H.R.3371 The Actual Bill
08-06-2009, 07:53 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Actually we are entitled to minimum wage, at least at non-union carriers. If your annual income divided by your duty time (not block time) is less than minimum wage, you can go to the labor board and they will force the company to make up the difference.
I think union carriers are exempt from minimum wage, due to collective bargaining (they don't want to interfere with the senior captains' ability to profit from throwing junior folks under the bus).
I think union carriers are exempt from minimum wage, due to collective bargaining (they don't want to interfere with the senior captains' ability to profit from throwing junior folks under the bus).
09-30-2009, 03:18 PM
#92
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: /A
Posts: 34
Anyone know when this goes to vote?
09-30-2009, 05:23 PM
#93
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
Don't rest to much on this bill being untouched in the future. Just as easily as this changes things, after a few years when the poor souls who were lost in the Colgan crash are forgotten, all it will take is pressure from the airlines to change it again.
Get the FO hiring minimums in your contracts while the law is still fresh.
Get the FO hiring minimums in your contracts while the law is still fresh.
10-13-2009, 08:23 PM
#94
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Got an email from CAPA today says this thing is going up for a vote.
They have a website setup for anyone that wants to send an already prepared message to their representatives. (takes about 1-2 minutes)
The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations
Alternatively, you can edit the message to contain your own remarks as well.
They have a website setup for anyone that wants to send an already prepared message to their representatives. (takes about 1-2 minutes)
The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations
Alternatively, you can edit the message to contain your own remarks as well.
10-14-2009, 05:15 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Hi!
Re: This reg would not raise ticket prices to cover salary increases because the airlines are in a highly competitive environment...
If SkyWest raised their tickets, to cover higher salaries for new ATP entrants, Mesa could not lower there's, because they would also have to hire new ATP entrants...they couldn't go out and hire 250 TT guys to compete with SkyWest's ATP guys.
Here is what I sent in to my rep, via the CAPA Website:
Please support Chairman Costello's "Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009" a bill that would improve pilot training, including the requirement that all part 121 pilots have the minimum hiring standard of an FAA Airline Transport Pilot License.
There are two areas that I feel still need to be addressed:
Section 15-Deceptive Practices:
Section 15 of this proposed legislation covers the disclosure of the air carrier operating a flight segment. I feel STRONGLY that this section needs to be expanded. The wording in the bill covers changes to how organizations sell tickets.
I propose that the current Deceptive Practices that are used by the airlines ALL be ELIMINATED! Currently, a plane flown by Pinnacle Air Lines, for example, will be painted in the same colors, with a very similar logo of the "parent" airline, ie: "Delta Connection". There will be a very small sign my the door that states, "Operated by Pinnacle Airlines". The pilot uniforms will be similar to Delta's, and even the materials used inside the plane, such as the napkins and in-flight magazines, may be Delta's.
I have talked to MANY passengers, that, when flying on Mesa Airlines, for example, believe they are flying on United Air Lines, with United Air Lines pilots at the controls. When I explain to them who they are really flying on, a significant number do not believe me, and some have even told me I have no idea what I am talking about.
Major airlines have for years pulled the wool over their customer's eyes, and I believe that their practices are deceptive, maybe even to the point of fraudulent.
I propose that every airline be required to have a standardized color scheme, logo, and have their name on EVERY airplane. The uniforms, and all advertising, media, etc., etc. would have to clearly spell out the operating company.
Currently, for example, SkyWest Airlines operates some aircraft for United, and are painted "United Express", some for Delta, and painted as "Delta Connection", some for Midwest Airlines and painted as "Midwest Connect" (yeah, I know they just stopped), and they own Atlantic Southeast Airlines that also flies feed for Delta, with their planes painted as "Delta Connection".
Under this proposal, SkyWest Airlines, would have ALL their planes painted in SkyWest colors, with SkyWest Airlines on the side of the fuselage. On a small sign by the door they would be allowed to state, "Operated in cooperation with Delta Airlines." The pilot uniforms, on-board promotional items, magazines, etc., would all state, “SkyWest Airlines”.
These changes would ensure that paying customers got what they were paying for. They fact that about 60% of domestic passengers would NOT be flying on a major airline, would be well known, and the American public would be better able to decide where they wanted to spend their money, and if it was a good value, or not.
FAA Regulations Governing Commercial Travel Create an Unsafe, and Unfair Competitive Environment:
The FAA does not have ONE SET of commercial aviation regulations, like most countries do. This leads to lots of problems with SAFETY, interpretation, enforcement, and a level playing field for all commercial operators.
Part 121 (major and regional airlines):
Part 121 is separated into Domestic and International regulations, and is organized similarly to the way Civil Aviation Administrations are organized worldwide, and makes good sense.
BUT......
Part 121 Supplemental (large aircraft charter airlines):
This part was added to differentiate charter companies. The Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirement are much more lenient than Part 121 Domestic/International. Why? Many of these airlines fly passengers, including Obama, McCain, Clinton and Huckabee, in the last election cycle. For some reason the FAA feels that safety is not as important for these airlines, because the regulations are less restrictive.
Part 125 (large aircraft charter organizations):
I believe this part was added so that rich owners of individual aircraft could get away with spending less money to operate their aircraft. This part is SUPPOSED to be limited to having only one customer, but, in fact, they often list their customer as a broker, who has access to thousands of customers. So, the compete directly with Part 121 airlines, without the same strenuous regulations and restrictions. AND, they can get an FAA waiver, which allows them to operate, a large, airline-type aircraft under Part 91, which is supposed to be for general aviation and private companies, that do NOT fly commercially.
Part 135 (small aircraft charter):
The Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements, and other regulations, are more lenient that Part 121, I guess because the airplanes are smaller. So, if you die in a smaller aircraft, it is not as bad, apparently, as dying in a large aircraft.
Part 91 Subpart K (fractionals, like NetJets):
Why a commercial operator is allowed to operate in Part 91, the private, non-commercial section of the regulations, is beyond me. There are NO Crew Flight/Duty/Rest regulations in Part 91.
Part 91 Subpart F (large and fractional aircraft):
In certain situations, these organizations, with planes in Part 121, 125, 135 and 91 Subpart K, are allowed to operate their airframes under Part 91, which is private, non-commercial and has no Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements. However, while operating their aircraft under Part 91, they are allowed to charge money for their services, under certain conditions. Why are commercial operations allowed under Part 91???
Part 91 (general aviation-Cessna 172, Walmart, 3M):
This is the private, non-commercial part of aviation. BUT, many private owners (and some corporate owners) are illegally operating these aircraft on someone else's Part 135 certificate. The FAA has JUST RECENTLY started to crack down on these operations. However, they have been operating this way for years, and FAA enforcement is sporadic and inconsistent.
There are also separate commercial regulations, for foreign aircraft, sightseeing aircraft, and agricultural operations, which make sense.
All other countries have two types of aviation: Private and Commercial (corresponding to Part 121 and Part 91).
Why does the FAA have Part 121, Part 121-Supplemental, Part 125, Part 135, Part 91 Subpart K, Part 91 Subpart F, and then Part 91 aircraft, all flying commercially, and competing with one another, with different regulations for maintenance, training, record keeping and Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements???
The current fractured FAA commercial aviation regulations should be simplified, standardized, and consolidated, in the interest of safety and fair competition.
Thank you for your time and attention.
cliff
NBO
Re: This reg would not raise ticket prices to cover salary increases because the airlines are in a highly competitive environment...
If SkyWest raised their tickets, to cover higher salaries for new ATP entrants, Mesa could not lower there's, because they would also have to hire new ATP entrants...they couldn't go out and hire 250 TT guys to compete with SkyWest's ATP guys.
Here is what I sent in to my rep, via the CAPA Website:
Please support Chairman Costello's "Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009" a bill that would improve pilot training, including the requirement that all part 121 pilots have the minimum hiring standard of an FAA Airline Transport Pilot License.
There are two areas that I feel still need to be addressed:
Section 15-Deceptive Practices:
Section 15 of this proposed legislation covers the disclosure of the air carrier operating a flight segment. I feel STRONGLY that this section needs to be expanded. The wording in the bill covers changes to how organizations sell tickets.
I propose that the current Deceptive Practices that are used by the airlines ALL be ELIMINATED! Currently, a plane flown by Pinnacle Air Lines, for example, will be painted in the same colors, with a very similar logo of the "parent" airline, ie: "Delta Connection". There will be a very small sign my the door that states, "Operated by Pinnacle Airlines". The pilot uniforms will be similar to Delta's, and even the materials used inside the plane, such as the napkins and in-flight magazines, may be Delta's.
I have talked to MANY passengers, that, when flying on Mesa Airlines, for example, believe they are flying on United Air Lines, with United Air Lines pilots at the controls. When I explain to them who they are really flying on, a significant number do not believe me, and some have even told me I have no idea what I am talking about.
Major airlines have for years pulled the wool over their customer's eyes, and I believe that their practices are deceptive, maybe even to the point of fraudulent.
I propose that every airline be required to have a standardized color scheme, logo, and have their name on EVERY airplane. The uniforms, and all advertising, media, etc., etc. would have to clearly spell out the operating company.
Currently, for example, SkyWest Airlines operates some aircraft for United, and are painted "United Express", some for Delta, and painted as "Delta Connection", some for Midwest Airlines and painted as "Midwest Connect" (yeah, I know they just stopped), and they own Atlantic Southeast Airlines that also flies feed for Delta, with their planes painted as "Delta Connection".
Under this proposal, SkyWest Airlines, would have ALL their planes painted in SkyWest colors, with SkyWest Airlines on the side of the fuselage. On a small sign by the door they would be allowed to state, "Operated in cooperation with Delta Airlines." The pilot uniforms, on-board promotional items, magazines, etc., would all state, “SkyWest Airlines”.
These changes would ensure that paying customers got what they were paying for. They fact that about 60% of domestic passengers would NOT be flying on a major airline, would be well known, and the American public would be better able to decide where they wanted to spend their money, and if it was a good value, or not.
FAA Regulations Governing Commercial Travel Create an Unsafe, and Unfair Competitive Environment:
The FAA does not have ONE SET of commercial aviation regulations, like most countries do. This leads to lots of problems with SAFETY, interpretation, enforcement, and a level playing field for all commercial operators.
Part 121 (major and regional airlines):
Part 121 is separated into Domestic and International regulations, and is organized similarly to the way Civil Aviation Administrations are organized worldwide, and makes good sense.
BUT......
Part 121 Supplemental (large aircraft charter airlines):
This part was added to differentiate charter companies. The Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirement are much more lenient than Part 121 Domestic/International. Why? Many of these airlines fly passengers, including Obama, McCain, Clinton and Huckabee, in the last election cycle. For some reason the FAA feels that safety is not as important for these airlines, because the regulations are less restrictive.
Part 125 (large aircraft charter organizations):
I believe this part was added so that rich owners of individual aircraft could get away with spending less money to operate their aircraft. This part is SUPPOSED to be limited to having only one customer, but, in fact, they often list their customer as a broker, who has access to thousands of customers. So, the compete directly with Part 121 airlines, without the same strenuous regulations and restrictions. AND, they can get an FAA waiver, which allows them to operate, a large, airline-type aircraft under Part 91, which is supposed to be for general aviation and private companies, that do NOT fly commercially.
Part 135 (small aircraft charter):
The Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements, and other regulations, are more lenient that Part 121, I guess because the airplanes are smaller. So, if you die in a smaller aircraft, it is not as bad, apparently, as dying in a large aircraft.
Part 91 Subpart K (fractionals, like NetJets):
Why a commercial operator is allowed to operate in Part 91, the private, non-commercial section of the regulations, is beyond me. There are NO Crew Flight/Duty/Rest regulations in Part 91.
Part 91 Subpart F (large and fractional aircraft):
In certain situations, these organizations, with planes in Part 121, 125, 135 and 91 Subpart K, are allowed to operate their airframes under Part 91, which is private, non-commercial and has no Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements. However, while operating their aircraft under Part 91, they are allowed to charge money for their services, under certain conditions. Why are commercial operations allowed under Part 91???
Part 91 (general aviation-Cessna 172, Walmart, 3M):
This is the private, non-commercial part of aviation. BUT, many private owners (and some corporate owners) are illegally operating these aircraft on someone else's Part 135 certificate. The FAA has JUST RECENTLY started to crack down on these operations. However, they have been operating this way for years, and FAA enforcement is sporadic and inconsistent.
There are also separate commercial regulations, for foreign aircraft, sightseeing aircraft, and agricultural operations, which make sense.
All other countries have two types of aviation: Private and Commercial (corresponding to Part 121 and Part 91).
Why does the FAA have Part 121, Part 121-Supplemental, Part 125, Part 135, Part 91 Subpart K, Part 91 Subpart F, and then Part 91 aircraft, all flying commercially, and competing with one another, with different regulations for maintenance, training, record keeping and Crew Flight/Duty/Rest requirements???
The current fractured FAA commercial aviation regulations should be simplified, standardized, and consolidated, in the interest of safety and fair competition.
Thank you for your time and attention.
cliff
NBO
10-14-2009, 08:22 AM
#96
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 84
A Loophole
Looks like they slid in a little extra bonus for the University Kids. I know this was proposed on the thread earlier, but it looks like this was added to the bill...and what they are voting on today.
Doesn't this go against everything they are trying to fix?
House vote set today on training for pilots : City & Region : The Buffalo News
Doesn't this go against everything they are trying to fix?
House vote set today on training for pilots : City & Region : The Buffalo News
10-14-2009, 08:29 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: CRJ-200 First Officer
Posts: 262
deleted.....
10-14-2009, 11:01 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Up Front.
Posts: 253
Can someone please post the text of the new bill. Thanks.
10-14-2009, 11:29 AM
#100
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Quote: The classroom time would have to "enhance safety more" than would additional hours in the cockpit, the insertion says.
I'm sure the "Honorable" Rep. John L. Mica of Florida is solely
Porn isn't sex, and ground school isn't flying.
I'm sure the "Honorable" Rep. John L. Mica of Florida is solely
Porn isn't sex, and ground school isn't flying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
