ATC Privatization & NextGen Discussion

1) Describe the fundamentals of our current ATC system vs. the proposed NextGen system. Include details. i.e. "Next Gen is satellite-based." is not enough detail.

At its essence, our current ATC system is divided into 21 areas, which is further divided into sectors, all of which are governed by the FAA. To efficiently monitor these areas/sectors, the ATC system is comprised of five divisions, namely the Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC), Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), Air Traffic Control Tower, and Flight Service Station (FSS) (Freudenrich 2001). Air Traffic Controllers and other employees work in these various divisions to ensure aircraft and civilian safety. To do this, aircraft are equipped with a transponder (which mode-type varies) that is activated while the aircraft is in flight. The purpose of the transponder is to detect incoming radar signals from one of the five previously mentioned centers and broadcast an amplified signal (i.e. respond) to those ground stations. This amplified response signal is then received by a controller working in of the five centers/towers (the specific tower/center is dependent upon the phase of flight the aircraft is in), appearing as a dot (or blip) on their radar detection screens (Freudenrich 2001). The signal emitted from the aircraft provides the controller with pertinent information of the aircraft/flight, including the flight number, altitude, airspeed, destination, etc. The transponder stays active for as long as the aircraft remains active; typically, the transponder is turned off when the aircraft reaches its destination. Since the transponder stays on from push-back (at the departure point) until the aircraft reaches its destination, the emitted signal allows controllers to continuously monitor and track the aircraft (via the five radar stations/centers) from start to finish.

These five centers/towers compose the ground radar system that serves as the foundation for our current ATC system. Due to the fact these centers are located on the ground, this means the signal emitted from the transponder must travel through the air (sometimes over long distances as altitude increases) to reach the stations and convey information. This time-delay is one the flaws/weaknesses of the current ATC system as it delays the response time of the controller or ground station in the event of an emergency or accident/incident aversion. It is this same weakness that results from the signal being sent to the ground stations that the new NextGen system hopes to overcome with its implementation.

With the proposed implementation of NextGen, the fundamentals of our current ATC system will be reformed in a sense. The goal of the NextGen system is to revamp the National Airspace System to make it more efficient, safe, and accommodating to the increasing number of aircraft. This goal is largely based on the implementation of a satellite-based system, termed Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). The new ADS-B system will replace the more inefficient means of radar detection, monitoring, and tracking of aircraft currently utilized by ATC (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2016). As mentioned previously, the ADS-B system will transition ATC from a ground radar system to one that is primarily satellite-based via GPS technology. Consequently, the transition will allow ATC to provide more efficient aircraft separation, direct routes/flights for passengers, and coverage where radar has not traditionally existed (e.g. mountainous terrain or over large bodies of water with continual coverage) (FAA 2016). To further increase flight efficiency for passengers and the airlines themselves, the ADS-B technology will be coupled with a new Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedural system. These procedures will also utilize the satellite-based (GPS) technology to create a more precise route for aircraft to fly, which in turn saves money, time, fuel, and the environment because of decreased fuel consumption while increasing the volume of air traffic (FAA 2016). Thus, the NextGen system and its efficient use of GPS technology will ‘upgrade’ the fundamentals of our current ATC system using satellite technology (as opposed to radar) to increase air traffic controller efficiency and lessen their workload. The traveling public will also benefit from such an upgrade as their time and money spent on air travel (and aircraft) will lessen as well.

2) Why has GA traditional spoken against the privatization of ATC? What is the stance of US airlines on ATC privatization and why? Find two aviation organizations/lobby groups/think tanks (not individual companies) etc. and report their response to privatization.

General Aviation (GA) has traditionally spoken against the privatization of ATC due to the adverse consequences doing so will have on the GA industry. One of the most prominent and severe consequences the privatization would cause is the loss of GA services. The loss of their services entails the loss of airspace used by and allocated to GA aircraft, ATC services allotted for GA aircraft, and a significant loss of funding for rural airports (Experimental Aviation Association [EAA], 2016). Additionally, GA would lose their government oversight as the FAA and other governing bodies would heed and accommodate the interest, agendas, and plans of the airlines first, resulting in GA being placed and forgotten on the back burner. Essentially, GA operators will not have the monetary means or government backing to continue operations if privatization is implemented as the costs of flight services, insurance premiums, and other facets of the industry will likely increase over time, causing GA aviators/companies to subside and concede to the airlines.
The airlines stance on ATC privatization is the complete opposite of that conveyed by GA; meaning the airlines want ATC to become privatized. One of the primary reasons the airlines such as, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, are pro (for) privatization is because they strongly believe the FAA’s structure and means of funding are not sufficient to complete the new satellite-based or any lengthy modernization project. Therefore, said airlines feel as if the privatization option would provide a much more efficient and financially stable operating system (Bachman & Sasso 2016). The airlines pro stance on privatization stems from the fact that it will potentially allow them to increase their profit (due to increased air traffic volume), provide them with more airspace for operations (since GA aircraft will lessen), and save money on unnecessary costs (e.g. fuel, routes, services, etc.)
The Experimental Aviation Association (EAA) is an aviation organization that has blatantly expressed its distaste, disdain, and disagreement with the privatization of ATC. In response to the bill Jack J. Pelton, EAA CEO/chairmen stated, “Let’s lay out the facts on this: moving to a privatized ATC system would not increase efficiency or safety, nor would it save any significant money” (EAA 2016).

