Originally Posted by
boofhead
Your assumption that all companies are set up to oppress the pilots is silly.
I didn't say all, now did I? But a whole bunch of them do, or have. Look around you at some of the practices at some of the bottom feeders over the years. They don't get away with that sort of thing if the pilot labor market isn't favorable to them. Now it isn't
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I know which company you represent, and except for an ummm .... interesting period a few years back, it generally has a pretty good reputation.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
The pilots I talk to rarely say that the money offered is not enough. They will leave me for other opportunities where they get more time off, a more reasonable schedule (we are on-demand).
Yeah, but all that gets back to money, doesn't it? Not necessarily money in the pilot's paycheck, but it's still money. All else being equal, a job where you're on call on a 12 hour rotation is a better (more reasonable) schedule than one which has you on call 24'7, but it costs about twice as much money to provide that as your pilot staff has to be doubled.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
I do not agree with the type of pilot who claims that the only thing needed is to increase pay. That type of pilot does not fit in here. We are a great company to work for and the flying is outstanding.
Yes, but by your own admission, you're having trouble keeping pilots. Sure, it's not just the money, it's the total package of money, schedule, time off, benefits, work conditions, opportunities for advancement, etc. And right now, the total package you're offering isn't attractive in today's market.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
but a US pilot who wants to be a SIC on a SAAB in regional part 121 has to have a degree, the written ATP and 1500 hours.
I don't believe there's any requirement for a college degree. An aviation degree will allow relaxing some of the requirements to get your ATP, but there's no requirement for such.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
The FAA could have stood their ground if they had the welfare of the industry in mind, but they did not. ..... Who had the final say? Me? No, it was the FAA.
OK, you keep saying that. You're mistaken. The FAA really cannot "stand their ground" against an act of Congress (nor should they, that's how our government works) The FAA does *not* have the final say, Congress does. Understand that I'm not defending the ATP rule as a wise thing, I'm just explaining how our government works, as you have a pretty persistent misunderstanding going here.
Congress passed a Public Law which said in part:
(B) ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS
.—Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flight crewmembers—
(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot certificate under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
Once that requirement is in a bill which is voted into law and signed by the President, That *is* what the FAA is going to do. They have no choice. There is no "Stand your ground". Prior to the bill becoming law, there may have been some opportunity to convince the authors of the bill that this requirement is not a good idea, or will have unintended bad consequences. But if it can't be removed before it becomes law, it's a done deal. The FAA is required to do exactly what the law requires them to. And that means amend the Part 121 regulations to require an ATP for all 121 pilots. Period. Done deal. If you're angry at the FAA for that requirement, you're angry at the wrong people.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
Bringing in a bunch of Ockers might be just the thing needed to show the American public what their own government has been doing to them.
If the answer is "more Australians", you're asking the wrong questions.
(that's a joke)