Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 6 hours in a full motion sim

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    118
    Level
    36
    Points: 3,369, Level: 36
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 72/2
    Given: 175/5

    Ignore User

    6 hours in a full motion sim


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The cheapest Ive seen is just under $7000 for a 2 hour block on a classic 737 sim.
    In July 2014, you need 6 hours on a full motion level c or d sim, to qualify for an ATP. Who will pay for this increase cost to be an ATP pilot?
    People with an ATP ticket are in demand and will be even more so when this new FAA reg kicks in.

    I voted No.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    117
    Level
    43
    Points: 4,551, Level: 43
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 7/0
    Given: 0/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Here is a good article from avweb on it.

    http://www.avweb.com/news/features/T...s221453-1.html

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    332
    Level
    32
    Points: 2,789, Level: 32
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 51/18
    Given: 3/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yeah we're all in demand, voting NO just ensures we'll be the last ones to AA.

    NO carries the same amount of risk as YES!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Eagle
    Base
    ORD
    A/C Flown
    Jungle Jet
    Posts
    519
    Level
    74
    Points: 12,943, Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 41/6
    Given: 5/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    And I don't believe that 737 training is from an approved 141 school either. Can't get the training from part 61 school.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    856
    Level
    60
    Points: 8,110, Level: 60
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 85/10
    Given: 30/12

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Orchard View Post
    Yeah we're all in demand, voting NO just ensures we'll be the last ones to AA.

    NO carries the same amount of risk as YES!
    If they are equal, why are you voluntarily taking a pay cut?

  6. #6
    Registered User BOHICA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    483
    Level
    52
    Points: 6,361, Level: 52
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 64/1
    Given: 23/0

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailee atr View Post
    The cheapest Ive seen is just under $7000 for a 2 hour block on a classic 737 sim.
    In July 2014, you need 6 hours on a full motion level c or d sim, to qualify for an ATP. Who will pay for this increase cost to be an ATP pilot?
    People with an ATP ticket are in demand and will be even more so when this new FAA reg kicks in.

    I voted No.

    Higher Power (at least a couple years ago) offered a full 737 type for about $8000.

  7. #7
    Registered User ardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4,866
    Level
    99
    Points: 29,429, Level: 99
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 570/36
    Given: 589/14

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Orchard View Post
    Yeah we're all in demand, voting NO just ensures we'll be the last ones to AA.

    NO carries the same amount of risk as YES!
    how does a no ensure you will be the last ones at aa?
    Sir, can I have another.

  8. #8
    Registered User Centurion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Posts
    100
    Level
    42
    Points: 4,444, Level: 42
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/0
    Given: 21/0

    Ignore User

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The only way to ensure a real and viable flow is to have AA seniority numbers for everyone on property.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Registered User Centurion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Posts
    100
    Level
    42
    Points: 4,444, Level: 42
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/0
    Given: 21/0

    Ignore User

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I would also like to add that we FO's are worth more than top of scale $42/flt hr. Imposing caps on us and future FO's in a time frame when the cost of getting to this point will tremendously increase and may be even cost prohibitive is detrimental to our careers. The move for companies to cap and flow is flawed. It's all about getting a cheap labor force to do main line work with a promise you might make it some day.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    856
    Level
    60
    Points: 8,110, Level: 60
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 85/10
    Given: 30/12

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion View Post
    The only way to ensure a real and viable flow is to have AA seniority numbers for everyone on property.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    100% agree. What would it take to get this done? We know ALPA and the company want nothing to do with the idea.

    With fences for the CRJ Captains and some sort of out of order seniority LOA to allow them to park EMB's without having CRJ pilots bid vacancies, this should be under serious consideration.

    There is nothing wrong with flying an MEB145 or CRJ700 but its looked down at because of the compensation.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    346
    Level
    40
    Points: 4,051, Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 151/5
    Given: 0/0

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion View Post
    I would also like to add that we FO's are worth more than top of scale $42/flt hr. Imposing caps on us and future FO's in a time frame when the cost of getting to this point will tremendously increase and may be even cost prohibitive is detrimental to our careers. The move for companies to cap and flow is flawed. It's all about getting a cheap labor force to do main line work with a promise you might make it some day.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Are you listening, ORCHARD? If you weigh YES and NO the same, you are doing far more damage voting YES than voting NO. Even if you vote YES for outright selfish reasons (to each their own), you still end up hurting yourself in the end because you end up hurting the industry around you, and will end up a furloughed junior AA flow. Management will realize how much cheaper they can get Envoy to fly a couple 175s instead of one 737, and then you'll be back on the street begging for the right seat in that pay-capped, food-stamp dream job that YOU helped create.

  12. #12
    Registered User Centurion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    A/C Flown
    EMB
    Posts
    100
    Level
    42
    Points: 4,444, Level: 42
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/0
    Given: 21/0

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by HotSauce View Post
    100% agree. What would it take to get this done? We know ALPA and the company want nothing to do with the idea.

    With fences for the CRJ Captains and some sort of out of order seniority LOA to allow them to park EMB's without having CRJ pilots bid vacancies, this should be under serious consideration.

    There is nothing wrong with flying an MEB145 or CRJ700 but its looked down at because of the compensation.
    It would have to be a joint venture from APA and our union putting pressure on AAG. APA has their plate full right now being sued by USAPA so in the short term not feasible. But this would be advantageous for APA to have us on their list. The more pilots on their list, the more controlling power they have over the other two pilot groups at US.

    With an outcome of a no vote and a real possibility of a massive exodus of pilots to other carriers AAG will loose a solid block of well trained and qualified pilots that they must have in order to keep their operations going. Yes they have a lot of applicants right now but they farmed out their hiring to a company out in CA that has done primarily FA hiring for other airlines. Because of this AA is not getting enough of the type of pilots they need and want from off the streets. A lot of conversations have been going on with the hiring board at the school house and this company doing the initial interviews. When the pilot board said we don't care about how pilots might feel on certain HR questions that you ask, all we care about is can they fly down to 200 1/2. The company out CA said what's 200 1/2? That is why they are having problems with getting the right type of pilots off the street. They are going to need us.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Registered User ardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4,866
    Level
    99
    Points: 29,429, Level: 99
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 570/36
    Given: 589/14

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Stringfellowhawke View Post
    Are you listening, ORCHARD? If you weigh YES and NO the same, you are doing far more damage voting YES than voting NO. Even if you vote YES for outright selfish reasons (to each their own), you still end up hurting yourself in the end because you end up hurting the industry around you, and will end up a furloughed junior AA flow. Management will realize how much cheaper they can get Envoy to fly a couple 175s instead of one 737, and then you'll be back on the street begging for the right seat in that pay-capped, food-stamp dream job that YOU helped create.
    No, he and the others would be telling apa to get an agreement for them to flow back in the left seat and be paid as captains. when you screw over someone like they will by voting yes because of selfishness then why would they not do it again to the same pilot group. they already know they are spineless here.
    Sir, can I have another.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    856
    Level
    60
    Points: 8,110, Level: 60
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 85/10
    Given: 30/12

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by ardvark View Post
    they already know they are spineless here.
    They will find out how spineless in 6 days

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    346
    Level
    40
    Points: 4,051, Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 151/5
    Given: 0/0

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by ardvark View Post
    No, he and the others would be telling apa to get an agreement for them to flow back in the left seat and be paid as captains. when you screw over someone like they will by voting yes because of selfishness then why would they not do it again to the same pilot group. they already know they are spineless here.
    You are absolutely correct!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •