Majors To Absorb Regionals In The Future?
05-05-2014, 01:35 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: ERJ, CA
Posts: 718
In the Congressional hearing where Bedford testified, he mentioned that Congress should consider a govt. guarantee of flight training loans. I think what they are proposing is creating some kind of airline training center, maybe partially govt. funded, that will make zero to hero airline pilots as they do in other countries. These pilots then often become 2nd officers. Of course, this works better on the longhaul flights and isn't practical on short-haul.
05-05-2014, 06:18 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 471
Right now, Delta and Endeavor are building a program for dealing with the shortage issue. They formed a group that intends to go around the FAA 1500 hour rule, and they meet for the first time this month to discuss strategy. They would not be going this route if they intended on a staple job for the 9E pilots.
I suggested an unrestricted flow between 9E and Delta, but flow candidates must have at least three letters of recommendation from current Delta pilots. This would be a better vetting process than the interview/SSP, and get pilots rushing in the door here at 9E. We'll see what happens.
I suggested an unrestricted flow between 9E and Delta, but flow candidates must have at least three letters of recommendation from current Delta pilots. This would be a better vetting process than the interview/SSP, and get pilots rushing in the door here at 9E. We'll see what happens.
05-05-2014, 10:12 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: ERJ, CA
Posts: 718
The MPL programs in other countries use very little actual flight time, and significant hours in simulators. And what they produce are hardly real, thinking pilots. They are trainees with passengers on board, which is what the 1500/1000 hour rule was created to eliminate.
A real-pilot training track could be developed as an in-house or airline controlled program to get pilots trained with far less than 1000 or 1500 hours. Every pilot I ever flew with as a new hire from ATP flight school was excellent and most had about 600-700 hours when they got into their first RJ job.
The armed forces create combat-ready pilots in 300-500 hours. So the same could happen to create airline-ready crews. It just depends on the quality of the training and the monitoring, and motivation of the trainees. Motivation may be a problem if they are working such an intense training program to get a $22,500 job, so they better figure out that problem too.
If the airlines propose to create their own pilots, they law would be written to allow it. They still want to minimize the costs, so that is what is likely being discussed now. How cheap can they make it and still get the government to sign off on it. My guess is simulators would not be allowed to exceed 50% of program hours. Much less simulator time as compared to the MPL model, where they use 75-80% simulator time. You need to fly actual airplanes to create actual pilots.
A real-pilot training track could be developed as an in-house or airline controlled program to get pilots trained with far less than 1000 or 1500 hours. Every pilot I ever flew with as a new hire from ATP flight school was excellent and most had about 600-700 hours when they got into their first RJ job.
The armed forces create combat-ready pilots in 300-500 hours. So the same could happen to create airline-ready crews. It just depends on the quality of the training and the monitoring, and motivation of the trainees. Motivation may be a problem if they are working such an intense training program to get a $22,500 job, so they better figure out that problem too.
If the airlines propose to create their own pilots, they law would be written to allow it. They still want to minimize the costs, so that is what is likely being discussed now. How cheap can they make it and still get the government to sign off on it. My guess is simulators would not be allowed to exceed 50% of program hours. Much less simulator time as compared to the MPL model, where they use 75-80% simulator time. You need to fly actual airplanes to create actual pilots.
Those 600-700 hrs at ATP involve airline type flying not just sim training or SE instruction so the transition is easier.
However, airline training w/o the ability to go out and make mistakes and screw-ups in a forgiving aircraft and environment is wrong-headed and dangerous. The Air France crash over the So. Atlantic and Asiana crash prove this. The dirty secret is that Airbus and now Boeing are promoting airplanes that fly for the pilot, so a 300 hr wunderkind can handle it. The fact is the demand for air travel is outstripping the supply of QUALIFIED pilots. Asia is producing automaton "operators" not pilots. But the type of flying they do is a lot more regimented. ILS only approaches--in all weather. Autopilot on immediately after t/o and off right before landing.
This is the airline mgmt. wet dream. Low skill operators that rely on automation. Airbus execs have been quoted as saying their aircraft are designed so that a goat herder could easily learn to fly them. The AF and Asiana crashes have proven them wrong. This is where ALPA could get out in front and show the difference between a well trained, experienced pilot and an operator. Exposing this to the public would helpt the public understand why they should want a well trained pilot and that all airlines are not the same. But ALPA is a too political organization and doesn't want to step on toes.
05-05-2014, 11:45 PM
#107
2 days off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Embraer Systems Analyst
Posts: 1,853
There is a huge amount of truth in this statement. Regionals simply do not have the same hiring standards as majors. They never have and they never will. Anyone with a freshly printed pilot certificate and a pulse automatically qualifies. The lifers at the top of such a list, are lifers for a reason. They may hide behind whatever statement to make themselves feel better, but they're still lifers at a regional. Why should someone's career failure be rewarded with a seat at a major? The continued shrinkage and eventual implosion of the regional industry is a good thing that will hopefully return flying back to mainline where it belongs. A side benefit is the purging of those who really have no business being in an airline cockpit. It's a harsh reality, but not everyone deserves a spot at a major.
05-05-2014, 11:53 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: 787 right
Posts: 504
I've been shocked at how bad of a pilot an F-15 pilot could be and I've been taught a thing or two by regional FO's. Your arrogance is a sign of weakness in your own flying ability. I was a captain at a regional for 9 years and now I fly to Europe and SA every week on the 757 and 767. It is the same job only easier.
05-05-2014, 11:58 PM
#109
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
What are you talking about? Regional pilots aren't good enough to fly with you but are good enough to fly your feed?? We all do the same job and in fact ours is way harder than your flying. The vast majority of "lifers" at my regional are great people that got stuck due to varying circumstances and the vast majority are great to be "stuck" with for a couple of days. Every place has its share of weirdos but don't blanket everyone in the same group.
And MEMbrain is a UPS guy that got banned on a previous A300 screen name.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