Jack J. Pelton further expressed his sentiments with the following:

What it would do is create an additional aviation bureaucracy, since FAA would still remain, and also create a government-approved monopoly on air traffic services that is dominated by airlines and commercial aviation interests. This will hurt the safest and most complex aviation system in the world, which is why EAA is unequivocally opposed (EAA 2016).

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) is an organization that believes the privatization bill will truly benefit the National Airspace System, airlines, and other aviation operators. The current President of NATCA, Paul Rinaldi, stated, “The current aviation system has served us well until recent years.” He then followed up with the statement, “Unfortunately, we no longer have a stable or predictable funding stream and this uncertainty has caused many serious problems for the system” (Wood 2016).
Thus, it seems as if all GA orientated companies, organizations, and operators are against ATC privatization, while the ATC organizations themselves, majority of airlines, and their supports are for the privatization of ATC.

3) Is ATC privatized in any other countries? If so, where? Write about the details of how this system works. How is it funded? Who are the private operators? Etc..Does the privatized ATC system run more or less efficiently than our current system?

Yes, ATC is privatized in other countries such as Germany, France, Australia, and New Zealand; however, the most notable countries that have privatized ATC are Canada and Britain. (Edwards 2016). Although the airspace and number of aircraft operating in that airspace is significantly less than that of the United States, the privatization of ATC in Canada and Britain has shown tremendous strides in efficiency and safety.

The privatization of ATC works in a similar fashion to that as traditional (government controlled) ATC, except the ATC is its own entity in a sense; meaning it is separated from government control, which includes parameters such as funding and staffing, and instead is operated by a private (typically nonprofit in nature) corporation. The privatization is funded by direct charges on aircraft operators for services provided to them as opposed to obtaining funds via taxation of government tickets (Edwards 2016). This direct charging method is utilized by Nav Canada (the nonprofit corporation operating Canada’s private ATC). The nonprofit corporation (e.g. Nav Canada) earns its revenues by charging operators and aircraft for utilizing the Canadian airspace in addition to any terminal services (e.g. fueling, deicing, tie-downs, etc.) rendered while at a Canadian airport. The private operators utilizing the airspace are primarily General Aviation aircraft using the airspace for leisure, training, or other non-revenue based flights. That said, the private operators can also range from corporate/business jets making trips for their clientele within the country and other airlines/companies located outside of the country that must cross through Canada for their flight.

According to Edwards (2016), the privatized ATC is running extremely more efficiently (in Canada) than the traditional ATC system being used in the United States. This increased efficiency can primarily be seen in Canada’s customer charges, traffic volume, staffing, and level of safety. By utilizing privatized ATC, Canada’s customer charges have shown a 33% decrease within the past 10 years, while air traffic efficiency has increased. Furthermore, the privatized ATC has enabled Canada to handle more 50% more air traffic with 30% fewer employees since the inception of privatization (Edwards 2016). Consequently, the privatization of ATC has allowed Canada to generate more money, increase their air traffic volume, and reform how they charge operators, while also saving money by utilizing 30% fewer employees; not to mention increasing their safety and air transportation efficiency. Therefore, based on these parameters of evaluation, I think the privatized ATC system is much more efficient than our current system.

4) What would be the process for converting our current system into a privatized system? i.e. would it have to go through Congress, the FAA, etc..Where is the discussion at? i.e. is there a passed bill or law allowing ATC privatization? Does it have to be an act of Congress or can the FAA make this decision on its own. How do expect the current administration to impact ATC privatization if at all?

The process for converting our current system into a privatized one would take numerous steps varying in length and intensity, and subsequently, a large amount of time.

Per Scholastic Inc. (n.d.), a bill must first be drafted by a member of Congress and then introduced in the House. Once introduced, the bill is sent to a committee, which is where committee action takes place (this is where most bills fail), but if it passes, the bill is sent to the Rules Committee. Once the rules have been deliberated, the bill is sent to the floor, which is where the House debates the bill, adds amendments, and votes. If a majority is reached in favor of the bill, it is sent to the Senate to be introduced. A Senator introduces the bill and sends it to a committee for them to act upon. A vote is cast and if majority rules in favor, the bill is called up to be discussed by the entire Senate. At this point, the Senate takes floor action; in other words, the Senate debates, amends, and votes on the bill. If a majority is reached by the Senate, the bill is sent back to the House for review of the proposed amendments by the Senate. It is at this point where bills can take the longest to pass because if the House disagrees with any proposed amendments by the Senate, then the bill must go before a conference committee (composed of members from both the House and Senate) to reach a compromise. Once a compromise has been reached, the House and the Senate must then agree on the revisions reached at the conference so a vote can be cast to get the bill to the President. Once the President has the bill, he/she can either approve or veto it; if approved, the bill becomes a law, if vetoed, the bill still has a chance to become law if two-thirds of both houses vote in favor to override the presidential veto (Scholastic Inc., n.d.).

For ATC privatization to occur within the United States, a bill proposing such an act must first be passed through both houses of Congress and approved by the President (as discussed previously); the FAA has no decision-making authority to implement the privatization of ATC as they are not part of the law-making body outlined by the government. Thus, for ATC privatization to occur, it must be an act of Congress.

