So..the pilot shortage is coming?

[Data]

I honestly wasn't trying to start any rumours. A friend of mine is a very senior Delta captain. It must have been speculation, or I misunderstood. So I guess that's me...starting rumours. Apologies gents. The best to us all.

Senior captains fall right under van drivers in the list of approved rumor sources. Very senior captains are even further down that list, right on top of dispatchers.

 

[Tanker Clown]

Senior captains fall right under van drivers in the list of approved rumor sources. Very senior captains are even further down that list, right on top of dispatchers.

Speaking of van drivers, I heard the new Delta contract puts CA pay close to a van drivers! Of course the van driver has bigger stones and actually has some scope protections.

 

[Whine Lover]

T. Clown...

Why?

Seriously.

What is your motivation for the venom you spew in these Forums?

I wish you well in whatever you choose to do...But, I don't understand what you attempt to do here.

?


YKW

 

[Tanker Clown]

Just wish Delta would stop lowering the bar. They got some raises (until they give up concessions again) but it came at the price of leaving the door open on scope.

 

[caseyd]

Just curious, what is your source that gives you the impression Delta will be furloughing?

Or US Airways?

 

[ASA_Aviator]

The majors may never run out of qualified applicants, but they will have to lower their standards a little, and compete. Right now, they can be really choosy. In 2-3 years, they will compete for the best applicants. In 5-10 years, definitely they will have to work a little to compete. There just aren't enough guys at the regionals to fill all the positions, and not too many corporate guys will go to the airlines unless it's a sweet gig.

It all depends on what you mean by shortage. I think the airline recruiters will feel it's a shortage, even if the applicants don't feel that way. The recruiters aren't accustomed to competing. Right now, the applicants are the ones competing, so it will be a paradigm shift for the majors.

 

[livin'thesim]

The term "shortage" is meaningless, because it means too many things to too many different people.

1) The new flight and duty rules will probably make a notable portion of regional flying much more expensive than before, especially given the duty-day restrictions. The effect on the regionals will probably be more noticeable than the legacies.

2) Eventually, retirements will accelerate. If the retirement numbers on airlinepilotcentral are even close to correct, hiring at the majors will likely be at a brisk pace.

3) Unless the 1500 hour rule is substantially mitigated or repealed, there will be no more 300-hour regional FOs. This closes off one path for flight-time accrual for new professional pilots.

4) The new-pilot pipeline has not been pumping out candidates at the previous rate, due to the economic conditions in the US.


Rather than call it a "shortage", I think a more accurate way to describe the coming conditions is to call it a more favorable negotiating environment for qualified pilots.


It was not that long ago that 95% of the US population used to say stupid things like "housing prices will never crash" and "housing never goes down", and all manner of ignorant opinions.

The fact is that there are many variables that are coming into play in the next few years, and that off-the-cuff predictions of shortages or non-shortages need to be based on a lot more critical thinking than is being given to the topic.

Pilots love to whine and complain about how mistreated they are, and how unfortunate their career path has been, but surprisingly few of them are willing to invest the time and mental energy into analyzing how all these trends interact.

As an example, consider pensions. I'm sure that in the past, there were a few lonely souls who wanted to demand that pensions be fully funded and set aside in accounts that management could not access. Instead, everyone was content with the idea that future pension obligations would be paid from future profits.

Oops.

The gutting of pension plans should have been completely predictable. And avoidable.

Similarly, you can bet your bottom dollar that legacy management is spending some time and effort analyzing the dynamics of pilot supply and making decisions accordingly.

As usual, labor groups seem to prefer whining to real analysis, putting even more control of our future in the hands of management, who has no problem making a cold, objective analysis of the economics of the industry.


The most dramatic outcome that I am willing to predict:

True dirtbag operations (both 135 and 121) will have difficulty retaining pilots. Craphole regionals whose entire profitability rests on 16 hour duty days and the deliberate use of reduced rest will have their business models RADICALLY altered.

The price of regional lift will likely increase. Possibly substantially.

 

[pilotyip]

The term "shortage" is meaningless, because it means too many things to too many different people.


