Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[TnkrToad]

16 hours ago, Gazmo said:

The market is already flooded with RJ pilots from the regionals with thousands of hours of 121 jet time and military guys are still getting hired up like they're going out of style. The majors have their demographics they follow. White, black, yellow, male, female, civilian/Part 121, military, etc. Historically military hiring will stay around 30-35% of overall hiring at most of the companies. Flooding the market with RJ pilots will basically make it harder to for RJ pilots to get jobs with the majors.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

I assume the major airlines have been following this magical formula because (1) there were enough prior-mil pilots to fill approx. 30-35% of their needs, and (2) they knew they couldn't hire substantially more regional pilots without screwing over the regional airlines upon which they depend to serve as feeders for mainline.

The question is, what happens if/when the majors' demand grows so high that that there are proportionally too few prior-mil pilots to meet their desired mix? The problem we've been discussing is it's impossible to "flood the markets" with RJ pilots, due to the 1500 hr rule. We'll very soon be in a position where the airlines' demand will be so great that either (1) they'll hire away so many mil pilots that the AF will be screwed, (2) they'll hire away so many regional pilots that the hub-and-spoke model upon which the major airlines are built will be screwed, or (3) both.

What is your solution to this dilemma, how quickly can it be enacted, and how long will your fix take to be effective?

[TnkrToad]

9 hours ago, pcola said:

(Words)

At the risk of opening a can of worms here, if you ask me, it all boils down to this un-winnable war on VEOs.  

(Words)

OK, rant off.  BL, I agree with the majority that the CSAF is barking up the wrong tree here, and that gearpig is probably closer to the truth than most would like to believe.

I get it that you're frustrated with AF leadership, and I agree there is still more they can do internally to the organization. Regardless, the facts aren't on your side.

- FY97-FY01: Airlines hiring in substantial numbers/US not fighting VEOs--ACP take rate was 28-42%

- FY02 (numbers are a little weird, due to transition to GWOT): 47%

- FY03-FY13: Airlines not hiring in substantial numbers/US fighting VEOs in a big way--ACP take rate was 65-76%

- FY14-present: Airline hiring ramping up/1500 hr rule in effect (but sure, we're still fighting VEOs):

-- FY14: 59%

-- FY15: 55%

-- FY16: Still unknown, since AFPC has yet to publish the final numbers, but somewhere around 50%

The trend is clearly heading downward, while airline hiring is increasing. Like it or not, there's a pretty clear negative correlation between airline hiring and AF retention.

[TnkrToad]

18 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

https://www.psaairlines.com/careers/cadet-program/

 

I saw a few of them (couple hot chicks too) at the Museum interviewing in November.  It's a real program.  

Per the website: "New hires at PSA are projected to flow to American Airlines after only 6 years." (emphasis added) 

Brilliant plan.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, TnkrToad said:

Per the website: "New hires at PSA are projected to flow to American Airlines after only 6 years." (emphasis added) 

Brilliant plan.

Actually not a bad deal for the civilian bros.  Many of the guys I graduated with, spent more time that that at their respective regionals (some are still there), with no guarantee (use that term loosely) of a job.  I think you'll see the majors pair up with colleges and universities to have direct hire programs that will place them at a regional of choice.  They'll fly there until they're needed at the mainline down the road.  It's just one way for them to secure a steady flow of "known quantity" of pilots, to supplement mil folks.  Get hired at 22, spend 5ish years at a regional and start at mainline at 28...that's way better than most will accomplish.  The average age of a Delta new hire is sitting ~37ish. 

