TAB Express in DeLand closes its doors

Auburn_CFI said:
Please answer this question Mr. Guthrie:

Are we being formal? Or is calling me "Mr." when you should know my title is "Dr." an attempted slight? I'll assume attempted formality; please correct your error.

You are flying in a commercial aircraft. The aircraft develops a problem and must be landed immediately on a runway with a sever x-wind. Who do you want at the controls?

1. 1500 hr. pilot (Experience includes over 1000 hours of Flight Instruction given and training in the aircraft you are being shuttled in) or,
2. 250 hr. pilot (Paying to be there, training in the aircraft you paying to fly in.)

(This thread has gone beyond death, it's too early to deal with this stuff, my apologies that I don't care to be particular subtle anymore. Time to call a shovel a shovel.)

Mr. Simon, this is a BS question which I believe is designed to hide your bias and feed the frenzy.

First, you have a Part 121 air carrier op. The FAA will not allow a distinction in the training for a required Part 121 crew member simply because one carrier wishes to pay the FO and the other carrier wishes to charge the FO. Your strongly implied suggestion to the contrary is pure BS. Despite your attempt to cast a difference that doesn't exist, the FAA will not allow a difference in the training requirement. IOW, the training difference that you suggest between choice #1 and choice #2 is purely inflammatory and doesn't exist in the real world.

Second, depending on the airline hiring cycle, the pilot in choice #1 could have an experience level pushing that which you propose in choice #2, and this being the reality regardless of whether the airline pays the FO or the FO pays the airline. I once flew into Dulles on a dark, foggy, rainy Sunday night. The ASA flight ahead of me diverted because NEITHER PILOT HAD 100 HOURS IN TYPE. At that point in time I personally knew ASA pilots hired with as little as 500 hours TT. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like your choice #2, now doesn't? What was the difference between those ASA pilots and your proposed choice #2? Are you suggesting that the commuter airlines as a whole are despicable?

Sure, everyone would prefer a highly trained crew with oodles and oodles of flight experience in make/model. Trouble is, which commuter airline in the midst of a pilot hiring boom has one of those pilots? The one's that pay their pilots? Not in this world.

Keep the discussion restricted to the salary (paid versus pay) and you might have some merit. Try to toss in experience hype and your debate will be destroyed. Try for a better question next time; something without the inflammatory hype.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
If you notice the recent discussion about the Pinnacle 3701 accident, the F/O was hired by Pinnacle with 500 hrs. because he came through a "bridge" program with GIA. Anyhow, just my rant.

But the Captain didn't and the F/O didn't get to 410 solo.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
Here we go off into tangent-land.

You started the "can't touch the controls" tangent, I'm just exploring the validity.

Yes, many (most?) PFT operations are right seat operations with little or no actual control-manipulation time (such as it is.) This product is sold to give would-be professionals blocks of SIC turbine time in two-crewmember aircraft.

First, claiming that the FO is nothing but a flaps/gear/radio operator, and the reality that yes, their flight experience is minimal so their control exposure will be less the 50/50 are two different statements. One is designed to disparage, the other merely reflects prudent operations. I suspect the pay for time airline approaches the later in that I suspect FOs actually fly the aircraft during low skill demand periods. I'm not there, your not there, so both of us are speculating.

Second, are you aware that many of the fractionals will not allow the FO to touch the controls on a revenue leg? This by ops manual specification. Are those FOs to be disparaged because they have limited hands on time allowed?

You interpret it as a slam because you're simply unfamiliar with the industry and think there could be an ego trip associated with buying blocks of right seat turbine time on revenue flights.

Nothing of the sort--I don't assume ego trip at all. I assume that no pilot would want to be described as a glorified flap/gear/radio operator. IOW, I assume it is a slam because it is a slam to any self-respecting pilot and, as delivered it was intended as a slam.

No one's particularly happy about CFI pay, but it's purely driven by supply and demand. It's the average time-builder's method of earning both "paper" and real experience towards the next level.

Appears that you agree with my premise that CFIs discount their salary to obtain time.

Buying a seat in 1900 flipping gear and flap levers

There's that slam again, once again delivered as a slam.

is, by contrast, degrading to the profession. Imagine someone paying to do the job you're well compensated for; it may not put you out work at this stage in your career, but it could well cost an eager young professional who can't afford to "buy" a job his shot at the prize.

We now return to the real crux, and the basis for my statement that it is all semantics and degrees of discounting. Isn't the person discounting to 2% of fair value creating the same problem? IOW, isn't it only the degree of degrading to the profession that differs? Taking your analogy, if the young professional doesn't have the personal bankroll to subsidize the starvation time, or the parent's house to provide room and board, and therefor can't afford his "shot at the prize" as you call it, isn't the person discounting to 2% of fair value creating the same problem? After all, the economically disadvantaged is shut out, right?

I'm not happy those students lost their investment, but I'm glad they lost an opportunity to degrade the profession via TAB's shutdown.

As I said before, I agree with this 100%. Where we differ is that you appear willing to disparage the student, I'm not.

I believe where you and Mr. Simon err in the discussion is that you try to justify your position in the the salary discount discussion by disparaging the pilot in one or more ways. I think it would be best to limit the discussion to discounting practice, extent of discounting, et cetera.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Ya know, this kind of economic snobbery really has no place amongst pilots, much less supposedly civil pilots. Furthermore, no one should take gleeful pleasure in seeing an unsuspecting individual stripped of their life savings (and probably more than that).

. . .

In fact, if you want to be fair about the snobbery and name calling, the only non-charlatan time builders on the lower rungs of the industry ladder are the aircraft owners and renters--they are footing the entire bill on their own dime.

