Interesting article on recent Germanwings crash

Garbage argument. it costs me about $1.75 to take a bus across town...

Edit: and the bus driver drives the whole time too
 
There is more truth to this article than most here really want to believe/accept


Steel
 
The experience argument is a useful one for the pilot labor industry in their attempts to artificially constrain the labor pool, thereby driving up the cost of labor. If we can get some mandates in there to benefit the higher education industry while we're "solving" the problem, all the better.

With regard to mental health issues, they should largely be disqualifying, as should all psych meds.


JKG
 
SkyHog said:
Garbage argument. it costs me about $1.75 to take a bus across town...



Edit: and the bus driver drives the whole time too
Click to expand...


Quoting the heavily taxpayer subsidized price of a public transport bus ride where the busses operate at a loss without grant money annually, probably wasn't the best choice of example...

... if going for a non-"garbage argument". Ha. :)

We get your point, but let's see what the bus ride actually costs, if you're headed down that path. It ain't no $1.75.

Hey wait a minute. Why are you riding the bus anyway? I thought you survived your day in Douglas County Court with your driver's license intact?! Haha. Kidding.

At least your busses down there aren't operated by RTD... Good ol' "Reason To Drive"... It's nice to know some things never change, even if their only purpose in being is to suck harder than any other possible option.
 
JGoodish said:
The experience argument is a useful one for the pilot labor industry in their attempts to artificially constrain the labor pool, thereby driving up the cost of labor. If we can get some mandates in there to benefit the higher education industry while we're "solving" the problem, all the better.

With regard to mental health issues, they should largely be disqualifying, as should all psych meds.


JKG
Click to expand...

So you're saying experience is not important for air carrier pilot applicants ?
 
JGoodish said:
If we can get some mandates in there to benefit the higher education industry while we're "solving" the problem, all the better.
Click to expand...

what mandates do you propose ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
So you're saying experience is not important for air carrier pilot applicants ?
Click to expand...

its huge..and another reason the US is the model to copy for most other carriers...a wealth of experience is required for even the dollar store airlines here in the US. As pointed out in the article...the pilots are naturally vetted (and the non-hackers weeded out ) in that time frame. In Europe you basically have flight sim nerds in the right seat at <500 hours.
 
taters said:
what mandates do you propose ?
Click to expand...

The complete paragraph was

The experience argument is a useful one for the pilot labor industry in their attempts to artificially constrain the labor pool, thereby driving up the cost of labor. If we can get some mandates in there to benefit the higher education industry while we're "solving" the problem, all the better.​

I took that to mean he was mocking that position, not proposing it.
 
Not too many years ago, most airline pilots had been trained in the military. This fellow who crashed the plane never would have made it thru military training. Slowly but surely the requirements became lax and we arrived at accidents like the buffalo N.Y. Disaster. The U.S. Taxpayers have bailed out the airlines several times so the bus arguement seems null and void. Taxpayers money has played a big role in our airlines since their inception.
 
Absolutely dead on regarding medical evaluations and professional flying. Doctors are my enemy, not my friend when it comes to my ability to put food on the table. As long as that relationship continues, paid pilots will continue to actively manage ways to avoid the disclosure of medical ailments as a function of the wear and tear we call living and aging.

Another reason I wouldn't want to work until 65 even if I could, but that's for another day.

I'd say the article quoted letters are spot on. Scathingly on point, but you'd never be able to make those arguments in front of Congress, the regionals and part 141 schools would have a hissy fit and would attempt to discredit the messenger to the max extent possible.
 
hindsight2020 said:
paid pilots will continue to actively manage ways to avoid the disclosure of medical ailments as a function of the wear and tear we call living and aging.
Click to expand...

I guarantee there are hobby pilots here that actively avoid seeking treatment.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Not too many years ago, most airline pilots had been trained in the military. This fellow who crashed the plane never would have made it thru military training.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get your information from. :dunno:

For the past 30 or so years, civilian vs military background in aviation has remained about the same, with only in the past few years it leaning more civilian only for the reason that the military isn't putting out as many pilots as in previous times.

