My goals are still the same as they were at the beginning of the semester. Listening to all the guest speakers was definitely beneficial to me and did help me to realize all the options that are available as a pilot. After hearing about the other jobs and all of the pros and cons I feel that the airlines is still the best option for me. The reason I want to go to the airlines is because I do not like the idea of having to do everything that the corporate pilot is required to do along with the unpredictable schedule and having to deal directly with a boss all the time. I do not want to do cargo because of the hours they work. After being in the military and working all hours of the night and on call all the time that is not something that interests me. Drones would also not be for me because of the overseas deployments, not because I don't want to go over seas but if I do I want my rifle with me. It wouldn't feel right to be there as a civilian, plus the fun part is the flying, not sitting on the ground playing a "video game".
My plan for the future is to become a flight instructor in South Carolina after I graduate. Once I have my hours I plan on flying for the regionals. I don't have a specific regional in mind as long as it is not to far of a commute. After the regionals my goal is to be able to fly for Southwest. Even though they may not pay as much or have as much room to move up as Delta I have heard really good things about them and I feel like it would be the best fit for me. I also plan on getting my MBA so as I get older and may not want to be gone all the time so I will have something to fall back on.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Little Airlines
With global deregulation for airlines there are new concepts emerging. One of these new ideas is being implemented by La Compagnie, which runs between New York and Paris. They have modified 757's to have 74 seats that are all business class. Business class is where the airlines make the most profit so why not make an entire flight business class? Even with less seats than a 757 would normally have the profit margin is still greater. Another concept is ultra-low-cost carriers. The idea behind ultra-low-cost carries (ULCCs) is that the price of tickets are much lower than your average airline but there is an additional cost for just about everything such as luggage, meals, and even printing a boarding pass. If you travel light and don't eat during the flight then it is a good deal otherwise it ends up being about the same even though it seems like such a good deal.
La Compagnie, "The Company" is a French based company that prides themselves in the services they provide to the customers. Their all business flights start with exclusive access to the Icare Lounge in Terminal 1 at Paris and the “Art & Lounge” space located on the ground floor level of Terminal B at Newark Airport. Each seat is equipped with a personal Samsung Galaxy Pro tablet that has preloaded with magazines, books, and many other features such as real time flight tracking. Each seat reclines to 180 degrees and has a built-in message feature. They also offer a custom menu and in flight wine tasting.
Ryanair is a ULCC operating more than 1,600 daily flights from 71 bases, connecting 183 destinations in 30 countries and operating a fleet of more than 300 new Boeing 737-800 aircraft. Similar to Spirit, the coast of tickets is much cheaper than most airlines but everything costs extra. With most things in life you get what you pay for. Ryanair is not known for its quality or customer service. One flight to Lanzarote from Dublin was diverted due to weather and forced to land at a different airport. Once on the ground Ryanair left its passengers to fend for themselves to find and pay for their own transportation to the island that they were supposed to land on.
I believe that airlines like La Compagnie will be more successful. There will always be people traveling overseas that can afford the cost of business and are willing to spend the extra to fly in comfort. Even in a recession there will still be people traveling for business and people with wealth looking for a good way to travel. There may not be as much room for expansion because there may be a problem filling a flight from St. Louis to Oakland with all business class whereas New York to Los Angeles my be easy. ULCCs may seem like a good idea and can be successful but could be fragile. Ryanair is currently having financial issues because it was expanding so quickly. If a customer has a bad experience with an airline they are not likely to go back even if the cost is lower. I believe that the success is also more closely related to how the economy is doing at the time. Personally I would rather pay a little more to fly with companies like Southwest and Delta then try to save a few dollars to deal with a ULCC.
I do not believe that these carriers will have a great impact on the global industry. Carriers like La Compagnie will have such a specific clientele and have limited routs that I do not think that it will have a big effect on the already established carriers. I also believe that ULCCs won't have a big impact unless they can figure out how to improve service without raising the cost of tickets. Although they will take some of the business from other carriers I really do not think that they will last.
https://www.lacompagnie.com/en
http://corporate.ryanair.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2848573/Ryanair-passengers-forced-pay-taxis-ferry-tickets-flight-Lanzarote-diverts-different-Spanish-island-stormy-weather.html
La Compagnie, "The Company" is a French based company that prides themselves in the services they provide to the customers. Their all business flights start with exclusive access to the Icare Lounge in Terminal 1 at Paris and the “Art & Lounge” space located on the ground floor level of Terminal B at Newark Airport. Each seat is equipped with a personal Samsung Galaxy Pro tablet that has preloaded with magazines, books, and many other features such as real time flight tracking. Each seat reclines to 180 degrees and has a built-in message feature. They also offer a custom menu and in flight wine tasting.