Cognitive Dissonance is my take on it. Independent minded pilots with their swashbuckling self image refuse to believe that their only hope of economic success is through collective bargaining. Fortunately, at the highest ends of the industry the pilots realized years ago that the unregulated market was out to, quite literally, kill them.

The market was regulated two ways. First the CAA, now FAA imposed MINIMUM safety regulations, including minimum times for licenses and PIC positions. Second, the pilots organized into unions and through the countervailing weight of an organized labor force were able to force the employers into terms and conditions of employment which were acceptable to workers.

When there are low barriers to entry into to business or industry, trade unionism has an extraordinarily hard time. If the company is large enough the barriers to entry don't matter (how big was Walmart's investment in the Ontario store they shut down solely because it was organized?). Deregulation removed most of the barriers to entry into the market and now we have the inevitable free-for-all of unregulated capitalism (this is not a value judgment, just an observation - I am forever reminding my immigrant clients when they complain about their economic difficulties that the US is capitalist and they are free to leave - harsh, but real - they rarely leave).

The PFT folks are doing exactly what we expect they will do in an unregulated economic scheme, they are making themselves more attractive to the employer through the investment of capital. This is precisely the goal of capitalism.

What our fellow pilots object to is not any fundamental safety issues (they should, but they don't - at least they don't by electing officials who will take those concerns seriously) what they object to is that they could not afford it. What they object to is that there is a group of people who are willing and able to make an initial investment that is far greater than the initial investment they are willing or able to make. As you point out, in the end they make the investment, they just do it slowly over time.

Here is where the cognitive dissonance comes into play. What the non PFT folks are really saying is "gee - it is terrible that someone should have an advantage over me because they are able to pay their dues in cash up front and I have to pay my dues an hour at a time over many years." There is no doubt in my mind that if I was willing to hire 500 hour pilots at $20.00 per flight hour to crew the right seat of my BE-1900 that each and everyone of these folks would step up to the plate and apply for the job.

So their real objection is not safety - if it were they would be electing regulators to office. So their real objection is not taking a job from a more qualified individual - if it were they would allow me to teach for $80.00 per hour and not make it impossible for me to earn an acceptable living as a flight instructor through their willingness to work for $20.00 per hour (which just as an aside is the reason there is such a high accident rate among private pilots, their instructors are the least qualified - not the most qualified - what nonsense!). So their real objection is not "qualifications" - if it were they would be objecting to 500 hour pilots, not objecting to PFT. No the real objection is the one they can't say out loud, it is this: "I can't afford it and the other guy can so the other guy is wrong."

The real reason is that they truly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for them to even recognize, never mind voice, their true discontent - unregulated capitalism causes irrational results based not on desire, competence, or a host of other objective factors, but rather on one overriding factor - economic power. To admit this would require a change in their world view. They would need to recognize the flaws and limitations of unregulated capitalism, they would need to assert that rich people should not, simply by virtue of their wealth, have a better shot at the things we all want, such as jobs, health care, comfortable retirements, and first class education for our children - things rich people all get more of than poor people (in general, I know there are exceptions). They can't admit any of this, so they blame a system they have no hope of changing unless they are willing to make the admission - capitalism is fundamentally unfair - I'm not suggesting an alternative, or even suggesting this is "wrong," I'm just stating a conclusion which to me seems obvious.

If you want to solve the PFT problem you must be willing to look beyond the rhetoric. You must be willing to regulate them out of existence. You must be willing to adopt a true competitive entry ab initio, train for free system (like the military) and then only hire the best, brightest and most talented.

But this will never happen because the airline owners and managers won't allow it to happen. After all, they are the beneficiaries of the capitalist free for all and they have the power to get what they want, not what is in the interest of the people they serve. So they will merrily go along running unsafe airlines until the pilots are organized and the union is afforded a measure of power, or until they bankrupt themselves, or until the accident rate (right now at all time lows and due to technology going to stay that way) forces the government to impose further regulation. Since none of these is likely to happen, PFT is here to stay.

Well, I take a few weeks off from posting and I jump right into the deep end.
 
NickDBrennan said:
You know, its kinda funny. The pilot community and the professional wrestling community have a lot in common. Professional wrestling is very much a "dues paying" career. I'll spare most of the details, but reading this thread reminded me quite a bit of the sentiment of wrestlers in this way:

Thanks for the post, Nick.

My basic take on your scenario is that it's altogether different. While wrestling most certainly takes large doses of talent and athleticism, flying doesn't require either. A nominally intelligent person can become a professional pilot with no other overriding abilities. This, in conjunction with the appeal the job has to the market, is why we have more pilots than jobs, most of the time.

I assume the same will happen with pilots. Those that "cheated the system" will eventually find themselves on the outside of the community looking in. Or not. They may make it. But if they do, it will be because they enjoy flying enough to actually learn everything they can about the business to succeed.

Perhaps, but more than likely the only way those pilots will find themselves on the "outside looking in" is if they make their PFT past known to their co-workers. In most instances, this is guaranteed to ostracize them from the rest of their fellow pilots.

Some will wash out over time, but I don't believe PFTers are inherently more likely to do this simply because of their poor career decision. If PFTers do wash out more frequently, it's probably due primarily to lack of total experience and inability to adjust to the speed of revenue operations, moreso than a fundamental lacking as a pilot.
 
Arnold said:
The PFT folks are doing exactly what we expect they will do in an unregulated economic scheme, they are making themselves more attractive to the employer through the investment of capital. This is precisely the goal of capitalism.

What our fellow pilots object to is not any fundamental safety issues (they should, but they don't - at least they don't by electing officials who will take those concerns seriously) what they object to is that they could not afford it. What they object to is that there is a group of people who are willing and able to make an initial investment that is far greater than the initial investment they are willing or able to make. As you point out, in the end they make the investment, they just do it slowly over time.

