If I were to pick the ideal scenario for me it would go something like this. First, after graduating at EMU I would be hired as a CFI where there is a lot of different activity going on at an airport which allows for great networking. I would also like to go somewhere warm like Texas, Florida or Arizona so I could fly year-round. I would then hope to get hired as a co-pilot at either a fractional company or a corporate outfit. From there, I would try to upgrade to Captain and find a job overseas whether it be for an airline or private company. I truly believe the best opportunities for pilots are overseas. Countries like China and the Asia/Pacific region really do have a shortage of pilots and the airlines are offering very competitive terms and conditions. My whole view is that I love to fly first and foremost and there really is nothing holding me down to the U.S., so why not travel the world and go with the place that offers me the best overall package? There are a lot of airlines that have contracts that are up for re-negotiation including Delta and American, and it will be interesting to see if the pilots, flight attendants, and all other airline workers can regain some of the concessions they gave up in bankruptcy. I feel there is no reason now that airlines are posting record profits to not give back to the employees and bring back the pay and working conditions once enjoyed before the recession and 9/11. Much of my decision to stay and work in the U.S. will be based on the outcomes of these negotiations and if the relationship between pilots and management can improve and overall morale can be where it once was.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Career Assesment
I would say that my career goals have definitely changed since the beginning of this course. I have started this class thinking that there was only one way to becoming an airline pilot. This is the typical path of CFI to regionals to mainline. After hearing the many guest speakers though, almost none of them had this path. It was extremely encouraging to see that there are plenty of alternatives to flight instruction to build time and even completely different career destinations than major airlines. I was always under the assumption that in order to make a great career, I would have to be a major airline pilot. After listening to what some of our guest speakers had to say, specifically Dewey and how he got hired at Netjets, I am now considering business aviation or cargo as well. I also found out that there is also more to picking a career place than basing the decision only on money. I now know to factor in the overall compensation and benefits package as well as what the schedule and overall quality of life will be. This makes it much more challenging to simply pick a high paying airline and try to get hired there. If they pay a lot, but work you to death, it might not be as nice as an airline that pays a bit less but gives you much more time off.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Little Airlines Big Ideas
One of the new interesting business model concepts listed in this article is LaCompagnie. I think that they have a very promising business model of pricing themselves lower than any other first or business class offered by the airlines. By offering a cut-rate business class fare, they are able to entice fliers who can afford to pay for a bit more but are not in the ballpark of paying for first or business class on the airlines. Like Southwest, by only having one type of aircraft, the 757, they are able to control and predict fuel and maintenance costs on a much more consistent basis. The Other company, WOW Air, is also an interesting business model. They are doing trans-atlantic flights but stopping in iceland and are using A320's which are much more efficient to operate than long haul aircrafts. Their business model would not exist if it were not for the geographic advantage Iceland has. The fares they offer are well worth the inconvenience of stopping in Iceland before continuing on to your destination in Europe.
One company I came across is WizzAir. This is the largest airline based in Hungary and currently flies to 35 countries. They are a European low cost carrier and are in competition with Ryanair, Easyjet, and FlyBe. They have many bases including Belgrade, Budapest, Bucharest, and many others. As is typical of low cost carriers, they have a fleet comprised entirely of A320's. They have 54 currently and 66 on order. Another low-cost airline is Tigerair. They are a based in Singapore and fly to all the country's an A320 can reach including China, Australia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia, India, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines and a few more. As is standard, they offer no meals unless you pay for them, and have an a-la-carte pricing system.
Wizzair is more of a point to point airline. By having so many bases (19) they fly from those to almost any other city they serve. By having this extremely high number of bases but only 54 aircraft, they are able to pack their planes full and generate a lot of revenue. Tigerair, on the other hand, does all of their flights out of Singapore. They were the first non-Chinese airline to operate flights to Guagzhou, Haikou and Shenzen. These were 3 highly profitable routes and gave them a major leg up on their competition. It is hard to say, but I think Tigerair will ultimately be more successful than Wizzair. They both have plenty of competition but Wizzair is number 3 behind Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe and has too many other airlines on its routes. Tigerair will be hampered by the pilot shortage as Southeast Asia is going to be hit pretty hard, but they fly routes with less competition and the growth for airline travel in Southeast Asia and China, their primary markets, is expected to surge in the coming years.
