So..the pilot shortage is coming?

[pilotyip]

And yes, YIP can be good for time-building and moving on, but the other poster's point was that if you never escape, there's usually a reason. Very few, if any, stayed there because they wanted to. I'd submit that, like you, they made management positions and just got comfy. Anyone who isn't management and is still there more than likely isn't there by choice. A few exceptions, but most want to get their time and get out, the lifestyle sucks and if the economy is bad, the pay sucks too.

True story.

Fair enough, but it is market forces that determine what pilots will be paid. Unless re-reg happens where the CAB has to approve every route and fee schedule, we remain in competitive industry with a consumer who looks for lowest cost. Re-reg would allow airlines to pass costs along in a price fixed industry where pilot costs can be passed along. Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed.

BTW Here is another reason pilots stay at YIP, they are making well in excess of $100K, they are in their mid-50's and will never recoup their drop in income by moving to another airline. Besides half our flying now is scheduled passenger and there is an escape from the 30 minute call out. I also detect a little of the common FI there in your post "I don't work at YIP, therefore I am better than you"

 

[Lear70]

BTW Here is another reason pilots stay at YIP, they are making well in excess of $100K, they are in their mid-50's and will never recoup their drop in income by moving to another airline. Besides half our flying now is scheduled passenger and there is an escape from the 30 minute call out.

You just proved our point. You shouldn't HAVE to take such a huge hit in your income to go work somewhere else. Market forces or not, that playing field could be leveled without increasing the existing size of the "pie".

I also detect a little of the common FI there in your post "I don't work at YIP, therefore I am better than you"

You forget, I *USED* to work at YIP... for almost 3 years, and relatively recently as well.

It's not "I'm better", it's "I moved on and recognize that almost all my coworkers wanted to as well, and many already have." It is what it is... good for building time, good people to work with, and I do feel grateful to have had a place to land at a bad time in my life, but few pilots I ever met think it's a preferable career gig.

 

[fam62c]

If the pay is not good, the lifestyle is no good and the career path is difficult why do people do this? It should be a self-correcting problem under these circumstances, people should either not enter the profession or leave the profession and not come back, the resultant shortage of labor would start to fix the problems. For now at least though there is still an adequate supply of pilots in the USA and most pilots I know who have left the profession to get "normal" jobs return to flying even with all the pitfalls. I know plenty of people in other industries and they have had a tough time in this economy too. I think that more than a few pilots who left flying found out that it's a lot harder to make a decent income doing something else than they thought it would be, especially in a tough economy. Airline pilot experience is of very little value to the folks doing the hiring in other industries.

Things are not perfect and they never will be, there will always be winners and losers in this industry and in many cases luck and timing has a lot to do with where you end up more than any other factor, it's very difficult to see the future when you decide to accept a job. I think if age 65 holds things will be much better for the next generation of pilots than they were for many of us. For now things are the way they are and that's how it is.

 

[livin'thesim]

Steeply scaled longevity pay is probably the single largest roadblock to the self-correcting effect that we would otherwise expect to see.

There is no such thing as a totally free market most of the time. There is always a regulation, law, union rule, preferred market element (such as the jurassic requirement for 20/20 uncorrected vision).

At best, some markets are more free than others. I completely support unionization of pilots, but I am honest enough to recognize that unionization makes the market less free.

I believe that the pros of unionization outweigh the cons, which is my opinion only.

I believe seniority as we practice it now has more advantages than disadvantages.

But steeply scaled longevity pay benefits the few at the expense of the many. It is the single largest change that could feasibly be made.

 

[jonjuan]

Like a nsl, there's no way to change it without affecting the "those who have.". They will fight tooth and nail to keep it as is.
Should someone propose increasing payrates of years 1-5 by 50-100%, those at the top will bitch that the pay raises are coming out of their pockets.

 

[Jetjockey]

There will be a pilot shortage right after the Chicago Cubs win the world series.

Two things I'm convinced I will never see in my lifetime.

