Delta Pilots Association
11-09-2010, 06:57 AM
#2331
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
And you guys like to discredit the little notion of supply side economics. Squeezing the supply side so much that the vendors start looking elsewhere is a very real problem. See most of US industry and the wages we have. We have priced ourselves out of producing almost anything in this country. These responses do not effect the power players and only effect the middle class, so there is no down side to it for them, only you and I.
Oh yeah, we created laws and taxes to stop that, they seemed to have worked real well. People will create corporations outside of US jurisdiction to compete against the higher cost, where unions are illegal.
Do not think it will happen here? The power people control the majority of the legislative people, and when the costs get to high, they will lean on them to allow 50%+ foreign ownership, or do away with the requirement all together, then they will get rid of cabatoage. That will result in these alliances becoming airlines with ata codes and us becoming contractors in a portfolio where pilots from airlines and countries pay pennies on the dollar to our wages. Think of how much you will have to give up in contractual gains to stop this?
Carl and 88 will call it fear, but the simple fact is that it is real world capitalism. In this day and age there is no stopping it. They will continue to argue that it will happen anyway, and they are probably correct, but how we deal with our supply side issue in this country will dictate the severity of the response by the power and money players.
Oh yeah, we created laws and taxes to stop that, they seemed to have worked real well. People will create corporations outside of US jurisdiction to compete against the higher cost, where unions are illegal.
Do not think it will happen here? The power people control the majority of the legislative people, and when the costs get to high, they will lean on them to allow 50%+ foreign ownership, or do away with the requirement all together, then they will get rid of cabatoage. That will result in these alliances becoming airlines with ata codes and us becoming contractors in a portfolio where pilots from airlines and countries pay pennies on the dollar to our wages. Think of how much you will have to give up in contractual gains to stop this?
Carl and 88 will call it fear, but the simple fact is that it is real world capitalism. In this day and age there is no stopping it. They will continue to argue that it will happen anyway, and they are probably correct, but how we deal with our supply side issue in this country will dictate the severity of the response by the power and money players.
First it was Emirates...now it is foreign pilots and cabotage. BS. So far, appeasing the regionals and keeping that memebrship seems to be the only logical reasoning behind supporting lowering the hours. Who else in their right mind will argue against raising barriers of entry in their own profession? Medical doctors and AMA did not act like ALPA when they controlled supply and put huge barriers to entry. As a result they are a very highly compensated group.
I am not willing to standby and watch ALPA ruin any hope we have in restoring our profession. NEVER EVER negotiate anything away for a future promise. (Translation: do not shoot the 1500hr down for 'promise' of a no cabotage, emirate slots etc). Ask how the pension worked out after we took a paycut to save it.
11-09-2010, 06:59 AM
#2332
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
November 4, 2010
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.
11-09-2010, 07:04 AM
#2333
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I haven't really been following this issue all that closely, but I find one thing pretty interesting. ALPA is supposed to provide some sort of guidance in these kinds of matters for the line pilot, yet they cannot comment because they are involved in the rule making process... Is that correct? How is this helpful again?
11-09-2010, 08:11 AM
#2334
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
I haven't really been following this issue all that closely, but I find one thing pretty interesting. ALPA is supposed to provide some sort of guidance in these kinds of matters for the line pilot, yet they cannot comment because they are involved in the rule making process... Is that correct? How is this helpful again?
"The FAA informed the ARC that it may not accept all of the ARC’s proposals, but it would explain any decisions in the published NPRM’s preamble. The FAA clarified to ARC members that their ARC participation in no way precluded them from submitting comments critical of the final NPRM to the public docket when it is eventually published."
It has been published, what am I missing here? Or is this not considered the Final. Either way ALPA should shed light on where they stand to its members. We aren't the public.
Last edited by DAWGS; 11-09-2010 at 08:21 AM.
11-09-2010, 08:11 AM
#2335
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
Okay freightguy show us your research about ALPA's position on the 1500hr rule. While your cutting and pasting your "facts", I'll do the same and show you what ALPA has publicly said about the issue. BTW, if you can find any mention of 500 hours in this brief, please highlight and repost!
November 4, 2010
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.
November 4, 2010
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.
You make my job easy. The ALPA stance on why less hours are good enough (in bold), is one of the the same reasons RAA gave during the congressional hearings regarding the 1500hrs issue....while Sully and Jeff Skiles argued just the opposite. Talk about being in bed with RAA.
OK, here is that dang article from Avweb again regarding ALPA's stance on the 1500 hr rule: (talk about being in bed with the RAA again...might as well name RAA president Jeff Cohen as head of ALPA
)"Committee Challenges New 1500 Hr Requirement For FO's
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
The FAA's aviation safety bill passed earlier this year, but a new report suggests the included prerequisite 1,500 hours flight experience for commercial airline copilots may not be necessary. Language in the safety legislation says that the FAA An FAA advisory committee led by a regional airline official has proposed that 500 actual flight hours may be enough.Administrator "may allow specific academic training courses ... to be credited toward the total flight hours required." The committee suggests that through an elaborate structure of training courses, up to two-thirds of the safety law's required 1,500 flight hours could be satisfied with other credited training. The proposal is merely a recommendation and it is not clear that there is any wiggle room in other language that specifically imposes the flight hours requirement. Meanwhile, the proposal has reignited the total hours versus quality-of-training argument. And pilot groups, industry voices and safety advocates are weighing in.
Legislators who fought for the safety bill's language say the law explicitly requires 1,500 flight hours, and any modifications must be justified by a resultant increase in safety. The president of the Regional Airline Association, Roger Cohen, has a different opinion. Cohen said academic work is "far more useful in training pilots for modern airline operations" than hours spent "towing banners above the beach." As for the FAA, Administrator Randy Babbitt supports improved training over a general requirement for more flight hours. Babbitt has previously commented on the subject, saying "experience is not measured by flight time alone." The Regional Airline Association holds the view that a "proper mix of the experience and academic/training approaches" would best ensure safety. And two pilot groups represented on the committee have split on the issue. The Air Line Pilots Association backed the committee's recommendations, while the Coalition of Air Line Pilot Associations supported experience over even enhanced training."
As far as research, I talked directly with my ALPA reps...sorry, can't name names here. Thanks for contributing to the DPA discussion...my FedEx friend.
11-09-2010, 08:48 AM
#2336
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
I've been looking around a bit on this topic, related to ALPA's position and others. Interestingly, I'm finding, a lot of comment. I thought I'd share parts of it. Since I'm taking out snippets, please feel free to check for your self at Regulations.gov
AOPA’s Position: AOPA is concerned that potential changes to the airline hiring minimums may have a negative impact on the GA industry by deterring new pilots from beginning training and in turn decreasing the number of qualified pilots to provide the myriad of services provided by general aviation. If the current air carrier hiring minimums or training requirements are changed without taking into consideration the effects such changes would have on economics and safety of the entire system including the potential impact to general aviation, there could be potential consequences that would affect the health of the aviation community as a
whole.
I couldn't "cut and past" ALPA's published paper as it was attached as a pdf file. I did a quick over view and will concede they do propose a min of 750 flight hours for a "restricted 121 ATP" (FO's) when meeting certain requirements, mainly an 4 year college degree in Aviation.
RAA position. Also a pdf doc. About what you might expect
To find it (or any other org's) put RAA in the "search within" box. Otherwise, expect to wade through 2086 responses.
Looking through this ANPRM 2010-0100, I think I can see what the industry really fears. Way more strong comment from industry here than on flight and duty time changes.
AOPA’s Position: AOPA is concerned that potential changes to the airline hiring minimums may have a negative impact on the GA industry by deterring new pilots from beginning training and in turn decreasing the number of qualified pilots to provide the myriad of services provided by general aviation. If the current air carrier hiring minimums or training requirements are changed without taking into consideration the effects such changes would have on economics and safety of the entire system including the potential impact to general aviation, there could be potential consequences that would affect the health of the aviation community as a
whole.
I couldn't "cut and past" ALPA's published paper as it was attached as a pdf file. I did a quick over view and will concede they do propose a min of 750 flight hours for a "restricted 121 ATP" (FO's) when meeting certain requirements, mainly an 4 year college degree in Aviation.
RAA position. Also a pdf doc. About what you might expect
To find it (or any other org's) put RAA in the "search within" box. Otherwise, expect to wade through 2086 responses.Looking through this ANPRM 2010-0100, I think I can see what the industry really fears. Way more strong comment from industry here than on flight and duty time changes.
11-09-2010, 08:55 AM
#2337
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
11-09-2010, 09:32 AM
#2338
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL...it is true for many industries...but not for pilots. Almost all airline pilots around the globe are paid better than us. Foreign pilots are not looking to take our jobs for anywhere near the current wages. Nowadays, Americans are the cheapest source of airline labor. American pilots flying for JALways were the cheapest (by far) in the JAL system. DAL south pilots who flew for KLM during their furlough were the lowest paid in the KLM system. And in Asia, pilots are paid far higher when you take the cost of living into consideration. If they allow cabotage, US airliners will be the biggest winners especailly on trans-atlantic markets.
First it was Emirates...now it is foreign pilots and cabotage. BS. So far, appeasing the regionals and keeping that memebrship seems to be the only logical reasoning behind supporting lowering the hours. Who else in their right mind will argue against raising barriers of entry in their own profession? Medical doctors and AMA did not act like ALPA when they controlled supply and put huge barriers to entry. As a result they are a very highly compensated group.
I am not willing to standby and watch ALPA ruin any hope we have in restoring our profession. NEVER EVER negotiate anything away for a future promise. (Translation: do not shoot the 1500hr down for 'promise' of a no cabotage, emirate slots etc). Ask how the pension worked out after we took a paycut to save it.
First it was Emirates...now it is foreign pilots and cabotage. BS. So far, appeasing the regionals and keeping that memebrship seems to be the only logical reasoning behind supporting lowering the hours. Who else in their right mind will argue against raising barriers of entry in their own profession? Medical doctors and AMA did not act like ALPA when they controlled supply and put huge barriers to entry. As a result they are a very highly compensated group.
I am not willing to standby and watch ALPA ruin any hope we have in restoring our profession. NEVER EVER negotiate anything away for a future promise. (Translation: do not shoot the 1500hr down for 'promise' of a no cabotage, emirate slots etc). Ask how the pension worked out after we took a paycut to save it.
You are thinking Europeans, that is part of the problem. It will not be Europeans flying your routes, it will pilots from third world dumps that are willing to do it for pennies on the dollar. Even better is that they will get trained here and then go do another country where they do not need 1500 hrs to fly passengers and then flying your passengers on your routes in your country and happily do it for less. Heck we will even see some American's do it for less pay but for a chance to fly big metal. (I know a bunch that went to Emirates for that)
11-09-2010, 10:37 AM
#2339
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
And you guys like to discredit the little notion of supply side economics. Squeezing the supply side so much that the vendors start looking elsewhere is a very real problem. See most of US industry and the wages we have. We have priced ourselves out of producing almost anything in this country. These responses do not effect the power players and only effect the middle class, so there is no down side to it for them, only you and I.
Oh yeah, we created laws and taxes to stop that, they seemed to have worked real well. People will create corporations outside of US jurisdiction to compete against the higher cost, where unions are illegal.
Do not think it will happen here? The power people control the majority of the legislative people, and when the costs get to high, they will lean on them to allow 50%+ foreign ownership, or do away with the requirement all together, then they will get rid of cabatoage. That will result in these alliances becoming airlines with ata codes and us becoming contractors in a portfolio where pilots from airlines and countries pay pennies on the dollar to our wages. Think of how much you will have to give up in contractual gains to stop this?
Carl and 88 will call it fear, but the simple fact is that it is real world capitalism. In this day and age there is no stopping it. They will continue to argue that it will happen anyway, and they are probably correct, but how we deal with our supply side issue in this country will dictate the severity of the response by the power and money players.
Oh yeah, we created laws and taxes to stop that, they seemed to have worked real well. People will create corporations outside of US jurisdiction to compete against the higher cost, where unions are illegal.
Do not think it will happen here? The power people control the majority of the legislative people, and when the costs get to high, they will lean on them to allow 50%+ foreign ownership, or do away with the requirement all together, then they will get rid of cabatoage. That will result in these alliances becoming airlines with ata codes and us becoming contractors in a portfolio where pilots from airlines and countries pay pennies on the dollar to our wages. Think of how much you will have to give up in contractual gains to stop this?
Carl and 88 will call it fear, but the simple fact is that it is real world capitalism. In this day and age there is no stopping it. They will continue to argue that it will happen anyway, and they are probably correct, but how we deal with our supply side issue in this country will dictate the severity of the response by the power and money players.
Get scope reeled in and the supply problem falls in line.
We in the US are not likely to allow cabotage. The CRAF is too important to our strategic requirements. I doubt it would go over well if we had to rely on a Ukrainian or Emirati corporation to provide our military's forward deployment.
With the recent devaluation of the dollar, I disagree that we have priced ourselves out of producing anything.
11-09-2010, 10:46 AM
#2340
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
You are thinking Europeans, that is part of the problem. It will not be Europeans flying your routes, it will pilots from third world dumps that are willing to do it for pennies on the dollar. Even better is that they will get trained here and then go do another country where they do not need 1500 hrs to fly passengers and then flying your passengers on your routes in your country and happily do it for less. Heck we will even see some American's do it for less pay but for a chance to fly big metal. (I know a bunch that went to Emirates for that)
So you are saying foreign outsourced pilot labor flying in the USA will not have to meet the same standards as US born pilots flying in the USA...sorry that logic doesnt fly.
Emirates, when you consider the entire compensation package, is a significant upgrade in pay and lifestyle for many US employed pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
