I read Roomwithaview's post, below, on another thread.
I figured I might as well start a new contentious thread just to keep FIers' blood pressure maxed out. And it takes the spotlight away from the SWA/AT SLI.
I fought Age 65 for four years; 2004-2008. I lost. That's life. I'm not happy about losing the battle but life goes on. In my case, life goes on with a >2 year furlough since the age limit was increased. I'll be lucky if it only costs me 3 years on furlough. So that's what the over 60 pilots stole from me; 3 years of employment.
During that four years (2004-2008), I said that if 65 was implemented:
1) we would see a lot of furloughs and careers would stagnate.
2) pay rates would not increase due to a large pilot surplus.
3) although pilots were claiming they'd retire at 62, they were lying. They would all stay to 65.
4) We would see an increase in hull losses.
I'd say that I was pretty accurate on 1 through 3.
I was wrong on number 4. And that's where the problem lies. The door is now open to increase retirement age once again. The next three numbers that I've heard tossed around are 67, 70, and no age limit.
There will be a sharp increase in demand for pilots in 2012 as each airline restarts their training pipelines. Training pipelines will be much bigger at airlines with multiple dissimilar airframes, such as American, Delta, USAirways, and United/Continental. A single retirement at these companies can create up to 6 training events, although 4 training events is probably a reasonably conservative number.
Each pilot trainee will be in the training pipeline for ~2 months, including training and IOE. And for each pilot in the training pipeline, there will need to be a dedicated instructor/IOE pilot.
So if you're looking at 20 retirements per month, it creates a sustained demand for 20 x 4 x 2 x 2 pilots; 320 pilots. And that's a very lowball number. Back in the late 90s, I read something from a USAirways instructor that stated their training pipeline was ~1000 pilots. I'm sure things have gotten more efficient since then so the numbers need to be downward revised. Multiply 320 by 5 and you're looking at a sudden demand for 1600 pilots at legacy airlines. Between legacy and majors, there will probably be a demand of 2500+ pilots, decimating the ranks of regional airlines.
No later than fall 2012, we're likely looking at huge short term movements in the seniority list, as the training pipeline for multiple airlines will need to be filled. The clouds will suddenly seem to lift.
Remember that when you start hearing 'pilot shortages' and 'increasing retirement age'. Because if the retirement age is increased, that training pipeline evaporates and we're back to a huge glut of pilots.
In 2004-2008, most pilots were complacent on raising the retirement age. No worries; it's good for all of us. I hope that most have seen the light on that and are willing to put up a bit more resistance this time around.
Rather than try to completely shut down another age increase, my recommendation is that any further age increase be slowed down. Instead of a sudden jump to 70, how about a 1 month increase every quarter? That would increase retirement age by 4 months per year and allow the FAA to say, 'No Mas' when things start getting dicey. You can only increase retirement age so much before it becomes very unsafe.
The good thing about incremental age increases is that it keeps the training pipeline open, resulting in a higher demand for pilots.
OK, throw some darts at me. At least this is a diversion from SLI.
I figured I might as well start a new contentious thread just to keep FIers' blood pressure maxed out. And it takes the spotlight away from the SWA/AT SLI.
I fought Age 65 for four years; 2004-2008. I lost. That's life. I'm not happy about losing the battle but life goes on. In my case, life goes on with a >2 year furlough since the age limit was increased. I'll be lucky if it only costs me 3 years on furlough. So that's what the over 60 pilots stole from me; 3 years of employment.
During that four years (2004-2008), I said that if 65 was implemented:
1) we would see a lot of furloughs and careers would stagnate.
2) pay rates would not increase due to a large pilot surplus.
3) although pilots were claiming they'd retire at 62, they were lying. They would all stay to 65.
4) We would see an increase in hull losses.
I'd say that I was pretty accurate on 1 through 3.
I was wrong on number 4. And that's where the problem lies. The door is now open to increase retirement age once again. The next three numbers that I've heard tossed around are 67, 70, and no age limit.
There will be a sharp increase in demand for pilots in 2012 as each airline restarts their training pipelines. Training pipelines will be much bigger at airlines with multiple dissimilar airframes, such as American, Delta, USAirways, and United/Continental. A single retirement at these companies can create up to 6 training events, although 4 training events is probably a reasonably conservative number.
Each pilot trainee will be in the training pipeline for ~2 months, including training and IOE. And for each pilot in the training pipeline, there will need to be a dedicated instructor/IOE pilot.
So if you're looking at 20 retirements per month, it creates a sustained demand for 20 x 4 x 2 x 2 pilots; 320 pilots. And that's a very lowball number. Back in the late 90s, I read something from a USAirways instructor that stated their training pipeline was ~1000 pilots. I'm sure things have gotten more efficient since then so the numbers need to be downward revised. Multiply 320 by 5 and you're looking at a sudden demand for 1600 pilots at legacy airlines. Between legacy and majors, there will probably be a demand of 2500+ pilots, decimating the ranks of regional airlines.
No later than fall 2012, we're likely looking at huge short term movements in the seniority list, as the training pipeline for multiple airlines will need to be filled. The clouds will suddenly seem to lift.
Remember that when you start hearing 'pilot shortages' and 'increasing retirement age'. Because if the retirement age is increased, that training pipeline evaporates and we're back to a huge glut of pilots.
In 2004-2008, most pilots were complacent on raising the retirement age. No worries; it's good for all of us. I hope that most have seen the light on that and are willing to put up a bit more resistance this time around.
Rather than try to completely shut down another age increase, my recommendation is that any further age increase be slowed down. Instead of a sudden jump to 70, how about a 1 month increase every quarter? That would increase retirement age by 4 months per year and allow the FAA to say, 'No Mas' when things start getting dicey. You can only increase retirement age so much before it becomes very unsafe.
The good thing about incremental age increases is that it keeps the training pipeline open, resulting in a higher demand for pilots.
OK, throw some darts at me. At least this is a diversion from SLI.
