Originally Posted by
alphaeagle
Just thought I would point out I don't really like that analogy, and I've heard it many times. There are a lot more aircraft flying now then 30 years ago. A more appropriate one would be: You have a brain tumor that needs to be operated on soon, you can either wait for the the more experienced doctor, however long it might be, at a unaffordable rate for most people. Or you can get the needed surgery done now by someone who has been trained to do it, but may be younger with the advantage you can actually pay for it. Both will remove the tumor 99.999999% of the time.
There simply isn't enough pilots that can build up 3000 hours before moving onto a regional carrier. 30 years ago, with far fewer commercial flights, it may have been possible. Now, reducing flights and raising fares to 30 years ago would be disastrous to our economy with no increase in our safety. Flying now is safer then it ever has been before.
I'm not a commercial pilot, but I do think practically and have a lot of knowledge in the field. I do think pilots are underpaid, but it is a free market.
I believe, with all due respect to pilots, that none of this safety concern would be there if each regional pilot made $100-K a year.
Pilot experience did not help Capt. Van Zanten, nor those two flakes who overshot MSP, nor the guys who forgot to put their flaps/slats down in DTW, or the guys who did not deice their plane in Washington, D.C. They are in the same boat as those Colgen pilots. Hours did not matter in their cases.
Quality of training, improved systems, better aircraft all have made flying safer. Everyone has to start somewhere. Everyone had to take the first step in the cockpit. The only argument...really, no matter what anyone says...is pay.
Those guys would get a lot safer in the eyes of mainline pilots if they made $100-K, I would bet.