Ryanair is a ULCC operating more than 1,600 daily flights from 71 bases, connecting 183 destinations in 30 countries and operating a fleet of more than 300 new Boeing 737-800 aircraft. Similar to Spirit, the coast of tickets is much cheaper than most airlines but everything costs extra. With most things in life you get what you pay for. Ryanair is not known for its quality or customer service. One flight to Lanzarote from Dublin was diverted due to weather and forced to land at a different airport. Once on the ground Ryanair left its passengers to fend for themselves to find and pay for their own transportation to the island that they were supposed to land on.
I believe that airlines like La Compagnie will be more successful. There will always be people traveling overseas that can afford the cost of business and are willing to spend the extra to fly in comfort. Even in a recession there will still be people traveling for business and people with wealth looking for a good way to travel. There may not be as much room for expansion because there may be a problem filling a flight from St. Louis to Oakland with all business class whereas New York to Los Angeles my be easy. ULCCs may seem like a good idea and can be successful but could be fragile. Ryanair is currently having financial issues because it was expanding so quickly. If a customer has a bad experience with an airline they are not likely to go back even if the cost is lower. I believe that the success is also more closely related to how the economy is doing at the time. Personally I would rather pay a little more to fly with companies like Southwest and Delta then try to save a few dollars to deal with a ULCC.
I do not believe that these carriers will have a great impact on the global industry. Carriers like La Compagnie will have such a specific clientele and have limited routs that I do not think that it will have a big effect on the already established carriers. I also believe that ULCCs won't have a big impact unless they can figure out how to improve service without raising the cost of tickets. Although they will take some of the business from other carriers I really do not think that they will last.
https://www.lacompagnie.com/en
http://corporate.ryanair.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2848573/Ryanair-passengers-forced-pay-taxis-ferry-tickets-flight-Lanzarote-diverts-different-Spanish-island-stormy-weather.html
Friday, November 7, 2014
Space Tourism
On October 31, 2014, Virgin Galactic Spaceship Two broke apart in flight during a test flight, fatally injuring the co-pilot. Virgin Galactic is attempting to be the first commercial flights to space. The cause of the crash seems to be pilot error. The aircraft had adjustable wings that were pointed to the back of the aircraft and moved to make the aircraft to more of an L shape for landing. The co-pilot pulled the lever around the same time the aircraft was breaking the sound barrier causing it to essentially disintegrate in air.
Space tourism is basically taking civilians into space for pleasure purposes. Russia has already accomplished it and planes to do it again in 2015. Even though Virgin Galactic had a major setback it will not stop the program. There does not seem to be any real time frame yet but there are still people holding onto their tickets.
There are a few regulations for tourists space flight but since it has not had a real impact yet the regulations are few. Basically the pilots need to be both physically and mentally qualified and the passengers need to be informed about the risks involved in space flight. The link below contains the FAA regulations for space tourism.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/virgin-galactic-tragedy-revealed-spaceshiptwo-disaster
I do not see space tourism taking off at any point in the next 10 years and even then it will still be limited to a glimpse in space for the rich. We are a long way away from any type of routine space flight and do not believe it will happen in my lifetime.
The requirements to became an astronaut or fly in space aren't as high as most people might think. A bachelor degree is required and vision corrected to 20/20 and only 1,000 hours of PIC time in a jet aircraft are a few of the requarements. Skill does play a big part but like most jobs in aviation it will come down to who you know and not necessarily what you know.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/
Space tourism is basically taking civilians into space for pleasure purposes. Russia has already accomplished it and planes to do it again in 2015. Even though Virgin Galactic had a major setback it will not stop the program. There does not seem to be any real time frame yet but there are still people holding onto their tickets.
There are a few regulations for tourists space flight but since it has not had a real impact yet the regulations are few. Basically the pilots need to be both physically and mentally qualified and the passengers need to be informed about the risks involved in space flight. The link below contains the FAA regulations for space tourism.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/virgin-galactic-tragedy-revealed-spaceshiptwo-disaster
I do not see space tourism taking off at any point in the next 10 years and even then it will still be limited to a glimpse in space for the rich. We are a long way away from any type of routine space flight and do not believe it will happen in my lifetime.
The requirements to became an astronaut or fly in space aren't as high as most people might think. A bachelor degree is required and vision corrected to 20/20 and only 1,000 hours of PIC time in a jet aircraft are a few of the requarements. Skill does play a big part but like most jobs in aviation it will come down to who you know and not necessarily what you know.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Cargo
The FAA has recently changed the flight duty regulations for the airlines to ensure that the crew gets the proper amount of rest. There were many changes that are in the links below, but the main change is that the crew is now given a minimum of 10 hours off, ensuring at least 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. The old rule was 9 hours that could be reduced to 8 hours between flights, not guaranteeing any amount of sleep. They are also limited to how many hours they can fly in one day and the number of night hours they can fly. The FAA decided that cargo pilots do not need as much rest as airline pilots and made them exempt from the new policies.
The FAA said that cargo operations are not included in the new regulations because it would cost the industry to much money. The Cargo Airline Association said that the FAA has overestimated the amount by at least $235 million. For an industry that is supposed to be concerned about safety, the FAA has made it clear that profit takes priority over safety.
I believe that cargo pilots should have the same requirements as the airlines. The fact that the requirements are different tells me that they are only concerned about money. If an airline flight crashes then they have to deal with all the extra publicity and compensation for the passengers and their families. If a cargo flight crashed due to fatigue they only lose the pilots and the cargo so why not push the pilots as much as they can?
I believe that if the regulations for cargo were the same it would be a benefit for pilots. Most cargo flights are at night so it would have a big impact on the hours a pilot could fly in a day. It would also make sure that the pilots are getting proper rest between flight which is a major safety issue. Fatigue has contributes to many aviation accidents. I would mean more jobs for pilots because they would need to hire more people to keep up with the flights since the flight hours would be limited. Overall I don't see any negatives other than money for enforcing the same regulations for everyone, but unfortunately we all know money is what really drives the industry.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13273
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/
The FAA said that cargo operations are not included in the new regulations because it would cost the industry to much money. The Cargo Airline Association said that the FAA has overestimated the amount by at least $235 million. For an industry that is supposed to be concerned about safety, the FAA has made it clear that profit takes priority over safety.
I believe that cargo pilots should have the same requirements as the airlines. The fact that the requirements are different tells me that they are only concerned about money. If an airline flight crashes then they have to deal with all the extra publicity and compensation for the passengers and their families. If a cargo flight crashed due to fatigue they only lose the pilots and the cargo so why not push the pilots as much as they can?
I believe that if the regulations for cargo were the same it would be a benefit for pilots. Most cargo flights are at night so it would have a big impact on the hours a pilot could fly in a day. It would also make sure that the pilots are getting proper rest between flight which is a major safety issue. Fatigue has contributes to many aviation accidents. I would mean more jobs for pilots because they would need to hire more people to keep up with the flights since the flight hours would be limited. Overall I don't see any negatives other than money for enforcing the same regulations for everyone, but unfortunately we all know money is what really drives the industry.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13273
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Norwegian Airlines
Norwegian Airlines, despite the name, is based in Ireland, but does not fly in Ireland. They also use pilots and crew from places like Singapore and Thailand which they can pay much less and helps them to reduce the cost of flights. NAI (Norwegian Airlines International) currently flies to New York, Florida, and California but are pushing for more flights into the US.
US carriers are opposed to allowing NAI to operate within the US because they do not agree with the way it is ran and because they would not be able to compete with the low prices that NAI offers. The DOT has recently denied NAI's attempt for a temporary flight permit while it reviews their request to fly within the states. The labor laws have been called into question along with their Ireland operation that is not even in Ireland just so they can take advantage of loopholes in the law.
I definitely agree with the decision to not let NAI operate within the US. Not only is it not ethical what they are doing, but it is not legal for most airline operations. Why should we make an exception for them? It could greatly affect the pilot jobs and pay for pilots here and with starting pay already so low it could be devastating to pilot jobs here in the US. If they eventually make it here I believe it will increase the pilot shortage. One of the big reasons there is a pilot shortage today is because the cost of school compared to the ridiculously low salary when you graduate. With low cost carriers taking over we will see pilots from overseas taking over the jobs of American pilots because they can work for cheaper. I believe the airlines will take a big hit and it will change the whole structure of the airlines and open the door for other airlines to come in and do the same.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/216434-feds-dismiss-norwegian-air-bid-for-expedited-us-flight-approval
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/latest/13267-unions-urge-dot-to-deny-norwegian-air-scam-
US carriers are opposed to allowing NAI to operate within the US because they do not agree with the way it is ran and because they would not be able to compete with the low prices that NAI offers. The DOT has recently denied NAI's attempt for a temporary flight permit while it reviews their request to fly within the states. The labor laws have been called into question along with their Ireland operation that is not even in Ireland just so they can take advantage of loopholes in the law.
I definitely agree with the decision to not let NAI operate within the US. Not only is it not ethical what they are doing, but it is not legal for most airline operations. Why should we make an exception for them? It could greatly affect the pilot jobs and pay for pilots here and with starting pay already so low it could be devastating to pilot jobs here in the US. If they eventually make it here I believe it will increase the pilot shortage. One of the big reasons there is a pilot shortage today is because the cost of school compared to the ridiculously low salary when you graduate. With low cost carriers taking over we will see pilots from overseas taking over the jobs of American pilots because they can work for cheaper. I believe the airlines will take a big hit and it will change the whole structure of the airlines and open the door for other airlines to come in and do the same.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/216434-feds-dismiss-norwegian-air-bid-for-expedited-us-flight-approval
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/latest/13267-unions-urge-dot-to-deny-norwegian-air-scam-
Sunday, October 12, 2014
UAVs
There are many ways that UAVs, or drones, can be used for civilian purposes. Agriculture is one of the ways drones have been put to use. The drones can treat land faster, and monitor the crops closer at a cheaper cost than small planes can. They can even detect areas where nitrogen levels are low and monitor specific sections of the field. Weather forecasting and storm tracking is another use for UAVs. They are able to get closer to the storms to gather information that would be to dangerous for manned aircraft. Another use is to monitor wildlife populations or map roads and wetlands for land management purposes, and chart land use changes like deforestation, which can threaten many wildlife species. Drones have thermal sensors which make them a good option for search and rescue. They can cover more ground and rough terrain than other vehicles are able to. Finally they are able to create 3-D mapping which is good for mapping terrain and also used for mines where they can be used to inspect site conditions and pit walls.
The restrictions that are currently placed on UAVs make it hard for them to be put to use for any of the beneficial ways that were talked about in the previous paragraph. Currently a certificate of authorization will only be issued to federal, state and local government agencies and restrict flying to specified areas. They may only be used during daytime VFR conditions and must stay below 400 feet AGL. They are also limited to line of site and cannot be used within five miles of an airport. These restrictions greatly limit the potential of drones and all the good they can be used for.
I do foresee UAVs being integrated into NAS. The FAA, and this country in general, has always been somewhat reluctant to accept new technologies, but will eventually come along. The FAA is already looking into how to integrate UAVs into commercial use in the next five to ten years. The FAA is planning to select six test sites to begin integrating drones into the airspace. Some problems would be the logistics of working with ATC and traffic in the air. With NEXGEN also coming around at the same time they will now have two new systems to try to integrate at once which may be an issue. Perception can also cause issues because some people may be concerned about privacy and think that drones may just be another way for the government to spy on you. Also if drones start to be used for things such as surveying or pipeline patrol it could potentially eliminate some of the pilot jobs.
The military has been using drones for a while and it has proven to be effective although they will never completely take the place of manned aircraft. The major benefit of drones it that they can be piloted in remote locations from right here in the U.S. This allows for more troops to be home rather than overseas. They can be used for surveillance and resonance effectively and even drop bombs on targets, which has changed tactics slightly but not in as big of a way as most people might think. The cost of drones is slightly cheaper than manned aircraft but I don't believe it's enough to influence decisions in a big way. Some may question if the use of drones is ethical, but is anything in war really ethical? This is an entire other subject but for now I will just say yes. It is hard for the average civilian to understand but anything that has the potential to keep your troops safe is a positive.
Although currently most of the UAV jobs are military there are still civilian jobs available. The future is looking positive for UAVs and once they are integrated into commercial use, the job market for UAV pilots and management will be wide open.
https://www.sensorsandsystems.com/dialog/perspectives/30861-what-are-the-top-ten-civilian-uses-of-drones-that-don%E2%80%99t-impin
http://jobs.uavjobbank.com/a/jobs/list/
The restrictions that are currently placed on UAVs make it hard for them to be put to use for any of the beneficial ways that were talked about in the previous paragraph. Currently a certificate of authorization will only be issued to federal, state and local government agencies and restrict flying to specified areas. They may only be used during daytime VFR conditions and must stay below 400 feet AGL. They are also limited to line of site and cannot be used within five miles of an airport. These restrictions greatly limit the potential of drones and all the good they can be used for.
I do foresee UAVs being integrated into NAS. The FAA, and this country in general, has always been somewhat reluctant to accept new technologies, but will eventually come along. The FAA is already looking into how to integrate UAVs into commercial use in the next five to ten years. The FAA is planning to select six test sites to begin integrating drones into the airspace. Some problems would be the logistics of working with ATC and traffic in the air. With NEXGEN also coming around at the same time they will now have two new systems to try to integrate at once which may be an issue. Perception can also cause issues because some people may be concerned about privacy and think that drones may just be another way for the government to spy on you. Also if drones start to be used for things such as surveying or pipeline patrol it could potentially eliminate some of the pilot jobs.
The military has been using drones for a while and it has proven to be effective although they will never completely take the place of manned aircraft. The major benefit of drones it that they can be piloted in remote locations from right here in the U.S. This allows for more troops to be home rather than overseas. They can be used for surveillance and resonance effectively and even drop bombs on targets, which has changed tactics slightly but not in as big of a way as most people might think. The cost of drones is slightly cheaper than manned aircraft but I don't believe it's enough to influence decisions in a big way. Some may question if the use of drones is ethical, but is anything in war really ethical? This is an entire other subject but for now I will just say yes. It is hard for the average civilian to understand but anything that has the potential to keep your troops safe is a positive.
Although currently most of the UAV jobs are military there are still civilian jobs available. The future is looking positive for UAVs and once they are integrated into commercial use, the job market for UAV pilots and management will be wide open.
https://www.sensorsandsystems.com/dialog/perspectives/30861-what-are-the-top-ten-civilian-uses-of-drones-that-don%E2%80%99t-impin
http://jobs.uavjobbank.com/a/jobs/list/
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Corporate aviation vs the airlines
There are many basic differences between corporate aviation and the airlines. One of the big differences is the schedule. The corporate schedule is much more chaotic than the airlines. You fly when and where they need you and it could be different every week. As a corporate pilot you may also be responsible for other things besides flying, such as loading the plane and making your own flight plans. As an airline pilot you have a schedule that is a little more consistent. You also will not have to worry about loading the aircraft or making a flight schedule, all you need to do is show up and fly. Another difference is that in the corporate world you have much more interaction with who you are flying, whereas in the airlines the extent of interaction my be smiling at the people as they board the aircraft.
I believe that corporate aviation can save a company money. Although owning a plane can be expensive so can the cost of airline travel. Not only are you paying for the cost of travel but you also paying for the time. Paying someone for travel time can be expensive, the time it takes for them to get to the airport, check their bags, go through security, and hope there are no delays along with having to work with the schedule of the airlines and pay for hotels. Not only does having an aviation department save time, it also gives an advantage over companies that don't have one. It allows companies to fly to places with smaller airports and can greatly improve communication.
One corporate company I found was Starbase Jet, based in Dallas, Texas for a Falcon 50. The position is for a captain and chief pilot. The requirements for the job are FAA ATP or CAMEL with instrument rating, applicable type rating, current 1st class medical, 5000 hours total time, 1500 hours multi-engine, 1000 hours turbojet, 250 hours in specific type, minimum 3 years 135 passenger experience within the last 5 years strongly preferred, and clean FAA/DOT/DOJ records. Overall requirements for majority of corporate jobs are more than required for a start in the regionals. Corporate aviation is a good option for people that meet the requirements and don't mind the unique experience it brings.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/
http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/dream/whyfly/careers.html
I believe that corporate aviation can save a company money. Although owning a plane can be expensive so can the cost of airline travel. Not only are you paying for the cost of travel but you also paying for the time. Paying someone for travel time can be expensive, the time it takes for them to get to the airport, check their bags, go through security, and hope there are no delays along with having to work with the schedule of the airlines and pay for hotels. Not only does having an aviation department save time, it also gives an advantage over companies that don't have one. It allows companies to fly to places with smaller airports and can greatly improve communication.
One corporate company I found was Starbase Jet, based in Dallas, Texas for a Falcon 50. The position is for a captain and chief pilot. The requirements for the job are FAA ATP or CAMEL with instrument rating, applicable type rating, current 1st class medical, 5000 hours total time, 1500 hours multi-engine, 1000 hours turbojet, 250 hours in specific type, minimum 3 years 135 passenger experience within the last 5 years strongly preferred, and clean FAA/DOT/DOJ records. Overall requirements for majority of corporate jobs are more than required for a start in the regionals. Corporate aviation is a good option for people that meet the requirements and don't mind the unique experience it brings.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/
http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/dream/whyfly/careers.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)