Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Captain Upgrade with New TA: Yes or No >

Captain Upgrade with New TA: Yes or No

Search

Notices
View Poll Results: Will you upgrade with a ratified contract?
Yes
67
21.00%
No
168
52.66%
Undecided
84
26.33%
Voters: 319. You may not vote on this poll

Captain Upgrade with New TA: Yes or No

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-01-2023, 02:02 PM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,954
Default

Originally Posted by dmeg13021
Either this gets voted down because of this colossally stupid provision, or we kill a lot of people. I call either a failure. But I will get paid more, so I’m a little ambivalent.
the hyperbole….. how many RJ’s have crashed in the last decade? And those are first time captains with first time jet pilots flying with far fewer tools and more archaic aircraft.
DarkSideMoon is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:19 PM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
the hyperbole….. how many RJ’s have crashed in the last decade? And those are first time captains with first time jet pilots flying with far fewer tools and more archaic aircraft.
Frankly, 1 is a lot of people to kill, so as frightening as it is to consider, it would only take a single tragic outcome to grant at least some validity to that statement.

Part of the reason RJs haven’t been crashing over the past decade is that the FAA has increased safety standards- including pilot experience requirements- in that time frame. Many of these changes came in response to Colgan 3407 just outside the timeframe in question. So if increased experience requirements have effectively increased airline safety, isn’t it a valid concern that relaxing experience requirements could do the opposite?
hummingbear is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:24 PM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,954
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear
Frankly, 1 is a lot of people to kill, so as frightening as it is to consider, it would only take a single tragic outcome to grant at least some validity to that statement.

Part of the reason RJs haven’t been crashing over the past decade is that the FAA has increased safety standards- including pilot experience requirements- in that time frame. Many of these changes came in response to Colgan 3407 just outside the timeframe in question. So if increased experience requirements have effectively increased airline safety, isn’t it a valid concern that relaxing experience requirements could do the opposite?
If experience resulted in a linear or exponential increase in safety sure. There are diminishing returns. Our minimums are still far higher than the increased requirements.

The logic and precedent is already there with the 1000 hour and other R-ATP carveouts. Certain types of training or experience make up for the raw numbers. I think having the long OE and at least 350 in type at United is valuable.
DarkSideMoon is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:33 PM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
dmeg13021's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 726
Default

Hyperbole, perhaps. Do you not feel your Spidey sense already tingling, let alone with this provision? Admittedly I am actively imbibing whilst perusing the red line, so….

I did see this little nugget in 8–C-8:

“Pilots who do not meet the requirements of FAR Part 121.436 will not be eligible to be awarded or assigned Captain vacancies”

what are said requirements, you ask?


§121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:
(1) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate not subject to the limitations in § 61.167 of this chapter;
(2) Holds an appropriate aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown; and
(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) is
not required.

I believe this means that only Frontier/JetBlue/Southwest equivalent type rating holders can take or get a direct entry spot.

thoughts?
dmeg13021 is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:38 PM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,954
Default

Originally Posted by dmeg13021
Hyperbole, perhaps. Do you not feel your Spidey sense already tingling, let alone with this provision? Admittedly I am actively imbibing whilst perusing the red line, so….

I did see this little nugget in 8–C-8:

“Pilots who do not meet the requirements of FAR Part 121.436 will not be eligible to be awarded or assigned Captain vacancies”

what are said requirements, you ask?


§121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:
(1) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate not subject to the limitations in § 61.167 of this chapter;
(2) Holds an appropriate aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown; and
(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) is
not required.

I believe this means that only Frontier/JetBlue/Southwest equivalent type rating holders can take or get a direct entry spot.

thoughts?
it’s a concern, definitely, but after spending half a decade at the regionals watching them churn out 1000 hour captains paired with brand new FO’s with a much less… distinguished… applicant pool I just don’t think it’ll be nearly as big of a deal as some people are making it out to be.

Thats a solid catch in the regs and if applied that way would be really interesting and, frankly, smart.
DarkSideMoon is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:52 PM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ReadOnly7's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,337
Default

Originally Posted by dmeg13021
Either this gets voted down because of this colossally stupid provision, or we kill a lot of people. I call either a failure. But I will get paid more, so I’m a little ambivalent.
are you always this dramatic? Those are the only two options?
ReadOnly7 is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:56 PM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
dmeg13021's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 726
Default

Originally Posted by ReadOnly7
are you always this dramatic? Those are the only two options?
Yes I am. But I suppose the third option is we vote it down and still kill a lot of people. But everyone feels it coming, this just shortens the time horizon.
dmeg13021 is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 02:57 PM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
If experience resulted in a linear or exponential increase in safety sure. There are diminishing returns. Our minimums are still far higher than the increased requirements.
Again, in aggregate systems, you play the averages. At 5,000 flights per day, reducing safety margins by just a little can yield dire consequences over time. You may say the present safety record at the regionals justifies the relaxation but I say when the stakes are so high, is it worth the risk? Especially when we have so many other ways to entice our own tenured pilots to voluntarily upgrade, why lean on a policy of compelling the less experienced?
hummingbear is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 03:05 PM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

Originally Posted by dmeg13021
I believe this means that only Frontier/JetBlue/Southwest equivalent type rating holders can take or get a direct entry spot.

thoughts?
Interesting. I think it comes down to interpretation of whether the type rating given in their initial FO training qualifies. (Trusting in the interpretation of loose language has historically not been a great strategy.) But this warrants follow up.

I still personally oppose forced upgrade in general. And I’ve known many who got the call from UAL within a couple months of starting at their LCC, so the type rating from Frontier does not necessarily guarantee “upgrade ready”, but it would be an additional filter if applied that way.
hummingbear is offline  
Old 09-01-2023, 03:09 PM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 190
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear
Again, in aggregate systems, you play the averages. At 5,000 flights per day, reducing safety margins by just a little can yield dire consequences over time. You may say the present safety record at the regionals justifies the relaxation but I say when the stakes are so high, is it worth the risk? Especially when we have so many other ways to entice our own tenured pilots to voluntarily upgrade, why lean on a policy of compelling the less experienced?
You sound pretty self serving. Pay captains more and that will solve the captain upgrade problem.

I commute on A UAL connector. Am I rolling the roulette when on whether or not I might arrive safely?
Race Bannon is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
suffern060
Mesa Airlines
1
08-14-2021 03:50 PM
Regularguy
United
57
03-12-2012 04:46 PM
aafurloughee
Fractional
41
06-25-2008 06:43 PM
wannabepilot
Regional
12
07-09-2007 11:31 AM
ryane946
Regional
33
04-06-2007 05:05 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices