Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[TnkrToad]

Observations:

- Nothing we've discussed in this thread involves Goldfein in any way restricting AF pilots' ability to get out at the ends of their respective commitments and pursue employment with the airlines. The only restriction is on those with commercial licenses (250 hrs min) who previously could have served as airline first officers

-- His recommendation would, however, ultimately expand competition for those jobs--a free-market principle which many on this forum typically espouse

- I have yet to hear how life has improved for civilians with less than 1,500 hrs since the FAA rule was enacted. While QOL prior to the ruling might have been a horror show, how is life any better now for those who are trying to build their hours, without the regional airline option available to them?

-- As amply discussed on this forum, life is good for those who are already airline pilots (ALPA = the white-collar version of the Pipefitters' Union), and the prospects are pretty darn good for those with essentially a free ticket to the union (prior-mil pilots). Since I've heard no evidence yet to the contrary, I presume that QOL/safety issues have gotten worse for civ pilots who're now having a harder time getting past the higher barrier to entry

-- BTW, nobody forced anyone to take those crap regional jobs in the pre-1500 hr rule days

Don't get me wrong; I'm the son of a retired airline pilot and a current AD AF pilot. I really like the position of advantage I'm currently in--thanks, FAA/ALPA/rapidly-retiring Baby Boom generation! I just find much of the discussion on this thread to be a bit disingenuous.

TT

 

[Duck]

Granted changing changing the 1500 hour rule may increase the potential applicants eventually. However, for a vast majority of Pilots in the Air Force who feel like the Leadership has broken faith with them, it only further alienates that group more.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[sqwatch]

I too have been lucky enough to have good leadership that practice what beerman has observed. Most threads on this forum seem to drift closer together then finally meet along the topic of "what's wrong with the Air Force", and when that happens, in my 13 years in the AF, no one has come up with a fix- from crew dogs to leadership.

I will say since my transition to the guard my level of job satisfaction has increased considerably. I can fly as much as I want and there's little pressure to do the things that many people bitch about. There's something to that, and REGAF knows this but it doesn't work in their system- yet.

As for Gen Goldfien, good on him for speaking up in the interests of national defense. I disagree that a 1500 hour change will solve the problem because we are already competitive for the majors at the ten year point, and the concept of working 12 days a month and making 200k plus is something that the AF can not and should not be able to compete with, but I don't get all butt hurt about it and whine like a little bitch because shit isn't going the way I want it to.

Can you imagine the shit storm from ALPA and the congressional hearings that would occur if the government outbid the private sector for labor? That's some ed up shit that most here would call Orwellian yet on the other side of their mouths complain about the pay/work ratio.

I guess I don't understand the vitriol. Don't like the green dot program? Me I either, but pint the finger at civilian leadership who bares the responsibility for this and most other worthless programs. Don't like deployments? They're trying to trim the fat but again, who's really responsible for mandating those deployments to the 'deid? Not flying enough or your equipment is old as shit and broke? Who ed up defense spending (and I'm so bored of hearing it's the f35/Welsh's fault, it's at a higher level than that)?

We have a leadership problem alright, but it goes beyond the CSAF. The Schwartz days are behind us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, TnkrToad said:

Observations:

- Nothing we've discussed in this thread involves Goldfein in any way restricting AF pilots' ability to get out at the ends of their respective commitments and pursue employment with the airlines. The only restriction is on those with commercial licenses (250 hrs min) who previously could have served as airline first officers

-- His recommendation would, however, ultimately expand competition for those jobs--a free-market principle which many on this forum typically espouse

- I have yet to hear how life has improved for civilians with less than 1,500 hrs since the FAA rule was enacted. While QOL prior to the ruling might have been a horror show, how is life any better now for those who are trying to build their hours, without the regional airline option available to them?

