Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Airlines Are Quietly Cutting Corners On Costs And Pilot Experience
Over the past couple of decades, the familiar landscape of the airline industry has changed dramatically. Now, smaller and lesser-known regional airlines carry roughly half of all domestic passengers for America’s “legacy” airlines. They supply the legacy airlines with a tremendous cost reduction. They do this by paying their employees only a fraction of what legacy airline employees make in salary. (dailycaller.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Welcome to the new reality of aviation. In the past, the airports were full of training schools attracting people who thought they could get a career start. Intros led to PPL, in turn led to Comm Lic., instructors ratings where you really learned how to fly by teaching. Flight hours accumulating to that magic 5000 hr mark to where you might get an Airline interview and a job. Now, somebody in HR said that new pilots should have aviation degrees, 4 years of college, aerodynamic theory, and of course $150,000 and then they turn out a pilot with a Comm Multi IFR license with 250 hours. We used to teach theory of flight without a university degree and if the pilot didn’t cut it, we washed them out. But back then, a Cheeokee or Cessna rented for $22 buck an hour and a twin Commanche $50/hr.
I really liked the Tomahawk which I remember was even cheaper ($15 or $17.50 ?), which gave one an opportunity to build solo hours, and was much nicer all-round than a 152. Except the Tomahawk was woefully underpowered. I realize this has nothing to do with the topic of the article but had me reminiscing about the "good old days".
You learned how to use the rudder properly in that PA-38 and boy could you wiind it up in a spin! Except for the tin canning in a full stall it was a decent trainer.
What made it nicer than a C152?
My question as well.The sales #'s don't corroborate that statement and it had exactly the same engine as a 152 down to the L2C. The tail noise got my attention as an instructor when you stalled it and it came to light long ago that many a TraumaHawk was not built to meet the type certificate data sheet. There were fewer ribs than originally speced and the tail was lighter than on the certification airplanes. Full disclosure, I bought a 152 with 387 hours on it, SN.82817 in 1982 for $10,500 and sold it in 1994 for $17,500 and the original tach. read 7700 and some change. It was in a lease program and as an A&P I did my own maintenance and bought parts at the discount rates. I made a $100 grand or so on that airplane and the process and as Highflyer says, "Welcome to the new reality of aviation" and the opportunity I was presented will never come around again. HF hit it pretty well on the flyin part.
Hi Bentwing - congrats on coming out (financially) ahead. I sank (not literally) my money in sailboats so never invested in a/c but given my record would have lost money there also. I wasn't aware of any structural issues with the PA-38 and I once brushed one's left wing through the top of a tree (displaced threshold way beyond my touchdown aim). I don't recall any elevator/tail problems with airflow or the c of g or trim.
Nice to converse with a fellow sailor on an aviation website. My moniker, (bentwing), literally describes a sail, and the 60 came from a type rating. I too have sunk (not literally) LOL a considerable amount of my not vast fortune in sailboats and have found 6 knts. to be as rewarding as 440! There are a lot of us. And I know where "the box" is. Quiet flight is rewarding as well and wakes up dead feet, or not. The lack of compliance with production PA38's TCDS didn't come to light till after production had ceased and they stayed together so no harm, no foul, no AD's. I'm 6'4", nothing was roomy till I flew Challengers, (CL60). Fair winds and cheers.
The C152 cockpit felt really shoulder rubbing tight, and I'm not fat. The Tomahawk felt far more roomy. Visibility (for me) was far too restricted by the C152 high wing, it felt claustrophobic - to me it seemed just not right; my first flights were in (low wing) sailplanes and perhaps a high wing just felt wrong. The "all-round" visibility, especially upward and behind, seemed so much more "natural". But then the 152 just felt "small" when compared with anything else, even the bench seat Aeronca or a sailplane.
As I said my main complaint was the (apparent) lack of power in the Tomahawk.
The power-on spin entry in the PA-28 was interesting but my "best" (actually worst) spin ever was (inadvertantly, while training) putting a Blanik into a spin at 600 feet AGL (not meters !). Fortunately the instructor recovered immediately and then made me fly the downwind and land. My knees were shaking like crazy after that - I literally had to push with both legs on the rudder and then relieve one side to get the ball centered.
As I said my main complaint was the (apparent) lack of power in the Tomahawk.
The power-on spin entry in the PA-28 was interesting but my "best" (actually worst) spin ever was (inadvertantly, while training) putting a Blanik into a spin at 600 feet AGL (not meters !). Fortunately the instructor recovered immediately and then made me fly the downwind and land. My knees were shaking like crazy after that - I literally had to push with both legs on the rudder and then relieve one side to get the ball centered.