ATP impact

[ClimbnSink]

Banging around the pattern as an instructor is far more involved then doing same as a student or private pilot.

Ummm... The FO had a flight instructor certificate which was valid at the time of the accident.

Also, I'm not sure how banging around the pattern in a 152 for 1500 hours is going to provide them with a strong foundation. Yeah, they'd have to see more stalls, but IMO the reason they stalled was because they'd been yakking about icing. They reacted to the stick shaker as if they were experiencing tailplane icing. That, combined with the lack of stick shaker training on Colgan's part, led to confusion that lasted long enough that they were unable to recover.

The other problem was a simple lack of basic airmanship and instrument skills on the part of the captain (PF). He should have noticed the airspeed decay long before the stick shaker as well. Again, not something I think would have been helped by 1500 hours banging around the pattern.

 

[Clip4]

I see the FAA changing the reg if the public gets bummed about fare increases, cancelled flights, and fewer options.

 

[Bonchie]

The requirement actually makes all the sense in the world to me. While both pilots had more time than 1500 hours neither of them had EVER or were ever MADE to have a strong FOUNDATION. They were both very quickly advanced thru pilot mills from one rating to the other. Each given just enough gouge to make it thru the checkride by their respective pilot mill instructors. I very seriously doubt either of them could have passed a checkride or oral to become a CFI.

What this new law effectively does (and it is a law and not a reg) is FORCE prospective airline pilots to become either CFI's or work in a non-pax hauling capacity until they've accumulated the required hours. And in so doing gain something VERY valuable - experience.

None of that needed an arbitrary 1500 hour requirement. They should of simply forced Colgan to actually provide sufficient training to their pilots. Make them pass a tougher check ride, make them get checked out more often, and/or require more simulator time. Require the Captain to be at a certain level over what this guy was. Whatever. Any of those make more sense and hold more logical value to the specific job they were being asked to do then setting a 1500 hour requirement to be a FO on a regional.

I don't think hauling for a non-pax outfit would of somehow been better experience then the experience they were getting actually flying for the regional.

What is actually more hollow is the requirements to earn a Commercial Airman Certificate. The way it's currently laid out is really quite meaningless. You may think you know a lot after earning it but really you're just like my 16 year old that thinks it's unfair that his insurance is more expensive than mine. You don't know what you don't know and you're just gonna have trust me on that. You shouldn't being seeing airframe icing for the FIRST time as a "fully qualified" (?) line pilot flying peoples loved ones around !!!

If you take a lawyer right out of law school you wouldn't expect him to be truly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice even though they he may legally be qualified to do so. Why ? Because they lack a true foundation and experience. Just like the pilots of Colgan.

Flying for a regional is not analogous to being a Supreme Court Justice in the field of law. Maybe the pilots of AF1 would make more sense in that analogy.

The foundation you say they needed should of just been mandated to be taught to them. That's the way to guarantee they got the necessary training. Not hoping that 1500 hours means they saw enough as a CFI in a 152 to be competent in heavy icing. When a doctor needs to learn a new procedure, he goes and learns how to do it with targeted training. He's not just told to go be a doctor for 2 more years in hopes he'll figure it out himself.

We can argue the merits all day, but there will be a drop in people entering the field in the next few decades if the requirements stay so high and financially prohibitive. A love of flying only motivates so many to go so far. The financial outlay to financial reward ratio is way out of whack now for prospective pilots. There may be enough ATP holders right now to meet demand but eventually the contraction of new people entering the field will catch up to us.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Seniority-based bidding seems to be the only logical procedure out of the whole mess.

Really.....

My first airline went bust. Worked 135 for a couple of years and then went back to 121 at a regional. I was flying with captains that were younger than some of my former students and had 1/3rd the experience I did. I was flying 121 when they were still in middle school.

Seniority doesn't mean anything if you can't take it with you. Instead of actually helping the pilot group at large it shackles employees to jobs they would love to leave but can't because they are too senior to leave for the bottom at a better company.

