kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Pretty much that the EU's process is more restrictive than ours. Maybe not "like candy," but those that came here illegally that could be getting a "path to citizenship..." I'd call that candy if it happens....
Why "1000 hrs Turbine PIC" Is Bad For Pilots
- Thread starter Firebird2XC
- Start date
Pretty much that the EU's process is more restrictive than ours. Maybe not "like candy," but those that came here illegally that could be getting a "path to citizenship..." I'd call that candy if it happens....
skydog
New Member
I agree with a lot of what the OP said, but I do not blame "management." I blame pilots.
You spend years doing things that you would never consider doing in another profession: working for free, working for "low" pay, accepting lousy working conditions, all in the name of "paying your dues (so-called). You show the world exactly what you're willing to put up with to fly an airplane. Then you make it to the majors, and all of a sudden you expect all of that to change? That's not the way the world works.
You spend years doing things that you would never consider doing in another profession: working for free, working for "low" pay, accepting lousy working conditions, all in the name of "paying your dues (so-called). You show the world exactly what you're willing to put up with to fly an airplane. Then you make it to the majors, and all of a sudden you expect all of that to change? That's not the way the world works.
skydog
New Member
You don't REALLY believe that do you? I hope not.
I just bought airline tickets last night. $850 dollars for two roundtrip tickets from Portland to Milwaukee. For travel over the New Year's Holiday. I value my life more than money. But had the tickets been much more, I simply wouldn't have bought them. I would nave instead chosen not to travel. And that is the choice that a lot of consumers are facing.
Now it may make you feel good to say "Well if you can't afford what it costs to fly, then too bad," but that doesn't do airline employees much good when their employer is grounding airplanes and laying off people does it?
But I digress, as it has nothing to do with 1000 TPIC. See my previous post.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yep. No doubt in my mind.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
I am so glad I am out of this industry right now. Life is great without the drama. I get up at 7:30, start working on a customers house by 830, break for lunch at 12, go back to working at 1:00 and finish the day at 4:00pm. I don't work on Saturday, sleep in on Sunday and watch football all day while killing a 6 pack. Never thought I'd be so happy not flying an airplane.
Stone Cold
Well-Known Member
Two quick points on this, then ya'll can go back to your discussion.
1) How many US pilots have second jobs to make ends meet? Especially at the regionals, but even the majors have people with second jobs or careers...doctors, lawyers, etc.
2)How much time have you spent in Russia? Personally, I'm in the "poor" Ukraine making 8,000 Euro/month, on a 20 on/20 off schedule, with tickets provided back home during my off time, apartment included, etc. You get the picture. They are desperate for pilots over here in most parts of the world. Maybe the US should hire some and your wages would go up to what some are paid overseas.
You might say, well you fly a bizjet...the comany I'm contracting for has 10 MD-80,82, and 83's, and 3 DC-9s. Their pilots make a lot more than I do on a similar rotation, and I know for a fact one has been here for 5 years from some place in Europe.
I'm not saying I support cabotage. I just think you cannot throw out things you think are true when they might just be half-truths, or not close to the truth. For the record, I do not know how much Russia pays their domestic crews, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are better paid than you make it sound!!!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
As you've already admitted, your situation is dramatically different than that of an airline pilot in Russia. If you'd like, you can contact IFALPA and they'll provide you some information. The latest stats I have are from 2005, and they show the average Russian airline pilot making $10,368 net US dollars per year. Gee, I wonder if that would be a financial advantage for a Russian airline wanting to sell tickets on point to point routes in the US under McCain's dream scenario?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Again, so I don't get another lecture, I'm not in favor of foreign carriers flying domestically in the states.
Now that I have ensured that my stance issue is very clear:
Do you think that if foreign carriers are allowed to fly in the states that they'd be exempt from compliance with all the oversight,rules and regulations that US based carriers must adhere? If so, do you think the extremely dangerous, low cost foreign carriers will be able to comply with the regulations and scrutiny?
Do you think that if the President decided that they'd allow foreign carriers to fly domestically, that congress and/or the judiciary allow it with all the public protests that will surely follow?
Now that I have ensured that my stance issue is very clear:
Do you think that if foreign carriers are allowed to fly in the states that they'd be exempt from compliance with all the oversight,rules and regulations that US based carriers must adhere? If so, do you think the extremely dangerous, low cost foreign carriers will be able to comply with the regulations and scrutiny?
Do you think that if the President decided that they'd allow foreign carriers to fly domestically, that congress and/or the judiciary allow it with all the public protests that will surely follow?