-- As amply discussed on this forum, life is good for those who are already airline pilots (ALPA = the white-collar version of the Pipefitters' Union), and the prospects are pretty darn good for those with essentially a free ticket to the union (prior-mil pilots). Since I've heard no evidence yet to the contrary, I presume that QOL/safety issues have gotten worse for civ pilots who're now having a harder time getting past the higher barrier to entry

-- BTW, nobody forced anyone to take those crap regional jobs in the pre-1500 hr rule days

Don't get me wrong; I'm the son of a retired airline pilot and a current AD AF pilot. I really like the position of advantage I'm currently in--thanks, FAA/ALPA/rapidly-retiring Baby Boom generation! I just find much of the discussion on this thread to be a bit disingenuous.

TT

 

So is the next step for the USAF to lobby the FAA to stop the Commercial Pilot or CFI equivalency programs?  That would certainly serve to place another barrier up to try and stem the tide.  Should Goldfein lobby individual airlines to stop adding .3 to military resumes?  Should he lobby them to stop accepting military time altogether?  There are real debates to be had about the 1500 hour rule and its effects on the aviation industry.  Solving the USAF's pilot shortage should not be the driver of that discussion.  Goldfein is out of his lane.  He should concentrate on the myriad of issues that he CAN effect WITHOUT help from the FAA or airline industry. 

[NKAWTG]

The ATP requirement to fly for 30k a year for a regional is a legitimate problem for industry.  While it puts separating military pilots at the front of que for the majors, it breaks the entry level pipeline on the civilian side.  Entry level wages need to go way up to provide a ROI for the years spent slumming as a CFI, or the 100k + needed to get the flight time.  Legitimate problem, but where does the Air Force have a dog in this fight?  Big Blue has it's own pipeline, thousands of people wanting entry level positions, and job security independent of the economy at large.  Not to say you have job security, because hiring and firing are bureaucratic decisions, not rational ones.

As much "effort" as the military puts into retention, the single overriding factor is the economy.  If you can get equivalent or better compensation/QoL out the military, then you leave.  If we can't, then we stay.  Doubling a bonus won't move the needle nearly as much as 9/11 or the great recession.  

[skibum]

I love how all us capitalists suddenly become socialists when we talk about our industry.

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, BeerMan said:

Everyone on this board has been screaming for the last 5 years that Air Force leadership, Congress, and America in general has not been paying attention to the looming pilot shortage. The 11Ms have been screaming "do something, don't just focus on 11Fs!" The Guard and Reserves are saying the same thing. They are losing their experienced pilots as well. Everyone agrees that if the Air Force does not do something then we're all F'd. Boot color, Friday shirts, rolled up sleeves, and contractors are not going to solve what is becoming a national problem, and will be a national crisis in 5-10 years. You could eliminate every pilot filled 179/365 tomorrow and you still wouldn't save enough pilots to put even a tiny dent in the approximately 1500-3000 pilots a year that the guys on this board have said are going to be hired in the next decade. We shit on one another all the time about the Air Force not having a long term plan that works with Congress and the commercial sector, and now some of us are angry because the Air Force is trying to have a conversation about a national problem?

Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective? 

And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented. 

I fully agree with you on this, and call me a cynic, but when I get a memo telling me I can roll up my sleeves, I delete it as fast as I do the ones reminding me that we're putting new cover sheets on our TPS reports - it just doesn't matter to me in the big scheme - I'll roll them up/down, wear whatever color boots you want, etc. That said, the AF wouldn't need to worry what the airlines did if their focus was on QOL. It is the only way the AF will compete with the airlines and it = (Fun / work) x Compensation. The Air Force, arguably, has a lot of control over two of these factors (Fun and compensation), so when people see our focus turned outward on issues that are yet to affect us, it's equivalent to worrying about a non-factor. So ultimately, I don't consider arguments that state the AF can't compete with industry - the AF is part of the only entity on the planet that can print money, so yes, they can compete - they just don't want to set that precedent.

What else it suggests to me is that longer UPT commitments are not in the works, the AF was told 'no', or is anticipating being told 'no'.

7 hours ago, BeerMan said:

Stop focusing specifically on the 1500 hour rule for a second. Try looking at the problem from a 10-year lens. 