[Warrior]

I assume the major airlines have been following this magical formula because (1) there were enough prior-mil pilots to fill approx. 30-35% of their needs, and (2) they knew they couldn't hire substantially more regional pilots without screwing over the regional airlines upon which they depend to serve as feeders for mainline.
The question is, what happens if/when the majors' demand grows so high that that there are proportionally too few prior-mil pilots to meet their desired mix? The problem we've been discussing is it's impossible to "flood the markets" with RJ pilots, due to the 1500 hr rule. We'll very soon be in a position where the airlines' demand will be so great that either (1) they'll hire away so many mil pilots that the AF will be screwed, (2) they'll hire away so many regional pilots that the hub-and-spoke model upon which the major airlines are built will be screwed, or (3) both.
What is your solution to this dilemma, how quickly can it be enacted, and how long will your fix take to be effective?

Short term I think you're right. Longer term I think the airlines will find a way to decrease their demand for pilots.

As the American public gets comfortable with self driving cars, how long before the idea of autonomous passenger airplanes moves into the realm of possible?

I think that's the long term future of the airline industry. 5 years ago I would have said never gonna happen.

[Stoker]

10 minutes ago, Warrior said:

As the American public gets comfortable with self driving cars, how long before the idea of autonomous passenger airplanes moves into the realm of possible?

 

I've done a fair amount of regulatory/legislative work on autonomous vehicles, you aren't likely to see fully autonomous cars (no steering wheel, no gas/brake pedal) for twenty years or so, because you need them to "play nice" with all the other non-autonomous vehicles on the road, or drive on autonomous-only roads. So it's going to be a phase in process as older, manually operated vehicles. When it comes to aircraft, expect the cargo carriers to go to single pilot operations, then after about ten or twenty mishap-free years passenger airlines can go single pilot. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by sforron

[hispeed7721]

As the American public gets comfortable with self driving cars, how long before the idea of autonomous passenger airplanes moves into the realm of possible?

I think that's the long term future of the airline industry. 5 years ago I would have said never gonna happen.

For companies like FedEx and UPS, I completely agree. But I don't think the general public will ever get behind pilot-less flight.

The self-driving cars (that I've seen) still have all the controls for the person sitting in the seat to take over if needed. If you duplicate that concept to the airlines, well that's already in place via autopilot and the human pilot. I don't think it'll ever move to autopilot only, no human oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[SocialD]

26 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Short term I think you're right. Longer term I think the airlines will find a way to decrease their demand for pilots.

As the American public gets comfortable with self driving cars, how long before the idea of autonomous passenger airplanes moves into the realm of possible?

I think that's the long term future of the airline industry. 5 years ago I would have said never gonna happen.

I don't think it will happen soon enough for it to have an impact on most of our careers.  The big hiring is over the next 15ish years.  I think it will be tough to get the technology to a level needed and the public onboard with this idea over that timeframe.  Hell they can't even get self driving cars to do it right.  There are videos all over of these cars blowing stop signs, almost hitting people and a few fatality crashes.  

Also, the airlines will only do it if it's financially advantageous to do so.  So the technology needs to be refined, then be cheap enough for the companies to go along with it.  This isn't even consider the $$$ needed to update the national airspace system.  After that, it will only happen if the customer is ready for such a change.  In the end it's all about the customer, and many won't get on a plane with no pilots.  There is a Rand study published that talks about the implementation of single pilot cockpits, then unmanned cockpits.  If I remember correctly, it recommends starting with the cargo carriers, doing ocean crossing from coastal cities to coastal cities.  Then after that's been proven, cargo ops over the conus before they get to the airlines.  

I believe the technology is moving along at a record pace, but it still has along way to go.  Right now our flight plans/flight data is uploaded electronically, all we have to do is accept and ok.  However, there is still a fair amount of user input required.  Then it's changed multiple times over a flight.  Reroutes have been uploaded and been totally wrong.  Ever seen the 737 AP in action?  It will water your eyes with how terrible it is at it's job.