Here is where the cognitive dissonance comes into play. What the non PFT folks are really saying is "gee - it is terrible that someone should have an advantage over me because they are able to pay their dues in cash up front and I have to pay my dues an hour at a time over many years." There is no doubt in my mind that if I was willing to hire 500 hour pilots at $20.00 per flight hour to crew the right seat of my BE-1900 that each and everyone of these folks would step up to the plate and apply for the job.

Thanks for your post.

What I think you're failing to account for is that many 'career-switchers' (myself included) could have afforded the PFT route. For that matter, many young pilots beginning their careers could afford it too, either via loans or their parents. Many consciously choose not to take this route for ethical reasons, not financial. I am one of those people.

I resent the ethics involved in "paying for training," or "paying for jobs" which in my opinion has no place in a professional's development. A fellow pilot's financial status has no bearing on the matter. If that person would like to go out, buy a 200 hour block of piston twin time and fly around building experience, that's perfectly okay by me and, I'm pretty sure, most other professional pilots. We object to paying to earn a position on revenue flights for the reasons stated earlier in this thread. PFT always affects others and degrades all professional pilots wherever it occurs.

The real reason is that they truly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for them to even recognize, never mind voice, their true discontent - unregulated capitalism causes irrational results based not on desire, competence, or a host of other objective factors, but rather on one overriding factor - economic power. To admit this would require a change in their world view. They would need to recognize the flaws and limitations of unregulated capitalism, they would need to assert that rich people should not, simply by virtue of their wealth, have a better shot at the things we all want, such as jobs, health care, comfortable retirements, and first class education for our children - things rich people all get more of than poor people (in general, I know there are exceptions). They can't admit any of this, so they blame a system they have no hope of changing unless they are willing to make the admission - capitalism is fundamentally unfair - I'm not suggesting an alternative, or even suggesting this is "wrong," I'm just stating a conclusion which to me seems obvious.[/quote]

Your conclusion is flawed because it is precipitated on the notion that all pilots faced with this decision are haves or have-nots. In reality, more are "wills" or "will-nots" and enjoy the power of conscious choice. The number of PFT operations is relatively small, the training market relatively large. There is a reason for this.

Also, the value of this experience has been seeing a decline over the last few years. The reasons for this are multifold, but primarily include: 1) HR + pilot interviewers can recognize this experience in a pilot's logbook and may view it as a disincentive to hire the applicant, and 2) the career-long backlash a pilot is likely to face if he's discovered as a PFTer at his place of employment. While I don't expect the practice to ever go away, I do consider it to be unethical and unwelcome in my profession. I don't consider PFT to be un-American or any such nonsense; we all know America's the land where anything legal goes. PFT is legal, and it will keep going. It should not be regulated out of existence by the FAA. This practice is unworthy at a higher level.

But this will never happen because the airline owners and managers won't allow it to happen. After all, they are the beneficiaries of the capitalist free for all and they have the power to get what they want, not what is in the interest of the people they serve. So they will merrily go along running unsafe airlines until the pilots are organized and the union is afforded a measure of power, or until they bankrupt themselves, or until the accident rate (right now at all time lows and due to technology going to stay that way) forces the government to impose further regulation. Since none of these is likely to happen, PFT is here to stay.

Agreed.
 
Arnold said:
Cognitive Dissonance

Arnold, certainly missed your as usual well reasoned thought. Where have you been? Nice post, BTW.

So their real objection is not safety - if it were they would be electing regulators to office.

Hold that thought. I will start a new thread with a modest proposal.
 
I've been watching this thread and I have to say, I was clueless (perhaps still am). After over 20 years in non-aviation industry, I've been thinking of starting a second "career" in aviation. The trouble I've had is that the first rung of the ladder is a bit lower financially than my obligations would allow. I admire those who teach flight instruction. I don't have much interest in becoming a CFI. Why ? I've tried the teaching gig before and it burned me out, that's the last thing I want to happen to my love for aviation.

What does this have to do with this thread ? Well, it's very tempting at my age to find a way to speed up the process of ladder climbing. To be honest, I have no illusion of being an airline captain. Flying charters to the Carribean or freight for the local company is what I'd like to do. I just have to adjust my finances before I can do anything like that.

FWIW, most of non-aviation people I know think all aviators make hundreds of thousands of dollars... even instructors. The public doesn't seem to understand that aviation is much like old time guilds (apprenticeship through master). The more I learn about this industry the more I found I was completely mis-informed as a part of the non-flying public.
 
Arnold said:
What they object to is that there is a group of people who are willing and able to make an initial investment that is far greater than the initial investment they are willing or able to make.

The best explaination I've ever gotten !!! Thanks... it makes complete sense to me now. No sarcasm, no slam, slight, insult or anything else.

Thanks.
 
A number of years ago I was considering taking a vacation which involved helping an organization with some kind of wildlife study. I don't remember the details since it was a long time ago. I mentioned this to someone who was a wildlife biologist and he was angry that "rich" people would pay money to go out and help collect data and help with these projects when biologists should be getting paid to do the job instead. I ended up not going on this trip, not because I thought is was unethical, but because I didn't feel "rich" enough at the time. Sound familiar?

Even though I was a working pilot at the time (I still am) and had heard of people paying for their training as a prerequisite to being hired, I never put the two together. In fact I've never spent much time at all thinking about this or discussing it with other pilots. It seems the only place I ever see it mentioned is on internet message boards where the discussions can get incredibly heated. So maybe I lead a very sheltered life. :dunno:
 
Ed Guthrie said:
You started the "can't touch the controls" tangent, I'm just exploring the validity.

No sir, that's inaccurate. Suggest you review the thread.

First, claiming that the FO is nothing but a flaps/gear/radio operator, and the reality that yes, their flight experience is minimal so their control exposure will be less the 50/50 are two different statements.