There is a current bill in the works to private ATC in the United States, however, it has not been passed yet. The status of the bill is that it is still in the early stages of approval. House Representative Bill Shuster, who is the head of the House transportation committee, has been the one leading the charge of the privatization bill. The bill was approved by the transportation committee, but was unable to reach the House floor (Lowy 2016). Since the bill failed to reach the House floor, it is currently back in the rules committee phase where House representatives are amending the bill, deliberating the rules, and deciding when the bill will be discussed (if/when it reaches the House floor).

I expect the current administration to have a negative impact on ATC privatization at first since the elections recently concluded and the new president is adjusting to the new role. Furthermore, he must finalize the appointment of white house personnel, therefore I feel as if the privatization of ATC will remain on the back-burner in both Congress and his presidential agenda until he finishes his primary duties within the first 100 days. However, the new president has been in close contact and communication in years past and recently with Representative Bill Shuster. Representative Bill Shuster has been the front-runner leading the charge to push/pass the ATC privatization bill.

That said, I believe the new presidential administration will have a positive impact on passing the bill once the transition period subsides (i.e. in approximately six to twelve months) since the president has actively voiced his support for ATC privatization. Representative Bill Shuster has had very little success in getting his bill passed onto the House floor, however I believe this will be a thing of the past once the new president and his administration settle into their new roles. Since the new president and Representative Bill Shuster share similar sentiments regarding ATC privatization and would like to see it happen sooner rather than later, I strongly believe the presidential administration will have a significant, positive influence on the privatization bill (and at the very least I think the administration will perpetuate the bill past the House floor and onto deliberation).

5) Finally, do you feel that the current ATC system would be more efficient if it were privatized. Why or why not?

I personally feel the current ATC system would be more efficient, but only with respects to long-term usage if it were to become privatized; meaning five to ten years after its inception and actual operation in the United States. I say long-term because any massive transition of a national system will prove to be inefficient at least up until its third year of operation due to the transition and/or acquisition of software/hardware, regulation changes (if applicable or necessary), infrastructure acquisition, appropriate staffing, and the employee learning curve associated with said privatization. With that said, it is because of the previously mentioned parameters why I strongly believe our current system would prove to be inefficient, with respects to short-term usage (i.e. one to three years).

However, I am a firm believer that our current ATC system would be extremely more efficient if it were privatized, but only in regards to long-term utilization (i.e. five to ten years after its inception). I say this with confidence because after five to ten years of inception, all the ‘kinks’ and ‘quirks’ of the conversion process to privatization in the United States will have been acknowledged and/or resolved, allowing for continual, smooth, and efficient operation of the ATC system. I also feel as if privatizing our current ATC would prove to be efficient in the long-run because other counties akin to the United States such as, Canada, are having exemplary success with privatization. Albeit Canada airspace/ATC only handles approximately one-third of the traffic volume as the United States, they have managed to increase their traffic volume by 50%, reduce their employee utilization by 30%, and ultimately increased their ATC efficiency and safety. Ergo, I believe if Canada, a smaller airspace system, is able to enhance their traffic volume while enhancing their safety, then the United States should be able to do so. The only aspect of this long-term efficiency that may hinder ATC safety once privatization has been implemented is the immense and continuously growing volume of air traffic within the United States. With such an enormous amount (approx. three times that of Canada) of air traffic (that is growing yearly), I feel it may take United States Air Traffic Controllers, aviation administrators, and other personnel involved with the system, longer to become adjusted to, adapted, and knowledgeable of the new system to attain the experience needed to surpass the level of efficiency and safety exhibited by other privatized counties.

References

Bachman, J., & Sasso, M. (2016). Airlines to trump: block rivals and privatize air traffic control. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/airlines-to-trump-block-rivals-and-privatize-air-traffic-control

Edwards, C. (2016). Privatizing air traffic control. Downsizing the Federal Government. Retrieved from https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/atc

Experimental Aviation Association (EAA). (2016). ATC privatization brings few savings, threatens general aviation services. EAA. Retrieved from https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-18-2016-atc-privatization-brings-few-savings-threatens-general-aviation-services

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016). NextGen works. NextGen. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/works/

Freudenrich, C. (2001). How air traffic control works. How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/air-traffic-control.htm

Lowy, J. (2016). House chairman Trump favors privatizing air traffic control. PBS NEWSHOUR. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-chairman-trump-favors-privatizing-air-traffic-control/

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). How a bill becomes a law. Junior Scholastic. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4702

Wood, J. (2016). GA raises concerns over proposal to privatize atc. General Aviation News. Retrieved from http://generalaviationnews.com/2016/02/17/ga-raises-concerns-over-proposal-to-privatize-atc/

Flying Cheap - Professionalism in The Aviation Industry

In class, you watched a documentary called "Flying Cheap".  This documentary is about the regional airline industry, focusing on two aspects. First, there is a discussion of the Colgan accident and factors that may have contributed to the accident. Second, the documentary presents information about the career of a regional pilot.

Please address the following topics in this blog:

**First, address the state of the regional airline industry. There is a lot of "buzz" about the possible pilot shortage. There are two sides to the argument: 1) There is not a pilot shortage. The problem is pilot pay. There are plenty of people who want to be pilots in the United States but are unwilling to fly domestically because of low wages, and 2) The pilot shortage is real and based upon projected retirements and the current number of new pilots entering the industry. Which side do you believe and why? To answer this question thoroughly, you must research and provide evidence of research of both sides of the issue. 

The current state of the regional airline industry is one of increasing panic and frenzy as many regional carriers are scrambling to find eligible pilots to staff their aircraft. The source of this warranted panic stems from the retirement age of 65 coupled with the fact that many pilots do not wish to fly for regional carriers due to the poor pay, the ridiculous number of hours one must fly to earn a decent paycheck, and the absurd scheduling.

To explain my perspective on this topic, I will begin with argument one, which states that there is no pilot shortage, but the problem lies in pilot pay. Considering the Colgan Air accident in 2009, the ‘1500 hour’ rule was implemented by the FAA to ensure pilots were truly ready for the airline experience and its endeavors. Consequently, the increase in requirements have made an already expensive profession more expensive due to the increased training and flight hours. Aspiring pilots aiming for a career in the regional and/or major airlines must pay approximately $150,000 to attain the adequate training to have a chance to become employed for a regional or major air carrier (Fitzpatrick 2016). Subsequently, such a significant financial burden often hinders many aspiring pilots, preventing them from ever achieving their career goal of flying for an airline. The pilots that can secure the proper funding do not see the point of flying for a regional airline for low-pay because the ends do not justify the means of doing so (i.e. the $27,000 salary plus a potential signing bonus is not worth the $150,000 of debt-financing).

The poor pilot pay is not the only reason as to why pilots are unwilling to fly for the regional airlines in the United States; the lack of benefits and inadequate feeling stemming from improper compensation for their duty are two additional reasons pilots are fed up with regional air carriers. Per Fitzpatrick (2016), the current average First Officer (FO) salary is approximately $27,350, which is a significant increase from the 2008 salary of $16,000. Despite the pilot pay increasing by $11,000 in nine years, many pilots in the United States are still unwilling to fly domestically because they strongly believe their compensation does not correlate with the significance of their responsibilities as a pilot. According to Fitzpatrick (2016), Daniel Rose, who is an aviation lawyer and former U.S. Navy pilot stated, “It’s incredible you can still have a job where you’re flying 50 people around and you’re responsible for their lives and you’re getting paid $20,000 with lousy hours and minimal to none in terms of benefits.”

Thus, underappreciated, under-paid, and poor benefits may be underlying reasons as to why there are plenty of people who want to be pilots in the United States, but are unwilling to fly domestically. The previously mentioned factors are extremely important and poor pilot pay is a growing problem in the regional industry that needs to be addressed. I believe that at the end of the day pilots are less likely to quit their job, but when push comes to shove (financially), sometimes the best option is to leave (maybe the airline and/or industry itself for higher pay), despite the strong need/want to gain flight hours and experience to advance to the major airlines. Ergo, I personally believe that both factors outlined in the question above play a critical role in the problem facing the regional airline industry, however, having to choose one over the other, I feel the most prevalent issue is that there are plenty of people who want to be pilots in the United States, but are unwilling to fly domestically because of the poor treatment from regional carriers.

In regards to argument two, which states the pilot shortage is real and is primarily a result of projected retirement age of 65. As stated earlier, I do not believe the true issue creating the buzz within the regional industry is due to a pilot shortage stemming from the retirement requirement, but rather from the current pilots leaving. The current estimated pilot deficit will be about 15,000 by year 2026, because of current pilots reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 and individuals choosing to pursue careers outside of aviation (Sasso & Schlangenstein 2016). This equates to 1,500, which is the number of pilots needed to be acquired each year to combat the estimated deficit. The average number of pilots the major U.S. airlines hired in 2016 was 5,000, which was done in efforts to replace those retiring in addition to support airlines expanding (Sasso & Schlangenstein 2016). Although the pilot shortage is an indefinite cause for concern within the regional airline industry, it is not a major concern right now as it is projected to be nine years out. Therefore, the regional airline industry should focus on their retention rate and appeal to their current pilots in efforts to get ahead of the future shortage as opposed to continuing to lose pilots now due to voluntary resignation AND retirement.

**Second, with the new regulations, regional airlines may be concerned with their hiring pool. Why? What do you see as possible solutions - both for aspiring pilots and for the regional airlines themselves?

The regional airlines should be concerned with their hiring pool for two reasons: 1. The implementation of the 1,500-hour rule resulting from the Colgan Air accident in 2009 and; 2. The low-wages paid to regional airline pilots (especially First Officers).

With the new regulations, primarily the implementation of the ‘1500 hour’ rule requiring pilots wanting to fly for the regional and/or major airlines, to accumulate 1,500 hours and their ATP, or 1,000 hours and a four-year aviation-related degree (i.e. R-ATP) to gain employment, is and should be a major concern to regional airlines. I believe this constitutes a major concern for the regional airlines because the regulatory increase of hours subsequently raised the already expensive cost to earn those hours, especially for the student-pilots earning a flight science degree at a four-year university. Although these students only need to acquire 1,000 hours to be eligible for a R-ATP, these 1,000 hours are significantly more expensive. Flight training alone can amount to anywhere from $50,000 to $64,000 depending on which university you attend (i.e. in- or out-of-state) (Aviation Week & Space Technology 2015). This enormous cost coupled with that of tuition, room and board, textbooks, and other associated expenditures can equate to approximately $105,000 for a student to attain a flight degree from a four-year university (Sasso & Schlangenstein 2016). $100,000 is not chump-change and is an extreme financially burden for most families this day in age; to acquire these funds, most students opt to take student loans, which can also be a risk if not all the funds can be acquired. This often leads to students not being able to earn the ratings outlined by the curriculum, subsequently resulting in prolonged graduation, increased debt, and severe discouragement. When considering the financial endeavors of pursuing a flight/commercial aviation degree and/or hitting a financial roadblock (e.g. failing to acquire a loan for training), aspiring student-aviators tend to cut their losses and pursue a different career path, which is becoming an increasing trend as training related costs and tuition continue to increase at a significant rate. As a consequent result, the regional airlines are witnessing their once overflowing hiring pool dwindle expeditiously.