[...]

Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective? 

And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented. 

I don't think that this board's current attention on the 1500 hour rule is about that so specifically - rather it is general irritation with the latest in a series of misfires when it comes to addressing the problems the USAF says it has. The 1500 hour rule has not, in any way, contributed to the current exodus in the USAF - thus when this board reacts to it with 'really?' - it is a valid response. There is always a push and a pull when deciding on whether or not to leave the AF for other opportunities. Right now, the 'pull' factor has increased, but this was easily foreseen years ago, and is resultant from the long-looming retirement hiatus - not from the recent implementation of the 1500 hour rule. Once the regional airlines are empty, then we can talk about what the impact of that decision has had on the regional airlines as well as on military pilot retention, but as it stands now, the airlines can hire as many regional pilots as they can cram through training.

What people here are focused on are the issues that "push" individuals out of service. Many people on this board have looked at this problem with the long view in mind and I've seen many such considerations that do address these issues in serious ways, but yet, we don't see movement on them or even acknowledgement that they're factors. Things such as:

• Basing decisions (Holloman, Cannon, Creech, Shaw, etc)
• 365s/179s (which exist specifically to skirt the USAFs own rules...)
• Up or out
• "Mandatory" not-mandatory education
• Ill-timed moves/PCSs
• TAMI/drones
• Opaque/unclear/questionable promotion rules
• The list goes on

Ask me 10 years ago if I was considering going to the airlines, and I would have laughed at you. Give me more control over the factors listed above, and I'll laugh at the airlines...for at least another few years, which is all the AF wants anyway. So, yes, I sort of see that perspective, and I would give it more credence if it was backed up by actions taken 10 years ago to

• Increase the bonus
• Eliminate up or out
• Be more transparent with career opportunities/progression

Or actions taken 4-6 years ago to not

• Force-shape fighter pilots...yeah...or other 11Xs...

BL: seems to me that it is just something convenient to point at - just like the previous reasoning given which was "pilots just want to fly more..." when sequestration was all the rage.

4 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

The ATP requirement to fly for 30k a year for a regional is a legitimate problem for industry.  While it puts separating military pilots at the front of que for the majors, it breaks the entry level pipeline on the civilian side.  Entry level wages need to go way up to provide a ROI for the years spent slumming as a CFI, or the 100k + needed to get the flight time.  Legitimate problem, but where does the Air Force have a dog in this fight?  Big Blue has it's own pipeline, thousands of people wanting entry level positions, and job security independent of the economy at large.  Not to say you have job security, because hiring and firing are bureaucratic decisions, not rational ones.

As much "effort" as the military puts into retention, the single overriding factor is the economy.  If you can get equivalent or better compensation/QoL out the military, then you leave.  If we can't, then we stay.  Doubling a bonus won't move the needle nearly as much as 9/11 or the great recession.  

That, to me, sounds like American, Delta, United, and Southwest's problem - not the USAFs.

[Bode]

Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time.

What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training)



I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen.

If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prozac]

47 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:

Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time.

What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training)



I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen.

If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't have the paying public onboard when you were doing those crossings. Also the USAF's oceanic training and procedures are a joke.  Something like 30% of GNEs for 5% of crossings comes to mind.  

[ViperMan]

51 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:

Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time.

What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training)

I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen.

If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours...

It matters because if you don't ID the root cause of an issue, you will never solve the problem.

Nothing is wrong if the FAA lowers the hours for an ATP, but that's not the complaint. We (the pilots here) all know that it wasn't a flight-hour issue that caused the Colgan crash, and the subsequent rule-change doesn't really enhance the flying safety of the public.

People's issue is that the USAF is addressing an issue that's not causing its problems.

[flyusaf83]

The problem is the AF is focused on all of the wrong things in how they are approaching the pilot shortage. Changing the 1.5k hr rule won't move the needle in pilot retention. USAF pilots won't have any problem getting picked up by an airline over the next 15 years.

The reason this pisses me off is that I don't see the AF doing a dang thing to address the reasons for the pilot crisis.  I see more and more queep every single day. I see jets getting older and literally falling apart. I see dudes not seeing their wife and kids for a year to go sit behind a desk in some shithole to do a job an A1C could do. I see the AF thinking they can lure people to stay in by dangling awful jobs like DO or Sq/CC in their faces like it's the best thing ever, if they just take on more bullshit queep to have better OPRs.

I don't see the AF talking about these problems, much less fixing them. Instead, they are talking about stop-loss, longer ADSCs, and this fresh bullshit.  They are just finding more ways to screw pilots over.  Until they change their approach, the exodus will continue. 

[BADFNZ]

1 hour ago, Lstcause257 said:

Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time.

What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training)



I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen.

If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because, like any normal human looking for employment, I'd like to increase my chances of being hired post-AF.  If you all of a sudden flood the job market with newly qualified applicants, wouldn't supply and demand dictate that my chances of getting hired would be less?  It's not hard to understand so I'm not sure why you're having trouble with it.  Then again, looking at your negative rep, I'm probably just feeding the troll.

[Bode]

Because, like any normal human looking for employment, I'd like to increase my chances of being hired post-AF.  If you all of a sudden flood the job market with newly qualified applicants, wouldn't supply and demand dictate that my chances of getting hired would be less?  It's not hard to understand so I'm not sure why you're having trouble with it.  Then again, looking at your negative rep, I'm probably just feeding the troll.

Sounds like you are scared of a little competition... if you do a successful 10 year commitment as an AF pilot I personally wouldn't be worried about competition from a 250-1000 hour pilot.


This may be completely out of Fingers lane to talk on this (we don't know if he was given any orders to investigate to find a solution) but he is completely correct in the fact we have a national pilot problem. Regardless if you are a 10 and out guy or a 30 year guy, I would say it is safe to assume that if you are looking for a civilian job between now and 2030 you won't have a problem. That is also assuming you didn't barrel roll a MC-12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

22 hours ago, BeerMan said:

I agree with you that there are other issues that need to be addressed immediately. I'm still waiting to see the results from the focus on the squadrons piece he put out a few months ago. I have seen the ACC squadrons hire about 6-9 contractors to works in scheduling, stan eval, mobility, and other support areas. It has had an immediate impact from what I've seen. A lot more pilots being pilots, and a lot more dudes and dudettes in the vault! 

 

I wonder when this will start for AFGSC.  In my opinion, this and the non-vol 365s to make PowerPoint slides are the two biggest drivers convincing people to leave.

[schokie]

20 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:

Regardless if you are a 10 and out guy or a 30 year guy, I would say it is safe to assume that if you are looking for a civilian job between now and 2030 you won't have a problem. That is also assuming you didn't barrel roll a MC-12.

 

Well actually, the guy who infamously barrel rolled - technically aileron rolled- an MC-12 now flies for Fed-Ex.

What's ironic is the CFACC at the time, now current CSAF, went on the warpath briefing all deployed units at the time bragging about how he was going to railroad that guy's career. Now 'that guy' is a retired O-5 flying the line at Fed-Ex, living the good life, and laughing all the way to the bank.

I think the AF is proper fucked. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by schokie
Format and more detail

[Bode]

The problem is the AF is focused on all of the wrong things in how they are approaching the pilot shortage. Changing the 1.5k hr rule won't move the needle in pilot retention. USAF pilots won't have any problem getting picked up by an airline over the next 15 years.
The reason this pisses me off is that I don't see the AF doing a dang thing to address the reasons for the pilot crisis.  I see more and more queep every single day. I see jets getting older and literally falling apart. I see dudes not seeing their wife and kids for a year to go sit behind a desk in some shithole to do a job an A1C could do. I see the AF thinking they can lure people to stay in by dangling awful jobs like DO or Sq/CC in their faces like it's the best thing ever, if they just take on more bullshit queep to have better OPRs.
I don't see the AF talking about these problems, much less fixing them. Instead, they are talking about stop-loss, longer ADSCs, and this fresh bullshit.  They are just finding more ways to screw pilots over.  Until they change their approach, the exodus will continue. 

I agree every bit of this. I have watched two deployments get shut off recently because of a lack of need for the individuals down range. Not sure if this trend will continue but it's positive impact to those two units and families. Wish we could see more of that. I'm in it til I am done having fun.

I haven't seen much in fixing the pilot shortage except increasing pilot output. That is not going to solve the problem it's more like giving someone a small blood transfusion while they have arterial bleeding.
From what I have read the NDAA Joe allows for a grand a month in flight pay pretty sure it wouldn't hurt retainability in the critical zones but really we just need to get rid of bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

45 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

the guy who rolled the mc-12 was an IP i looked up to (and still do to this day) tremendously. when there's a war that goes down that MC-12 IP dude is the guy i'd follow to the gates of hell

I'm amazed that in an age of prosecuting people like Snowden and Manning, no one asked why there was a cell phone camera on board an aircraft loaded with TS/SCI mission equipment.

[TnkrToad]

45 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

maybe you should check your white privilege mother fcker

You're funny. 

[BashiChuni]

25 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I'm amazed that in an age of prosecuting people like Snowden and Manning, no one asked why there was a cell phone camera on board an aircraft loaded with TS/SCI mission equipment.

i wouldn't even go there

[HuggyU2]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'm amazed that in an age of prosecuting people like Snowden and Manning, no one asked why there was a cell phone camera on board an aircraft loaded with TS/SCI mission equipment.

Or why a T-SCIF had a commercial-grade cockpit voice recorder in that that was never downloaded, erased, or whatever.  Not that it mattered on my flights since I pulled the circuit breaker on every mission I was the A/C on.  

Bashi, you're spot-on about the IP involved.  HE should have been the next squadron commander there.  

Yes, for those of you that read it, I deleted the rest of my post.  Probably better that I don't go there.  Suffice to say, I'm overjoyed the MC-12 program is a distant memory.  

Edited February 11, 2017 by HuggyU2

[BFM this]

7 hours ago, Lstcause257 said:

Sounds like you are scared of a little competition... if you do a successful 10 year commitment as an AF pilot I personally wouldn't be worried about competition from a 250-1000 hour pilot.

 

Just to cage your sight picture: If all of this is true, and Congress were to humor Fingers' request and eliminate the ATP requirement for 121 ops (It's not a 1500hr req, btw, but an ATP req, which is what drives 1500hrs), and we go back to the good old days of 250hr wonders in the right seat of RJs.  You wouldn't be directly competing against those 250-1000 hour pilots.  Imagine the market as one of those beer cups at the ball park that fills from the bottom.  Those 250 hour pilots would flood the market--from the bottom--and the top of the market at the majors with 2500-5000 hour RJ captains.  Right now, the civilian flow is stifled by a historically high barrier to entry.  The CFI route--historically the biggest civilian pipeline--is chilled by lower demand as prospective pilot wannabes are daunted by that barrier and the murkier path forward.  Pipeline patrol, sky-diver-driver, and other commercial time builders all pay waaayyyyy worse than even the regionals, and don't have near the capacity that the once thriving CFI puppy-mills could boast. 

But again, take away the 121-ATP rule, and you aren't directly competing with those 250hr wonders; they are just buoying the boats of the graduating RJ captains, who would increase pressure on your demographic. 

[fire4effect]

7 hours ago, BFM this said:

Just to cage your sight picture: If all of this is true, and Congress were to humor Fingers' request and eliminate the ATP requirement for 121 ops (It's not a 1500hr req, btw, but an ATP req, which is what drives 1500hrs), and we go back to the good old days of 250hr wonders in the right seat of RJs.  You wouldn't be directly competing against those 250-1000 hour pilots.  Imagine the market as one of those beer cups at the ball park that fills from the bottom.  Those 250 hour pilots would flood the market--from the bottom--and the top of the market at the majors with 2500-5000 hour RJ captains.  Right now, the civilian flow is stifled by a historically high barrier to entry.  The CFI route--historically the biggest civilian pipeline--is chilled by lower demand as prospective pilot wannabes are daunted by that barrier and the murkier path forward.  Pipeline patrol, sky-diver-driver, and other commercial time builders all pay waaayyyyy worse than even the regionals, and don't have near the capacity that the once thriving CFI puppy-mills could boast. 