They're one and the same. The basic position for payfers at TAB was to sit right seat, operate the radios and perform other basic tasks.

One is designed to disparage, the other merely reflects prudent operations. I suspect the pay for time airline approaches the later in that I suspect FOs actually fly the aircraft during low skill demand periods. I'm not there, your not there, so both of us are speculating.

No disparagement is conveyed with that remark except in your own mind. Disparagement is conveyed to the customer who made the choice to PFT. In any case, we don't need a hidden video camera to learn how these operations work. The F/O may or may not actually get a chance to fly here or there, but it is at best a token gesture at most of these PFT operations. I am sure there may be exceptions, but for the most part, 'nuff said.

Second, are you aware that many of the fractionals will not allow the FO to touch the controls on a revenue leg? This by ops manual specification. Are those FOs to be disparaged because they have limited hands on time allowed?

Any paid crewmember performing tasks for his/her company on revenue flights is outside the scope of a PFT discussion.

Nothing of the sort--I don't assume ego trip at all. I assume that no pilot would want to be described as a glorified flap/gear/radio operator.

That's what I do sometimes, when I float right-seat in airplanes I don't fly often. Occasionally I'll ask to fly, most of the time I don't really care. The Hawker's my ship and that's the one I know inside and out and fly most of the time. The others? I don't fly them often. Control manipulation - sure, throw me a takeoff or landing here or there. The rest of the time the autopilot's on, anyway. That makes me a "glorified flap/gear/radio operator" sometimes. Doesn't bother me.

IOW, I assume it is a slam because it is a slam to any self-respecting pilot and, as delivered it was intended as a slam.

... and that's because you're simply unfamiliar with flying everday for a living. You take pride and measure a considerable amount of self-worth whenever you pilot your Mooney. That's evident in the amount of time you spend on aviation-oriented internet message boards. That's okay; that's true for most private airplane owners and general aviation pilots (myself included.) However, sometimes it's just a job. You get in, do the job, get back out and forget about it.

Appears that you agree with my premise that CFIs discount their salary to obtain time.

Nope.

There's that slam again, once again delivered as a slam.

See above.

We now return to the real crux, and the basis for my statement that it is all semantics and degrees of discounting. Isn't the person discounting to 2% of fair value creating the same problem? IOW, isn't it only the degree of degrading to the profession that differs?

No. (I like how you tried to work 2% into the conversation as though it were an agreed-upon figure, by the way.) Paying to fly as a crewmember on revenue flights is where the line is crossed.

Taking your analogy, if the young professional doesn't have the personal bankroll to subsidize the starvation time, or the parent's house to provide room and board, and therefor can't afford his "shot at the prize" as you call it, isn't the person discounting to 2% of fair value creating the same problem? After all, the economically disadvantaged is shut out, right?

Repeat after me: Paying to fly as a crewmember on revenue flights is where the line is crossed.

As I said before, I agree with this 100%. Where we differ is that you appear willing to disparage the student, I'm not.

I hope I've explained this in such a way that you can now understand that no disparagement is conveyed with the description of what F/Os do at PFT operations (and at some non-PFT operations, as well.)

I believe where you and Mr. Simon err in the discussion is that you try to justify your position in the the salary discount discussion by disparaging the pilot in one or more ways. I think it would be best to limit the discussion to discounting practice, extent of discounting, et cetera.

You are hot on the topic of disparagement. It has nothing to do with this PFT discussion, and I believe if you continue past this point, you're guilty of intentional obfuscation. The only reason I can conceive for this is a fundamentally weak foundation for your argument.

Best regards!

-Ryan
 
jdwatson said:
The best explaination I've ever gotten !!! Thanks... it makes complete sense to me now. No sarcasm, no slam, slight, insult or anything else.

Thanks.

Sure, it was a good read. Just remember, it doesn't account for all the pilots who had the financial werewithal to PFT and chose not to do it.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
Paying to fly as a crewmember on revenue flights is where the line is crossed.

Ryan, if folks would keep it this simple and restricted to the real issue it would be a nice conversation. Some might not agree, some might agree, but it would be a nice conversation (my opinion).

Fact is, there is no "line" except in your imagination, which has been my point all along. You need it to justify your choices, but it doesn't exist. Since the line doesn't really exist, you are forced to toss into the discussion your opinions regarding the value of what these pilots do and any number of other totally unrelated topics in an attempt to justify what, in effect, is an arbitrary distinction.
 
Last edited:
A Tale of Two Prostitutes

Imagine if you would that prostitution within legalized Nevada brothels had an experience hierarchy. With respect to the fee a prostitute could charge for services rendered, the Mustang Ranch is the top rung on the ladder. Since every prostitute would prefer to be highly paid for her work, Mustang Ranch has more applicants than available positions. The Mustang Ranch management decides that experience is the key indicator of a successful prostitute hired at the Mustang Ranch. As a result, the Mustang Ranch will not consider employing a prostitute who has not documented 1500 clients served. Prostitutes who aspire to earn top dollar at the Mustang Ranch must first build experience at a number of much lesser paying brothels, one of which is Brothel B.

Brothel B pays but a small fraction of what Mustang Ranch pays. With so many prostitutes hoping to make it to Mustang Ranch, there really is a glut on the prostitute employment market at the lesser establishments such as Brothel B. As a result, prostitute pay is very much discounted versus equivalent pay at Mustang Ranch. Where Mustang Ranch might pay a prostitute $100/client hour, Brothel B will only pay $20/client hour. In fact, a prostitute working at Brothel B cannot really survive on the income provided while working at Brothel B.

Sally and Jill, two relative newcomers to the trade, both work at Brothel B. Both hope to one day make it to the "major", the Mustang Ranch.

Jill is a bright woman. See has studied the economics of the trade. She realizes that every day she spends at Brothel B is an economic loss to her. Rent & food expenses far exceed her meager income received from Brothel B. In fact, Jill has determined that each day she works at Brothel B she actually goes $100 further in debt. However, if she can ever find her way to the Mustang Ranch her income will far exceed her expenses. IOW, the sooner Jill leaves Brothel B and moves to the Mustang Ranch, the greater her overall financial success on life's income road. Realizing this, Jill arrives upon a plan.

Jill has studied the economics and the rate with which she is accumulating documented experience. She has determined that it will take her 2 years to work her way out of Brothel B. In that time she will accumulate a net debt of $73,000 ($100/day debt x 365 days/year x 2). On the other hand, Jill has determined that if she can land every client entering Brothel B, she can amass the required 1500 documented experiences within a month, and she can quickly move to the Mustang Ranch. With this realization Jill arrives at a simple plan--she will discount--and discount severely. In fact, Jill decides to pay every client $2.

The plan works, Jill garners every client at Brothel B, and Jill starts rapidly accumulating the experience required to apply at the Mustang Ranch.

Sally on the other hand, is furious. True, Sally herself discounts. She charges a customer $20 when a prostitute at Mustang Ranch charges $100. But Sally is upset that anyone would undercut her discount. Furthermor, Sally is livid that anyone would actually pay a client. Sally starts spreading rumors about Jill. Jill is taking work from legitimate prostitutes. Jill doesn't practice safe sex. Jill has diseases. Jill really doesn't know anything about the trade. Jill doesn't know how to work the client's equipment. Jill is short changing the whole experience accumulation thing--when Jill gets to the Mustang ranch she won't really have learned the tricks of the trade.
 
Ron Levy said:
The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

There are 2 major differences, firstly, the USAF is paying those people, and they are very selective of whom they accept, and wash out those who can't cut it. Second the USAF pilots receive 200 hours of Training starting from scratch. The GIA and TAB type systems require the pilot to have a commercial ticket already, give them 10-20 hrs in the box and then use them as right seat line pilots. While there is a great deal of value to "Working" your training, it is not fair to the paying passengers.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
Wow, I seem to be bringing out the best in people. I joined this board at the beginning, right when AOPA closed, but recently started visiting it again. I really was not coming back looking to start these overly heated debates. I will leave it for everyone to make up their own mind. Below is the link to GIA's website and program description. In this program you can pay over $27,000 to be a F/O (flap/gear/radio operator) on actual revenue flights for Gulfstream International Airlines d.b.a. Continenal Connection. It is my opinion, and shared by others (maybe none here) that doing this hurts the industry because that seat should be occupied by a paid professional pilot. Ed, I am not going to argue with you anymore, we obviously have a philosophical difference and it has come to name calling, which I feel is unprofessional and immature. I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intention. I do still believe that everything I said was true. Keep in mind you are paying these people so that they can reduce their operation cost by not having to pay a pilot.


Weren't you arguing the other point in another thread? If you don't see the relationship between this and the commuters being run in a hazardous manner.... BTW, GIA & TAB aren't the only ones like this, and 8 years ago, nearly all the commuters to some extent were operated like this. Flight Safety had a deal going with most all of them. Several hundred dollars to buy yourself onto a list that many commuters used to call people for interviews, then another $12,000 or so for the training.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Said like Ryan has phrased it here, I would strongly agree. Unfortunately, until this point that hasn't been the prevailing theme of this thread. Not to say such was not Ryan's original intent, just that if it was the original intent, the thread veered to the ditch rather rapidly.

For the record, I believe TAB's and operations like them take advantage of the unsuspecting, aspiring pilot. I despise TABs and operations like them. I don't despise the pilots that fall victim to the scheme.

Heck, not even a decade ago the nearly the entire commuter industry was run like this. They ran into a problem though, not enough people could come up with $15,000 to fill their right seats, so it has kind of swung part of the way back, so now some of them pay for your 135/121 qualification training.
 
Henning said:
Heck, not even a decade ago the nearly the entire commuter industry was run like this. They ran into a problem though, not enough people could come up with $15,000 to fill their right seats, so it has kind of swung part of the way back, so now some of them pay for your 135/121 qualification training.

IMO, the reason the practice disappeared had nothing to do with "not enough people could come up with $15,000", the practice disappeared because demand so far outstripped pilot supply that commuters were forced to compete for pilots. IOW, as pilot supply shrunk below demand some commuters dropped the requirement so as to recruit more effectively. At that point, not enough pilots would come up with $15,000 for training since they had other choices that didn't require pay fo training. Wait for the next swing of the pilot supply-demand pendulum--pay for training will inevitably return to the commuter airline world.

It is all about economics.
 
Re: A Tale of Two Prostitutes

Ed Guthrie said:
Imagine if you would that prostitution within legalized Nevada brothels had an experience hierarchy.
So, now, I, as a working pilot am being compared to a prostitute...I can accept that.
 
Re: A Tale of Two Prostitutes

Henning said:
So, now, I, as a working pilot am being compared to a prostitute...I can accept that.

I had a boss who loved the analogy for just about any business situation. His favorite saying was along the lines, "We could conclude this negotiation a lot quicker if you would just tell me how high you want me to hike my skirt."

Over the years I learned to appreciate his ability to cut to the key issue.
 
Re: A Tale of Two Prostitutes

Ed Guthrie said:
Imagine if you would that prostitution within legalized Nevada brothels had an experience hierarchy. With respect to the fee a prostitute could charge for services rendered, the Mustang Ranch is the top rung on the ladder. Since every prostitute would prefer to be highly paid for her work, Mustang Ranch has more applicants than available positions. The Mustang Ranch management decides that experience is the key indicator of a successful prostitute hired at the Mustang Ranch. As a result, the Mustang Ranch will not consider employing a prostitute who has not documented 1500 clients served. Prostitutes who aspire to earn top dollar at the Mustang Ranch must first build experience at a number of much lesser paying brothels, one of which is Brothel B.