As I elaborated upon this topic in the previous question, the low-wages paid to regional pilots is an ever-growing problem that is catching up to the regional air carriers. Implementing low-wages may seem as a cost-effective measure to the managerial staff now, but it will cause their air carriers to lose more money than they can make since they won’t have enough pilots to fly their aircraft. Student-pilots earning their four-year degree to attain a R-ATP so they can become employed at a regional carrier are becoming more cognizant of the fact the regional industry is not what it seems. As they become closer to graduation and/or the required hours, they are realizing that the average salary of $27,000 (excluding sign-on bonuses) for a First Officer is not ideal for someone with a Bachelor’s degree and a moderate amount of experience (Fitzpatrick 2016). After taking on anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 of debt to earn their degree and obtain employment in their field, $27,000 is not very appealing to a recent graduate; such a low salary does not allow one to be self-sufficient nor does it provide decent compensation to pay back loans. Knowing about the low-pay, minimal benefits (if any), and varying scheduling, many student- and would be pilots opt of the industry entirely or prolong their commitment as they search for additional funds and/or other aviation-related opportunities. Subsequently, the regional airlines are experiencing a ‘drought’ in their hiring pool as many individuals determine that a $27,000/year salary is not sufficient for them to live off post-graduation.

A possible solution for aspiring aviators would be to earn their certifications and flight hours through a Part 61 flight training company and earn a degree in a different major (i.e. do them separately), as opposed to conducting their training through a university (i.e. Part 141). I view this as a viable solution because it is ultimately tens of thousands of dollars cheaper than a Part 141 training school/university. Furthermore, by separating the two into their own entities, you not only save money through the Part 61 company (as their rates are significantly cheaper), but students save money on their education (in terms of tuition costs) and can explore other interests and degree options as well. As I am currently pursuing this option myself, I have found it to be more beneficial to my growth as I have become more knowledgeable in pertinent aspects of life (e.g. business/finances, managerial and soft skills, etc.)

I believe there are two possible solutions to this problem/concern that the regional air carriers themselves can implement. The first of those two solutions, which many regional airlines are currently doing, would be to offer signing bonuses and tuition reimbursement. To combat and deter the negative stigma of the compensation offered by the regional air carriers, they have steadily increased the amounts of the signing bonuses and/or tuition reimbursement. Recently, Envoy, Piedmont, and PSA airlines increased their signing bonuses to $15,000, while Endeavor’s maximum bonus offered is $23,000 (Sasso & Schlangenstein 2016). By offering such a hefty signing bonus, the appeal of the regional air carriers has increased in the eyes of aspiring pilots as it compensates for the low-wages paid to regional pilots. Using signing bonuses and/or tuition reimbursement options, the average first-year pay is raised from $27,000/year to $35,000, and $47,000 (maximum) at prestigious regional airlines like Endeavor (Sasso & Schlangenstein 2016). By offering more money up front, I believe regional air carriers will increase their reputation, combat the negative low-wage stigma, and slowly attract pilots, resulting in an increase of their hiring pool.

The second possible solution to this problem, and probably the easiest, would be to merely increase the first-year base pay for pilots in addition to increasing the benefits offered to employees. Akin to the previous option, increasing the salary of these first-year pilots will indefinitely attract individuals and increase the size of the hiring pool. A $15,000 singing bonus, which is a one-time lump-sum (or is distributed in an employee’s paycheck over 12-24 months), does not amount to much after taxes and other garnishments albeit it may seem like a ‘gold-mine’ to young, recent graduates. Those individuals that realize how minute the signing bonus is are not truly won over by its presence and instead, opt for a different airline or aspect of the industry (e.g. business or general aviation). Ergo, I believe the regional airlines need to increase the overall base salary to a minimum of $35,000-$37,000 to ultimately re-establish a positive reputation (in the eyes of the public and aviators) and increase their hiring pool.

**Third, ALPA represents most regional pilots. Which organization represents the remainder of the industry, such as management, manufacturers, etc. 

The organization(s) that represents the remainder of the industry, such as management, manufacturers, etc., is the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). The AAAE is an organization that represents thousands of airport management personnel and whose primary goal is to assist airports, management, and in some cases, manufacturers, in fulfilling their responsibilities. An additional organization that represents and supports management and manufacturers is the Airports Council International (ACI). Their purpose is to promote cooperation among airports and other aviation partners, including governments (managements), manufacturers, and other aspects of the industry, to ensure safe, secure, and efficient air transport (Florida Department of Transport [FDOT], 2016).

**Forth, keeping the documentary in mind, please answer the following questions:

-I proposed that one theme in the events that led up to the Colgan accident was the lack of professionalism.  Answer the following three questions related to professionalism:

    * 1) Define professionalism in your own words.

           

            I define professionalism as the actions and/or behaviors exhibited by an individual in an exemplary manner, of which denotes their morals/standards, sense of respect and safety (for them-self and others), integrity, and level of knowledge pertaining to their profession, especially when operating in a business, or otherwise professional setting.

