Delta Pilots Association
11-09-2010, 10:51 AM
#2341
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
------------
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.
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.
11-09-2010, 10:56 AM
#2342
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
The Emirates were rich enough to buy a nice country like Belize and then develop the heck out of it...their plan for a business / vegas/ vacation type of destination would have made sense to me then. They chose the desert tho.
I still think it could be a lifestyle upgrade for some.
I am not a giant fan of Dubai either.
11-09-2010, 11:00 AM
#2343
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
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.
ALPA in fact long ago began quietly supporting the reduction from 1500 hours when Embry Riddle...who has many tie in's with ALPA...came forward with the proposition that a four year degree from "certain accredited colleges" should equate to a specific level of training and knowledge, thus allowing a reduction in flight hours a a trade off. This position was also heavily lobbied by AABI, the accreditation group that certifies aviation schools. This position has not changed.
Why the push? Because based upon the cost of a four year aviation school, mom and dad are looking for junior to find a job right out of school. Not have to "apprentice" for a period of time. Junior should go from the dorm room to the right seat.
Now let's revisit RAA, NBAA, ATA and the other industry groups. They favor reduced hours because it allows a quicker flood of young inexperienced...read "lower cost" pilots that can be used to drive the cost model down.
AOPA? If the cost of an airline job means time working at less glamorous jobs, the odds that junior will remain interested in flying at a young age declines...and erodes the GA base which is already in a serious state of affairs. FBO's need renters and students. A large subset is lost if they see their dream of being an airline pilot requiring extra flying and specific experience.
The argument that a 500 hour pilot is twice as good as a 250 hour pilot is fallacy at best. That's akin to saying a 16 year old with two days of driving experience is twice as good as the one who just got their license today. And while military pilots do enjoy a directed and ntense training cycle and handle complicated aircraft at low time points, the incidence of accidents is higher and if transposed to the passenger industry would be unacceptable.
Industry trends are pushing for lower hours due to the increase in automation. In the cost analysis, the aircraft is programmed to fly from "A" to "B," shoot an approach, land and brake on the centerline. A pilot is only needed to taxi...that can be resolved by kids, video systems and remote control servoed systems IF the travelling public could be sold on a pilotless drone. The 500 hour pilot is the first logical step.
Here's the problem. There are times when the "magic" takes a vacation. Only standby instruments, a radio and skill are available.
And a 500 hour pilot does not have the skillset to safely land the aircraft.
ALPA knows that.
So why are they supporting the rule reduction? New bodies, even at reduced pay scales, equals cash flow.
Now the FAA. They know what the public sentiment was. They have been getting pressured tremendously by ATA, RAA, AABI, AOPA and others. They can't be seen caving to them or to ALPA.
However...an "accomodation" that is suddenly "embraced" by ALPA as a middle road, now becomes a way out. After all...ALPA would NEVER compromise safety.
Babbitt get's his escape from the problem. ATA, RAA get cheaper employees. AABI keeps mommy and daddy writing checks for juniors schooling. And AOPA keeps their pipeline full.
And the profession falls further behind as management now has an excuse for cheaper labor contracts.
11-09-2010, 12:03 PM
#2345
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
------------
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.
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.
As to your argument on the dollar. Of course if we continue to devalue the dollar we will ultimately be cheaper labor that a lot of the world..... The effect would be no demand for air travel so it would be moot.
11-09-2010, 12:11 PM
#2346
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Depends on the program. Most aviation programs are going to Part 142 from Part 141 schools. This means less flight time and more of it in a simulator.
11-09-2010, 12:51 PM
#2347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
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, 01:08 PM
#2348
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
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.
Yeah...I bet AOPA is concerned about "decreasing the number of qualified pilots to provide the myriad of services provided by general aviation". Yes...they won't be able to find qualified pilots for the prices they're paying now. Doctors with Bonanzas may not be able to find CFIs for $hit wages as usual for their BFR rides.
11-09-2010, 01:11 PM
#2349
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
A bit of reality checking is in order here. In the political arena, what ALPA says in public and pushes for in private are two different entities.
ALPA in fact long ago began quietly supporting the reduction from 1500 hours when Embry Riddle...who has many tie in's with ALPA...came forward with the proposition that a four year degree from "certain accredited colleges" should equate to a specific level of training and knowledge, thus allowing a reduction in flight hours a a trade off. This position was also heavily lobbied by AABI, the accreditation group that certifies aviation schools. This position has not changed.
Why the push? Because based upon the cost of a four year aviation school, mom and dad are looking for junior to find a job right out of school. Not have to "apprentice" for a period of time. Junior should go from the dorm room to the right seat.
Now let's revisit RAA, NBAA, ATA and the other industry groups. They favor reduced hours because it allows a quicker flood of young inexperienced...read "lower cost" pilots that can be used to drive the cost model down.
AOPA? If the cost of an airline job means time working at less glamorous jobs, the odds that junior will remain interested in flying at a young age declines...and erodes the GA base which is already in a serious state of affairs. FBO's need renters and students. A large subset is lost if they see their dream of being an airline pilot requiring extra flying and specific experience.
The argument that a 500 hour pilot is twice as good as a 250 hour pilot is fallacy at best. That's akin to saying a 16 year old with two days of driving experience is twice as good as the one who just got their license today. And while military pilots do enjoy a directed and ntense training cycle and handle complicated aircraft at low time points, the incidence of accidents is higher and if transposed to the passenger industry would be unacceptable.
Industry trends are pushing for lower hours due to the increase in automation. In the cost analysis, the aircraft is programmed to fly from "A" to "B," shoot an approach, land and brake on the centerline. A pilot is only needed to taxi...that can be resolved by kids, video systems and remote control servoed systems IF the travelling public could be sold on a pilotless drone. The 500 hour pilot is the first logical step.
Here's the problem. There are times when the "magic" takes a vacation. Only standby instruments, a radio and skill are available.
And a 500 hour pilot does not have the skillset to safely land the aircraft.
ALPA knows that.
So why are they supporting the rule reduction? New bodies, even at reduced pay scales, equals cash flow.
Now the FAA. They know what the public sentiment was. They have been getting pressured tremendously by ATA, RAA, AABI, AOPA and others. They can't be seen caving to them or to ALPA.
However...an "accomodation" that is suddenly "embraced" by ALPA as a middle road, now becomes a way out. After all...ALPA would NEVER compromise safety.
Babbitt get's his escape from the problem. ATA, RAA get cheaper employees. AABI keeps mommy and daddy writing checks for juniors schooling. And AOPA keeps their pipeline full.
And the profession falls further behind as management now has an excuse for cheaper labor contracts.
ALPA in fact long ago began quietly supporting the reduction from 1500 hours when Embry Riddle...who has many tie in's with ALPA...came forward with the proposition that a four year degree from "certain accredited colleges" should equate to a specific level of training and knowledge, thus allowing a reduction in flight hours a a trade off. This position was also heavily lobbied by AABI, the accreditation group that certifies aviation schools. This position has not changed.
Why the push? Because based upon the cost of a four year aviation school, mom and dad are looking for junior to find a job right out of school. Not have to "apprentice" for a period of time. Junior should go from the dorm room to the right seat.
Now let's revisit RAA, NBAA, ATA and the other industry groups. They favor reduced hours because it allows a quicker flood of young inexperienced...read "lower cost" pilots that can be used to drive the cost model down.
AOPA? If the cost of an airline job means time working at less glamorous jobs, the odds that junior will remain interested in flying at a young age declines...and erodes the GA base which is already in a serious state of affairs. FBO's need renters and students. A large subset is lost if they see their dream of being an airline pilot requiring extra flying and specific experience.
The argument that a 500 hour pilot is twice as good as a 250 hour pilot is fallacy at best. That's akin to saying a 16 year old with two days of driving experience is twice as good as the one who just got their license today. And while military pilots do enjoy a directed and ntense training cycle and handle complicated aircraft at low time points, the incidence of accidents is higher and if transposed to the passenger industry would be unacceptable.
Industry trends are pushing for lower hours due to the increase in automation. In the cost analysis, the aircraft is programmed to fly from "A" to "B," shoot an approach, land and brake on the centerline. A pilot is only needed to taxi...that can be resolved by kids, video systems and remote control servoed systems IF the travelling public could be sold on a pilotless drone. The 500 hour pilot is the first logical step.
Here's the problem. There are times when the "magic" takes a vacation. Only standby instruments, a radio and skill are available.
And a 500 hour pilot does not have the skillset to safely land the aircraft.
ALPA knows that.
So why are they supporting the rule reduction? New bodies, even at reduced pay scales, equals cash flow.
Now the FAA. They know what the public sentiment was. They have been getting pressured tremendously by ATA, RAA, AABI, AOPA and others. They can't be seen caving to them or to ALPA.
However...an "accomodation" that is suddenly "embraced" by ALPA as a middle road, now becomes a way out. After all...ALPA would NEVER compromise safety.
Babbitt get's his escape from the problem. ATA, RAA get cheaper employees. AABI keeps mommy and daddy writing checks for juniors schooling. And AOPA keeps their pipeline full.
And the profession falls further behind as management now has an excuse for cheaper labor contracts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