Brothel B pays but a small fraction of what Mustang Ranch pays. With so many prostitutes hoping to make it to Mustang Ranch, there really is a glut on the prostitute employment market at the lesser establishments such as Brothel B. As a result, prostitute pay is very much discounted versus equivalent pay at Mustang Ranch. Where Mustang Ranch might pay a prostitute $100/client hour, Brothel B will only pay $20/client hour. In fact, a prostitute working at Brothel B cannot really survive on the income provided while working at Brothel B.

Sally and Jill, two relative newcomers to the trade, both work at Brothel B. Both hope to one day make it to the "major", the Mustang Ranch.

Jill is a bright woman. See has studied the economics of the trade. She realizes that every day she spends at Brothel B is an economic loss to her. Rent & food expenses far exceed her meager income received from Brothel B. In fact, Jill has determined that each day she works at Brothel B she actually goes $100 further in debt. However, if she can ever find her way to the Mustang Ranch her income will far exceed her expenses. IOW, the sooner Jill leaves Brothel B and moves to the Mustang Ranch, the greater her overall financial success on life's income road. Realizing this, Jill arrives upon a plan.

Jill has studied the economics and the rate with which she is accumulating documented experience. She has determined that it will take her 2 years to work her way out of Brothel B. In that time she will accumulate a net debt of $73,000 ($100/day debt x 365 days/year x 2). On the other hand, Jill has determined that if she can land every client entering Brothel B, she can amass the required 1500 documented experiences within a month, and she can quickly move to the Mustang Ranch. With this realization Jill arrives at a simple plan--she will discount--and discount severely. In fact, Jill decides to pay every client $2.

The plan works, Jill garners every client at Brothel B, and Jill starts rapidly accumulating the experience required to apply at the Mustang Ranch.

Sally on the other hand, is furious. True, Sally herself discounts. She charges a customer $20 when a prostitute at Mustang Ranch charges $100. But Sally is upset that anyone would undercut her discount. Furthermor, Sally is livid that anyone would actually pay a client. Sally starts spreading rumors about Jill. Jill is taking work from legitimate prostitutes. Jill doesn't practice safe sex. Jill has diseases. Jill really doesn't know anything about the trade. Jill doesn't know how to work the client's equipment. Jill is short changing the whole experience accumulation thing--when Jill gets to the Mustang ranch she won't really have learned the tricks of the trade.

Maybe this theory deserves further investigation? Or have you been documenting this already Ed???:goofy: :goofy: :goofy:
 
Joe Williams said:
A review of the part about calling flight instructors charlatans may be worthwhile...

I suggest you reread the actually post, and the context. Despite your erroneous statement above, I never wrote that flight instructors were charlatans. I said that if people wanted to call some pay discounting pilots names, that those people (the ones slinging names) should, in all fairness, abuse everyone on the aviation time building ladder's lower rungs except renters and owners.

IOW, I suggested/inferred that the name slinging some folks were doing was the equivalent of calling certain pilots charlatans and that if they chose do so they should be fair in their mud-slinging and call everyone a charlatan.

The truth,then, being not even close to what you suggested.
 
Re: A Tale of Two Prostitutes

Ed Guthrie said:
I had a boss who loved the analogy for just about any business situation. His favorite saying was along the lines, "We could conclude this negotiation a lot quicker if you would just tell me how high you want me to hike my skirt."

Over the years I learned to appreciate his ability to cut to the key issue.

Sometimes when people ask me what I do, I tell em, "I'm an equipment slut, if it rolls, floats, flys or f***s, I operate it for money." I have no delusions of grandeur over what I do. Just tell me what you want, and pay me for it.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I suggest you reread the actually post, and the context. Despite your erroneous statement above, I never wrote that flight instructors were charlatans. I said that if people wanted to call some pay discounting pilots names, that those people (the ones slinging names) should, in all fairness, abuse everyone on the aviation time building ladder's lower rungs except renters and owners.

IOW, I suggested/inferred that the name slinging some folks were doing was the equivalent of calling certain pilots charlatans and that if they chose do so they should be fair in their mud-slinging and call everyone a charlatan.

The truth,then, being not even close to what you suggested.

The truth was exactly what I posted.. you are just trying to pretty up your name calling, IMHO.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
Any paid crewmember performing tasks for his/her company on revenue flights is outside the scope of a PFT discussion.
-Ryan

Yes and no. While they didn't PFT, that's not all that this thread has developed into since the inference that is drawn is that since the person in that seat is a "flap and radio switcher" and isn't receiving valid experience, it is still relevent to the discussion on an experience gained per logbook hour level which is also a topic covered in this thread and I believe a valid point. The pilot who was paid to be in the right seat tending radios and flaps only is no better trained or experienced than the pilot who payed to be in that same said seat. I think that regardless the method used to gain access to that seat, that on a two pilot aircraft, Capt & FO should swap PF & PNF leg for leg as is done on many if not most aircraft.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
I'm not sure why we keep discussing military flight training. I think I've made it pretty clear I'm talking about civilian flight training operations which involve a turbine emphasis from the get-go. After all, that was exactly the product which TAB Express offered. I will reiterate that it is a pointless method of training from that perspective. I do, of course, agree that when the military trains its pilot candidates, the results are typically quite good and the pilots quite capable with very few total hours. I believe that would be the case whether they were flying supersonic jets, WWII-era radial-engine propeller fighters, or dump trucks.