    * 2) List two ways in which lack of professionalism was demonstrated in this documentary. Remember: Both pilots and management can lack professionalism.

Four ways in which a lack of professionalism was demonstrated in this documentary are as follows:

1.     The Captain’s inappropriate responses to the wheel-shaker and stick-pusher, in which he was supposed to push (forward) on the respective controls, but instead he pulled back on the wheel and stick pusher, respectively, which further slowed the speed of the aircraft. Additionally, the First Officer (FO) decided to put the flaps up (without the consent or knowledge of the Captain), which placed the aircraft into a stall, and subsequent spin and crash.

2.     The FO made the conscious decision to perform in the capacity of a pilot despite the fact she was sick, clearly under the weather (as noted by the Captain and other crew members), fatigued, and/or otherwise not able to perform her flight duties at 100%. Therefore, the FO chose to exercise the rights of her certificate even though she was cognizant of the fact she was not fit to fly.

3.     Colgan Air management initially hired the Captain, Marvin Renslow, even though he only accumulated approximately 600 hours of total flight time, which is less than half the time required or recommended by most the major airlines. Furthermore, Colgan Air management failed to thoroughly vet the Captain record/flight background (and presumably other candidates), which caused them to not discover or become cognizant of two of the Captain’s failed check-rides (he had four total).

4.     The Vice President of Colgan Air Operations called Chris Wiken, a former Colgan Air pilot, and informed him that if he claimed fatigue (due to working several 16-hour days in a row) he would be stuck at the airport he was at for the night. To persuade the pilot to not claim fatigue, the VP of Operations offered to shorten his duty by altering his time card to read that he began working at 0600 as opposed to 0540, which would give the pilot 20 additional minutes to catch a flight back to his home base. In other words, the VP of Operations offered to falsify the pilot’s records to make it appear as if he worked a legal duty day although exceeded the legal working requirements for a crew member. Offering to falsify the records of an employee (or anyone) to abide by the FAA regulations is an extreme and blatant exhibition of a lack of professionalism. Furthermore, this severe lack of professionalism was exhibited by a high-ranking member of Colgan Air management, which only makes the instance worse.

    * 3) Do you feel that first year pilot pay and/or the compensation structure of a regional airline is a contributing factor in the lack of professionalism demonstrated in the documentary?

I strongly believe the first-year pilot pay and the compensation structure in its entirety of a regional airline was one of the contributing factors in the lack of professionalism demonstrated in this documentary. I can say this with confidence because the FO, Rebecca Shaw, was a prime example of how poor the first-year pay was and the sacrifices she made to ensure she made as much money as possible. The FO made less than $16,000 during her first year with Colgan Air in 2008, which is equivalent to the average salary of a full-time associate working for a fast-food restaurant (e.g. McDonalds).

As a result of the extremely low first-year pay, most FO’s opted to commute to work even if they lived out if state and/or sleep in the crew rooms (when able) to reduce expenditures, including the FO, Rebecca Shaw. In the case of the FO, who lived in Seattle, WA, commuting across the country for a flight and sleeping on aircraft, in crew rooms, or couches/crash-pads does not constitute for adequate and/or qualitative (i.e. restful sleep). Consequently, a lack of qualitative sleep can cause adverse health effects, primarily manifesting in the forms of fatigue and illness. Due to these FO’s being paid poorly, many of them have no choice but to commute out of state and sleep wherever, whenever, and however as they cannot afford to pay for hotels or call-in sick (i.e. lose money). This was especially evident in the case of Rebecca Shaw as it was noted in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcripts that she mentioned the costs of staying in a hotel until she felt better if she were to call-in sick.

Therefore, the FO’s decision to perform in the capacity of a pilot despite the fact she did not receive adequate rest the night before (since she spent the previous day commuting from Seattle), was experiencing symptoms of fatigue (denoted by the yawns on the CVR), and was under the weather (i.e. not fit to fly), demonstrate a significant lack of professionalism on her behalf. Albeit the FO was clearly in the wrong for deciding to fly despite not being ‘fit’ to do so, I also feel as if Colgan Air exhibited an equal lack of professionalism with their severely low first-year pay-scale and overall compensation structure. Implementing such a low pay scale indirectly pressures and negatively influences pilots, especially FO’s, such as Rebecca Shaw, to fly and avoid calling-in as much as possible regardless of their health, well-being, safety, and location. This indirect pressure stems from the fact that the fewer pilots that are flying means less aircraft are being operated (i.e. “less rigs being move”), less passengers are traveling, and less revenue is being generated by Colgan Air, who then has the option to cut costs (such as pilot staffing) to save money. Thus, I strongly believe the blatant direct and oblique disregard of employee health and safety, whose consequent fatigue and impaired decision-making can adversely affect the customers constitutes a severe lack of professionalism exhibited by Colgan Air.

Furthermore, I feel that the first-year pilot pay and the compensation structure in its entirety of a regional airline was one of the contributing factors in the lack of professionalism demonstrated in this documentary. I strongly feel this way because the poor first-year and compensation structure forces pilots to make unethical and poor decisions, of which demonstrate a lack of professionalism (in one form or another) they would not normally make if it were not for the financial stress. Consequently, these decisions, to fly while ill and/or fatigues jeopardize their safety and the safety of others, but are still made because if they miss work they lose money, which they cannot afford to do since they already do NOT make ENOUGH!