I'm not opposed to unions but I do believe the people that make up the unions are not helping. There have been times when talk of a national seniority list was kicked around but it always gets shot down. Too many people are scared to death the company they work for would hire a pilot that had more seniority than they do and it would stagnate their own career progression. Even though the guy or gal with the most seniority should get first shot at the career progression lots of folks like to say "well....i have been a (insert airline name here) pilot longer than you. It doesn't matter that you have been through multiple bankruptcies and mergers and have 15 years more experience flying 121 than i do..."

You see its not just inept management it is also selfish entitled pilots that like to fence "their" seniority list from the rest of the industry to protect what they think they are entitled to over others that have come before them. The airline flying is not bad. I was proud to work as a professional in the industry.. Ultimately I moved on to greener pastures.

 

[Bonchie]

Why have seniority at all? Why not just pay people based on individual assessments of their experience and performance like nearly every other job sector instead of through seniority lists?

There are situations where someone who's been with a company for 10 years does deserve to be paid higher then someone coming in off the street if they are doing the same job, regardless if the guy on the street has more experience. Loyalty and sweat equity with a given company does count for something. BUT, someone coming in off the street with extensive experience shouldn't have to start at the equivalent pay of a mailroom worker either. Their resume' should count for something just like at every other job in this country.

 

[Doggtyred]

National seniority sounds nice but it would never work. Let's say you have an 8 year 737 Captain making X dollars an hour and a 4 year 737 Captain making Y dollars an hour. On a national seniority scale whenever they need a 737 Captain guess which one they will advertise openings for ? It sounds good but would never work as we intend it.

It would if the union was involved... Need a 737 pilot? Ok, lets look at the union roster... Next up! (now.. that doesn't solve another whole lot of problems... such as problem employees...)

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Why have seniority at all? Why not just pay people based on individual assessments of their experience and performance like nearly every other job sector?

There are situations where someone who's been with a company for 10 years does deserve to be paid higher then someone coming in off the street if they are doing the same job, regardless of experience levels. BUT, someone coming in off the street with extensive experience shouldn't start at the equivalent pay of a mail boy either. Their resume' should count for something just like at every other job in this country.

I agree to a point but one of the primary benefits of having seniority is removing favoritism from the promotion to captain. As an example a pilot that refuses a trip for a safety concern gets passed over while the guy that always says yes no matter what get moved to the left seat.

I will say that no seniority would be better than what what exists now.
I think a national seniority with one list for all 121 operations would be better than what exists now and having no union at all.

 

[Art VanDelay]

I see the FAA changing the reg if the public gets bummed about fare increases, cancelled flights, and fewer options.

Well, it's not a reg it's public law so it would take more than the FAA to do it.

 

[Art VanDelay]

We can argue the merits all day, but there will be a drop in people entering the field in the next few decades if the requirements stay so high and financially prohibitive. A love of flying only motivates so many to go so far. The financial outlay to financial reward ratio is way out of whack now for prospective pilots. There may be enough ATP holders right now to meet demand but eventually the contraction of new people entering the field will catch up to us.

You're breaking my heart here ! I guess you must be fairly young because when I was hired by a regional you didn't even get an interview unless you had 2000 hours !!!! That was in the early 90's. Most of us in my newhire class had well north of that. I think I had something like 2700 when I was hired.

"Back then" we didn't WHINE about it and go on like the world was gonna end - we just went out and GOT it !

 

[Art VanDelay]

Why have seniority at all? Why not just pay people based on individual assessments of their experience and performance like nearly every other job sector instead of through seniority lists?

There are situations where someone who's been with a company for 10 years does deserve to be paid higher then someone coming in off the street if they are doing the same job, regardless if the guy on the street has more experience. Loyalty and sweat equity with a given company does count for something. BUT, someone coming in off the street with extensive experience shouldn't have to start at the equivalent pay of a mailroom worker either. Their resume' should count for something just like at every other job in this country.

A seniority based system makes it possible to manage thousands of individuals with very little middle management. Before we merged my airline managed 6000 pilots with just 8 guys. Try and do that in a merit based organization. Even airlines that don't have unions still use a seniority based system.

 

[Art VanDelay]

It would if the union was involved... Need a 737 pilot? Ok, lets look at the union roster... Next up! (now.. that doesn't solve another whole lot of problems... such as problem employees...)

They could do it that way but the hiring entity would not have honor the pilots years of service. Wherein the most experienced 737 pilot would be first on the roster the individual airline might only be advertising for a 2 year experienced position and paying accordingly. That's why a national list wouldn't work.

 

[Bonchie]

Don't assume I'm some kid pining to be a regional jockey. I'm not.

And you didn't address any of the meat of my post instead assuming I'm just whining. No, I honestly think the things I outlined are much more effective proponents of safety then just saying get to 1500 hours.

You're breaking my heart here ! I guess you must be fairly young because when I was hired by a regional you didn't even get an interview unless you had 2000 hours !!!! That was in the early 90's. Most of us in my newhire class had well north of that. I think I had something like 2700 when I was hired.

And how many individual pilots were needed in the early 90's compared to today? How many regional planes were flying then compared to today? What was your starting salary in the early 90's?

I'm not trying to break your heart. You are comparing apples to oranges though. When fuel was $1.00 a gallon in the early 90s, it was a lot cheaper to build hours. There was also a higher demand for GA back then, making it easier to get steady work as a CFI.

College was also significantly cheaper as a portion of income then it is today, where prices are far outpacing inflation for a four year degree.

"Back then" we didn't WHINE about it and go on like the world was gonna end - we just went out and GOT it !

Because back then you had a lot more advantages then you want to admit and the financial output to reach the hours you needed was a lot less. Your situation was nothing like the situation today.

I've already said it. Love of flying only motivates so many to go so far. Now that a fresh high school graduate is looking at:

1) 100k+ for a four year degree he'll need to fly for a major one day
2) 100k+ of flight training to get the ratings and multi time he'll need
3) 3 years of being a CFI or other poverty wages job if he's lucky enough to find one

...all so he can hopefully get on with a regional, again at poverty wages, in hopes of one day working himself up enough to get on with a major in his 30s, where he'll again start at the bottom.

You may of just went out and "got it" but when the financial outlay is so out of wack with future reward like it is now, it's not going to help promote the field. There's already a pilot shortage starting at the regionals, mostly due to pay right now.

So pat yourself on the back for walking 5 miles in the snow everyday in the early 90s, but you are irrelevant to what's being discussed. If there are less guys today willing to enter the field, regardless if you think they are whining kids not willing to go get it, that's an issue in the future. And I'd argue it's less about being willing and more about being able to financially afford it.

When you were young, we also had a flood of military pilots as well to help fill the ranks. Military pilot hiring is almost stagnant now and doesn't look to be picking up. Drone pilots can't even log PIC time and that's were the influx is.

We'll all find out the ramifications eventually. We probably won't still be worrying about posting on this forum by then.

 

[Bonchie]

A seniority based system makes it possible to manage thousands of individuals with very little middle management. Before we merged my airline managed 6000 pilots with just 8 guys. Try and do that in a merit based organization. Even airlines that don't have unions still use a seniority based system.

Great, so you did away with a few dozen middle management jobs that are a drop in the bucket to total labor costs. Meanwhile, merit goes out the window in favor of an seniority system that screws pilots changing companies who've got the necessary experience and foundation you were just saying they desperately needed a few posts ago.

 

[Alexb2000]

Just as a point of reference. I have a friend that is currently a charter KA350 captain. He has about 5000 hours, mostly multi-turbine flying cargo ops. Three type ratings, all instructor ratings, head of training at this current company, etc. He will tell you that the ONLY reason he got his current job is that he knew the owner. They are currently looking for KA pilots, most of the competitive applicants have 10K hours.

This is also a crap job. NO scheduled time off, you get it when the customers don't fly (so you are always on call). Terrible pay, used Corolla and an efficiency apartment kind of thing. The owners could care less about any of the pilots. If they don't like something there is a stack of resumes 2' high.

I don't know the industry, but it seems that raising the ATP requirements won't change much if there are that many experienced pilots willing to work in those conditions.

 

[Bonchie]

I don't know the industry, but it seems that raising the ATP requirements won't change much if there are that many experienced pilots willing to work in those conditions.

That's why I said 20 years from now. I'm not preaching some doomsday scenario where there are no pilots tomorrow. There are plenty of 30-50 year old ATP holders right now. It's just a matter of if they are willing. Eventually they'll be too old to fill the ranks though.

I think the new requirements will discourage more and more people from entering the field. If demand for air travel continues to increase along with less people entering the field over the course of the next few decades, it's going to add up eventually. The pilot population is only continuing to contract.

 

[Everskyward]

I will agree with Art VanDelay's statement that in the early 90s and before, even the regionals wouldn't look at you without about 2000 hours. Not only that, some of them made you pay for your own training. That was not due to regulation. I knew quite a few people who dropped out of flying as a career during those years because they were discouraged. I'm not sure if the supply dropped or the demand increased, maybe both, but it changed in the late 1990s. Then there was the aftermath of 9/11 when huge numbers of people were furloughed and no one was getting hired with very low time, if at all.

I don't think requiring the ATP to get hired at a 121 carrier was a good idea, but I don't think 1500 hours is some kind of insurmountable problem. It's only fairly recently that pilots got used to being hired at airlines with very low time. It has happened at other times historically (back in the 1960s?) but it has not been that common.

 

[Bonchie]

I will agree with Art VanDelay's statement that in the early 90s and before, even the regionals wouldn't look at you without about 2000 hours. Not only that, some of them made you pay for your own training. That was not due to regulation. I knew quite a few people who dropped out of flying as a career during those years because they were discouraged. I'm not sure if the supply dropped or the demand increased, maybe both, but it changed in the late 1990s. Then there was the aftermath of 9/11 when huge numbers of people were furloughed and no one was getting hired with very low time, if at all.

I don't think requiring the ATP to get hired at a 121 carrier was a good idea, but I don't think 1500 hours is some kind of insurmountable problem. It's only fairly recently that pilots got used to being hired at airlines with very low time. It has happened at other times historically (back in the 1960s?) but it has not been that common.

Again, I agree you are right, but time building to 1500 is no longer comparable to what it was in the 90's (and especially the 60's). The cost to get that four year degree the majors want is no longer comparable to the 90's either.

The average price of a gallon of avgas in 1993 was $0.98 cents. Today it's over $6. When I graduated college I was paying $2,500 a semester for 15 hours. My school is now approaching $10,000 a semester for the same load.

Being a pilot was already a shrinking field before these requirements and before the financial outlays got so ridiculous. It's only going to get worse if demand keeps increasing and those entering field keeps decreasing.

As far as the 1500 hours, my personal opinion is it's much more valuable for an 800 hour FO to learn on the job from a well checked out Captain with real world experience in the specific job/plane vs. telling that 800 hour guy to go put around the pattern for 700 more hours or fly charters in a 182. I think the problems with Colgan could of been rectified with higher training standards vs. setting a new hour requirement.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Until Embry Riddle and such start switching to being beauty colleges I would gues there will be an ample supply of new pilots. There are already more then needed, any future pilot shortage could be fixed in 6 months. But there will not be a pilot shortage, not a real one at least.

 

[Everskyward]

Again, I agree you are right, but time building to 1500 is no longer comparable to what it was in the 90's (and especially the 60's). The cost to get that four year degree the majors want is no longer comparable to the 90's either.

I agree that the cost of education is much higher now, but even in the 90s pilots didn't usually go out and buy that much of their own time up to the 2000 hour range. People I knew mostly instructed, flew freight and did other of those types of jobs.

 

[dmspilot]

Flight schools are closing left and right, and there's no more bank checks to fly around either.

 

[Everskyward]

Flight schools are closing left and right, and there's no more bank checks to fly around either.

But there are still young people who try and they do make it. The question is if it is worth it or not and that can't be answered until the end of their career.

 

[Blackhawk]

Anyone who pays $100K of their own money for a college education is a fool, no matter the school or degree. The rule of thumb is your anticipated first year salary in loans.
We are currently going through the process with our oldest daughter who plays a sport at a D1 level. She is being heavily recruited by a prestigious university that is a powerhouse in her sport... but at the D3 level so there is no money. Even with financial aide tuition would be about $30K/year, so a student loan level north of $150K (figuring rise in tuition costs, room, board, etc). This for a liberal arts school with degrees in art history, women studies, etc. It is insane to take on that much of a loan for that type of degree.
On the flip side she has been offered scholarships at little known D1 schools were we would pay for her food, but nothing else. While the school name might not be recognized she would get a great education, have more options than liberal arts and graduate with less than $10K in debt. It's a no brainer.

 

[Bonchie]

Anyone who pays $100K of their own money for a college education is a fool, no matter the school or degree. The rule of thumb is your anticipated first year salary in loans.

We are currently going through the process with our oldest daughter who plays a sport at a D1 level. She is being heavily recruited by a prestigious university that is a powerhouse in her sport... but at the D3 level so there is no money. Even with financial aide tuition would be about $30K/year, so a student loan level north of $150K (figuring rise in tuition costs, room, board, etc). This for a liberal arts school with degrees in art history, women studies, etc. It is insane to take on that much of a loan for that type of degree.
On the flip side she has been offered scholarships at little known D1 schools were we would pay for her food, but nothing else. While the school name might not be recognized she would get a great education, have more options than liberal arts and graduate with less than $10K in debt. It's a no brainer.

Depends on the degree. I'm in D.C. right now. Good luck getting a decent paying job without at least a Masters. And this is one of the best job markets in the country. So I understand the people who do pay that much for in demand degrees.

Would I pay 100k for a liberal arts degree? Heck no.

Did I pay 100k for my Business degree? No. But that's about what it costs these days to go to a university level institution.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Don't assume I'm some kid pining to be a regional jockey. I'm not.

And you didn't address any of the meat of my post instead assuming I'm just whining. No, I honestly think the things I outlined are much more effective proponents of safety then just saying get to 1500 hours.



And how many individual pilots were needed in the early 90's compared to today? How many regional planes were flying then compared to today? What was your starting salary in the early 90's?

I'm not trying to break your heart. You are comparing apples to oranges though. When fuel was $1.00 a gallon in the early 90s, it was a lot cheaper to build hours. There was also a higher demand for GA back then, making it easier to get steady work as a CFI.

College was also significantly cheaper as a portion of income then it is today, where prices are far outpacing inflation for a four year degree.

Because back then you had a lot more advantages then you want to admit and the financial output to reach the hours you needed was a lot less. Your situation was nothing like the situation today.

I've already said it. Love of flying only motivates so many to go so far. Now that a fresh high school graduate is looking at:

1) 100k+ for a four year degree he'll need to fly for a major one day
2) 100k+ of flight training to get the ratings and multi time he'll need
3) 3 years of being a CFI or other poverty wages job if he's lucky enough to find one

...all so he can hopefully get on with a regional, again at poverty wages, in hopes of one day working himself up enough to get on with a major in his 30s, where he'll again start at the bottom.

You may of just went out and "got it" but when the financial outlay is so out of wack with future reward like it is now, it's not going to help promote the field. There's already a pilot shortage starting at the regionals, mostly due to pay right now.

So pat yourself on the back for walking 5 miles in the snow everyday in the early 90s, but you are irrelevant to what's being discussed. If there are less guys today willing to enter the field, regardless if you think they are whining kids not willing to go get it, that's an issue in the future. And I'd argue it's less about being willing and more about being able to financially afford it.

When you were young, we also had a flood of military pilots as well to help fill the ranks. Military pilot hiring is almost stagnant now and doesn't look to be picking up. Drone pilots can't even log PIC time and that's were the influx is.

We'll all find out the ramifications eventually. We probably won't still be worrying about posting on this forum by then.

WAAAAAAy, waaaaaay, waaaay you sure are having a hard time getting that chainsaw started !

You're entire argument is specious. You very obviously are not in the airline industry because you just don't see that those that get into this industry easily ultimately do not end up enduring. The first time there's any kind of difficulty they're gone. They invested little expecting to be captain on the concorde within a few years and when that doesn't happen they're devastated.

Does this new rule prevent those types from entering ? God, I hope so.

 

[Bonchie]

WAAAAAAy, waaaaaay, waaaay you sure are having a hard time getting that chainsaw started !

You're entire argument is specious. You very obviously are not in the airline industry because you just don't see that those that get into this industry easily ultimately do not end up enduring. The first time there's any kind of difficulty they're gone.

It's not a chainsaw. It's a discussion. I gave some suggestions of what I thought made more sense, you ignored them and jumped to the "whiney kid" meme with tales of your superior hardship 25 years ago, which aren't even relatable to today's costs and market.

They invested little expecting to be captain on the concorde within a few years and when that doesn't happen they're devastated.

Does this new rule prevent those types from entering ? God, I hope so.

Who knew that being a FO on a regional was analogous to being a Captain on a Concorde. Learn something new all the time on these forums.

 

[Art VanDelay]

It's not a chainsaw. It's a discussion. I gave some suggestions of what I thought made more sense, you ignored them and jumped to the "whiney kid" meme with tales of your superior hardship 25 years ago, which aren't even relatable to today's costs and market.



Who knew that being a FO on a regional was analogous to being a Captain on a Concorde. Learn something new all the time on these forums.

You learned something ! Wow and from the tone of your post's you seemed to know it all already

 

[Bonchie]

You learned something ! Wow and from the tone of your post's you seemed to know it all already

I never stated I already know it all. I just gave some opinions and then you had to escalate it with the "get off my lawn, kid" responses

I'm perfectly aware that I could be wrong but that's ok. This is a discussion forum after all. We'll find out in a few decades.

 

[Henning]

Ummm... The FO had a flight instructor certificate which was valid at the time of the accident.

Also, I'm not sure how banging around the pattern in a 152 for 1500 hours is going to provide them with a strong foundation. Yeah, they'd have to see more stalls, but IMO the reason they stalled was because they'd been yakking about icing. They reacted to the stick shaker as if they were experiencing tailplane icing. That, combined with the lack of stick shaker training on Colgan's part, led to confusion that lasted long enough that they were unable to recover.

The other problem was a simple lack of basic airmanship and instrument skills on the part of the captain (PF). He should have noticed the airspeed decay long before the stick shaker as well. Again, not something I think would have been helped by 1500 hours banging around the pattern.

I agree, the issues is not hours, it's attitude and training. Airline pilots should go through a 250hr AB Initio program working a 2 pilot cockpit from day one and work their way as teams through PP, IR, & CP level stuff, then put on the line with a senior captain for a year or so, then backing up a junior captain for a year or so, then ATP to become a junior captain with a senior FO then senior captain with junior FO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Banging around the pattern as an instructor is far more involved then doing same as a student or private pilot.

Yes, but IMO it doesn't relate well at all to flying much bigger planes cross country at night through crappy weather.

There are situations where someone who's been with a company for 10 years does deserve to be paid higher then someone coming in off the street if they are doing the same job, regardless if the guy on the street has more experience. Loyalty and sweat equity with a given company does count for something. BUT, someone coming in off the street with extensive experience shouldn't have to start at the equivalent pay of a mailroom worker either. Their resume' should count for something just like at every other job in this country.

Huh. Kind of sounds like teachers. Those that I know, up until recently at least, were given a specified amount based on their experience when they started at a particular job. They get nominal raises as they stick around (basically cost-of-living increase plus a small longevity bonus), and they can move farther up the pay scale via further education.

I think there could be a system based on three things similar to this that would work OK:

1) Experience (say, each 1000 hours would be one rung on the pay scale).
2) Longevity (basically like today's seniority)
3) Merit score - See below.

A seniority based system makes it possible to manage thousands of individuals with very little middle management. Before we merged my airline managed 6000 pilots with just 8 guys. Try and do that in a merit based organization. Even airlines that don't have unions still use a seniority based system.

There are ways to do this that don't take a whole lot of management personnel. Once you come up with a merit system, decide what it should be based on and how factors should be weighted, it can all be done by a computer. I'm sure you could dump the data from sim sessions and come up with a skill score, for example. Nearly anything you want to do can be automated, even the more subjective pieces. For example you could develop internal web apps to allow for pilots to review each other after a trip. All of that can be combined with seniority and longevity automatically, with payroll and bidding priority adjusted accordingly.

I agree that the cost of education is much higher now, but even in the 90s pilots didn't usually go out and buy that much of their own time up to the 2000 hour range. People I knew mostly instructed, flew freight and did other of those types of jobs.

A lot of those jobs are going away, though. I see very little cargo activity outside of the FedEx/UPS regional feeders any more - checks don't have to be flown any more. Between the economy and the ever-escalating cost of flying, there aren't nearly as many students for CFI's to teach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree, the issues is not hours, it's attitude and training. Airline pilots should go through a 250hr AB Initio program working a 2 pilot cockpit from day one and work their way as teams through PP, IR, & CP level stuff, then put on the line with a senior captain for a year or so, then backing up a junior captain for a year or so, then ATP to become a junior captain with a senior FO then senior captain with junior FO.

Sounds great, but scheduling would be an absolute nightmare!

 

[Henning]

Non transportable seniority and pay scale is why I didn't stay with the airline gig. I saw too many guys in their 40s with a wife and two+ kids; mortgage.... Who went from low 6 figures to basically whacking a zero off.

 

[Everskyward]

Once you come up with a merit system, decide what it should be based on and how factors should be weighted, it can all be done by a computer. I'm sure you could dump the data from sim sessions and come up with a skill score, for example. Nearly anything you want to do can be automated, even the more subjective pieces. For example you could develop internal web apps to allow for pilots to review each other after a trip. All of that can be combined with seniority and longevity automatically, with payroll and bidding priority adjusted accordingly.

You might think that you can come up with some meaningful score that way but I don't. How are you going to score sim sessions? One pilot kept within X knots of a target speed and someone else deviated by a couple more knots? Someone lost a bit more altitude on a steep turn? All these things are variable depending on the day you took the checkride and have little bearing on what you do on the line. Pilots reviewing each other could easily turn into a popularity contest rather than anything to do with skill. I'm not saying that seniority is the best way (I am not under a seniority system at my job) but trying to figure out a merit score will have its own problems.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Sounds great, but scheduling would be an absolute nightmare!

AIr Lingus did something similar in the early 90's. New hires went to flight safety then went on the line as copilots in the smallest planes. Moved up to the top of the fleet as copilots then became captains of the smallest plane in the fleet and worked back up in size.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Flight schools are closing left and right, and there's no more bank checks to fly around either.

News to me. Sure, there isn't near the volume of bank checks being moved around, but there is still some of it. And while checks have mostly gone away, the proliferation of Amazon and Ebay has done a lot to pick up small cargo feed operations for UPS, FedEx and DHL.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

AIr Lingus did something similar in the early 90's. New hires went to flight safety then went on the line as copilots in the smallest planes. Moved up to the top of the fleet as copilots then became captains of the smallest plane in the fleet and worked back up in size.

Korean does a similar program. They hire guys, send them to flight safety to get their ratings. Then send them through the Eagle Jet program for I want to say 500 hours, then they go back to Korea and sit right seat on a big plane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You might think that you can come up with some meaningful score that way but I don't. How are you going to score sim sessions? One pilot kept within X knots of a target speed and someone else deviated by a couple more knots? Someone lost a bit more altitude on a steep turn? All these things are variable depending on the day you took the checkride and have little bearing on what you do on the line. Pilots reviewing each other could easily turn into a popularity contest rather than anything to do with skill. I'm not saying that seniority is the best way (I am not under a seniority system at my job) but trying to figure out a merit score will have its own problems.

Yes, that's what I was thinking regarding sim sessions - Basically, taking FOQA type measures and creating a score. It wouldn't have to be ONLY your last sim session, either, it could be an average or a time-weighted average to prevent one bad day from messing everything up for you.

As far as pilots reviewing each other, that's something that would only work in a bigger company where there are enough pilots that they probably don't know each other well and rarely fly with the same people. And yes, you'd be restricted to reviewing only people you'd flown with recently. And you wouldn't have to use a raw score for the reviews, either - I think a better measure would be the difference between the reviewing pilot's average score given to other pilots and the score given to a particular pilot to correct for the curmudgeons and overly-happy types. So, a pilot that gives every pilot they fly with a 10/10 in every category would have no affect on scores. Same for a pilot that gives everyone a 0/10. Now a pilot that normally gives people a 7/10 but gives you a 10/10 would have a positive effect.

There would certainly be difficulties, but I think it would be possible to come up with a system that would work MUCH better than today's all-seniority system.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes, that's what I was thinking regarding sim sessions - Basically, taking FOQA type measures and creating a score. It wouldn't have to be ONLY your last sim session, either, it could be an average or a time-weighted average to prevent one bad day from messing everything up for you.

But does what you propose measure anything meaningful?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But does what you propose measure anything meaningful?

Depends who you ask.

And how you weight things makes all the difference in the world, and that is true of both the overall system and for the skill portion itself. As far as the overall system goes, for the necessary buy-in of the pilot unions, longevity would still have to be weighted the highest... But I think experience matters a lot as well. "Skill" and reviews of other pilots would have to be less.

How's this: (Disclaimer: This is NOT a comprehensive description of a finished system, merely a starting point/example, especially as it relates to the sim/skill portion!)

40% years of service. Integer years, that is! No more "I started on January 15th of 1975 and you started on January 20th of 1975 so I'm better than you."

30% experience. Again, the grain on this only needs to be at the thousands-of-hours level.

20% skill score. This would be based only on the required parts of sim training and would measure things like ability to control altitude and airspeed, hold glideslope, etc. while dealing with the various emergencies being thrown at you. There could be a portion of this (say, 5-10%) that would be subjective based on the sim instructor's evaluation of your ability to calmly deal with things, or maybe that part would be "extra credit" that the sim instructor could give to a limited number of pilots per time period.

10% Other crew evaluations. Pilots and FAs could give each other points for things like pleasantness to work with and customer service "wins", while pilots could also rate each other on flight-related things. Both this and the subjective portion of the skill score would be normalized based on the evaluator as described before to eliminate as much bias as possible.

It's not perfect, but I think both pilots and the industry would benefit from doing something like this instead of a solely seniority based system.

 

[Everskyward]

Depends who you ask.

And how you weight things makes all the difference in the world, and that is true of both the overall system and for the skill portion itself. As far as the overall system goes, for the necessary buy-in of the pilot unions, longevity would still have to be weighted the highest... But I think experience matters a lot as well. "Skill" and reviews of other pilots would have to be less.

How's this: (Disclaimer: This is NOT a comprehensive description of a finished system, merely a starting point/example, especially as it relates to the sim/skill portion!)

40% years of service. Integer years, that is! No more "I started on January 15th of 1975 and you started on January 20th of 1975 so I'm better than you."

30% experience. Again, the grain on this only needs to be at the thousands-of-hours level.

20% skill score. This would be based only on the required parts of sim training and would measure things like ability to control altitude and airspeed, hold glideslope, etc. while dealing with the various emergencies being thrown at you. There could be a portion of this (say, 5-10%) that would be subjective based on the sim instructor's evaluation of your ability to calmly deal with things, or maybe that part would be "extra credit" that the sim instructor could give to a limited number of pilots per time period.

10% Other crew evaluations. Pilots and FAs could give each other points for things like pleasantness to work with and customer service "wins", while pilots could also rate each other on flight-related things. Both this and the subjective portion of the skill score would be normalized based on the evaluator as described before to eliminate as much bias as possible.

It's not perfect, but I think both pilots and the industry would benefit from doing something like this instead of a solely seniority based system.

Personally, I don't think your system would necessarily be better, just different and more complex.

Also, I don't know where you are going with the 30% "experience" score. What does that mean?

And I still think small differences in sim performance don't mean anything. Sure you could give someone negative points if they bust a checkride but I don't see how small differences are significant.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Non transportable seniority and pay scale is why I didn't stay with the airline gig. I saw too many guys in their 40s with a wife and two+ kids; mortgage.... Who went from low 6 figures to basically whacking a zero off.

Henning gets it....

Also this talk about a pilot shortage is rather funny. The first day ever of powered flight there was one airplane with one seat and two pilots working for free. Not much has changed over the years in some ways.