The legal floor under every flight crew decision
This is where the real numbers begin. Our prior post built the airline. Atlántico Airways, fifteen aircraft, Madrid-based, around 870 staff and €480 million a year in costs. Everything from here works through that cost base one line at a time, starting with the most visible cost in commercial aviation and the most consistently misunderstood one: the flight crew.
The headline most people would expect is the salary number. We are not starting there. Because before you can cost a pilot, you have to know how many pilots you legally need, and that is not a number an airline gets to choose. It is forced on Atlántico by three layers of regulation working together, each enforceable to the point of grounding the operation if breached. This post sets out those three layers in full, including how they differ across the four major regulators an airline anywhere in the world is likely to encounter.
Get this layer right and every later number, the establishment, the cost, the training bill, follows logically. Get it wrong and the whole cost base is built on sand.
What the regulation actually says
Atlántico is a Spanish operator, so its primary framework is European. Commercial air transport in Europe is governed by Regulation (EU) 965/2012, the Air Operations Regulation. Within it, organisational requirements for the operator sit under Annex III, known as Part-ORO, and specifically the subpart ORO.FTL covers flight time limitations and crew duty. The current detailed limits were introduced by Regulation (EU) 83/2014, which amended 965/2012, and the operator must also comply with the certification specification CS-FTL.1 that supports it.
Crew licensing sits under a separate regulation entirely, Regulation (EU) 1178/2011, the Aircrew Regulation, which contains Part-FCL covering flight crew licences and Part-MED covering aeromedical certification. Spain’s national authority enforcing all of this is AESA, the Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea, which issues Atlántico’s Air Operator Certificate and audits its compliance.
Three separate legal requirements stack on top of each other before a single revenue flight can depart. They are the minimum flight crew, the licences each crew member must hold, and the flight time limitations that cap how much any individual pilot may legally fly.
The first requirement: minimum flight crew
The minimum number of pilots on the flight deck is not set by ORO.FTL or by the airline. It is set by the aircraft’s type certificate, the document issued by EASA when the aircraft type was certified, and recorded in the Aircraft Flight Manual that lives on every aircraft.
For both the Airbus A321 and the Airbus A330, the type-certificated minimum flight crew is two pilots: a Pilot in Command, who acts as the commander of the flight, and a co-pilot. This is the legal floor, not the operating number, because sectors above a certain duration require additional pilots to make the duty period legally possible under flight time limitations. We will come back to that.
What matters for the cost base is that the minimum is set at the certification level, not the operator level. Atlántico cannot decide to fly an A330 with a single pilot, however willing or qualified that pilot might be. The aircraft is not certified for single-pilot operation, and no operator can change that.
The second requirement: licensing and qualification
Every pilot on the flight deck of an Atlántico aircraft must hold a specific combination of licences and ratings, all current, all valid for the aircraft being operated.
Under Part-FCL, the commander of a multi-pilot commercial aeroplane must hold an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, the ATPL(A). This is the highest pilot licence available, requiring a minimum of 1,500 hours of total flying experience under EASA rules, alongside a substantial theoretical knowledge examination across fourteen subjects, and a full skill test. It is not a quick qualification. A typical European pilot reaches ATPL several years into their career.
The co-pilot of a multi-pilot commercial aeroplane must hold, at minimum, a Commercial Pilot Licence, the CPL(A), and must have completed the ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations. This combination is known in the industry as a “frozen ATPL”. On top of that, the pilot must have completed a Multi-Crew Cooperation course, the MCC, which is the qualification that legally permits them to act as part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial aircraft. Without the MCC, the frozen ATPL alone is not sufficient to occupy a flight deck seat on an A321 or an A330. The licence becomes a full ATPL once the pilot accumulates the required flying hours and meets the additional experience criteria, usually by progressing through the right seat and into command.
Every pilot, captain or first officer, must additionally hold a type rating for the specific aircraft they fly. The Airbus A321 and the Airbus A330 are separate type ratings under EASA rules, though the A320 family and the A330 share some commonality benefits that reduce the cost of cross-rating between them. A pilot rated on the A321 cannot legally operate the A330 without completing the A330 type rating course, which is a substantial training event in its own right and a cost we will return to in the establishment and training posts later in this topic.
On top of the licences and ratings, every pilot must hold a valid Class 1 medical certificate issued under Part-MED, renewed annually until age 60 and every six months thereafter. They must complete recurrent simulator training and Licence Proficiency Checks at intervals set by the operator’s training programme and the regulation, typically two simulator sessions per year. Loss of any of these, the medical, the type rating currency, the recurrent check, removes the pilot from the line until restored. No exceptions.
The third requirement: flight time limitations
This is the layer that drives the cost base, because it determines how productive an individual pilot can legally be, and therefore how many pilots Atlántico needs in total. ORO.FTL imposes a series of hard ceilings on flight time and duty time, and an operator’s roster system must demonstrably keep every crew member within all of them.
ORO.FTL.210 imposes a dual annual ceiling that operates simultaneously. A pilot may not exceed 900 hours of flight time in any calendar year, and separately may not exceed 1,000 hours of flight time in any 12 consecutive calendar months. Both limits apply at all times, and the rolling 12-month figure is the binding constraint for any pilot whose flying straddles two calendar years. On top of the annual ceilings, no pilot may exceed 100 hours of flight time in any 28 consecutive days.
Duty time is capped separately and in addition. A pilot may not exceed 60 duty hours in any 7 consecutive days, 110 duty hours in any 14 consecutive days, or 190 duty hours in any 28 consecutive days, spread as evenly as practicable across that period.
These limits sit on top of separate restrictions on the maximum Flight Duty Period in a single day, which varies according to the time the duty starts and the number of sectors flown, and on minimum rest periods between duties.
Two further requirements complete the picture. The aviation Working Time Directive, Directive 2000/79/EC, transposed into Spanish national law, requires every crew member to receive at least 7 local days free of duty in every calendar month and at least 96 local days free of duty in every calendar year. These are not negotiable, they cannot be bought out for cash, and they are part of the reason a pilot legally allowed to fly 900 hours in a year never reaches that ceiling.
In addition, the commander has limited discretion to extend a Flight Duty Period when unforeseen circumstances arise after report, typically by up to two hours for a normal crew, or one hour for an augmented one. Discretion is for exceptional use and has to be reported, not for routine roster construction.
Augmented crew
The minimum flight crew of two pilots works for sectors that fit comfortably inside the allowable Flight Duty Period. For longer sectors, particularly transatlantic widebody flying, the operator must add a third pilot, or for very long sectors a fourth, to allow in-flight rest in a dedicated bunk or crew rest seat. This is called an augmented crew, and it is the operating reality on most of Atlántico’s A330 fleet flying to Latin America. Augmentation is not optional. It is forced by the FDP limits and rest requirements in ORO.FTL.
Augmented crews change the establishment maths significantly. A widebody operating with three pilots on a single sector consumes three pilot duty periods to cover one aircraft duty period. Five pilots on a four-pilot ultra long-haul sector consumes even more. The result is that long-haul widebody operations carry a higher pilot-to-aircraft ratio than short-haul narrowbody operations, and the gap is not vanity. It is regulation.
How the four major regulators differ
Atlántico is European, but any airline anywhere in the world operates under one of a small number of broadly comparable regulatory frameworks. Understanding the differences matters if you ever model the same airline in another jurisdiction, or compare crew productivity across operators.
ICAO sets the global framework. Annex 6 Part I covers the operation of commercial aircraft, Annex 1 covers personnel licensing, and Doc 9966 sets out the fatigue management framework that member states are expected to apply. ICAO does not impose specific numerical limits. It requires that member states impose scientifically defensible limits, and delegates the actual numbers to the national authorities.
EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, sets the framework that applies to Atlántico. The annual flight time limit is the dual ceiling of 900 hours in a calendar year and 1,000 hours in any rolling 12-month period. EASA permits commander’s discretion to extend Flight Duty Periods in exceptional circumstances, which gives operators a small amount of flexibility to manage unforeseen disruption. EASA’s calendar-year limit of 900 hours is the strictest annual cap of the major regulators.
The FAA, the United States Federal Aviation Administration, regulates US airlines under 14 CFR Part 117 for fatigue and Part 121 for operations, with pilot licensing under Part 61. The FAA permits 1,000 hours of flight time in any 365-day period, with no separate calendar-year ceiling, which means US pilots are legally permitted to fly more hours annually than European pilots. However, FAA Flight Duty Period limits are hard limits with no commander’s discretion to extend once the duty is scheduled. The FAA also imposes the “1,500 hour rule” for issue of an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, a significantly higher experience bar than EASA’s frozen ATPL entry route, which constrains the supply of FAA-licensed pilots and contributes to higher US pilot pay.
The UK CAA, post-Brexit, operates a retained version of Regulation 965/2012, so the limits mirror EASA almost exactly. The UK adds the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, which align the 900-hour annual limit on a rolling 12-month basis rather than a calendar year, a small but operationally meaningful difference.
The practical conclusion for the cost base is straightforward. A European pilot is legally less productive per year than an American one, which means a European airline needs marginally more pilots per aircraft for the same flying. Atlántico’s establishment will be built on the EASA number, 900 hours, and the practical productive figure that sits well below it.
Where this leaves the establishment
The headline number a casual reader would expect is the annual flying ceiling, 900 hours. The number that actually matters, the one that builds the cost base, is the productive line-flying hours an individual pilot delivers in a year after the calendar is consumed by mandatory days off (96 a year minimum), annual leave (typically 30 days or more under Spanish collective agreements), recurrent training and checking (around 8 to 10 days a year for a senior pilot), ground training and currency requirements, sickness absence, parental leave, command upgrade training time, and reserve or standby duty during which the pilot is on duty but not generating planned flying.
Across the industry, real productive line-flying output is between 600 and 700 hours per pilot per year. Atlántico models 650 as a realistic mid-range figure for a hybrid operator with disciplined rostering.
This is the gap that drives the pilot wage bill. A pilot legally allowed to fly 900 hours, in practice, flies 650. The difference between an airline that achieves 700 productive hours per pilot and one that achieves 600, across 181 pilots, is roughly 18,000 hours of flying. That is the output of around 25 additional pilots an inefficient operator has to hire just to deliver the same flying programme. The cost of that single inefficiency runs into millions of euros a year, and it is owned not by Flight Operations or by HR, but by Crew Planning, the small specialist team that builds the rosters. We will cost that team properly when we reach Topic 4.
What comes next
This post has laid the regulatory floor. The minimum flight crew, the licensing requirement, the flight time limitations, and the way they interact to force a productive hours figure well below the legal ceiling.
Ther next article builds the establishment from the ground up. It takes Atlántico’s flying programme, applies the productive hours number derived here, adds the reserve, training and absence overhead that no operator can avoid, and arrives at the 181 pilots the airline actually needs and why. From there, we cost them in full, and cover the costs that sit on top, the type ratings, the recurrent checking, and the command upgrade pipeline.
The numbers stop being abstract from here. They start being defensible.
About OAT
This series is produced by OAT. We build technically rigorous aviation training, designed by people who have worked the operation rather than just written about it.
If your organisation has training needs, we can help. Our courses are SCORM compliant and ready to drop straight into your existing Learning Management System. We also offer flexible hosting options if you would rather we ran the platform for you, alongside full outsource options for organisations that want their training designed, built and managed end to end.
Get in touch at info@oat.aero or visit oat.aero to talk through what you need.