Delta Pilots Association
11-04-2010, 05:57 PM
#2281
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
You can almost hear the lawyers as they are meeting to craft this: "OK guys, let's earn our money here. We need to have the pilots think we're strongly in support of 1,500 hours, while actually supporting whatever the FAA thinks is appropriate for flight time. Now how do we do this?"
Carl
11-04-2010, 06:03 PM
#2282
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
It seems as though ALPA national has one overriding thought every morning: "How can we fool them today?"
They know what their pilots want. They also know ALPA's wishes are often times different. So their communications are constantly having to walk the tightrope because they don't feel they can be honest with us. And it shows in their communications.
It's such a shame that when I read a communique from ALPA, it sound like something written by an opponent of mine.
Sigh,
Carl
They know what their pilots want. They also know ALPA's wishes are often times different. So their communications are constantly having to walk the tightrope because they don't feel they can be honest with us. And it shows in their communications.
It's such a shame that when I read a communique from ALPA, it sound like something written by an opponent of mine.
Sigh,
Carl
11-04-2010, 06:08 PM
#2283
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
ALPA Supports the Pilot Training and Qualification Requirements of H.R. 5900
ALPA has received several inquiries recently concerning the Association’s position on flight-experience requirements for future first officers. Some of the media reports on this topic have been incomplete and/or inaccurate, which has undoubtedly contributed to confusion and misunderstanding.
This subject was considered at length by the FAA’s First Officer Qualifications Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOQ ARC). Members of ALPA’s Air Safety Committee with expertise in pilot training, plus the director of ALPA’s Engineering & Air Safety department, served on the FOQ ARC earlier this year. As an ARC member, ALPA is prohibited from making public comments on the committee’s recommendations until the FAA publishes its final report. Therefore, ALPA is not yet authorized to specifically comment on the content of the media reports. However, we can explain some of the history behind the ARC and point to reference documents that clarify ALPA’s position on this important subject.
The tasking of the FOQ ARC was focused on sections 216 and 217 of H.R. 5900, which was signed into law on August 1, 2010, as Public Law (PL) 111-216. In summary, the law directed FAA to increase the minimum training and qualification requirements for pilots to be hired at a future date by FAR Part 121 airlines, and set a minimum flight-time threshold of 1,500 flight hours for that purpose. ALPA strongly and publicly voiced support for the 1,500-hour minimum flight experience provision in the law. However, the law also gives the FAA administrator the ability to give flight-hour credit toward the 1,500-hour requirement for “specific academic training courses [that] will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.” The FOQ ARC was tasked, therefore, with defining the credit to be given toward flight hours on the basis of specific academic classroom coursework completed by the pilot.
The final FOQ ARC report was delivered to the FAA in September 2010; the agency has not yet made that report public. The FAA will consider the FOQ ARC recommendations in producing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that is consistent with PL 111-216. In accordance with that law, the ARC report recommends new training and qualification standards for FAR Part 121 pilots and establishes 1,500 flight hours as the minimum flight-hour-experience threshold for pilots before they can be hired by a FAR 121 airline, but it does give the administrator the ability to allow some credits toward flight hours on the basis of specific types of academic training.
ALPA strongly supports the work of the FOQ ARC because its recommendations, if adopted, will create a much higher level of safety than was required by Section 216 of the law. If the FAA adopts the recommendations of the FOQ ARC, new pilots will be much better trained and have considerably more experience than is required by current regulations. We believe that the law’s flight-hour credit provision is entirely justified on the basis of quality of experience and not merely quantity of experience. The military, which gives its pilots extensive aviation-related academic and leadership training as part of the flight training program, has proven that pilots with many fewer hours than 1,500 are fully capable of operating high-speed, very complex aircraft in demanding airspace.
Prior to the creation of the FOQ ARC, ALPA went on record in April 2010 with recommendations to the FAA about this subject in comments to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on “New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations.” These comments, and the ALPA white paper (September 2009) entitled “Producing a Professional Airline Pilot,” provide much more detail about ALPA’s views on how to significantly upgrade first officer qualifications.
We expect that the final ARC report will be made public by the FAA in the near future. ALPA will release a summary of the report, along with ALPA’s position on the report and its recommendations, at that time.
ALPA has received several inquiries recently concerning the Association’s position on flight-experience requirements for future first officers. Some of the media reports on this topic have been incomplete and/or inaccurate, which has undoubtedly contributed to confusion and misunderstanding.
This subject was considered at length by the FAA’s First Officer Qualifications Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOQ ARC). Members of ALPA’s Air Safety Committee with expertise in pilot training, plus the director of ALPA’s Engineering & Air Safety department, served on the FOQ ARC earlier this year. As an ARC member, ALPA is prohibited from making public comments on the committee’s recommendations until the FAA publishes its final report. Therefore, ALPA is not yet authorized to specifically comment on the content of the media reports. However, we can explain some of the history behind the ARC and point to reference documents that clarify ALPA’s position on this important subject.