The economic impact these carriers will have on a global scale is very significant. They are essentially re-writing the way airlines market themselves. They are reaching out and creating markets by enticing customers who would otherwise be unable to travel. One of the dirty secrets of this whole low-cost operation at least overseas is the way they employ and pay pilots. Carriers like Ryanair set up third parties who contract out their pilots. They are not direct employees of Ryanair, but they are contractors. This means the pilots have to pay for their training and uniforms and have no union protection. The pay for pilots of low cost airlines around the world is an issue that will have to be addressed if they wish to continue to attract and retain the talent they need to have a safe and efficient operation.
http://www.theleader.info/article/45652/easyjet-and-ryanair-lead-the-way/
http://skift.com/2013/10/30/jetblue-worries-about-losing-pilots-to-better-paying-airlines/
http://skift.com/2013/10/23/european-pilots-with-lufthansa-dreams-must-face-ryanair-realities/
One company I came across is WizzAir. This is the largest airline based in Hungary and currently flies to 35 countries. They are a European low cost carrier and are in competition with Ryanair, Easyjet, and FlyBe. They have many bases including Belgrade, Budapest, Bucharest, and many others. As is typical of low cost carriers, they have a fleet comprised entirely of A320's. They have 54 currently and 66 on order. Another low-cost airline is Tigerair. They are a based in Singapore and fly to all the country's an A320 can reach including China, Australia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia, India, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines and a few more. As is standard, they offer no meals unless you pay for them, and have an a-la-carte pricing system.
Wizzair is more of a point to point airline. By having so many bases (19) they fly from those to almost any other city they serve. By having this extremely high number of bases but only 54 aircraft, they are able to pack their planes full and generate a lot of revenue. Tigerair, on the other hand, does all of their flights out of Singapore. They were the first non-Chinese airline to operate flights to Guagzhou, Haikou and Shenzen. These were 3 highly profitable routes and gave them a major leg up on their competition. It is hard to say, but I think Tigerair will ultimately be more successful than Wizzair. They both have plenty of competition but Wizzair is number 3 behind Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe and has too many other airlines on its routes. Tigerair will be hampered by the pilot shortage as Southeast Asia is going to be hit pretty hard, but they fly routes with less competition and the growth for airline travel in Southeast Asia and China, their primary markets, is expected to surge in the coming years.
The economic impact these carriers will have on a global scale is very significant. They are essentially re-writing the way airlines market themselves. They are reaching out and creating markets by enticing customers who would otherwise be unable to travel. One of the dirty secrets of this whole low-cost operation at least overseas is the way they employ and pay pilots. Carriers like Ryanair set up third parties who contract out their pilots. They are not direct employees of Ryanair, but they are contractors. This means the pilots have to pay for their training and uniforms and have no union protection. The pay for pilots of low cost airlines around the world is an issue that will have to be addressed if they wish to continue to attract and retain the talent they need to have a safe and efficient operation.
http://www.theleader.info/article/45652/easyjet-and-ryanair-lead-the-way/
http://skift.com/2013/10/30/jetblue-worries-about-losing-pilots-to-better-paying-airlines/
http://skift.com/2013/10/23/european-pilots-with-lufthansa-dreams-must-face-ryanair-realities/
Monday, November 10, 2014
Virgin Galactic
The Virgin Galactic crash happened due to the shuttles air braking system deploying too early. Just after the rocket detached from the mothership, for some reason the air brakes deployed while the aircraft was traveling mach 1.2. This caused it to violently break apart 50,000 feet above the ground. The pilot who survived was thrown from the wreckage but did not have an ejection system and could not explain how he was able to get away from the aircraft.
Virgin Galactic was the idea of Richard Branson. He started the company Virgin. Virgin Galactic was one of the first attempts to market and commercialize space travel. It was originally launched in 2008 with the hope of being ready by 2010 but was delayed several times. Space travel in general is a completely new and untouched way of transport. Several companies are looking into it but so far no one has been able to implement it.
The FAA has rules and regulations regarding space travel all the way from commercial operation to amateur rocket launching. They fall under 14 CFR and consist of licensing, procedures and general rules. In light of the recent crash, you can almost be sure that there will be a new set of rules coming to address what happened in order to prevent this from happening again.
I believe that commercial flights will eventually happen one day but it will take much longer than any of us anticipate, and especially since this crash happened. At first the tickets will be outrageously expensive but as more operators are permitted, competition will increase and prices will come down. As far as being accessible to the flying public, I'm not convinced this will be priced to where the average traveler can afford a ticket. If anything, I believe the major airlines will end up buying these space operations or starting their own and will offer them as the new first class tickets to high paying customers.
To qualify to be NASA astronaut pilot, you need a bachelors degree in engineering, bio science, physical science, or mathematics. You also need 1000 hours jet PIC time. You need to pass a NASA physical which is similar to the military's. On top of this you need to have vision correctable to 20/20. I could not find any information on pilots in the space tourism industry but whatever they would have been, they will be changed due to this crash. It will take some time to finalize the rules on pilot qualifications for space commercial operations.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/
Virgin Galactic was the idea of Richard Branson. He started the company Virgin. Virgin Galactic was one of the first attempts to market and commercialize space travel. It was originally launched in 2008 with the hope of being ready by 2010 but was delayed several times. Space travel in general is a completely new and untouched way of transport. Several companies are looking into it but so far no one has been able to implement it.
The FAA has rules and regulations regarding space travel all the way from commercial operation to amateur rocket launching. They fall under 14 CFR and consist of licensing, procedures and general rules. In light of the recent crash, you can almost be sure that there will be a new set of rules coming to address what happened in order to prevent this from happening again.
I believe that commercial flights will eventually happen one day but it will take much longer than any of us anticipate, and especially since this crash happened. At first the tickets will be outrageously expensive but as more operators are permitted, competition will increase and prices will come down. As far as being accessible to the flying public, I'm not convinced this will be priced to where the average traveler can afford a ticket. If anything, I believe the major airlines will end up buying these space operations or starting their own and will offer them as the new first class tickets to high paying customers.
To qualify to be NASA astronaut pilot, you need a bachelors degree in engineering, bio science, physical science, or mathematics. You also need 1000 hours jet PIC time. You need to pass a NASA physical which is similar to the military's. On top of this you need to have vision correctable to 20/20. I could not find any information on pilots in the space tourism industry but whatever they would have been, they will be changed due to this crash. It will take some time to finalize the rules on pilot qualifications for space commercial operations.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Cargo Carrier Regulations
In the wake of the Colgan Air accident, the FAA implemented new rest and duty regulations for all scheduled passenger air carrier operations under 14 CFR part 121. There are several key differences between the new rules and the old ones. Perhaps the most important are the minimum rest requirements. Under the old system, the crew was allowed 8 hours off in between duty periods but this does not include the opportunity for sleep. So if there was a long drive to the hotel, the bus was late, it did not matter you were only allowed 8 hours in between periods. The new rules change this up. There is now a 10 hour period in between ending shifts and starting another with the opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. The crews are also required to call the company to extend their duty period if they do not have the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. There are now also limits on how much flying a pilot can do in a week, month, and year including: 100 block hours in any 672 consecutive hours (28 days) 1,000 block hours in any 365-day period and duty hours: 60 flight duty period hours in any 168 consecutive hours 190 flight duty period hours in any 672 consecutive hours. There now is also more responsibility on the pilot to declare himself "fit for duty" before every flight and if they declare they are fatigued, they must be removed from the flight. Under the current FAR's there is no definition for reserve status. Now there are short call and long call reserve. Airport or standby time is now considered part of the pilots' flight duty period.
Since cargo carriers are exempt from these new set of rules and regulations, the pilots are subject to more stringent and longer duty hours. They are only required to have 8 hours in between shifts unlike the 10 hours with a guarantee of 8 hours of sleep like the airlines do. They do not have the protections and regulations that reduce fatigue in their pilots like the airlines now have.