Edited February 14, 2017 by SocialD

[TnkrToad]

18 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Actually not a bad deal for the civilian bros.  Many of the guys I graduated with, spent more time that that at their respective regionals (some are still there), with no guarantee (use that term loosely) of a job.  I think you'll see the majors pair up with colleges and universities to have direct hire programs that will place them at a regional of choice.  They'll fly there until they're needed at the mainline down the road.  It's just one way for them to secure a steady flow of "known quantity" of pilots, to supplement mil folks.  Get hired at 22, spend 5ish years at a regional and start at mainline at 28...that's way better than most will accomplish.  The average age of a Delta new hire is sitting ~37ish. 

Honest questions:

- How many hours did your civ bros have when they got hired? If they got hired before the 1500 hr rule went into effect and they had less than the R-ATP mins, that would be very different from the current circumstance than we're discussing here

- How much student debt did your bros typically graduate with?

- Especially if they got hired before or after the 1500 rule went into effect, how did they build their hours to get to R-ATP mins, and how much were they paid while building hours toward those mins?

- Once hired by a regional, what's their pay been, and how easy has it been for your bros to live while paying off their student loans?

Folks getting hired at age 37 today clearly did not have to contend with the 1500 hr rule when they interviewed with the regionals. Just trying to figure out if your peers' experience matches with what folks contemplating going the civ route today would have to deal with.

TT

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, TnkrToad said:

Honest questions:

1. How many hours did your civ bros have when they got hired? If they got hired before the 1500 hr rule went into effect and they had less than the R-ATP mins, that would be very different from the current circumstance than we're discussing here

2. How much student debt did your bros typically graduate with?

3. Especially if they got hired before or after the 1500 rule went into effect, how did they build their hours to get to R-ATP mins, and how much were they paid while building hours toward those mins?

4. Once hired by a regional, what's their pay been, and how easy has it been for your bros to live while paying off their student loans?

Folks getting hired at age 37 today clearly did not have to contend with the 1500 hr rule when they interviewed with the regionals. Just trying to figure out if your peers' experience matches with what folks contemplating going the civ route today would have to deal with.

TT

1.  They were all hired prior to the 1500 hr rule.  In the early phases (2002-2004), guys were barely getting regional jobs with 2,000 hours.  Then in the mid 2000s it went down to ~1,000-1,500 hours.  In 2007ish, I knew guys getting on at the regionals with 250-300 hours...basically a wet multi-engine certificate.  

2.  If I had to guess...50-60k in debt.  The Guard paid my bill, so I'm not sure of the exact amount.  I'm guessing that debt is closers to 80-90k these days.  Stay away from the ERAUs and NDSUs of the world.

3.  Most guys were CFIs to build their hours.  In 2004 I was paid $12-14/hour as a CFII...probably make 15-20k/yr.   Other guys went on to stuff like towing banners ~$15-30/hour.  Once they hit 1,200 hours guys would go fly night freight making 20-30k/year starting out starting out.  *LOTS of those night freight jobs, that used to get guys great experience have all but dried up.

4.  Back then 15-21k/year to start (no shit Great Lakes base pay was 13,500/yr), moving up in the 30-40k range a few years later.  It was a struggle for those dudes, but most managed.  However, most of my buds have working wives (non-working wives was such a foreign concept to me when I went to pilot training).  When they upgraded to Captain they were in the 50k+ range.  Regional pay is slowly creeping up...guys are starting at 30k/yr with bonuses on top of that now.   

 

With a program like that PSA thing, dudes finish college with 300ish hours if they haven't done any flight instructing.  I graduated college with 700 hours thanks to getting my CFII my junior year.  They'll roll into a regional a year or so later making 30k+, probably upgrade to Captain in 2-3 years and be making 60k+ in their mid 20s.  This is head and shoulders above what I would have experienced had I got the regional route out of college.  

Since the 1500 hour rule, regional wages have increases a fair amount.  Also, most of my bros were regional Captains and Line Check airman and the stories they had about the low time dudes were absolutely scary.  They all agree that the quality of First Officers they were getting dramatically increased with the 1500 hour rule.  