But again, take away the 121-ATP rule, and you aren't directly competing with those 250hr wonders; they are just buoying the boats of the graduating RJ captains, who would increase pressure on your demographic. 

The CFI route also pairs instructors who are barely beyond students themselves with brand new pilots. I know the military has FAIPS but it seems counter-intuitive.

I'm also surprised that the airlines haven't gone whole hog into a grow your own ab-initio programs or something close like requiring a PPL/instrument with say a 4 year degree to apply. With dare I say it a long term training agreement or as the military calls it an ADSC. Of course different states have laws that may limit the overall length of a contract so a 10 year agreement for example might not be feasible. If I'm young aspiring pilot this may be the quickest cheapest (though it's all relative) way in the not so distant future to a major airline seniority number. I know the unions with the current rank and file pilots would have a fit. JetBlue was looking at it though I don't whether it came to fruition.

Finally, while sub 1000 hour military pilots aren't necessarily flying planeloads of paying passengers (though planeloads of troops on C-17s is no small matter) they're no less in a position of responsibility. Had SHELL 77 gone down over a heavily urban area the repercussions would still be felt as much as those from Colgan today.

[drumkitwes]

On 2/10/2017 at 5:46 PM, Prozac said:

You didn't have the paying public onboard when you were doing those crossings. Also the USAF's oceanic training and procedures are a joke.  Something like 30% of GNEs for 5% of crossings comes to mind.  

When we're those stats last updated? We haven't had a GNE ever since I've been doing this. Judging by my friends flying for the airlines, the upgrade process for becoming an AC in the AF is highly in depth and much more intense, especially considering they are doing it with 1000 hrs total. Of course, I'm speaking for C-17s only. 

[drumkitwes]

8 hours ago, fire4effect said:

The CFI route also pairs instructors who are barely beyond students themselves with brand new pilots. I know the military has FAIPS but it seems counter-intuitive.

I'm also surprised that the airlines haven't gone whole hog into a grow your own ab-initio programs or something close like requiring a PPL/instrument with say a 4 year degree to apply. With dare I say it a long term training agreement or as the military calls it an ADSC. Of course different states have laws that may limit the overall length of a contract so a 10 year agreement for example might not be feasible. If I'm young aspiring pilot this may be the quickest cheapest (though it's all relative) way in the not so distant future to a major airline seniority number. I know the unions with the current rank and file pilots would have a fit. JetBlue was looking at it though I don't whether it came to fruition.

Finally, while sub 1000 hour military pilots aren't necessarily flying planeloads of paying passengers (though planeloads of troops on C-17s is no small matter) they're no less in a position of responsibility. Had SHELL 77 gone down over a heavily urban area the repercussions would still be felt as much as those from Colgan today.

This has all been done before man. Google Comair academy. It simply hasn't happened at the majors because there isn't a need..... yet

[fire4effect]

1 hour ago, drumkitwes said:

This has all been done before man. Google Comair academy. It simply hasn't happened at the majors because there isn't a need..... yet

I agree. The operative word is "yet" The dynamic has changed completely now from a few years ago because of wave of retirements and the ATP/1500 hour requirements. Eventually the military won't be able to produce enough to cover all of the demand and while that is obviously good for a mil pilot's marketability it doesn't solve the problem of a shortage. From the Airline CEO/stockholder perspective it not surprisingly can help keep overall wages down by having a cadre of pilots you "own" long term. This is where the unions will earn their keep.

Edited February 12, 2017 by fire4effect
clarity