There really is only one reason that cargo carriers have been omitted from these new sets of rules and regulations: The almighty dollar. It all comes down to money, unfortunately and even the FAA has admitted it. "The FAA, meanwhile, has revised its economic rationale behind exempting cargo pilots, saying it would cost the industry $550 million to comply, outweighing safety benefits. Originally, it said the rules would cost an additional $214 million. 'As a result, the FAA has determined that no revisions to the final rule on either cargo or passenger operations is warranted,' the agency said in a regulatory filing expected to be finalized by July." There is also the fact that a lot of the cargo flights are at night and this is the time when the rules affect flight-duty and rest periods the most so it would be a major burden on the cargo operators to change up their schedule to accommodate for the new rules.
I absolutely believe cargo operators need to be included in the new rest and duty rules. To omit them from this is an unbelievable and outrageous act by the FAA. Regardless of what the airplane is carrying, whether it is cargo or 300 passengers, a tired pilot is a tired pilot. By excluding cargo pilots from its new rules, the FAA is failing to adhere to its mission of making safety the first priority in aviation. If the FAA believes even one life lost in an accident is too many, shouldn't that principle also apply to cargo pilots?
From a pilots' perspective, if the FAA were to include cargo carriers in these new rules and regulations, I don't believe much would change in terms of them being able to attract and retain pilots. It is widely known throughout the aviation industry that top cargo carriers such as UPS or Fedex are among the highest paying and are usually the most sought after career destinations even though they are still under the old regulations. If given the choice between Delta or Fedex, most pilots I know would go with the latter. If the FAA were to include them, it would only further entice pilots to join the cargo ranks and make the career at a cargo carrier that much more attractive.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2011/FastReadNewsflash_20111223.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/
Since cargo carriers are exempt from these new set of rules and regulations, the pilots are subject to more stringent and longer duty hours. They are only required to have 8 hours in between shifts unlike the 10 hours with a guarantee of 8 hours of sleep like the airlines do. They do not have the protections and regulations that reduce fatigue in their pilots like the airlines now have.
There really is only one reason that cargo carriers have been omitted from these new sets of rules and regulations: The almighty dollar. It all comes down to money, unfortunately and even the FAA has admitted it. "The FAA, meanwhile, has revised its economic rationale behind exempting cargo pilots, saying it would cost the industry $550 million to comply, outweighing safety benefits. Originally, it said the rules would cost an additional $214 million. 'As a result, the FAA has determined that no revisions to the final rule on either cargo or passenger operations is warranted,' the agency said in a regulatory filing expected to be finalized by July." There is also the fact that a lot of the cargo flights are at night and this is the time when the rules affect flight-duty and rest periods the most so it would be a major burden on the cargo operators to change up their schedule to accommodate for the new rules.
I absolutely believe cargo operators need to be included in the new rest and duty rules. To omit them from this is an unbelievable and outrageous act by the FAA. Regardless of what the airplane is carrying, whether it is cargo or 300 passengers, a tired pilot is a tired pilot. By excluding cargo pilots from its new rules, the FAA is failing to adhere to its mission of making safety the first priority in aviation. If the FAA believes even one life lost in an accident is too many, shouldn't that principle also apply to cargo pilots?
From a pilots' perspective, if the FAA were to include cargo carriers in these new rules and regulations, I don't believe much would change in terms of them being able to attract and retain pilots. It is widely known throughout the aviation industry that top cargo carriers such as UPS or Fedex are among the highest paying and are usually the most sought after career destinations even though they are still under the old regulations. If given the choice between Delta or Fedex, most pilots I know would go with the latter. If the FAA were to include them, it would only further entice pilots to join the cargo ranks and make the career at a cargo carrier that much more attractive.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2011/FastReadNewsflash_20111223.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Norwegian Air Shuttle
Norwegian Air Shuttle owns two subsidiaries. One is Norwegian Long Haul AS and the other is Norwegian Air International. NLH is in fact based and registered in Norway and operates out of Norway. It is Norwegian Air International that has been the topic of much controversy and recently was denied permission to operate flights to and from the U.S. Norwegian applied for a permit to carry passengers to the U.S. while they wait for the final DOT ruling, This is sort of a way for them to operate while their case is being processed, but it was denied. NAI is based in Ireland, uses Singaporean contracts for its flight crews and bases them in Thailand. By basing itself in Ireland, which is an active member of the US-EU Open Skies agreement, it would have the opportunity to fly a large number of flights to many destinations in the U.S. from Ireland. The sole existence of NAI is to provide extremely cheap long-haul airfare. They have bent over backwards in order to have the lowest possible labor costs. By hiring crews through contracts in Singapore, and basing them in Thailand, they are able to get around Norwegian labor laws. They have destinations abroad in New York, California, Florida, Bangkok, Dubai, and Iceland.
U.S. carriers have a major bone to pick with NAI. For one, they are trying to undercut them in terms of price for transatlantic airfare. The United States airlines main issue is the fact that they are a Norwegian company but hardly any of their operation can be tied to Norway. They are outsourcing everything from certificates to pilots. The U.S. claims that by doing this there are serious safety concerns from hiring the cheapest crews but they are also concerned with losing market share to NAI. Basically, it is not the way to operate in their eyes and gives NAI an unfair labor advantage by hiring their pilots on third party contracts. ALPA has drawn the comparison of NAI also using a "flag of convenience" business model which essentially destroyed the U.S. maritime industry.
The DOT recently denied a temporary permit of NAI to operate commercial flights to points in the U.S. on the premise that they need to further look into exactly what is going on with NAI in terms of their employment methods and whether or not they are abiding by the open skies agreement between the U.S. and European Union. I definitely agree with the decision to deny NAI any landing rights in the U.S. To enable this business model to succeed will only put downward pressure on our airlines to lower labor costs here. Not to mention, there is a major issue that hasn't been touched on too much. If NAI plans to have its operating certificate in Ireland but currently doesn't have any flights in or out of that country, how exactly will there be any oversight from the Irish aviation authorities? How will inspections on airplanes happen? Who is to blame if there is a dispute about wages not being paid, the agency that employed the pilots, or NAI? There are a lot of issues about being based in a country or three but not having any personnel there at all.
If NAI is eventually allowed to operate to the U.S. there are a lot of concerns. We don't know exactly how much their pilots will be paid. For now, we can only speculate that by advertising one hundred dollar fares, they won't exactly be making a fortune. This will cause a downward pressure on pilots that have seen bankruptcies, recessions, and extreme turmoil over the past decade. The other issue is safety. Just how well trained will the people be who are willing to roll the dice and join NAI, be based in Bangkok, and fly the 787's that NAI will operate. Since they aren't under European labor laws, will they be working long hours and have little time off all for low pay? There are a lot of unanswered questions and the DOT is doing the right thing.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/norwegian-air-shuttles-long-haul-business-model-flag-of-convenience-or-fair-competition-146928
U.S. carriers have a major bone to pick with NAI. For one, they are trying to undercut them in terms of price for transatlantic airfare. The United States airlines main issue is the fact that they are a Norwegian company but hardly any of their operation can be tied to Norway. They are outsourcing everything from certificates to pilots. The U.S. claims that by doing this there are serious safety concerns from hiring the cheapest crews but they are also concerned with losing market share to NAI. Basically, it is not the way to operate in their eyes and gives NAI an unfair labor advantage by hiring their pilots on third party contracts. ALPA has drawn the comparison of NAI also using a "flag of convenience" business model which essentially destroyed the U.S. maritime industry.
The DOT recently denied a temporary permit of NAI to operate commercial flights to points in the U.S. on the premise that they need to further look into exactly what is going on with NAI in terms of their employment methods and whether or not they are abiding by the open skies agreement between the U.S. and European Union. I definitely agree with the decision to deny NAI any landing rights in the U.S. To enable this business model to succeed will only put downward pressure on our airlines to lower labor costs here. Not to mention, there is a major issue that hasn't been touched on too much. If NAI plans to have its operating certificate in Ireland but currently doesn't have any flights in or out of that country, how exactly will there be any oversight from the Irish aviation authorities? How will inspections on airplanes happen? Who is to blame if there is a dispute about wages not being paid, the agency that employed the pilots, or NAI? There are a lot of issues about being based in a country or three but not having any personnel there at all.