Edited February 14, 2017 by SocialD

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, SocialD said:

I don't think it will happen soon enough for it to have an impact on most of our careers.  The big hiring is over the next 15ish years.  I think it will be tough to get the technology to a level needed and the public onboard with this idea over that timeframe.  Hell they can't even get self driving cars to do it right.  There are videos all over of these cars blowing stop signs, almost hitting people and a few fatality crashes. 

FYI getting to a fully autonomous car is a much more difficult problem than a self-flying airplane - basic reason, the driving environment is drastically more complex than the aircraft environment.

[SocialD]

37 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

FYI getting to a fully autonomous car is a much more difficult problem than a self-flying airplane - basic reason, the driving environment is drastically more complex than the aircraft environment.

You and I may understand that but how do you think the general public views it?  Do you really think they'll trust pilotless planes when they see so many accidents with driverless cars?  The flying public don't think logically like you and I.

Case and point...everything is flowing smoothly, beautiful day, no delays.  We push early, get right on the runway and take off way early.   I see we're going to be 30 minutes early...and we're going into LA.  I know gate space is a premium and i've been burned by this before.  So I decide to slow up and get closer to an on time arrival.  We land, roll right into the recently opened gate, and people are happy with our on time arrival. 

New jet, new day...I see we're going to be 30 minutes early, however I decide to keep the speed up because I forget about the mess that is LAX.  We land early and the gate is still occupied.  So we sit on the ramp for 30 minutes, shut down an engine (maybe both) to save gas.  Meanwhile in the back, the passengers are absolutely losing their freaking minds!  They inform the FAs that "there are open gates right there!!!"  Finally our gate opens, and we roll into the gate ON TIME.  You wouldn't believe the mean mugs and the anger in their faces!    Smile and wave boys...time to get to the hotel before we miss happy hour!

Edited February 14, 2017 by SocialD

[Hacker]

Bottom line, humans are on board the airplane for judgment and decisionmaking when things do not go as planned.  It will be a long, long time before machines will be autonomously capable of that.

[pcola]

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Can of worms challenge accepted.  For your first paragraph, i think you're wrong.  Everyone can be defeated and history is full of examples.  We haven't been trying to win, despite the best efforts and sacrifices of those who are forward, and that unfortunate fact drives all the toxicity and festering discontent you correctly identify within our organization.

for your second point, I don't understand you at all: the "plus one" is the threat you earlier say we can't defeat.  So are you saying that if DOD wants to remain ready for future threats by VEOs it needs to reconsider its objectives and admit it cannot defeat VEOs?  

I agree with your overall sentiment that the military has been losing for 15 years and is on a path to continue losing.  That drives bizarre internal dynamics that make people hate life and want to leave.  We disagree in that my prescription is a return to the ruthless pursuit of victory and nothing else.

I really don't want to further derail this otherwise constructive thread, so I'll attempt to offer a few concise points to clarify your confusion on my position (I can see why there is confusion based upon my hasty/incomplete argument in the earlier post.)  However, I'm not going to attempt to convince you that I'm right or you're wrong.  If anyone would like to further discuss the merits of our military objectives pertaining to VEOs, we can start a new thread or take it offline.  