    * 4) List two specific ways you plan on maintain and expand your level of professionalism once you are employed in the job that you listed in 1). These ways must be independent of the requirements of the job.

                       

Two specific ways I plan to maintain and expand my level of professionalism once I become employed in the job/career I previously listed in the personal introduction post are as follows:

1. Treat others the way I would expect to be treated while operating in a professional setting, regarding the areas of morals/beliefs, safety, and respect.

2. Attain a mentor (e.g. a Captain or someone akin to such position) within the company so that I may learn from both their personal and professional mistakes and experiences in efforts to not only exceed their level of professionalism, but to also surpass the company expectation of employee professionalism.

References

Aviation Week & Space Technology. (2015). The coming U.S. pilot shortage is real. Aviation Week Network. Retrieved from http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/coming-us-pilot-shortage-real

Fitzpatrick, A. (2016). Here’s the major crisis the airlines are facing now. Business Aviation. Retrieved from http://time.com/4257940/pilot-shortage/

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). (2016). Aviation professional organizations. Florida Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.fdot.gov/aviation/organizations.shtm

Sasso, M., & Schlangenstein, M. (2016). Shrinking pool of future pilots keeps major airlines on edge. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge

Personal Introduction- Prologue (Read This One First)!

Before I dive into the required stipulations of this post (as so elegantly outlined by Prof. Wall) I want to share, briefly, a few things about myself for those students who do not know and/or have had me in their class. Some of the things may/may not overlap with the required questions so please forgive me!

My name is Theodore Johnson; I am 22 years old, an Ypsilanti native, and a graduating senior here at Eastern Michigan University (EMU). I am an Aviation Management major with a concentration in Aircraft Dispatch and a minor in General Business. 

I graduated from Ypsilanti High School in 2012 as the 4th in my class (of 260 students). I had no intentions of attending EMU when I first began thinking about and applying to college during the beginning of my senior year (September 2011); I actually was torn between attending the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and the University of Toledo (UT). However, I lost my mother unexpectedly in November of 2011, and after that I hit what seemed to be an insurmountable roadblock (at this time I had only applied to two universities). I lost all motivation for school activities, class, collegiate preparation, and ceased thinking about the future in general because I was emotionally and mentally 'stuck'. With the support of my closest friends and family, I was able to finally gather myself after 4-6 weeks of being in a deep state of morose after enduring such a traumatic loss. By this time I was entering the new year (2012) and was faced with an ultimatum: either attend college out-of-state or attend EMU so I can stay local and raise my younger brother (who was 10 at the time). Obviously, I chose the latter and I have never regretted doing so; enduring such a loss at that age helped mature my perspective/mindset, bestowed a sense of responsibility, and provided other vital life skills in an expeditious manner. That, coupled with life experiences, natural maturity, and guidance from my father, helped mold me into the person I am today.

Upon my admittance to EMU I enrolled as a Biology major with a Chemistry minor in order to align with the pre-medical concentration so I could fulfill my goal of becoming an MD/DO in the future. After the conclusion of my Emergency medical internship (facilitated by Saint Joseph Mercy Hospital), my junior year came to a close, which meant that I was finished with the medical portion of my collegiate career. However, my decision to switch my major to aviation was derived as a result of this internship and was only strengthened by the communication, advice, and personal observation(s) of the medical professionals I was in constant contact with. Long-story short, I weighed out all the pros/cons of changing majors, conferred with my father and closest friends, evaluated/analyzed my life goals, and eventually made the switch (which I am extremely elated to have done so)! Aviation has always been a strong passion of mine, but the conclusion of the medical internship empowered me to realize that I truly wanted to pursue this passion and turn it into a career first, and then attend medical school in the distant future. 

Fast-forwarding to the present academic year, I am the current Secretary of the professional international Aviation Fraternity, namely Alpha Eta Rho, Sigma Chi here at EMU as well as the VP of Health & Safety for the Epsilon Mu chapter of Theta Chi. I have only been a part of Greek Life for two years, but the experiences, people, and knowledge I have attained from joining have proved to be invaluable. This is one aspect of college that I truly wish I would have engaged in early on. However, throughout my tenure here at EMU, I have realized that in order to maximize your potential and eventual success, you must not only find yourself first, but you must also solidify your foundation, skills, and goals to be able to expand your horizon and gradually integrate yourself into the other facets offered by the collegiate environment as they require a delicate balance.

Thank you for reading and I look forward to a successful semester with you all!

Personal Introduction-Getting To Know ME!

 My name is Theodore Johnson; I am 22 years old, an Ypsilanti native, and a graduating senior here at Eastern Michigan University (EMU). I am an Aviation Management major with a concentration in Aircraft Dispatch and a minor in General Business.
 

1) Background - how/when did your interest in aviation begin?

I have always had an interest for aviation and aeronautics dating back to early childhood. I believe this was strengthened during vacation flights with my parents as the pilots would allow me to sit in the Captain's seat, play with the flight controls/buttons, and end the venture with my own pair of 'wings'. As I grew older, this passion became latent, but was rejuvenated when I joined the Air Force JROTC (AFJROTC) unit at my local high school. As a sophomore, I was skeptical of what the program had to offer, but during my first year, we took field trips to the Selfridge Air National Guard Base and got to fly on re-fueling flights on their KC-135s. The next year we went to the Ann Arbor airport for a discovery flight and it was during this trip where I truly believe I caught the 'flying bug'. I was allowed to take the controls (albeit only for a brief moment), but that was all it took. At that point, I was hooked! I concluded my senior year and tenure with my AFJROTC unit as the Group Commander and was the first ever cadet to achieve the rank of cadet Colonel. 