Also, I've attempted (but apparently failed) to make it clear that my beef is with the concept of ab initio turbine training for would be professional (civilian) pilots regardless of the quality. This concept does not create a hireable pilot in the civilian world, and the quality, by the way, is typically quite bad. There's a reason most flight schools train the way they do, and with the equipment they have - because it's the most cost-effective way to train.
Oh, I understand what you're saying, all right, but I totally disagree with it. If done right, ab initio training in turbine aircraft in a totally professional program (including proper candidate screening) is the best way to prepare people to be pilots of turbine-powered air carrier aircraft. However, it appears TAB wasn't doing that. Their program may have been all-turbine, but it did not meet the other criteria for a proper program to feed folks to the big rigs hauling paying passengers.

If flight training here were as expensive and scarce as it is in Europe and other places, we'd do more of it the way the military and the European carriers do it. Since the US airlines currently have an adequate stream of sufficiently qualified pilots from other sources, we don't. If that changes, the airlines will of necessity have to change to the European/military training model, and their costs will be driven up accordingly. Remember that in the early 60's, Eastern Airlines was (briefly) hiring 200-hour Private Pilots! Necessity is the mother of change, and unless the trend changes soon, in about 5-10 years, the airlines are going to be desperate for pilots.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
I'm not sure why we keep discussing military flight training. I think I've made it pretty clear I'm talking about civilian flight training operations which involve a turbine emphasis from the get-go. After all, that was exactly the product which TAB Express offered. I will reiterate that it is a pointless method of training from that perspective.

I think what brought this out was, and is still your continued use of the word "Pointless", as it is not that. Uneconomical would probably be a better and more accurate word to use. Pointless would be to gat only a rotorcraft rating and building 1500hrs in Jet Rangers in order to land a job as a line pilot for Southwest Airlines. That would be pointless.
 
Joe Williams said:
The truth was exactly what I posted.. you are just trying to pretty up your name calling, IMHO.

The quote in question, posted in a thread in which I took exception to what I felt was a person calling folks names if they discounted pilot time:

"In fact, if you want to be fair about the snobbery and name calling, the only non-charlatan time builders on the lower rungs of the industry ladder are the aircraft owners and renters--they are footing the entire bill on their own dime."

Take it piece by piece:

"if you" -- referring to the mud-slinging individual

"want to be fair about the snobbery and name calling" -- if that person wished to apply his snobbery and name calling in a fair and equitable manner

"the only non-charlatan time builders on the lower rungs" -- the only folks that don't behave in the manner the person found offensive


Joe, I assumed you were innocently mistaken the first pass. The second pass I'll expect you to recognize your error and stop making deliberately erroneous statements.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Snip

Joe, I assumed you were innocently mistaken the first pass. The second pass I'll expect you to recognize your error and stop making deliberately erroneous statements.

When I make an erroneous statement, I'll own up to it. However, I still feel you are just trying to pretty up your name calling. If that is a problem for you, that's just the way it is going to be. The tactic some people have of saying something outrageous, then trying to claim that that isn't what they really said, is simply one that never has and never will wash with me.
 
I believe Ed may have misused the term "charlatan" in his original post when he really meant "hypocrite."
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money or advantage by false pretenses."

"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.


"The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group."

That said, please reconsider the discussion on this point.
 
Joe Williams said:
When I make an erroneous statement, I'll own up to it. However, I still feel you are just trying to pretty up your name calling. If that is a problem for you, that's just the way it is going to be. The tactic some people have of saying something outrageous, then trying to claim that that isn't what they really said, is simply one that never has and never will wash with me.

Joe, you can be absolutely assured that I'm not in any way attempting to, as you put it "pretty up my name". I think if you go back and read my posts in this thread you will find that I have consistently held that no one anywhere on the pilot ladder should be ridiculed, etc. If the statement you referenced had the connotation you read it would be completely contrary to every other post I have made. That inconsistancy alone should tell you that the interpretation you made is incorrrect.
 
Folks, this thread has gone so off topic it's become it's own monster. Please discontinue "name calling" arguments and whatever else is too far off course from the original post. It's irrelevant to the subject at this point, anyway.

Thanks.
 
Ron Levy said:
Oh, I understand what you're saying, all right, but I totally disagree with it. If done right, ab initio training in turbine aircraft in a totally professional program (including proper candidate screening) is the best way to prepare people to be pilots of turbine-powered air carrier aircraft. However, it appears TAB wasn't doing that. Their program may have been all-turbine, but it did not meet the other criteria for a proper program to feed folks to the big rigs hauling paying passengers.

If flight training here were as expensive and scarce as it is in Europe and other places, we'd do more of it the way the military and the European carriers do it. Since the US airlines currently have an adequate stream of sufficiently qualified pilots from other sources, we don't. If that changes, the airlines will of necessity have to change to the European/military training model, and their costs will be driven up accordingly. Remember that in the early 60's, Eastern Airlines was (briefly) hiring 200-hour Private Pilots! Necessity is the mother of change, and unless the trend changes soon, in about 5-10 years, the airlines are going to be desperate for pilots.

I generally agree with you. I don't think the available supply of folks willing to be pilots is the overriding consideration. I truly believe that the Military and the airlines (Europe and Asia) who engage in ab initio training do so because it gets them a better product. I am sure the line for military flight slots far exceeds any need the military has except in times of major (WWII type) conflicts, and even then it probably does a well. Similarly, I am sure the European Airlines have an excess of candidates from which to choose if the only requirement is a desire to do the job.

I rather think what is in play is a philosophic difference. Both the military and the ab initio air carrier types believe they can assure a better pilot by making the required investment. I think for the European's the principal factor is not the supply (or potential supply - after all they could recruit from here, or subsidize foreign flight training for their country's nationals) of pilots, but the efficacy of alternative forms of screening.

Here in the U.S. the civilian aviation market is large enough, with enough rungs on the ladder, that the majors use 135 and flight instructing and banner towing and traffic reporting and regional 121 carriers as "farm teams" In other words, everything else is the minor leagues. But this is a choice, they could easily say "we will train ab initio because it gives us a better pilot," but that is more expensive, so they don't. Instead they allow Pinnacle and more importantly the flying public to absorb the cost.

In military aviation there really is no minor league. We don't have an "A" team and a "B" team military structure, but the military could recruit from the civilian pilot ranks instead of the civilian college grad ranks. In Europe, there has not traditionally been a healthy non "major" aviation infrastructure. Without a farm system you need to devise a different method of separating the wheat from the chaff, and so the answer is ab initio. But as I stated above there are alternatives, including extensive use of contract crews - think JAL.

When EAL was hiring 200 hr pilots, it was not because of a lack of candidates in the overall pool, after all they got enough pilots when they were willing to essentially ab initio them. The problem at that time was the farm system was not able to meet the new demand caused by the jet age. Eventually the farm system caught up and EAL went back to more traditional hiring requirements.

Did the 200 hr EAL pilots end up being worse pilots than the traditional hires? The ones who made it were certainly not worse, I don't believe any accident at EAL was ever attributed to the low time, or formerly low time, of those 200 hr. crew members. The Pinnacle crash required the errors of both pilots, the Captain could have prevented the accident at any time by doing what he was being paid to do; fly the airplane the way he was told, use good (perfect is not required) judgment when the fit hits the shan and be nice to people along the way. It is immaterial that the F/O was a pay for job type.

But that is all window dressing, discussion over a sub point. The bottom line is that there is no reason why a turbine ab initio school would produce a less qualified pilot candidate than a piston one, just as you stated the converse is probably true.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Ryan, if folks would keep it this simple and restricted to the real issue it would be a nice conversation. Some might not agree, some might agree, but it would be a nice conversation (my opinion).

I agree. I'd love to have a 'nice' conversation. Unfortunately, it can be hard to do that when you drop these bombs:

Naw, just call them names or perhaps chortle at their financial misfortune.

That soft, squishy feeling under your foot right now? I believe it might be your fellow pilot's back.

Mr. Simon, this is a BS question which I believe is designed to hide your bias and feed the frenzy.

Ed Guthrie said:
Fact is, there is no "line" except in your imagination, which has been my point all along. You need it to justify your choices, but it doesn't exist. Since the line doesn't really exist, you are forced to toss into the discussion your opinions regarding the value of what these pilots do and any number of other totally unrelated topics in an attempt to justify what, in effect, is an arbitrary distinction.

Do you think you're living up to your concept of a 'nice conversation'?

In any case - to respond to the last: no sir, that is not correct. This is no product of my imagination or anyone else's. This line is something clearly defined and understood in the industry. If you think I'm passionate about this topic compared to the average working pilot stiff, you've got another think coming (check the FlightInfo hangar sometime; it's about 10x the size of this forum with a large contingent of professional pilots.) Just breathe PFT over there. I think you'll see that my PFT 'zeal' is about 1% of the average level.

Also, I feel comfortable with my position and argument, especially the focus I've placed on the subject matter. I certainly have included my own opinions (no apologies for them) and views. They are not 'totally unrelated;' an example of 'totally unrelated' is going into a tangent on what you erroneously interpreted as a disparaging description. Frankly, it is difficult not to interpret these sorts of remarks as intentional attempts to muddy the waters. I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's difficult to do when you fill your posts with snide remarks.

So, can we return to having "civil discussion", Ed? I'm game. Always have been. But the ball's in your court.
 
Henning said:
I think what brought this out was, and is still your continued use of the word "Pointless", as it is not that. Uneconomical would probably be a better and more accurate word to use. Pointless would be to gat only a rotorcraft rating and building 1500hrs in Jet Rangers in order to land a job as a line pilot for Southwest Airlines. That would be pointless.

Agreed. Thank you for that, Henning. It is, ahem, "uneconomical" to train in this fashion, in the US, for the current pilot newhire market. Uh, lest there be confusion again, that's the CIVILIAN market. Not our up and coming mercenary air force. :)

This has been my point all along; not focusing on quality, but concept. I have no doubt that with the right tools (instructors, materials, aircraft, philosophy) great pilots can be churned out flying turbine or piston equipment. In fact, I don't think it really matters. Why should it?

What does matter is the viability of the pilot applicant in the job market. Leaving the flight training environment with approx. 300 hours in turbine equipment and $100k in debt doesn't make for a very hireable pilot. Considering the route to an airline or corporate/frac job could be completed for about 25-50% of that cost (depending on where the pilot trains), the concept of training in this manner really does seem very pointless indeed.

I guess I'll stop repeating myself now! :)

Best,

-Ryan
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
In any case - to respond to the last: no sir, that is not correct. This is no product of my imagination or anyone else's. This line is something clearly defined and understood in the industry. If you think I'm passionate about this topic compared to the average working pilot stiff, you've got another think coming (check the FlightInfo hangar sometime; it's about 10x the size of this forum with a large contingent of professional pilots.) Just breathe PFT over there. I think you'll see that my PFT 'zeal' is about 1% of the average level.

Also, I feel comfortable with my position and argument, especially the focus I've placed on the subject matter. I certainly have included my own opinions (no apologies for them) and views.

Ryan, you have an opinion that there is some "line" forming a distinction between discounting 99% and discounting 101%. As you note, your opinion is shared by some other folks. The truth is, whether you can find others to share your opinion or not, it is still just an opinion. Not surprising at all, others hold opinions contrary to yours. Opinions all around. The simple truth is that you personally don't like the business choices some others have chosen, but you'd like those choices to violate some greater evil so you could justify your behavior.
 
Back
Top