Delta Pilots Association
11-09-2010, 02:41 PM
#2352
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 691
Write the people in charge of this at ALPA, it might take a while but they will write you back. [email protected]
11-09-2010, 03:35 PM
#2355
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
You have to be the weakest sounding pilot I have ever heard either on these boards or in person. I wish there was a way that you could live under the contract produced by your weak "surrender monkey" mentality, while the rest of us live under the contract that we were willing to fight for.
Carl
11-09-2010, 03:44 PM
#2356
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
11-09-2010, 04:01 PM
#2357
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Carl;
Very kind of you but it is nothing of the sort. It is about being aware of your surrounding and the pool in which we are playing in. No need to help punch ourselves' in the face.
It has nothing to do with contractual gains. We are talking about supply of pilots for seats. Getting compensation commensurate with responsibility is one thing, but to artificially tighten the supply in hopes of it helping the later generally results in the artificial restraint or barrier being done away with. Better to raise the barriers but no to the point that it causes a significant change in the way things are done. There is a difference.
Also ALPA supports, as do I 1500 hrs for someone to walk in to these doors. What the cutout does and what ALPA is trying to do is give a benefit to a college degree for this profession. I know that is hard to see, but if you offer a path that requires an accredited degree and high end training then guess what people will go that way. It will over time increase the overall qualification level in the field, resulting in people that will by default demand more.
Very kind of you but it is nothing of the sort. It is about being aware of your surrounding and the pool in which we are playing in. No need to help punch ourselves' in the face.
It has nothing to do with contractual gains. We are talking about supply of pilots for seats. Getting compensation commensurate with responsibility is one thing, but to artificially tighten the supply in hopes of it helping the later generally results in the artificial restraint or barrier being done away with. Better to raise the barriers but no to the point that it causes a significant change in the way things are done. There is a difference.
Also ALPA supports, as do I 1500 hrs for someone to walk in to these doors. What the cutout does and what ALPA is trying to do is give a benefit to a college degree for this profession. I know that is hard to see, but if you offer a path that requires an accredited degree and high end training then guess what people will go that way. It will over time increase the overall qualification level in the field, resulting in people that will by default demand more.
11-09-2010, 04:08 PM
#2358
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
Really? AOPA? Dude...AOPA is run by rich private pilot doctors with v-tail Bonanzas. Most AOPA memebrs do act like they know how to fly a 747.....but they don't care about airline pilots and their careers. We have to appease them now? This is far the most ridiculous excuse I've heard regarding reducing the 1500hr requirement.
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.
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, 04:15 PM
#2359
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
11-09-2010, 04:34 PM
#2360
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
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.
The RAA and the training industry (universities and pilot academies) are in a serious defensive position. That said, they are proposing the status quo, with added provisions. 1500 hours will kill several organizations, hence their interest in proposing reasonable (
) changes. ALPA's proposals include much of these and more and with higher flight time requirements than the industry ( don't believe me, read them yourself).Many here are advocating 1500 hour ATP limits on entry to 121, not because they think it will make for a better entry level pilot, but because it will create a barrier to entry to the profession, with hopes it will raise income and QOL terms. As one on the inside, I see and appreciate the logic, but it is so transparent that even the FAA won't buy off on it. ALPA's proposals will raise the bar and, hopefully, create a higher caliber aviator while limiting the ability of anyone to just buy his way into the profession. Agree or disagree, There will be a need for future pilots and improving standards will help to limit supply.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