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Do you really think that public protest would erupt? We've seen time and time again that public interest in the 121 world is limited to achieving maximum service at bargain basement prices.
McCain and wife have extensive foreign investment interests. McCain has said openly he supports foreign competitors in US skies in order to encourage free market competition.
Given the history of unregulated, free-for-all competition in the US airline industry, giving unchecked access to foreign competitors is a questionable move when considering the welfare of US companies and employees.
With even a cursory analysis showing this sort of scenario, the reasoning and motives of ANYONE advocating foreign carriers operating domestically alongside US carriers is also highly questionable.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
OK, I realize I must be really poor in the communication department, becasue the points I intend to get across are getting lost. This will probably be a long post (I don't know as I don't outline the post ahead of time) so bear with me.
Just for emphasis: I am against allowing foreign carriers flying domestically in the US. I see absolutely no benefit to consumers, american workers, system safety, the environment, or any other angle I from which I can approach this issue.
This entire thread has turned into an academic arguement inside a vacuum.
First, back to the "Get my 1000 and get out mentality". There was a time, not all that many years ago, that all regionals flew were turboprops. The highest levels of these "commuter" companies flew up to 34 seats (there were the oddball ATR/Dash 7s that seated more). The upper end of the vast majority of these airlines paid as much as $50,000/yr cash-money. New captains on 19 seat aircraft could make as much as $30,000 year. This was after a 3-4+ year upgrade, and paying for an "evaluation" course or somesort just to get the job. So even first year at a "major" airline was big money compared to the vast majority of regional pilot pay. Then the "RJ" (tm) [I use (tm) as Regional Jet is a brand name invented by the socialists in Montreal for their extended Bill Lear-designed tube. Somehow like "Kleenex" it became a generic moniker for the 50 seat jets not built by The Boeing Company or Airbus. Kleenex, BTW, is a brand name owned by Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark's flight department started Midwest Express, which became Midwest....). So obviously the idea to get your time and get out was the main goal, so airline captains could get off foodstamps. That is where that culture came from. As we all know, the industry transformed, and NO CBAs have caught up.
Moving along the story arc, there are lots of holes in the reasoning against foreign carriage in the US that I've seen on here.
First, in my opinion, the arguements should encompass the following:
1) National Security (I'm not one to wave this flag on any occasion). The airlines and airways inside the US are a vital part of the infrastructure. Some of you may know about the CRAF program. Some may not. CRAF is the Civil Reserve Airforce, which uses civilian airliners to supplement military lift. As an example, Polar flew on 9/11 after the attacks. The DoD brought a Falcon to JFK to pick up a crew, and flew them to Dover to an awaiting Polar 747. That airplane was loaded with 110 tons of ordinance to deliver to our troops. If we lose the ability to provide this critical airlift during the (hopefully) incredibly rare time that we'd need it, one can clearly see the negative impact in our ability to defend our nation.
2) Protect American Consumers - From my point of view, and by all known metrics, we have the safest air system in the world. Introduction of carriers that are governed by rules and are based in less successful systems is asking for nothing but trouble.
3) Protecting American jobs - Not only front-line employees, but companies that support airline operations such as Bornemann, SABRE, various MRO organizations, and the actual airports themselves rely on our system as it is. Sure, a foreign carrier would use some of the services, but how much can't be said.
To say that the general public is never involved in 121 operations beyond demanding maximum service for bargin basement price is not true. While that garners the most attention, if you look back to the post-9/11 ATSB issues or even the United/USAir proposed merger, you'll find that statement to be false. Members of congress got a lot of airtime defending the loans to the airlines and working to defeat the merger. The main issue brought up: lost jobs, to the point of devistation, in their districts.
I further believe it's a false argument to think that even if the President requested, and Congress approved, and the judiciary didn't over turn a change to the DOT rules, that VodkaBurner LCC would show up in Wilkes-Barre.
Why? First any half-assed operator would have a bunch of issues, the most obvious is money. Moving a fleet of airplanes to the US isn't cheap, especially with cheap metal sitting in the desert. But you ask, why wouldn't they just get MD-80s out of the desert? Well, if they are a 3rd tier, 3rd world carrier, they've probably never seen one.
Either way, flying airplanes out of the desert, or stuff they brought out of the back fields of the Urals they have to get their fleet up to US standards, comply with the applicable parts of Parts 25, 119, 121, convert all their pilots to US licenses (depending on the nation could be a bigger or smaller challenge), go through CSET certification (been there, done that, that's enough). Of course, if they somehow could magically waive the requirements that US Aircarriers operate under, then we're screwed no matter what. However, it is shown that if they operate under the crappy regs where they were falling out of the sky in their home country, then they'll fall out of the sky here.
More on my point about contract pilot rates and why they're significant. This is actually real quick. If they are staffing their current capacity with contract pilots from foreign nations, how are they going to increase capacity to fly within the US if they can't staff their current operations?
In summation of the above, if they are a third tier airline in a third world country that can't staff their own fleet in a far-away land, they will not be able to run a remote operation here.
Now, if you want to get serious about what constitutes a threat to our airlines we can talk. I can point to countries on coasts opposite to ours across the Atlantic and Pacific that would drive our airlines to the ground. Names like Ryanair, Easyjet, JAL, ANA, Lufthansa, AirFrance/KLM, LTU, British Airways, Cathay (That's for you rjmoore) Etihad, and Emirates should keep our airline excecutives awake at night. If you've ever flown on one of them, you'll know why. These airlines have superior service, they have reasonable prices and would be willing to buy the leftovers of any US airlines right now, as the dollar is cheap.
Anyway, that's $5 of my $.02
Just for emphasis: I am against allowing foreign carriers flying domestically in the US. I see absolutely no benefit to consumers, american workers, system safety, the environment, or any other angle I from which I can approach this issue.
This entire thread has turned into an academic arguement inside a vacuum.
First, back to the "Get my 1000 and get out mentality". There was a time, not all that many years ago, that all regionals flew were turboprops. The highest levels of these "commuter" companies flew up to 34 seats (there were the oddball ATR/Dash 7s that seated more). The upper end of the vast majority of these airlines paid as much as $50,000/yr cash-money. New captains on 19 seat aircraft could make as much as $30,000 year. This was after a 3-4+ year upgrade, and paying for an "evaluation" course or somesort just to get the job. So even first year at a "major" airline was big money compared to the vast majority of regional pilot pay. Then the "RJ" (tm) [I use (tm) as Regional Jet is a brand name invented by the socialists in Montreal for their extended Bill Lear-designed tube. Somehow like "Kleenex" it became a generic moniker for the 50 seat jets not built by The Boeing Company or Airbus. Kleenex, BTW, is a brand name owned by Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark's flight department started Midwest Express, which became Midwest....). So obviously the idea to get your time and get out was the main goal, so airline captains could get off foodstamps. That is where that culture came from. As we all know, the industry transformed, and NO CBAs have caught up.
Moving along the story arc, there are lots of holes in the reasoning against foreign carriage in the US that I've seen on here.
First, in my opinion, the arguements should encompass the following:
1) National Security (I'm not one to wave this flag on any occasion). The airlines and airways inside the US are a vital part of the infrastructure. Some of you may know about the CRAF program. Some may not. CRAF is the Civil Reserve Airforce, which uses civilian airliners to supplement military lift. As an example, Polar flew on 9/11 after the attacks. The DoD brought a Falcon to JFK to pick up a crew, and flew them to Dover to an awaiting Polar 747. That airplane was loaded with 110 tons of ordinance to deliver to our troops. If we lose the ability to provide this critical airlift during the (hopefully) incredibly rare time that we'd need it, one can clearly see the negative impact in our ability to defend our nation.
2) Protect American Consumers - From my point of view, and by all known metrics, we have the safest air system in the world. Introduction of carriers that are governed by rules and are based in less successful systems is asking for nothing but trouble.
3) Protecting American jobs - Not only front-line employees, but companies that support airline operations such as Bornemann, SABRE, various MRO organizations, and the actual airports themselves rely on our system as it is. Sure, a foreign carrier would use some of the services, but how much can't be said.
To say that the general public is never involved in 121 operations beyond demanding maximum service for bargin basement price is not true. While that garners the most attention, if you look back to the post-9/11 ATSB issues or even the United/USAir proposed merger, you'll find that statement to be false. Members of congress got a lot of airtime defending the loans to the airlines and working to defeat the merger. The main issue brought up: lost jobs, to the point of devistation, in their districts.
I further believe it's a false argument to think that even if the President requested, and Congress approved, and the judiciary didn't over turn a change to the DOT rules, that VodkaBurner LCC would show up in Wilkes-Barre.
Why? First any half-assed operator would have a bunch of issues, the most obvious is money. Moving a fleet of airplanes to the US isn't cheap, especially with cheap metal sitting in the desert. But you ask, why wouldn't they just get MD-80s out of the desert? Well, if they are a 3rd tier, 3rd world carrier, they've probably never seen one.
Either way, flying airplanes out of the desert, or stuff they brought out of the back fields of the Urals they have to get their fleet up to US standards, comply with the applicable parts of Parts 25, 119, 121, convert all their pilots to US licenses (depending on the nation could be a bigger or smaller challenge), go through CSET certification (been there, done that, that's enough). Of course, if they somehow could magically waive the requirements that US Aircarriers operate under, then we're screwed no matter what. However, it is shown that if they operate under the crappy regs where they were falling out of the sky in their home country, then they'll fall out of the sky here.
More on my point about contract pilot rates and why they're significant. This is actually real quick. If they are staffing their current capacity with contract pilots from foreign nations, how are they going to increase capacity to fly within the US if they can't staff their current operations?
In summation of the above, if they are a third tier airline in a third world country that can't staff their own fleet in a far-away land, they will not be able to run a remote operation here.
Now, if you want to get serious about what constitutes a threat to our airlines we can talk. I can point to countries on coasts opposite to ours across the Atlantic and Pacific that would drive our airlines to the ground. Names like Ryanair, Easyjet, JAL, ANA, Lufthansa, AirFrance/KLM, LTU, British Airways, Cathay (That's for you rjmoore) Etihad, and Emirates should keep our airline excecutives awake at night. If you've ever flown on one of them, you'll know why. These airlines have superior service, they have reasonable prices and would be willing to buy the leftovers of any US airlines right now, as the dollar is cheap.
Anyway, that's $5 of my $.02
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Ryanair is the biggest threat we face, in my opinion. CEO Michael O'Leary has already said that he's salivating at the thought of operating domestic routes in the US. For those not familiar with O'Leary's anti-labor practices, do some studying. This guy scares the crap out of me.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Yeah, but isn't he the guy that mentioned BJ's if they have a first class?
He might be evil for labor, but he treats pax right.
[yt]UfIY24BErBE[/yt]
Airdale
Well-Known Member
WOW, I want to work for that guy!!! No joke...he is awesome. I bet he doesn't send out Jesus prayers to his employees every week either. Maybe they get a porno mag or something. That dude is the best CEO!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I really hope you're joking. That guy is a menace. He has fired pilots and FAs for "stealing his electricity" by charging their cell phones using the wall outlets in the crew lounges. He refused to provide wheelchairs or aisle chairs to disabled passengers because he felt they were wasting his airline's time. He's vulgar, offensive, anti-labor, and just a general all-around horrible human being. I eagerly await his downfall.
Nick
Well-Known Member
I agree with PCL.
I've read about him and he doesn't sound much different than JO here in the states.
Why would an airline CEO want to charge 10 Euros for a coach ticket across the Atlantic?
What amount of fuel would that pay for, one engine's start sequence? What's the point?
I've read about him and he doesn't sound much different than JO here in the states.
Why would an airline CEO want to charge 10 Euros for a coach ticket across the Atlantic?
What amount of fuel would that pay for, one engine's start sequence? What's the point?
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Late to the party, I know, but having just finished crossing the "t" on 1000TPIC, I feel obligated to add a few points.
1) Fat lot of good it's done me: The companies I want to work for politely try not to laugh when they see my resume
2) That said, as basically arbitrary requirements go, I think it's a fairly good one. Any joker can learn to fly an airplane, given the proper amount of instruction. Learning how to carry the burden of command in a relatively complex aircraft that can do 250 in the terminal area is a different bunch of grapes.
3) Don't worry, as the future, IMHO, will put less and less emphasis on TPIC and more and more on type ratings, glass experience, standardization etc. vs. experience in being "the man" and nitty-gritty sticknrudder capability. Is this a bad thing? Probably not for the environment of the future. Grognards like me may pine for the good old days of "the buck stops here", but in an increasingly regimented industry, demonstrated "trainability" and hoop-jumping is a reasonable predictor, one imagines, of success further up the ladder. Some of us were just born too late.
1) Fat lot of good it's done me: The companies I want to work for politely try not to laugh when they see my resume
2) That said, as basically arbitrary requirements go, I think it's a fairly good one. Any joker can learn to fly an airplane, given the proper amount of instruction. Learning how to carry the burden of command in a relatively complex aircraft that can do 250 in the terminal area is a different bunch of grapes.
3) Don't worry, as the future, IMHO, will put less and less emphasis on TPIC and more and more on type ratings, glass experience, standardization etc. vs. experience in being "the man" and nitty-gritty sticknrudder capability. Is this a bad thing? Probably not for the environment of the future. Grognards like me may pine for the good old days of "the buck stops here", but in an increasingly regimented industry, demonstrated "trainability" and hoop-jumping is a reasonable predictor, one imagines, of success further up the ladder. Some of us were just born too late.
Similar threads
- Locked