 

[fam62c]

Like a nsl, there's no way to change it without affecting the "those who have.". They will fight tooth and nail to keep it as is.
Should someone propose increasing payrates of years 1-5 by 50-100%, those at the top will bitch that the pay raises are coming out of their pockets.

True, airline pay scales have always been more capitalistic than socialistic. The idea has always been that you will be senior longer than you will be junior and everybody will eventually be a senior captain. Unfortunately, with all the airline failures over the years, mergers and furloughs these assumptions are not always valid.

I still believe the thing that will eventually help will be a reduction in the supply of pilots. This will dictate that the airlines that want the most qualified applicants will have to make their entry level compensation more attractive than their peers. It may never happen, we will just have to wait and see. The vast majority of pilots at any airline are not new hires and they will never support taking money from the more senior and giving it to the more junior. Low probationary pay is an unfortunate tradition in this industry that you don't see so much in other professions.

 

[Lear70]

You'd have to phase it in during a period of hiring, when the majority of pilots are >5 years of longevity and you only take from the year 2-5 wages and add it to the 1st year rate.

For instance, when Southwest starts hiring again, there will be no one on Year 5 rates. Everyone there now is on year 2 and getting ready to go to year 3. By the time the integration is done and attrition takes care of the 2-3% overstaffing issue, they'll all be at year 6.

So you take $5 per hour/trip off the Year 2, 3, 4, and 5 pay rates and put it on the Year 1 rate, making it $20 per hour/trip higher than it already is.

If you did this at Delta/United/USAirways hiring, you'd have a net increase of $20 an hour, or approximately $20k more in salary for the first year pilot than the $30-40k they make now, making starting pay at least $50k-60k, going to $65-75k 2nd year, and $2-3k per year increases after that until you hit year 6 pay where it stays on the existing schedule.

There's a way to do it NOW, if unions and management would get together to do it. It increases 1st year pay rates, which increases costs NOW for management, but it equalizes in later years. That's the down-side for management, you don't get that immediate cost savings on new-hires to off-set the cost of running classes, but they recapture it later...

 

[fam62c]

You'd have to phase it in during a period of hiring, when the majority of pilots are >5 years of longevity and you only take from the year 2-5 wages and add it to the 1st year rate.

For instance, when Southwest starts hiring again, there will be no one on Year 5 rates. Everyone there now is on year 2 and getting ready to go to year 3. By the time the integration is done and attrition takes care of the 2-3% overstaffing issue, they'll all be at year 6.

So you take $5 per hour/trip off the Year 2, 3, 4, and 5 pay rates and put it on the Year 1 rate, making it $20 per hour/trip higher than it already is.

If you did this at Delta/United/USAirways hiring, you'd have a net increase of $20 an hour, or approximately $20k more in salary for the first year pilot than the $30-40k they make now, making starting pay at least $50k-60k, going to $65-75k 2nd year, and $2-3k per year increases after that until you hit year 6 pay where it stays on the existing schedule.

There's a way to do it NOW, if unions and management would get together to do it. It increases 1st year pay rates, which increases costs NOW for management, but it equalizes in later years. That's the down-side for management, you don't get that immediate cost savings on new-hires to off-set the cost of running classes, but they recapture it later...

That's a possible solution but as you mentioned there is a potential negative for management which means some amount of negotiating capital must be expended on the part of the union to get it done, that's always true of anything the union wants even if the cost to the company is zero. So the question becomes; will the membership support expending negotiating capital on an issue that doesn't help the people already on the property but benefits the "unborn?" I don't know the answer to that question but I can make an educated guess based on historical precedent

 

[pilotyip]

Like a nsl, there's no way to change it without affecting the "those who have.". They will fight tooth and nail to keep it as is.
Should someone propose increasing payrates of years 1-5 by 50-100%, those at the top will bitch that the pay raises are coming out of their pockets.

ah! the beauty of the brotherhood, majority rules