate to fly for compensation. Pretty black and white, presently, anyone with 250hrs (or 190) of time or more and holding a commercial certificate can be hired to fly for hire.

Doesn't matter if I, you, or they think they're qualified or not. Just like entering into a certain organization, members must be appropriately qualified for entrance. Either they are, by the standards established, or they are not.

Getting ahead was the wrong phrase, sorry. "Getting with the gameplan." That better?

I must have missed where I stated an opinion on the "qualification" merits of an arbitrary number. :confused: Then again, I feel like I'm trying to explain something in the dark, just waiting for the next ambush.
 
n6149s said:
Not to be pessimistic, but more realistic; training, experience, hours, training, hours, failed checkrides, hours, training, experience, hours, and lets forget about pay. Does anyone really think this will lead to better pay, and a better QOL?:mad:
Click to expand...

No, because the union support isn't there. The regionals have paid nothing since the beginning. After what, 20+ years, you would think a pilot hauling 50 passengers would be able to make a livable wage. It seems like this has never been an issue worth bringing up in negotiations.
 
surreal1221 said:
Yes, I'm qualified. Successful completion of federally mandated training indicates that I am. Otherwise, how would we know if a candidate is qualified or not?

That is the only benchmark one is able to utilize. Not really sure what my personal opinion of my position has on this debate, but I'm not surprised.

I already indicated numbers are arbitrary, but they are the only thing we have. Current regulatory establishments require a Commercial Certificate to fly for compensation. Pretty black and white, presently, anyone with 250hrs (or 190) of time or more and holding a commercial certificate can be hired to fly for hire.

Doesn't matter if I, you, or they think they're qualified or not. Just like entering into a certain organization, members must be appropriately qualified for entrance. Either they are, by the standards established, or they are not.

Getting ahead was the wrong phrase, sorry. "Getting with the gameplan." That better?

I must have missed where I stated an opinion on the "qualification" merits of an arbitrary number. :confused: Then again, I feel like I'm trying to explain something in the dark, just waiting for the next ambush.
Click to expand...

Perhaps our definitions of qualified differ.
 
ppragman said:
Perhaps our definitions of qualified differ.
Click to expand...

I yi yi. I'm sure they do. But, that sentence you quoted isn't an opinion. Pilots are gauged by how they conduct themselves through a serious federally mandated examinations. If they successfully complete the required training and checkrides, then they're given the seal of approval (in the form of a certificate) to exercise the duties for which they just demonstrated proficiency and knowledge. Sure, we both might agree that the standards can be tighter and improve on some areas, but presently they are what they are - the system which we use to determine if a candidate is qualified or not.

So Pat, how do you know you're qualified to do the flying that you do?

I would imagine that you've attained your position by successfully completing required training, right? So, since you bolded that single sentence, am I safe to assume then that you think if a person successfully completes all required training with no failures that they are then not qualified to perform his or her duties?
 
surreal1221 said:
So Pat, how do you know you're qualified to do the flying that you do?
Click to expand...

never mind.

Insurance will insure me.

Its not worth it to be honest. If you can't realize that there is something to qualifications other than ratings and logbook entries, then there's not really much I can say.
 
ppragman said:
never mind.

Insurance will insure me.

Its not worth it to be honest. If you can't realize that there is something to qualifications other than ratings and logbook entries, then there's not really much I can say.
Click to expand...

lol

Of course I realize this Pat, but that didn't seem what you were trying to say. Perhaps next time don't be so vague.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top