Shortly after graduating high school, I knew I could not allow my passion for aviation to grow dormant, but I had no industry connections nor did I know what I wanted to do in aviation. However, this all changed as one of my best friend's mother put in a good word for me at Spirit Airlines (DTW). The following summer (summer 2013) I became employed as Ramp Service Agent (RSA) for Spirit Airlines. Obtaining a line position at a major airline was one of the best things I could have done not only to perpetuate my career and establish industry contacts, but this position also allowed me to gain experience and knowledge about both sides (i.e. flight and management) of an aviation operation. Three months after being hired I was promoted to a Lead RSA position, which allowed me to routinely communicate with flight crew members; in doing so, I attained a mentor, whom of which I remain in contact with to this day! Attaining this position was ideal and indefinitely enhanced my interest and passion for aviation because I was able to travel the airport at my leisure, view various aircraft whenever I wanted, communicate with and get advice from those I aspired to be, and increase my realm of knowledge. Albeit I departed from Spirit Airlines after three years of service, the abundance of leadership skills, aviation experience, and knowledge I amassed was invaluable. While working at DTW, I met several collegiate aviation students, who introduced me to AHP, helping facilitate and nurture my passion for this industry even further; for that/them I am extremely grateful because if it were not for our collegiate and personal commonalities, I would not have progressed to this point.

2) Current status - what major and when do you graduate?

I am an Aviation Management major with a concentration in Aircraft Dispatch (ADX) and a minor in General Business. I plan to take my ADX practical/oral examinations, attain my ADX certification, and graduate in April 2017, respectively.

3) Future plans - you must address this specifically. Points will be deducted for answers such as "I will fly anything for anyone".  A more appropriate answer would be something like "I will flight instructor and then would like to fly for Express Jet. Upon upgrading to captain at Express Jet, I would eventually like to retire from Southwest Airlines.". I realize that many of you may not have this narrowed down at this point. That's okay. Just write something specifically. Research shows that having a specific goal provides more motivation and success than non-specific goals, even if the specific goal stated does not end up coming to fruition. You will look at this goal again at the end of the semester and comment about if your original goal has changed and if so, for what reasons.

As of right now my future plans are to graduate in April 2017 with my ADX certification and obtain employment with either a major airline under a Part 121 carrier (ideally American Airlines or Southwest Airlines) or within a local Part 135 carrier, such as USAJet or Kalitta, respectively. I would like to work for an air carrier, especially American Airlines and/or Delta Airlines as an ADX for three to four years; once this time has elapsed, I would either like to move up within the company to become the Director of Operations or a position akin to this. By age 30-32, I intend to become a First Officer flying within the business/corporate facet of aviation; I always had an affinity for Amway Aviation, therefore they will be my first choice when/if the opportunity arises. Upon upgrading to captain at the corporate level, I would either retire from said company or transition to a governmental operation (as this has always peaked my curiosity). Unlike most aviation students, I have no true desire to fly commercially for the airlines, thus I would remain flying under Part 135 until retirement and/or revert to GA operations.

Additionally, by June, but no later than August, I plan to be enrolled at either CMU or Purdue University in order to obtain my MBA, of which I plan to have completed within 1 calendar year in efforts to enhance my credentials, become more appealing to employers, and obtain an in-depth understanding of how the business world functions.

4) As stated, this course is comprised of two parts - career development (which will include a series of guest speakers) and current topic discussions. Please state if there are some specific areas that you would like to be represented by guest speakers. Please address this even if that particular type of guest speaker is already listed in the syllabus. If there is a lot if interest in one or more particular areas, I may try to secure multiple speakers in that area. I would also like you to list at least two areas of current aviation topics that may be of interest to you. Although I have laid out several topics in the syllabus, I am flexible about changing them in order to meet your interests.

Albeit the topics covered in the syllabus are well-rounded, I personally would like to have some guest speakers come and talk about the corporate/business and the governmental aspects of aviation. I feel as if a lot of the discussions that take place in most of the aviation courses only emphasize Part 121 operators and not enough about the corporate/business operators. As a student that is yearning to be employed within both, I would like to receive more knowledge from the personal accounts and experiences from those in employed or experienced within that particular sector. Furthermore, in regards to the governmental aviation positions, I would like to have at least one guest speaker present upon that topic as I am not cognizant of the various positions or careers available from being employed in a governmental aviation position from a civilian perspective (aside from those stemming from the military). 

Two current aviation topics that interest me are the cargo/freight industry and their exemption to the flight duty regulations and the various aviation organizations. 

The cargo/freight area interest me because I have always been fascinated by the various aircraft that transported cargo and freight in addition to the fact that the cargo/freight does not talk or complain, and the shifts are typically at night (which is great cause I am a night owl). Furthermore, after learning about the various duty and rest requirements of crew members operating under 121, I feel that crew members operating under 135 should be subject to similar requirements as they are just as human and fatigue the same way as the pilots within 121.

The second area, aviation organizations, also interest me because connecting with various organizations and the people within them is essentially how I got my start in this industry! The old adage, "It's not what you know, but who you know", is especially true and extremely applicable to the aviation industry, thus I would like to learn about more organizations and their role within the industry.