Regional Carriers C-SPAN discussion

Turbine

Turbine

Well-Known Member
I just watched a hearing on C-SPAN with the CEO of Pinnacle, American Eagle, and a couple other guys on the issues at regional carriers and fatigue.

They have claimed that pilots who call in fatigued are taken off trips no problem, and discussion has also been raised about pilot experience, pay etc...

I know this topic has been going on for some time, just wanted to add some input.

First, the question of why do regional carriers have more accidents then the majors? Regional operators have taken over a good portion of the flying population, they fly many legs a day, and are exposed to the greater areas of risk (Takeoff and landing) more often. The crew of a major may fly a few legs in a given day. While the crew of a regional will fly many more legs in the same period of time, exposing the greater risk numbers to the crew.

Pay is also an issue, many pilots have to work two jobs to support themselves and family. This added task eliminates the time for rest a pilot may have. Regional carriers see people anxious to fly jets at any cost, they take advantage of this. It is cheap labor, in fact they see people are willing to pay to fly. That further adds to their reasoning to not pay reasonable salaries.

Training is also an issue. The proposed bill to require 1500 hours and an ATP is not the solution. Making circles in the sky for an additional 1000 hours in a 172 is not the type of quality time to safely fly an airliner. We need to train to proficiency, not to standards. The military pilots flying f-16's and c-130's are trained to a high level, and are very proficient. Many of these pilots are young. This shows that it is not an issue of young pilots, but rather the training received, and quality.

The CEO's did not know how to respond. They know the truth, the pay is not sufficient, the training must be to proficiency, schedules should not overwork pilots.

If a major carrier tried to pay their crews what regional crews are payed they would strike, quit, and all of the above. Given yes experience and seniority should earn you a higher salary. But the salaries currently held by regional crews just does not do justice.

We have crews flying 75+ seat jets at a regional making a fraction of what should be paid.
 
Don't forget there's a stead flow of labor willing to fly the long hours and do the job at the low compensation.

We do have to accept some blame for ourselves for the situation.
 
About calling in fatigued.....

I watched the hearing and all the guys said that pilots can call in fatigued with no repercussions.

At first its no questions asked and you are taken off the trip, true. But according to my FOM from there you have 72 hours to contact the chief pilot and fill out an OIR to discuss the event. The chief pilot then decides whether the fatigue call was warranted or not. If they decide in your favor then sick time can cover the trip or it can go unpaid and either way you don't have a mark on your record. If they favor against you then the portion of the trip is unpaid, and may have disciplinary action taken against you. Quite contrary to what was said at the hearing.

The problem I have with these hearings is without a voice from the pilots, all they are getting is one sided management BS. They asked them about pay and they answer with "we pay on par with what our peers pay". Ok? Well since your peers pay crap that means you do too, it doesnt justify it. Hopefully these hearings continue and I would like to see pilot representation at the next one!
 
ajf005 said:
The problem I have with these hearings is without a voice from the pilots, all they are getting is one sided management BS.
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding! :)

Sadly, they'll sit across the table from one another, go on record and get the quotes down correct, shake hands and both congress and the airline industry will maintain plausible deniability.
 
I made the mistake of asking one of my "westie" friends about that... :)
 
ajf005 said:
The problem I have with these hearings is without a voice from the pilots, all they are getting is one sided management BS.
Click to expand...

Doug Taylor said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! :)

Sadly, they'll sit across the table from one another, go on record and get the quotes down correct, shake hands and both congress and the airline industry will maintain plausible deniability.
Click to expand...

Actually, this was the third hearing concerning this topic. The pilots had their chance to talk during the second hearing.
 
"First, the question of why do regional carriers have more accidents then the majors? Regional operators have taken over a good portion of the flying population, they fly many legs a day, and are exposed to the greater areas of risk (Takeoff and landing) more often."

Maybe, maybe not. SWA does not outsource their flying, they do short and long hauls, and have an outstanding safety record.
 