With that said, for clarity, what I said in my earlier post was "If the DOD wants to get serious about remaining ready for the future threats posed by the "4+1" it needs to seriously reconsider its objectives as related to dealing with VEOs." I added the bold parts to highlight what was apparently too subtle of a distinction.  Yes, I do not believe that "defeat," in a traditional military sense, of the ideology that fuels VEOs is possible given our current pol/strat limitations.  Our current NMS clearly states that our objective is to "Disrupt, Degrade, and Defeat VEOs."  This aim of "defeat" is what, IMHO, needs to be reconsidered.  After reading several of the COIN classics (Galula, Nagl...) and a great newer perspective by Emile Simpson (War From the Ground Up), I became convinced that attempting to defeat the VEO threat requires dismantling and replacing the ideology that supports them.  This is not in the US's best interest, for reasons which I believe are beginning to manifest in our USAF (see previous post.)  Another great book is Out of the Mountains by David Kilcullen.  This read convinced me that this IW fight against non-state actors is the most likely fight of the future.  Some of the threats will be from current or new VEOs, while others may be proxy battles with organizations placed, instigated, or supported by nation-state opponents (the 4).  Regardless, we need to continue to be able to deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries, while being able to economically wage war against these current or pop-up non-state actors.  Expending the vast amount of resources that we do in seeking the holy grail of making these +1 threats "go away" is a losing strategy.  So yes, we need to admit that we cannot (and should not) attempt to achieve the defeat of VEOs.  Given enough freedom to act, budget, and will, do I think that the US mil could defeat ISIS or AQI or any other single entity?  Yes - but that is irrelevant because another similar threat is certain to rise from the ashes.  I think a strategy of containment is more feasible.  Think whack-a-mole, but where our main effort is weighted towards slowing the rate of mole pop-ups and rapidly thumping it back into its hole, vs chasing it into its hole to root it out and exterminate it.  Slowing the rate of mole pop-ups is a job for the D, I and E.  The M can Disrupt and Degrade...no problem, but Defeating an ideology is a sucker's bet.

Shit, I already wrote much more than I intended, and still have a hopelessly incomplete argument, but I think you can at least see my position, even if you don't agree.  

My apologies for the sidetrack, back to your regular scheduled "the CSAF is out to fuck us" programming...

And also, while I'm here (and on topic), I got to hear a 4-star member of the JCS speak this morning, and he shared some of his thoughts on the retention crisis and this upcoming meeting (won't say who it was because of the nature of the non-attribution setting in which he was speaking.)  Anyway, I got the distinct impression that this upcoming meeting is also desired by the "airline execs" as well.  Apparently they are also concerned about their pilot shortage and want to work with the Service Chiefs to develop a joint solution to a national problem.  Not sure if that changes much.  For me, I still think the AF's problem is more internal than external.  

And yes, TankerToad, I get it, airline hiring obviously has a direct impact on AF retention efforts.  That is basic economics.  However, from anecdotal stories I've heard (tons of them) the dudes that used to stay did so because they enjoyed the AF lifestyle and they loved flying AF iron.  It seems to me that the AF is doing its best to piss away that one advantage that we had over the private sector.  What, in the current environment, is going to make guys pass up the airline opportunity now that AF morale is low and AL opportunities are high?  If morale is key to retaining folks during times of AL hiring surges, how do we improve morale in the environment which is so strained as a result of this draining war?

[Guest]

I really don't want to further derail this otherwise constructive thread

You should have stopped there. Nothing about your post was concise. GFY.

Getting this post back on topic, I think our CSAF has realized the grass is greener. There is jack-shit he can do to fix that in the near term. As a result, he is choosing to torch the neighbors grass hoping it won't backfire on him and cause more resentment. Unfortunately for him, it will. Next step: stop loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcola]

1 minute ago, ihtfp06 said:

You should have stopped there. Nothing about your post was concise. GFY.
 

Ouch.  Damn dude, nobody's making you read that shit.  Just move along.  And BTW, it was quite concise given the complexity of the topic.  Back to my beer...

[Guest]

Ouch.  Damn dude, nobody's making you read that shit.  Just move along.  And BTW, it was quite concise given the complexity of the topic.  Back to my beer...

Didn't read it. Back to my whiskey...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

Pcloa, thanks for the interesting post.  To avoid upsetting ihtfp's delicate sensibilities about what should go where in an Internet forum, I'll decline replying.  But if you'd like to continue on PM I'm game, cheers.

[pawnman]

So, the latest NDAA said the Air Force would have to prove the non-monetary methods they tried to retain pilots before they congress would increase the bonus beyond $35K a year.  Any chance CSAF is playing the long game and using the 1500 hour rule proposal as evidence he's tried?  "Look, I attempted to lower the amount of hours civilian pilots need to fly for the airlines, but it didn't work, I'm going to need $50k/year to retain fighter pilots."

