Regional pilots are overworked, industry critics say

[Clocks]

I called their bluff that time and told them I was delaying. I eventually quit without giving notice because of all the shenanigans that went on there at a time when they were in desperate need of pilots. Surprisingly enough that airline has never had an accident in their 30+ year history.

So what airline were you a CA at?

 

[jynxyjoe]

There was a sudden decline in travel after 9/11 which was out of proportion to the recession. Wading through articles about 9/11 on the internet to find what I'm looking for could take awhile.

Yeah I understand. I just get worried when folks get casual with facts trying to prove a point.

Edit: Here

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Operating airplanes in the commercial world isn't just about profits, it's about safety. Safety is the thing that the company will marginalize as much as possible, but you don't know it yet because you're still convinced the market will work everything out for the best.

Airlines pretty much suck at that as well. Whats your take on the pissing away of the profi...oh wait, you can't make a profit if you bring in less than it costs to operate the flight. Yay MBAs

 

[Killtron2000]

Forenote: I wrote a lot of crap here, and I'm gonna be pretty damn embarrassed if it is unreadable. I hope this helps Killtron.

Also worth noting, there is a compulsion for pilots to get the job done. This results in too many unairworthy airplanes flying around. The hero syndrome is also seen in American firefighters. Probably in Police Officers too.

The best way I can describe safety versus the unregulated free market is as such. Burt Rutan launched a space ship years back and was the first corporation in space (that will historically mark the advent of the space age I believe). One of my favorite Republicans said aloud and in print, "If we gave Mr. Rutan 10% of money that we give NASA, we'd colonize the moon" (best I can remember). One wise editor for AW&ST said/asked in print, something along the lines, "He's right, but we'll kill 7 out of 10 guys we send up there. What cost of life are we willing to forfeit, in order to make trillions mining asteroids?".

If you can't grab onto that, perhaps look up the history of the Postal Service when they first started mail delivery (and for years afterwards). Flying the line Vol. 1, I think that's right, anyone?

Safety is, unfortunately, in the opposite direction of the free market Killtron2000. If people really care about safety, explain to me the +40K deaths from preventable car deaths in this country. I can't tell you the number of passengers who have lined up in ugly weather saying, "We are ready to go as soon as you are"! They call it "trusting us" but what they are really doing is rationalizing taking extraordinary risks, so they can make their next flight and have time to grab the 99cent heart attack. It's just the way things are I'm afraid. I believe it's the same flaw in humanity that rationalizes driving the car home drunk so they don't have to pay $9 tomorrow morning to the cabby to drive them back.

Who would volunteer for a space program where 7 out of 10 times they blow up? I could see a government forcing people at the point of a gun to do something risky like that because it suited some politicians goals but not a corporation.

Are you saying that it's wrong for somebody to take a risk with their life? That's what this comes down to really. You're life is a unique and finite thing that you sell and use to make a living. I can waste it by dieing young or I can waste it doing something I don't want to do (labor/work) so I can afford safer but more expensive products. At what point does spending more to be safer become not worth it? I think the level of risk I assume on a daily basis should be up to me. If you say people shouldn't be allowed to risk their life doing activity x by the same logic you can ban smoking, fast food, fast cars, pocket knives anything you want and people are little more than drones.

In you're mind what is an acceptable level of risk? If it's 1 in a 1,000,000 than you're still accepting that some people are going to die. If it's 0 than we don't have any forms of transportation because just getting out of bed is too risky. I think this level of risk should be up to the individual.

You also have to consider nobody is going to take big risks with their $100,000,000 aircraft even if they don't care about the people inside.

 

[Killtron2000]

So what airline were you a CA at?

I flew a cherokee six at a scheduled passenger operation. That's as specific as I'm going to get.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Who would volunteer for a space program where 7 out of 10 times they blow up? I could see a government forcing people at the point of a gun to do something risky like that because it suited some politicians goals but not a corporation.

Are you saying that it's wrong for somebody to take a risk with their life? That's what this comes down to really. You're life is a unique and finite thing that you sell and use to make a living. I can waste it by dieing young or I can waste it doing something I don't want to do (labor/work) so I can afford safer but more expensive products. At what point does spending more to be safer become not worth it? I think the level of risk I assume on a daily basis should be up to me. If you say people shouldn't be allowed to risk their life doing activity x by the same logic you can ban smoking, fast food, fast cars, pocket knives anything you want and people are little more than drones.

In you're mind what is an acceptable level of risk? If it's 1 in a 1,000,000 than you're still accepting that some people are going to die. If it's 0 than we don't have any forms of transportation because just getting out of bed is too risky. I think this level of risk should be up to the individual.

You also have to consider nobody is going to take big risks with their $100,000,000 aircraft even if they don't care about the people inside.

LOL. What a preposterous response.

Am I suppose to answer any of this? You seem like you are ok having the conversation by yourself?

 

[Alchemy]

You also have to consider nobody is going to take big risks with their $100,000,000 aircraft even if they don't care about the people inside.

Most regional aircraft in service today are probably lucky if they're worth 10% of that number. Not to mention, most airlines lease everything anyway. When you take insurance into account, a single hull loss is really not a deal breaker to most well established airlines.

To an extent, I do think the public needs to be protected from their own eagerness to save a buck when it comes to airline service. If you don't do it pre-emptively everyone will just start screaming for more regulation when super-duper-budget-air augers a few into the ground. Where was the FAA? You mean my $10 ticket might not be as safe as that $200 one? But it's all supposed to be safe!

I'm not advocating total re-regulation, but perhaps things are a little too lax on the safety front right now. If the cost of added safety rules is a few less jobs (due to decreased productivity), I think that's ok. A continued trend of regional air disasters has the potential to do even more damage to that sector of the industry, from a public confidence standpoint.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Most regional aircraft in service today are probably lucky if they're worth 10% of that number. Not to mention, most airlines lease everything anyway. When you take insurance into account, a single hull loss is really not a deal breaker to most well established airlines.

To an extent, I do think the public needs to be protected from their own eagerness to save a buck when it comes to airline service. If you don't do it pre-emptively everyone will just start screaming for more regulation when super-duper-budget-air augers a few into the ground. Where was the FAA? You mean my $10 ticket might not be as safe as that $200 one? But it's all supposed to be safe!

I'm not advocating total re-regulation, but perhaps things are a little too lax on the safety front right now. If the cost of added safety rules is a few less jobs (due to decreased productivity), I think that's ok. A continued trend of regional air disasters has the potential to do even more damage to that sector of the industry, from a public confidence standpoint.

Really, not even gonna touch on the fact the point you quoted from this guy is hilariously wrong? I mean it's not like there are a couple accidents easily listed where that was exactly what happened?

 

[Alchemy]

Really, not even gonna touch on the fact the point you quoted from this guy is hilariously wrong? I mean it's not like there are a couple accidents easily listed where that was exactly what happened?

Hey, I guess some people are willing to take some pretty extreme risks to save a few hundred bucks. In a purely capitalistic economy, I guess they should be free to do that. However, I think there are some ethical issues with that paradigm, to say the least.

 

[kellwolf]

I called their bluff that time and told them I was delaying. I eventually quit without giving notice because of all the shenanigans that went on there at a time when they were in desperate need of pilots. Surprisingly enough that airline has never had an accident in their 30+ year history.

Just b/c an airline hasn't had an accident doesn't make it "safe." I actually wouldn't characterize my own airline as safe, even without the accidents. You've got pilots flying schedules like the one I posted above with a management team that makes them jump through eight hundred hoops and meetings with base management where it's suggested to bring a union rep should you decide to call in fatigued. When you DO make the call, you're normally met my a crew scheduler that says something along the lines of "Are you serious? Do you know how short we are right now?" despite the fact management has been pedaling possible furlough due to the amount of OVERstaffing we've been experiencing. It's not exactly "us vs them," it's more that most airline management spends so much time looking at reports, listening to "experts" and making backroom deals with each other they lose touch with what's going operationally. I'd HOPE that if management really knew what some of the schedules were like, they'd stop them. Sadly, I don't see that happening since it would affect the bottom line too much. They'd need more staff to keep the same number of airplanes flying, resulting in a loss in profit margin.

 

[Roger, Roger]

"Regional Pilots Overworked"

"in related news, sky still blue"

Hopefully something changes.

 

[Killtron2000]

LOL. What a preposterous response.

Am I suppose to answer any of this? You seem like you are ok having the conversation by yourself?

I suppose when you can't make a point you say something like that.

 

[Killtron2000]

Just b/c an airline hasn't had an accident doesn't make it "safe." I actually wouldn't characterize my own airline as safe, even without the accidents. You've got pilots flying schedules like the one I posted above with a management team that makes them jump through eight hundred hoops and meetings with base management where it's suggested to bring a union rep should you decide to call in fatigued. When you DO make the call, you're normally met my a crew scheduler that says something along the lines of "Are you serious? Do you know how short we are right now?" despite the fact management has been pedaling possible furlough due to the amount of OVERstaffing we've been experiencing. It's not exactly "us vs them," it's more that most airline management spends so much time looking at reports, listening to "experts" and making backroom deals with each other they lose touch with what's going operationally. I'd HOPE that if management really knew what some of the schedules were like, they'd stop them. Sadly, I don't see that happening since it would affect the bottom line too much. They'd need more staff to keep the same number of airplanes flying, resulting in a loss in profit margin.

You can always quit if you feel unsafe and the job sucks. You chose to be there everyday so I don't see how your managment is doing anything wrong by you.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

You can always quit if you feel unsafe and the job sucks. You chose to be there everyday so I don't see how your managment is doing anything wrong by you.

This is the entitlement generation at work right here. Don't like it? Just quit.

As Homer said, "Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day, and do it really half-assed. That's the American way."

Why don't you get a few years under your belt and a family and realize that quitting isn't exactly easy potatoes when you don't have mommy and daddy to pay your bills for you.

 

[Tram]

You can always quit if you feel unsafe and the job sucks. You chose to be there everyday so I don't see how your managment is doing anything wrong by you.

You are the kind of kid that is killing the airlines... Walk proud son, walk proud..

 

[jynxyjoe]

Who would volunteer for a space program where 7 out of 10 times they blow up? I could see a government forcing people at the point of a gun to do something risky like that because it suited some politicians goals but not a corporation.

Are you saying that it's wrong for somebody to take a risk with their life? That's what this comes down to really. You're life is a unique and finite thing that you sell and use to make a living. I can waste it by dieing young or I can waste it doing something I don't want to do (labor/work) so I can afford safer but more expensive products. At what point does spending more to be safer become not worth it? I think the level of risk I assume on a daily basis should be up to me. If you say people shouldn't be allowed to risk their life doing activity x by the same logic you can ban smoking, fast food, fast cars, pocket knives anything you want and people are little more than drones.

In you're mind what is an acceptable level of risk? If it's 1 in a 1,000,000 than you're still accepting that some people are going to die. If it's 0 than we don't have any forms of transportation because just getting out of bed is too risky. I think this level of risk should be up to the individual.

You also have to consider nobody is going to take big risks with their $100,000,000 aircraft even if they don't care about the people inside.

I've just bolded here the points I find inane.

-You would find people.
-You're right, corporations couldn't possibly put a gun to someone's head. I mean a government is run by people, whereas a corporation is run by people. I see the difference
-I'm not. I think you are trying to make a point with someone else. I'm fine taking risks... turns out I'm a pilot and all... anyhow the grown ups have decided what constitutes a risk the traveling public can expect. Someday we'll let you in.
-Since I didn't, you assumed it (I hope) or you are having conversations with yourself (worried here). I don't know how to respond to this. I sped a little on the way home and bought taco bell for myself on the way there. Would you like to see my gun and pocket knife collection? Are you having a conversation with me or with someone else? What you've done goes so far past simple assumptions. You are in some sort of strange world... come back.
-I think it's funny you put a number value on it. So does the FAA. It's how we determine reliability during the cert process.
-No one is going to risk their lives or others when they deal with an expensive piece of machinery? No one at all? (Hint: Pinnacle...) You can't think of one example? You do live on earth right? I mean I know the interweb is big, I'm just trying to nail down the basics. Are you trying to say the value of the airplane is what is important? That can't be, because along that line of reasoning someone would happily take a POS Cherokee 6 out for split-s with passengers onboard. Since that really can't be your line of reasoning I wonder why you bring it up. Leads me to believe you are just rambling.

You have to understand. When I read this reply to my earlier posts I didn't know what do to. Obviously you read something somewhere that convinced you I said some things I didn't. How do I respond to someone that has such obvious reading comprehension problems? I think to myself... maybe when I said people take extraordinary risks for little reward he somehow interpretted it to mean that I don't think anyone should take risks ever. Then I think... no don't assume he's brain dead, he must mean something else. Then I go back and forth and back and forth and a fuse blows. I realize, that there is no way to talk to you, because you can't read and comprehend. Maybe I should just let you keep rambling?? But no... no you ask for more. What am I to do?

I'm sorry, I really can't help you. There is a problem with children at young ages. You show them a 3-D model of a mountain with different landscape and colors for each side, and them you turn one side away from them and ask them to draw the side of the mountain you are looking at. Instead, they only draw the side they can see. Until the child develops, months or years later, they can not comprehend the question because their brains cannot make those connections yet. I fear, somehow, you are still younger than this all important age.

I hope you are just drunk.

 

[Tram]

I hope you are just drunk.

No.. He's just an idiot..

 

[jynxyjoe]

No.. He's just an idiot..

I should also point out the rest of his post was equally meaningless to me. But, Gosh darn it, he really thinks he's on a roll there. If only there were some way to stop him right at that first sentence. I mean the part about him dying early or living longer to work more and buy safer things... I just don't see how he's old enough to hold a commercial pilots license.

 

[Tram]

Dude.. he's got Cherokee 6 time..

 

[jynxyjoe]

Dude.. he's got Cherokee 6 time..

Hehe. Well I'm a piper fan, Navajo, aztruck, 140, pawnee, but never did any time in a Cherokee 6. Must shake so bad it scrambles the brains up or something.