As far as the accident FO, your statement doesn't hold water as you don't have any knowledge of whether he would have got through military training. FWIW, Lufthansa has a fairly rigorous evaluation process, so if he got through that chances are he would have got through the military as well. One thing for sure, we'll never know.:dunno:

And before we get into this asinine argument of who's better (military or civilian) the military background guys have crashed as many planes as their counterparts.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I guarantee there are hobby pilots here that actively avoid seeking treatment.
Click to expand...

Certainly. I wasn't attempting to make a distinction of one at the exclusion of the other. I was merely directing my comment at the industry being discussed in the quoted article (airlines).
 
RotorAndWing said:
Not sure where you get your information from. :dunno:

For the past 30 or so years, civilian vs military background in aviation has remained about the same, with only in the past few years it leaning more civilian only for the reason that the military isn't putting out as many pilots as in previous times.

As far as the accident FO, your statement doesn't hold water as you don't have any knowledge of whether he would have got through military training. FWIW, Lufthansa has a fairly rigorous evaluation process, so if he got through that chances are he would have got through the military as well. One thing for sure, we'll never know.:dunno:

And before we get into this asinine argument of who's better (military or civilian) the military background guys have crashed as many planes as their counterparts.
Click to expand...
The lapse in his training is the key. They should have picked this up as he demonstrated that he was unstable at this early point. The company was aware of this and let him continue. I believe The military would have thrown him out as they would have the buffalo pilot also who failed check rides and had a dismal record. Please let us see the figures on ex military verses non military pilots accidents records. I think it's interesting! I don't think there's any question that the military training is superior. I also think there are many GA pilots flying with bad medical problems .
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The lapse in his training is the key. They should have picked this up as he demonstrated that he was unstable at this early point. The company was aware of this and let him continue.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely a lapse there.

Jimmy cooper said:
I believe The military would have thrown him out as they would have the buffalo pilot also who failed check rides and had a dismal record.
Click to expand...

Well, the military would through someone out for failed training, or someone who demonstrates instability. That's a given. :dunno:

Ever hear of a guy named Auburn Calloway? He was a Navy pilot that went to work for FedEx, then later attempted to murder the crew on a DC-10 and fly the plane into the ground (Fedex Flight 705). Obviously a mentally disturbed man. How did he get through the Navy?

Jimmy cooper said:
Please let us see the figures on ex military verses non military pilots accidents records. I think it's interesting!
Click to expand...

Why don't you research that and get back to us. Something tells me the results won't be what you are looking for. :rolleyes:

Jimmy cooper said:
I don't think there's any question that the military training is superior.
Click to expand...

It's debatable. I've watched military pilots wash out of airline training, just as I've seen civilian trained pilots wash out.

Jimmy cooper said:
I also think there are many GA pilots flying with bad medical problems .
Click to expand...

No doubt.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Not too many years ago, most airline pilots had been trained in the military. This fellow who crashed the plane never would have made it thru military training. Slowly but surely the requirements became lax and we arrived at accidents like the buffalo N.Y. Disaster. The U.S. Taxpayers have bailed out the airlines several times so the bus arguement seems null and void. Taxpayers money has played a big role in our airlines since their inception.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a couple ideas here - for one thing the military even at their height of cranking out pilots cannot possibly produce the required amount. Furthermore now and going forward they will be making less and less and less. They will however be making lots of UAV controllers (notice I didn't say pilots). So why that sounds like a solution it is not.

Secondly I'm not too sure about your assertion that the airlines get taxpayer bailouts. If you're referring to the monies received after 9/11 I would hardly call that a bailout. If you rolled up on your place of business one morning and the U.S. Military was preventing you from opening your doors to conduct business it wouldn't be beyond reason to expect some form of remedy for lost revenue.

But even if you want to go with this illusion of the assertion of subsidies to airlines it does not even come close to what the USDA GIVES AWAY for farmers not to grow crops and other manipulations of our agro economy and yet the public seems to be pretty blissfully ok with all of that.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, a couple ideas here - for one thing the military even at their height of cranking out pilots cannot possibly produce the required amount. Furthermore now and going forward they will be making less and less and less. They will however be making lots of UAV controllers (notice I didn't say pilots). So why that sounds like a solution it is not.



Secondly I'm not too sure about your assertion that the airlines get taxpayer bailouts. If you're referring to the monies received after 9/11 I would hardly call that a bailout. If you rolled up on your place of business one morning and the U.S. Military was preventing you from opening your doors to conduct business it wouldn't be beyond reason to expect some form of remedy for lost revenue.



But even if you want to go with this illusion of the assertion of subsidies to airlines it does not even come close to what the USDA GIVES AWAY for farmers not to grow crops and other manipulations of our agro economy and yet the public seems to be pretty blissfully ok with all of that.
Click to expand...


There were multiple rounds of guaranteed loans that no bank would guarantee before the 9/11 ones.

Comparing one boondoggle to another probably isn't a great argument, either. Ha. Two wrongs not making a right, and all... ;) Farm bill, indeed. Ha.

A number of airlines should be dead and gone if they had to get loans at the bank. That's irrefutable. Some cleaned up the books and started the M&A game to survive.

Technically Boeing wouldn't be doing too well without the not-quite-government-but-kinda, Import-Export Bank, too. But we seem to recognize that it's impossible for them to compete against Airbus' quasi-government funded model and kinda do the same for Boeing in a stranger way.

No good solution for any of it.
 
Military training is far superior to civilian paths. This is purely mandated training. What a person goes out on their own and learns creates the final product.



But that doesn't mean it creates a superior aviator. Political pressure and financial reasons have tied the military schools hands so that almost no one washes out any more. The information and training is there but what an individual takes from that training varies greatly.


Airlines, charter, 91 flight departments, 91k..... All require different things. All too often a 10 year airline pilot will find it very hard to transition 91 or 135. Army aviatiors do 91/135 easily because its similar to how the Army works on the aviation side. My observations (I am former Army, so I am no expert on AF) have show that airlines and Air Force seem similar in many respects (Air Force AMC, those fighter guys are a special breed).


But in the end, the individual and that persons motivations to better themselves is what determines the aviatiors ability. Just like every other profession.....
 
I agree with most of the article. The biggie is pilots may not get proper medical attention (physical or mental) because of the consequences.
 
I've had dozens of pilots in the front of my plane. 3/4s do not know how to fly. Experience has ranged from low hour PP looking to see what a spin is like to fighter jocks.

Flying is like the rest of life in that you will likely get a bell curve of competence. The key is to weed out the lower end of the curve. We can focus all the attention we want on the co's experience but their was no failure to manage systems or maintain his composure under pressure. He was mentally unstable and committed suicide. The company was aware of the mental instability and still put him in a position to kill more than himself. This was/is the root cause.

The rest of the discussion has lots of merit but this example is not on point.
 
Seems the article is rehashing old arguments:

I have no idea why we keep bringing up the medical. Pilots are NOT motivated to discuss any and all medical issues. No one throws aways hundreds of thousands of dollars in training and their livelihood because they were feeling depressed lately. Expecting that is utter B.S.

Everyone works with people they don't like or might feel are a little off. No one reports every little nuance in someones behavior. In fact no one pats you on the back for raising concerns, quite the opposite. I am sure EVERY line pilot knows of active pilots in their company that they think have issues, skills related, mental, etc.

Trying to argue that a persons past is a perfect indicator of the future is folly. Peoples lives are fluid, someone that is perfectly happy and well adjusted today, may not be tomorrow. People "snap" all the time.

Are military pilots better than civilian pilots. Just ask one and you'll know the answer. Don't worry if you can't find one to ask, they announce it within five minutes of entering any room, even if it was 40 years ago.:)
 
denverpilot said:
There were multiple rounds of guaranteed loans that no bank would guarantee before the 9/11 ones.

Comparing one boondoggle to another probably isn't a great argument, either. Ha. Two wrongs not making a right, and all... ;) Farm bill, indeed. Ha.

A number of airlines should be dead and gone if they had to get loans at the bank. That's irrefutable. Some cleaned up the books and started the M&A game to survive.

Technically Boeing wouldn't be doing too well without the not-quite-government-but-kinda, Import-Export Bank, too. But we seem to recognize that it's impossible for them to compete against Airbus' quasi-government funded model and kinda do the same for Boeing in a stranger way.

No good solution for any of it.
Click to expand...

Those are all good points Nate. I Had a similar discussion with a bartender in Brussels back when the automakers were getting their guarunteed loans. I think the bottom line is if you're a big company in America and you employ a large amount of people you're a political football and as such will probably get treated accordingly.

