FliFast

An excellent post that sums it up. The burden unfortunately is with the hiring departments and their responsibility is sometimes ignored. If you are hiring for the MD11 / 747 / 777, why would you ignore qualified candidates and then hire the HR Managers neighbor who has 2000 hrs of turboprop time.

Conversely, the hiring market "economics" also lend themselves to further erode qualified candidates from working at certain airlines. An airline with a bad reputation, low pay scale or a whole host of other employment difficulties may only be able to garner less experienced candidates.

Full circle to the original author's post. You can teach a primate to do a job, but with the number of qualified candidates on the street and employed, but looking; why waste time, money, and possibly safety with on-the-job training.

FF

MD11

You go over to the regional forum and watch people get all giddy about these changes thinking that they will lead to greater wages along with enhancing safety.

I am a furloughed regional guy and I believe the proposed fatigue rule changes are the most important of all and will enhance the job overall... and maybe monetarily,,, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. If I ever get recalled,,, I don't look forward to multiple East coats turns after 3 hours of sleep.

the shame of it is the DC3 operators who would take a 500 hr wonder under their wing and nurture them in the round engine freight dojo,where they would be exposed to wind ,and weather,along side some grizzled old sensei who would impart much wisdom don't exist anymore in the lower 48. That was true learning,art and science,with a bit of Ernie Gann,and St.Ex thrown in as well. its tough for a newbie with low time to find that experience.
The shame of it is that many flying guys/gals don't know much about aviation history or its heritage let alone some the great aviation authors. Saint who? You know,, Wind,Sand and Stars? What? I don't even bring it up anymore...

Sniper

Would you want a guy fresh out of Embry Riddle in your right seat before a guy with an ATP or a prior military pilot?

There's a study that the head of Embry Riddle pushed in front of the House Aviation Subcommittee that has the following conclusion: 500 hour or less TT pilots who are graduates of flight school degree programs perform better in initial training than any other pilots, including "prior military pilots". No, I'm not joking.

Go here, page 3, paragraph 2 - read it for yourself.

Flaps50

If they require 1500 hours and an ATP minimum without any exceptions for "this and that" then the wages will go up. The supply of qualified pilots with quadruple digit flight time during this past decade who were willing to work as airline pilots for regional wages essentially dried up. That and that alone is why the regional airlines were forced to either increase wages and attract more experienced pilots (which the regs didn't require) or lower their standards to Commercial Pilot mins so they could find the pilots who were desperate for work. They chose the later option. This new law if enacted appropriately will help wages increase and that is what is really needed to supply higher qualified pilots to those seats again.

If the ATA is allowed to enact exceptions for certain college programs it will do nothing for safety, but enrich the colleges that supply these pilots as they have been doing for years anyway. It will be a tragedy that does not address the issue and the companies will win again and labor will lose.

When will they realize that anyone can pass a test that they have been given the answers to. What pilots really need is experience generated from years of flying in the system as a professional pilot starting from the ground up with no shortcuts.

Gunter

This will not result in higher wages or result in a 'shortage' of pilots. Whatever exceptions that are necessary to prevent these outcomes will be adopted.

Congress reacted to a possible shortage of pilots by raising the age to 65. Yes, they thought a shortage was coming and used it as an excuse to support the legislation. Probably because Kit Darby told them so.

They aren't worried about our pensions, are mildly concerned about safety but are very worried about the mere possibility that ticket prices will go up or that airline stock investments/management bonuses may suffer.

Daniel Larusso

Flaps50,

While a 'shortage'(don't buy it personally) is good for leverage, nothing will be gained regional or major without strong negotiating and pilot group support. Nothing. Never has been otherwise, never will be. As has already been noted, the airlines and colleges are looking at workarounds. They will take the theoretical pot of money that would have gone to increased wages and use it to lobby for and support the college programs mentioned or some other similar ab initio deal, protecting their investment and ratcheting down wages with licenses that are beholden to a specific operator and equipment. Once the airline unions realize that there isn't much that can be done for their junior FO's because of the regulatory ramifications of the latter, they will circle the wagons and spread the pot elsewhere. I would imagine that regional FO wages from about years 1-4 to stagnate or falter with Captain and FO wages beyond year 4 getting the gains. The mileage may vary depending on the makeup of the individual airlines seniority list and their upgrade opportunities. It will likely be a bloodbath like most things pilots envision through their eyes vs. managements'.

stratofactor

Job Security for Riddle

Whistlin' Dan

I can hear the clicks of thousands of "Parker P-51's" being readied for "flight..."

Scoop

[quote=Sniper;762037]

There's a study that the head of Embry Riddle pushed in front of the House Aviation Subcommittee that has the following conclusion: 500 hour or less TT pilots who are graduates of flight school degree programs perform better in initial training than any other pilots, including "prior military pilots". No, I'm not joking.

Sniper,

I believe it (even though the statement appears relatively subjective) but I don't think it means a lot. Basically people fresh out of school did better in initial training because they were just immersed in that exact environment, training to those specific procedures. A military fighter guy may be seeing those procedures for the first time.

If you put the same groups out on the line and they were faced with situations not recently reviewed and trained specifically for in school - which group do you think would do best?

Scoop

Check 6

I agree, the problem is do you think congress understands the difference?