To Many Airlines, Not Enough Pilots FIX

[cjk2448]

Some ideas on how we can limit airlines so there are enough pilots to go around?

I'd say to start an airline you need a certain amount of hours and to start an airline you need to have a curtain pilot rating.

What do you guys think would help???

[BigQ]

I like the idea.... so there aren't any bunk airlines anywhere, and the CEO's are all active members...

[cmdrnmartin]

Disable the Create Airline Function?

I don't think it's quite fair to just Ban anyone from creating an airline, since then we'd only have one because we got here first. That being said, the pilot rating idea is ok, but what's the rating? I've flown about a Hundred times and am (I think) a Senior Flight Captain.

I think there needs to be more advertisement of the VA's on the signup page, perhaps a list of the top 10 VA's?

Or even better, a training VA, where they can fly any plane they want, but must complete 4 flights with no crashes (in a row) before they can join a new airline, and 20 flights before they can found an airline. DOes that sound good?

It protects Airlines from pilots who crash.
It lets pilots learn to budget for fuel, and how it affects whoever they will be flying for.
It lets CEOs take a look at a piltos logbook after he has established some sort of flying experience.
It will promote joining a VA over creating a VA.

[cjk2448]

HAHA I never said "ban" people every from creating an airline

Your idea is good though, maybe a little more than 5, but give the CEO a risk factor for each pilot that applies

Pilot rating is in 98% or something, but of course this is after all the bugs are worked out since there are some that
can cause problems to a rating

I also think maybe weeding out the onces that are inactive for so many dates??? 30 or so?? That way a pilot knows he is
joining an active airline and not one that has been doing nother since it was created.


Chris

[cmdrnmartin]

Konny will be deleting inactive acounts, I believe the timeframe is 60 days. 98%? Wow, thats tough to attain. Personnally Im only at 97.5 I think. Basically if I mess up on even one thing my rating drops right now. (Taught me to use checklists more though)

[simpilot7]

Once the Client is out of Beta, I think Wardair's idea is great. There definitely should be some type of "proving grounds", just to know that someone didn't just go out, buy fs9, install it and join an airline, without any experience whatsoever. That could be disastrous for airlines that have built a strong reputation. Not to promote any other VA systems, but alot of them have quite long trial periods (even written tests) for pilots to prove their skills. Its quite easy to jump right into Flynet and takeoff, as long as the CEO is willing to type rate them in an aircraft. SO yes, some type of "skill filter" should be required, just how far should FlyNet extend that filter?

[cmdrnmartin]

Like I mentioned in my previous post, I think it should be a CEOs decision to hire someone. I figure the "training" VA should be called Flight School. Anybody can look at all the flights made by pilots in flight school.

New FLYNet members could be forced to fly a minimum of 4 flights before they apply to join an airline.
Since a CEO can look at potential members flight logs, it becomes the CEOS responsibility to know that that person will not crash the plane. They could also request that the applicant fly in flight school, a route similar to that theyd fly for the airline (ie, please fly 2 flights 757-300 CYOW-CYYC, I will monitor your performance and make my decision then.)
The airlines they can join should be listed in order of Reputation, (maybe value) jsut to give a better idea for them whats out there. Right now its a drop down list and that doesnt tell you much.
If a pilot has flown 10~20 flights (up for debate) and no airline has accepted them, they could start their own VA.
While in Flight School, all mistakes should be halved ie a crash not 50% but 25%, Land lights 2.5% etc, since it is after al flight school.

I figure the only limitation should be the four flight minimum, so CEOs have something to reference before giving a pilot a job. It just takes one look at the log to tell what type of pilot someone is. 1 crash, 10 flights? Showed great improvement. 4 crash 5 flights, umm, Ionathan, you can take this pilot

Anyways, just my two cents. Im going to bed.
Cheers!

[Ionathan]

If I am not losing something, can someone fly without be a pilot to an airline? Even if this is possible, I believe it should be a CEO's responsibility, and decision, to risk hiring an inexperienced pilot. What I have done in Ionathan Airlines is to use type rates so a new pilot must first complete a two flights checkride with a Cessna before he is promoted to fly turbo-props and so on. If on th eother hand I have an applicant with some hourse in another airline, I can decide to hire him with a higher rank in terms of type rating. This much more realistic. I don't see what is the problem with having many airlines. There are a lot completely failed airlines in real life but thety eventually close their doors. If there was an inactivity limit for the airlines and also a time limit for an airline to be in debt all the related problems would be eliminated without adding a lot of restrictions to pilots.

I mean look around for real life airlines. Is any kind of low forcing them to hire only experienced pilots? No. SO, why should be in FlyNet.

I liked the idea of an educational VA though simulating the training and certification of a pilot but I am afraid it would reduce the interest of people joining FlyNet. It is not a real job after all.

[cmdrnmartin]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, even the smallest of regional operators requires pilots to have a commercial license, usually 2 years of learning to fly,before they'll hire him. The majors, heck even westjet, require something like 4000 hours before they'll look at your resumé. All the flight school is is an area where theyll learn how flynet works, and not be penalized as much for their mistakes (ie Fuel, Crashes). The restriction of four flights is to simulate that they are learning how to fly properly, and then after that they are free to bid to (send their resume) to any airline they want to. Chances are theyll be hired since theyve got four successful flights undert their belt as a minimum. To review the pilots log is a CEOs job, and therefor, the CEO is still the one responsible for the actions of a hired pilot, removing none of the importance of the position, just making it easier, giving it a baseline against which to judge applicants.

Secondly, startup operations are not cheap, I honestly wish i could waltz into Calgary and just say, yeah, Im going to start an airline, say i want some gates, but thats just not in the cards. You need a lot of experience, a bit of financial backing, etc. So the 20 flights or so, its a barrier, but its not stopping someone completely. If theyhave the motivation, they can do it. Its just to see if they're serious about FLYNet.

And remember, the flight school is only called the flight school. They can fly any route they want, any plane they want. Its not limiting to a pilot at all, in fact its more open than what they ll be getting at a VA.

[Ionathan]

To make my position clear I repeat that I like the idea of a flight school and I agree it will lead more people to become pilots (at least for a while) instead of starting new VAs. However, this prerequisite should not be too demanding. The four flights you mention sounds fair enough though.

However a firther requirement in terms of experience would be false. There are many aspects in real life (like the tons of required hours in logs) which cannot or would better not be simulated in FlyNet. FlyNet has that adidtional feature of economy but thid is attractive only (or almost only) for CEOs. I don't see why a virtual pilot who only wants to fly should even care about that. So, if we left aside that feature which according to my opinioin does not count much for a simple pilot, FlyNet does not have that many attractions (for pilots only), at least up to now. Add to this the fact that it does not simulate real life airlines (most pilots want to fly for real life airlines) and the even more important fact that most airlines are small and start small with only a few aircrafts and destinations. Does this sound much attractive for pilots?

And here come the concluding question: why should someone who wants the flying experience join FlyNet and not virtual British Airways or virtual Quantas? My point is FlyNet must have something to attract those people and they are a lot believe me. Someone might say it is a VAs task and headache to find and recruit pilots and I will agree but I think we all want people in FlyNet and a lot of restrictions (unless they have some added value) does not work on this direction.

I am thinking in terms of promoting FlyNet for all the different reasons we all have:

Does a pilot want dense schedules and variety of aircrafts? He can join a huge VA
Does he want to fly for VA for which he feels some sympathy (it flies in real life from his local airport etc.)? He can join the related VA.
Does he want realism in flying? There is VATSIM and IVAO.
What would make him prefer FlyNet? This is the question.

These are just some thoughts crossing my mind.