The tasking of the FOQ ARC was focused on sections 216 and 217 of H.R. 5900, which was signed into law on August 1, 2010, as Public Law (PL) 111-216. In summary, the law directed FAA to increase the minimum training and qualification requirements for pilots to be hired at a future date by FAR Part 121 airlines, and set a minimum flight-time threshold of 1,500 flight hours for that purpose. ALPA strongly and publicly voiced support for the 1,500-hour minimum flight experience provision in the law. However, the law also gives the FAA administrator the ability to give flight-hour credit toward the 1,500-hour requirement for “specific academic training courses [that] will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.” The FOQ ARC was tasked, therefore, with defining the credit to be given toward flight hours on the basis of specific academic classroom coursework completed by the pilot.
The final FOQ ARC report was delivered to the FAA in September 2010; the agency has not yet made that report public. The FAA will consider the FOQ ARC recommendations in producing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that is consistent with PL 111-216. In accordance with that law, the ARC report recommends new training and qualification standards for FAR Part 121 pilots and establishes 1,500 flight hours as the minimum flight-hour-experience threshold for pilots before they can be hired by a FAR 121 airline, but it does give the administrator the ability to allow some credits toward flight hours on the basis of specific types of academic training.
ALPA strongly supports the work of the FOQ ARC because its recommendations, if adopted, will create a much higher level of safety than was required by Section 216 of the law. If the FAA adopts the recommendations of the FOQ ARC, new pilots will be much better trained and have considerably more experience than is required by current regulations. We believe that the law’s flight-hour credit provision is entirely justified on the basis of quality of experience and not merely quantity of experience. The military, which gives its pilots extensive aviation-related academic and leadership training as part of the flight training program, has proven that pilots with many fewer hours than 1,500 are fully capable of operating high-speed, very complex aircraft in demanding airspace.
Prior to the creation of the FOQ ARC, ALPA went on record in April 2010 with recommendations to the FAA about this subject in comments to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on “New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations.” These comments, and the ALPA white paper (September 2009) entitled “Producing a Professional Airline Pilot,” provide much more detail about ALPA’s views on how to significantly upgrade first officer qualifications.
We expect that the final ARC report will be made public by the FAA in the near future. ALPA will release a summary of the report, along with ALPA’s position on the report and its recommendations, at that time.
This statement is political bullsh!t. ALPA is not representing what the majority of pilots want. This letter is supposed to get us to ignore that fact.
11-04-2010, 07:05 PM
#2284
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
Write ALPA, and complain. ONLY if they get enough flack, will they capitulate. Nothing speaks louder to political types, than to hear from their constituents. It takes no longer to e-mail them, than it does to rant on this board, so let's get off our collective duff, and be heard.
Chuck
Chuck
11-04-2010, 07:05 PM
#2285
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
His housing allowance is greater than my salary. I have a problem with that. His car allowance is not too far off from my monthly mortgage. I have a problem with that. Delta does not pay for my crash pad or crash pad car. I do not get per diem while sitting reserve in my crash pad. His benefits are excessive. He makes a lot more money as president of ALPA than a line pilot. There's no debating that.
He might make more than the average Delta line pilot, but he's also putting in more hours and days at work than the average line pilot. There are plenty of pilots flying the line who work less than 20 days/month and pocket 100 hours + of pay.
I get it, that you think the ALPA President ought to do it for far less than he could make working the same number of days on the line and that while he is at work he ought to pay for his own lodging , transportation and expenses.
11-04-2010, 07:47 PM
#2288
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Very good.
But earlier you posted with great fanfare that: ALPA Supports the Pilot Training and Qualification Requirements of H.R. 5900. And that statement mentions 1,500 hours often throughout. But as you now correctly state, ALPA is supporting something that currently HAS NO HOURLY REQUIREMENTS AT ALL!
This is such a classic example of ALPA communications. They try extremely hard to make you think they're on your side, when in reality they say nothing at all. This statement is completely meaningless as it states nothing except it supports HR 5900. They mention 1,500 hours numerous times, but 1,500 hours is NOT in this proposal.
Carl
But earlier you posted with great fanfare that: ALPA Supports the Pilot Training and Qualification Requirements of H.R. 5900. And that statement mentions 1,500 hours often throughout. But as you now correctly state, ALPA is supporting something that currently HAS NO HOURLY REQUIREMENTS AT ALL!
This is such a classic example of ALPA communications. They try extremely hard to make you think they're on your side, when in reality they say nothing at all. This statement is completely meaningless as it states nothing except it supports HR 5900. They mention 1,500 hours numerous times, but 1,500 hours is NOT in this proposal.
Carl
11-04-2010, 07:49 PM
#2289
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
What I seem to be gathering is that he does get a pension but it is only for years in the Job as President of ALPA. Not for a career of service. It is just the way I read the wording. I could be wrong.
11-04-2010, 09:14 PM
#2290
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