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

"Look, I attempted to lower the amount of hours civilian pilots need to fly for the airlines, I tried to increase the retention bonus, but it didn't work, I'm going to stop loss all pilots."

Fixed it for you.

[TnkrToad]

11 hours ago, pcola said:

And yes, TankerToad, I get it, airline hiring obviously has a direct impact on AF retention efforts.  That is basic economics.  However, from anecdotal stories I've heard (tons of them) the dudes that used to stay did so because they enjoyed the AF lifestyle and they loved flying AF iron.  It seems to me that the AF is doing its best to piss away that one advantage that we had over the private sector.  What, in the current environment, is going to make guys pass up the airline opportunity now that AF morale is low and AL opportunities are high?  If morale is key to retaining folks during times of AL hiring surges, how do we improve morale in the environment which is so strained as a result of this draining war?

Just be aware that the people who took the bonus and stayed on AD during the late-90s/very early 2000s airline hiring boom are the folks we like to bash on these forums today. Bonus takers between FY97-02, when ACP take rates were really in the crapper, would have been from the '88 to -93 (ish) year groups (who now comprise many of today's AF generals and colonels).

- Given the costs associated with training up experienced pilots, the Air Force can't afford not to try to better compete financially with the civilian alternatives. Furthermore, improved monetary incentives might've kept some really great leaders on AD back in the late-90s. Had better incentives been offered, we might have better leadership today

Comparatively low-cost options to improve morale have been discussed on this forum extensively already. I won't repeat those, other than to say that--speaking from the heavy driver perspective--it would help if AF senior leaders quit with their public handwringing over fighter pilots, when pilot communities across the Air Force are suffering. That myopia comes across as ignorant and/or condescending.

TT

[pcola]

- Given the costs associated with training up experienced pilots, the Air Force can't afford not to try to better compete financially with the civilian alternatives. Furthermore, improved monetary incentives might've kept some really great leaders on AD back in the late-90s. Had better incentives been offered, we might have better leadership today

TT

Agree with this sentiment. Why should it be assumed that the AF can't compete financially with airline salaries? Given the relatively small percentage of mil personnel that are pilots, it would seem that even huge bonuses should constitute a relatively small percentage of DOD $. Take a look at some of the unique medical bonuses and then ask yourself why the AF/DOD/Congress refuses to entertain the idea that its pilot force is as worthy of receiving competitive compensation.



Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Herk Driver]

Agree with this sentiment. Why should it be assumed that the AF can't compete financially with airline salaries? Given the relatively small percentage of mil personnel that are pilots, it would seem that even huge bonuses should constitute a relatively small percentage of DOD $. Take a look at some of the unique medical bonuses and then ask yourself why the AF/DOD/Congress refuses to entertain the idea that its pilot force is as worthy of receiving competitive compensation.



Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Money is a part of the overall problem.

Would an increase in money and still doing all the 365s, ancillary training and the rest get you to stay?

Would you stay til retirement?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

Money is a part of the overall problem.

Would an increase in money and still doing all the 365s, ancillary training and the rest get you to stay?

Would you stay til retirement?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

The $60k a year proposed in the house bill would have been hard to walk away from, even with the queep and 365s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sqwatch]

Agree with this sentiment. Why should it be assumed that the AF can't compete financially with airline salaries? Given the relatively small percentage of mil personnel that are pilots, it would seem that even huge bonuses should constitute a relatively small percentage of DOD $. Take a look at some of the unique medical bonuses and then ask yourself why the AF/DOD/Congress refuses to entertain the idea that its pilot force is as worthy of receiving competitive compensation.



Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Because if the military outbids the civilian sector for labor as we are a significant source for the airlines, powerful lobbyists and people start calling senators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk