This sounds like the libertarian fantasy blog post awhile back where a freelance cop is shooting heroin in his patrol car, and deciding whether to take the next radio call.
Freelance Pilots
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: Freelance Pilots
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another point you made about the fact that pilots cannot fly multiple airplanes is simply false. He didn't say this anywhere.
Apologies, you're right. But I don't think he's right about the fact that a pilot cannot fly three types of aircraft either.
OP is right. You can get qualified on multiple aircraft types, but to maintain currency is a different topic altogether. In the US for example, at least for private pilots, you need at least 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days in the aircraft (category/class/type-rating) to be able to carry passengers. Then there's extra requirements for night currency and instrument rating currency.
I would imagine the airlines have even tougher currency requirements. That said, it's probably possible to maintain currency in several aircraft types depending on the frequency and how the jobs are scheduled.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#13> had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.
It is funny that you only mention airlines (lufthansa, Air France) where pilots are organized within strong unions. And most pilots would love to work for just those airlines, because they are the last ones which pay good wages.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#14"Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them" This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.
Not really. There are airlines who hire young low paid unskilled pilots, there are pilots from various countries with different English skills, there are pilots who didn't get enough sleep last night. Then there are airports that have different standards for security, different border-control waiting time, different luggage waiting time & equipment, different ground-crew serving the airplane. All this information is…
The differences you name can be factors in any given crash, but only in combination, because many things have to go wrong for a crash to happen.
Also, the number of crashes is so low that each crash happens under unique circumstances.
Also, people are pretty irrational about rare risks.
So such differences may affect safety, but not in a way that will affect the market price in any useful way.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#15"Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them" This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.
Not really. There are airlines who hire young low paid unskilled pilots, there are pilots from various countries with different English skills, there are pilots who didn't get enough sleep last night. Then there are airports that have different standards for security, different border-control waiting time, different luggage waiting time & equipment, different ground-crew serving the airplane. All this information is…
Allowing individuals to adjust the safety levers means more people will die, because the vast majority of individuals who use air travel are not qualified or informed enough to make good decisions about these things. More people will die unnecessarily than under the current system.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#16"Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them" This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.
The FAA has a policy of "one safety standard for all airlines" for passenger flights.
Obviously that's nonsense, as regional and major airlines have totally different resources.
I don't fly regionals, and I tell my family not to.
Before August 2015, regionals used low-hour pilots sleeping at the airport, resulting in the Colgan accident.
After August 2015 (post-Colgan), Congress increased pilot experience requirements to ATP minimums of 1,500 hours. All of the regional airlines are in the process of closing down as a result.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. There are airlines who hire young low paid unskilled pilots, there are pilots from various countries with different English skills, there are pilots who didn't get enough sleep last night. Then there are airports that have different standards for security, different border-control waiting time, different luggage waiting time & equipment, different ground-crew serving the airplane. All this information is…
Allowing individuals to adjust the safety levers means more people will die, because the vast majority of individuals who use air travel are not qualified or informed enough to make good decisions about these things. More people will die unnecessarily than under the current system.
People don't need to make those decisions. Currently, safety decisions are made by the government, which really doesn't have any competition and thus is not incentivized to improve its set of regulations. If you had 2-3 companies providing market review for the passengers, I'm pretty sure the situation would improve, not deteriorate. Perhaps some regulations simply don't make any sense and do not improve safety, but you'd never know that until you have one agency managing it.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#18The article was written by somebody who knows very little about airlines:
- an airline has to have pilots at the gate on time, guaranteed
- each airline has its own operating rules and checklists
- planes and airports have unique combinations of Cat III landings
- airline pilots are route-checked. they don't fly random routes.
- most major airlines have unions, so freelancers are not allowed.
However, he could be describing ferry pilots or Netjet pilots or some other non-scheduled route.
Re: Freelance Pilots
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allowing individuals to adjust the safety levers means more people will die, because the vast majority of individuals who use air travel are not qualified or informed enough to make good decisions about these things. More people will die unnecessarily than under the current system.
People don't need to make those decisions. Currently, safety decisions are made by the government, which really doesn't have any competition and thus is not incentivized to improve its set of regulations. If you had 2-3 companies providing market review for the passengers, I'm pretty sure the situation would improve, not deteriorate. Perhaps some regulations simply don't make any sense and do not improve safety, but…
Safety decisions are not made by the government. They are made by IATA.