What I do abject to is when Middle Eastern Air Carriers compare those loans (and they were loans) to the BILLIONS they have received from their respective governments. If those carriers CEO's are so sh*t hot why don't they come over here and work their "Magic" for us ? Answer: because we have to make a profit here or at least come a hell of a lot closer to it then them.
 
Where Middle Eastern airlines are succeeding, and blowing away the US carriers, is in customer service. The US carriers have thrown customer service out the window and have adopted a "take it or leave it" mentality. Filthy airplanes, cattle car seating, charge for anything and everything, ****ed off employees makes for a lousy customer experience.

Upper management of the US carriers view them as a huge piggy bank ripe for raiding and bleeding dry.
 
Art VanDelay said:
But even if you want to go with this illusion of the assertion of subsidies to airlines it does not even come close to what the USDA GIVES AWAY for farmers not to grow crops and other manipulations of our agro economy and yet the public seems to be pretty blissfully ok with all of that.
Click to expand...


So wrong.

The gov doesn't give anything away to this farmer.

We spent north of $30K last year spraying set aside land so uncle sammy won't void our contract and demand every cent of their money back.. Farmers have to perform as per the contract. We're not just cashing welfare checks ... :rolleyes2:
 
What's the spraying for? :confused:
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yeah, a couple ideas here - for one thing the military even at their height of cranking out pilots cannot possibly produce the required amount. Furthermore now and going forward they will be making less and less and less. They will however be making lots of UAV controllers (notice I didn't say pilots). So why that sounds like a solution it is not.

Secondly I'm not too sure about your assertion that the airlines get taxpayer bailouts. If you're referring to the monies received after 9/11 I would hardly call that a bailout. If you rolled up on your place of business one morning and the U.S. Military was preventing you from opening your doors to conduct business it wouldn't be beyond reason to expect some form of remedy for lost revenue.

But even if you want to go with this illusion of the assertion of subsidies to airlines it does not even come close to what the USDA GIVES AWAY for farmers not to grow crops and other manipulations of our agro economy and yet the public seems to be pretty blissfully ok with all of that.
Click to expand...

Please read about the taxpayers bailing out the airlines. It's easy to look up. As I recall ,for starters, the lawyers involved in United airlines bailout received 400 million ! . It was mail contracts that got the airlines started in the first place, again, taxpayers money, air mail contracts, tremendous investment in airports, etc. As for farmers, H.L. Mencken reported on them fifty years ago as the biggest whiners on earth. Nothing has changed. The public is oblivious to them and to the dept. of defense. I never maintained there are enough military pilots to go around,I said , as a rule, they are better trained than most but of course there are always exceptions. I'm under no illusions, I've spoken to and known both quite well for fifty years. I'll go with a military pilot any day.
 
Last edited:
Both the comment about the overseas airlines getting direct money from their governments and the customer service one, are both true. Actually I think the U.S. Carriers try hard to do customer service but the comment about the typical cleanliness of the few airliners I've been on domestically and the God awful seat pitch are my number one complaints. Behind the TSA shenanigans.

Every year I get older, the less I even want to sit in a cattle class seat for more than an hour. I got bumped on the return flight from Hawaii to a different aircraft when the entertainment system went down and they couldn't find the CD to reload it on the aircraft we were booked on with upgraded seats.

They decided they'd better cram as many of us who could make different connecting flights on the coast, into the other airplane, and I ended up in the very center seat of a 777 in coach, and listened to "my" empty upgraded seat on the other aircraft, take off an hour behind me on the ATC audio channel, back when they did that.

I was not a happy camper. And neither was my back nor my knees when we got home.

A lovely reminder that vacation was over, I guess.

I'd have happily waited until the next night but we weren't given the option. They were already afraid they'd have to put all the folks they couldn't reroute, up somewhere for another night in Hawaii.

Hell, I've slept on airport floors before. I'd have done it and gone to the beach again and been back ready to go on the next flight out that had an open upgraded seat, that I paid for. We probably got some piddly refund on the upgrade, I don't remember.

I didn't buy the upgrade for no reason. I'm not into physical pain from riding on airplanes. And I'm only 5' 11". I truly pity you 6'+ folks who have to put up with cattle class seats on a flight.

I'm kinda glad I never ended up continuing my original path and becoming an insider in the airline biz. Just way too messed up in so many ways, from a business standpoint.

But I do feel for those of you who are in. I still think the seniority system is extremely broken, but can't think of any good way to fix it.

Where was the depressed guy on the seniority ladder and how poorly was he being paid? Do the Germans do the same silliness that we do here with kids saddled with massive debts from learning to fly if they go the civilian route?

I suppose that might be an interesting question to keep the thread on topic. Or not. Ha. Whatever.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Where Middle Eastern airlines are succeeding, and blowing away the US carriers, is in customer service. The US carriers have thrown customer service out the window and have adopted a "take it or leave it" mentality. Filthy airplanes, cattle car seating, charge for anything and everything, ****ed off employees makes for a lousy customer experience.

Upper management of the US carriers view them as a huge piggy bank ripe for raiding and bleeding dry.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be easy to be just as customer focused as they are when they have twice and in some instances three times the number of frontline employees. Just look at the number of flight attendants alone they can afford to put on the same size plane. Their planes go out half full yet by some magic they make a profit without any help ???? RIGHT
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Please read about the taxpayers bailing out the airlines. It's easy to look up. As I recall ,for starters, the lawyers involved in United airlines bailout received 400 million ! . It was mail contracts that got the airlines started in the first place, again, taxpayers money, air mail contracts, tremendous investment in airports, etc. As for farmers, H.L. Mencken reported on them fifty years ago as the biggest whiners on earth. Nothing has changed. The public is oblivious to them and to the dept. of defense. I never maintained there are enough military pilots to go around,I said , as a rule, they are better trained than most but of course there are always exceptions. I'm under no illusions, I've spoken to and known both quite well for fifty years. I'll go with a military pilot any day.
Click to expand...

You know what pal I am a proud AVIATOR veteran of the USMC and currently an airline pilot. im not disagreeing with the value of military training - I never said anything against it. What I am saying - since you obviously MISSED it the first time is there is no way going forward that they can supply the needed quantity of pilots. Are you able to understand that ????
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yes, it would be easy to be just as customer focused as they are when they have twice and in some instances three times the number of frontline employees. Just look at the number of flight attendants alone they can afford to put on the same size plane. Their planes go out half full yet by some magic they make a profit without any help ???? RIGHT
Click to expand...

The ones I"m around always seem to be full. :dunno: And since they are customer focused they are also carrying record amounts of cargo below.

The American (failed) model says we need more employees to be customer focused. American management says we can't afford employees since they are too expensive (i.e. eating into our profits).

Last I checked their airplanes are flying with the same number of crew members as their US counterparts. :dunno: At least they have enough pride to wash the planes and clean the inside, often. And the cabin crews actually focus on customer service. What a concept. :rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
The ones I"m around always seem to be full. :dunno: And since they are customer focused they are also carrying record amounts of cargo below.

The American (failed) model says we need more employees to be customer focused. American management says we can't afford employees since they are too expensive (i.e. eating into our profits).

Last I checked their airplanes are flying with the same number of crew members as their US counterparts. :dunno: At least they have enough pride to wash the planes and clean the inside, often. And the cabin crews actually focus on customer service. What a concept. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've seen Asian carriers going out with 9 more crewmembers than we carry for the same aircraft (777). I've seen Middle Eastern Carriers going out with exactly twice as many flight attendants as we carry. More flight attendants and aircraft with fewer seats easily translates into a better customer service experience. We don't pack in the seats just to purposely make people uncomfortable. Even though I certain people prefer to think that.
 
Art VanDelay said:
We don't pack in the seats just to purposely make people uncomfortable. Even though I certain people prefer to think that.
Click to expand...

The "cattle car" approach is simply profit driven. Pack more in and offer less service.

Many years ago when deregulation happened it was (accurately) predicted that the number of air carriers would decrease and the service would suffer. It's actually getting more difficult in the US to distinguish between mainline and the LLC's.

The US carriers today are trying to scapegoat the ME and Asian carriers to hide behind the pitiful product they are putting out. While customer satisfaction in the US is dropping the ME and Asian carriers are taking advantage and increasing their markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top