Why is ALPA not at every hearing? It's like having a trial with only a defendant... Just frustrating because the whole story isn't getting out.
 
Did you not see post #9? ALPA was at every hearing. I know a guy who went to two of them!
 
CTFlyer said:
"First, the question of why do regional carriers have more accidents then the majors? Regional operators have taken over a good portion of the flying population, they fly many legs a day, and are exposed to the greater areas of risk (Takeoff and landing) more often."

Maybe, maybe not. SWA does not outsource their flying, they do short and long hauls, and have an outstanding safety record.
Click to expand...

True, but it isn't always short Flights for them. They could do a short jump in cali and then have a five hour flight to the Midwest. The problem at the regionals is that the crews are exposed to the highest stress/workload portions of flight much more frequently then a major.
 
Seggy said:
Did you not see post #9? ALPA was at every hearing. I know a guy who went to two of them!
Click to expand...

What I meant was why has ALPA not been on the panel answering questions with airline execs everytime. It sure would have been nice to have a different opinion on the matters brought up.
 
Part of the reason that I support a 1500TT into the 121 world is because at 500TT you want to fly. You still see it as a privilege to be allowed to fly at all. At 1000hrs a year, you have 6mos experience. At 1500TT you're beginning to realize that flying is just a job, albeit a complex job, with diverse and important responsibilities, but really, its just a job. You may find satisfaction in it, you may find purpose in it (I find some) but really, first and foremost flying is just work.

That's the change in reality (or at least it was for me, at about 1000TT) that though this is fun, I'm an employee, and I'm not willing to take crap wages just so I can fly. I'm not willing to suffer so that they can "do me the favor" of letting me split legs and throw the gear lever. That's what's important in my opinion. We wonder why guys take these jobs. Really, in terms of coolness, longevity, and the ability to build your career, it makes sense to jump into the right seat at 250TT, that being said, I'd recommend against it, because when I went into the right seat at 500TT, flying was still inseperable from the hobby that I had started out in, and not yet a career. There's a difference in mindset that doesn't go away for at least a thousand hours. I still love to fly, I still love my job, but I definitely no longer consider it a privilege to be able to work for someone, especially if I was to be paid far less than my counterparts in other parts of the industry.
 
ajf005 said:
What I meant was why has ALPA not been on the panel answering questions with airline execs everytime. It sure would have been nice to have a different opinion on the matters brought up.
Click to expand...


From observing two of the panels having ALPA up there every time really does little. Some of the Senators are there for 'show' to speak. For example, on the day I went some Senator went into a tirade (I agree with her here) against the ATA for outsourcing heavy maintenace on 777's. It had little to do with the hearing, yet it was important for her to get that on the record for her supporters.

The real work to get what we need out there, goes on away from the Senate hearing rooms when the ALPA delegation are invited in to talk to the members and staff. That is where the productive conversations occur.

Make sense now?
 
ppragman said:
That's the change in reality (or at least it was for me, at about 1000TT) that though this is fun, I'm an employee, and I'm not willing to take crap wages just so I can fly. I'm not willing to suffer so that they can "do me the favor" of letting me split legs and throw the gear lever.
Click to expand...

That's spot on, and i completely agree. Unfortunately, the hearings are about safety, and no matter how you look at it, its hard to sell that "a well paid pilot= a good pilot"

I cant think of too many people who have started in the 135 world, and actually wanted to transition over to a regional. Its just not worth it for most of us.

For the SJS kids that start out 121 though its different. By the time the new wears off they have too much invested in the seniority list, and are probably so brow-beaten and brain-washed they don't even realize theres a better way. They just accept it for what it is.
 
Seggy said:
The real work to get what we need out there, goes on away from the Senate hearing rooms when the ALPA delegation are invited in to talk to the members and staff. That is where the productive conversations occur.

Make sense now?
Click to expand...

It does, I'm just not aware of what goes on behind the scenes. Just felt like we didn't have a voice in what was going on, I'm glad to hear we have a dog in the fight. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top