If NAI is eventually allowed to operate to the U.S. there are a lot of concerns. We don't know exactly how much their pilots will be paid. For now, we can only speculate that by advertising one hundred dollar fares, they won't exactly be making a fortune. This will cause a downward pressure on pilots that have seen bankruptcies, recessions, and extreme turmoil over the past decade. The other issue is safety. Just how well trained will the people be who are willing to roll the dice and join NAI, be based in Bangkok, and fly the 787's that NAI will operate. Since they aren't under European labor laws, will they be working long hours and have little time off all for low pay? There are a lot of unanswered questions and the DOT is doing the right thing.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/norwegian-air-shuttles-long-haul-business-model-flag-of-convenience-or-fair-competition-146928
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Civilian UAV
Civilian use of UAV's has always been a controversial topic. As it stands now, there are only a few hundred FAA approved operations going on and they belong to Universities, Government agencies and a few private companies. The airspace is not getting any larger and the ammount of aircrafts in that airspace, whether manned or not, is only going to increase. Currently, civilian UAV's are used in several different ways. One interesting way is hurricane hunting. This is a very effective use for UAV's for several reasons. No pilot will be killed if there is a crash and also aircrafts do not fly in hurricane weather so the potential for mid-air collisions is very low. The UAV's are able to get in and take accurate measurements of windspeed and direction while they are in the hurricane. Another use is for search and rescue. They can be very costly, time consuming and potentially dangerous if there are no air strips to land at so using UAV's would be a practical solution in this arena as well. UAV's are regulated by the FAA. You need to obtain a special airworthniness certificate in the experimental category for a particular UAV. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get this permission and to be able to operate a UAV legally.
I forsee UAV's becoming more popular and joining the NAS as time goes on. There will definitely be tight restrictions and regulations on their operation, but I believe the FAA will make it more accessible to those who wish to begin using UAV's. I see them having a certain ceiling that they cannot go above or only allowing them to fly at certain times. There will always be the problem of them interfering with scheduled air carrier operations as well as general aviation. By limiting the ceiling or only allowing them specific windows of time to operate, the risk can be mitigated. There is also the possibility of using them for the wrong purposes whether it be terrorist activity or any sort of mischieveous intention. This risk may be harder to reduce especially as more and more UAV's take to the skies.
Military strategy has definitely been affected in a positive way by the application of UAV's. Not only for reconaissance, but also some UAV's are equipped with missles and can destroy enemies on the ground. Their use by the military has no doubt saved countless lives because when a UAV gets shot down, a life is not lost on our side. Now we can send in a machine to do a job that was formerly done by humans. From a financial standpoint, instead of an extremely expensive fighter jet going into combat or a high flying recon jet, now a UAV smaller than a car can be deployed. The economic impact has been very positive.
As of today, there are very few civilian jobs pertaining to the use of the UAV. We will eventually see more openings as jobs are created in the future. It will be a long time before there are schools or programs specifically suited for training civilian UAV operators, but this is a definite posibility one day. There are some jobs that are being done by people now, but one day that may shift towards a UAV only operation. One example I can think of is aerial surveillance. Why would a company pay for both the plane, pilot, gas, and all the costs associated with maintaining an aircraft when they can simply fly a UAV over the area that needs to be surveyed. There are some jobs that may never be done completely automated such as the airline industry. One of the interesting things to me is going to see just how big these UAV's will get and if there will ever be a limit on the size they can be. Time will tell, but as the rules relax and more UAV operations spring up, it will be interesting to see just how large the UAV's become. Perhaps they will designate airports as only for UAV's. That would be a great way to seperate traffic from UAV's.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-drone-uav-surveillance-unmanned-domicopter-flight-civilian-helicopter/
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
I forsee UAV's becoming more popular and joining the NAS as time goes on. There will definitely be tight restrictions and regulations on their operation, but I believe the FAA will make it more accessible to those who wish to begin using UAV's. I see them having a certain ceiling that they cannot go above or only allowing them to fly at certain times. There will always be the problem of them interfering with scheduled air carrier operations as well as general aviation. By limiting the ceiling or only allowing them specific windows of time to operate, the risk can be mitigated. There is also the possibility of using them for the wrong purposes whether it be terrorist activity or any sort of mischieveous intention. This risk may be harder to reduce especially as more and more UAV's take to the skies.
Military strategy has definitely been affected in a positive way by the application of UAV's. Not only for reconaissance, but also some UAV's are equipped with missles and can destroy enemies on the ground. Their use by the military has no doubt saved countless lives because when a UAV gets shot down, a life is not lost on our side. Now we can send in a machine to do a job that was formerly done by humans. From a financial standpoint, instead of an extremely expensive fighter jet going into combat or a high flying recon jet, now a UAV smaller than a car can be deployed. The economic impact has been very positive.
As of today, there are very few civilian jobs pertaining to the use of the UAV. We will eventually see more openings as jobs are created in the future. It will be a long time before there are schools or programs specifically suited for training civilian UAV operators, but this is a definite posibility one day. There are some jobs that are being done by people now, but one day that may shift towards a UAV only operation. One example I can think of is aerial surveillance. Why would a company pay for both the plane, pilot, gas, and all the costs associated with maintaining an aircraft when they can simply fly a UAV over the area that needs to be surveyed. There are some jobs that may never be done completely automated such as the airline industry. One of the interesting things to me is going to see just how big these UAV's will get and if there will ever be a limit on the size they can be. Time will tell, but as the rules relax and more UAV operations spring up, it will be interesting to see just how large the UAV's become. Perhaps they will designate airports as only for UAV's. That would be a great way to seperate traffic from UAV's.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-drone-uav-surveillance-unmanned-domicopter-flight-civilian-helicopter/
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Corporate vs. Airlines
For me, there are
a multitude of differences between corporate aviation and airlines. One of the
more significant differences is the schedules. Airline pilots usually know
their schedule on a month to month basis. They can plan events a little further
out and usually have more of a say in which days they have off as they gain
seniority. On the corporate side it does vary, but more often than not,
corporate pilots are on call and have to show up at the airport at a certain
time. In more extreme cases, they are on call 24 hours a day and have to show
up to the airport on very short notice. Again, this varies from company to
company, but for the most part, corporate pilots are on call much like being on
reserve for the airlines.
As
far as pay is concerned, the airlines have a much wider pay scale. What that
means is that first year first officers make significantly less than a senior
captain. In most cases, the most senior pilots at major airlines will make more
than corporate captains. There is a trade off, however. Corporate pilots can
start off much higher than airline first officers. Another major consideration
is the fact that airline pilot pay is strictly seniority based. If you were the
most senior captain at your previous airline and decided to switch, you would
start off at first year FO pay. On the corporate side, there is room for
negotiating your salary and being paid commensurate with your experience. In
other words, it can be a lot easier of a decision to change jobs if something
better comes along.
For
the argument of whether or not corporate aviation departments actually save
money or not is up for debate. This argument is based upon the high costs of an
aviation department and whether or not they are an actual necessity or simply
for show. I tend to believe that they do help save companies money, but only if
the company is extremely profitable and does a significant amount of business
across a large area that is too big for driving. Even fractional ownership with
companies such as NetJets can be a definite boost in terms of making business
connections. With companies that use their own flight department, it offers the
flexibility of getting out, meeting with people, discussing business, and
closing deals in a much timelier manner than waiting at the airport, and
picking flights that may have layovers.
An
excellent corporate aviation company I came across is Clay Lacy Aviation. They
have pilot bases in California, Washington, Colorado and Florida. They have a
very diverse fleet of aircraft including: Boeing, Embraer, Gulfstream,
Dassault, Cessna, and Learjet. They have multiple openings for both Captains
and First officers and have the following requirements. PIC- 4000 hrs total,
3000 hrs pic, 1500 multi-engine time. SIC- 1500 hrs total, 500 multi-engine.
This will definitely be a company I will apply for when I have the necessary
hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)