True dirtbag operations (both 135 and 121) will have difficulty retaining pilots. Craphole regionals whose entire profitability rests on 16 hour duty days and the deliberate use of reduced rest will have their business models RADICALLY altered.

In the words of Avbug, remember him, there will never be a pilot shortage. But in the words of yip, there is a hiring boom coming that will look like the 60's and late 90's were things like the college degree were no longer a show stopper for a major job. TJ PIC will be the resume fluff of the future. As per above where is that going to come from.

Not sure about dirtbags retaining pilots, many of these dirtbag pilots are making $100K+ and are in their 50's. Little chance to come out ahead on the money chain by taking a lower paying job on the bottom of a seniority list at that stage of life.

 

[Lear70]

*snerk*

YIP likes to ignore a little history...

When the hiring picks up at a very brisk pace at other companies, including regionals, the "less desirable" outfits that work you to the bone lose just about everyone who CAN leave.

There are always lifers, whether it's because they got in the game late and don't want to start over again or if it's because they have a record that won't let them hold a SIDA badge but they can be on a GA ramp and be itinerant through other airports, etc, etc. But those who CAN leave, have in the past and will continue to do so, which is what leads to operators having to cancel flights, scream for pilots, lower their minimums, hiring directly into the left seat, operators paying more short-term (until the situation goes the other way then they drop the pay again), etc, etc. Which, interestingly enough, makes life even CRAPIER for the people still there trying to cover the flying...

I don't know if it'll be prolonged enough to shift the business model PERMANENTLY, but it'll definitely shift for a good while, perhaps too long for those operators to sustain their business model. Time will tell...

 

[densoo]

As an example, consider pensions. I'm sure that in the past, there were a few lonely souls who wanted to demand that pensions be fully funded and set aside in accounts that management could not access. Instead, everyone was content with the idea that future pension obligations would be paid from future profits.

Oops.

The gutting of pension plans should have been completely predictable. And avoidable.

Great points you make. A bit of thread drift on pensions follows but every airline pilot has been affected by this. Many (most?) large companies were completely funded and then some through the 90s. Earlier law required worker pensions to be fully funded from current obligations AND prohibited companies from using these pension funds for anything else.

When the market zoomed in the 90s the pensions had so much money that they could pay out fully for every employee, including new hires, even if they all lived to 99. Execs found this inaccessabilty to our own contractually-agreed-to pension funds unacceptable and lobbied hard to free this huge pension pot of money to recapitalize business to "be competitive and create jobs."

Congress eventually gave in and the execs then took the pension money and in one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history, instead of investing in their company and creating jobs, gave it to themselves. It's part of the reason CEO compensation went from 20x worker salary to 400x worker salary from 1980 to today.

Then pleading that the now empty pension funds and now newly unfunded future obligations (remember the "$2000 of every car goes to union pensions" propaganda?) were killing their business and making them unable to be "be competitive and create jobs," (that mantra always seems to work) they threatened or entered BK in order to eliminate pensions altogether.

Voila, the once fully-funded pension money has been transferred, there are no more pensions for workers, the economy tanks, jobless and retirees increasing rely on the government, and the same folks who took the pensions--impoverishing the retiree and not creating the promised jobs--turn around and buy politicians who will "get government out of our lives" by defunding safety nets.

It's all been conducted like a symphony. Darwinian capitalism at its finest. Read all about it in the book "Retirement Heist."

 

[Full of LUV]

Great points you make. A bit of thread drift on pensions follows but every airline pilot has been affected by this. Many (most?) large companies were completely funded and then some through the 90s. Earlier law required worker pensions to be fully funded from current obligations AND prohibited companies from using these pension funds for anything else.

When the market zoomed in the 90s the pensions had so much money that they could pay out fully for every employee, including new hires, even if they all lived to 99. Execs found this inaccessabilty to our own contractually-agreed-to pension funds unacceptable and lobbied hard to free this huge pension pot of money to recapitalize business to "be competitive and create jobs."

Congress eventually gave in and the execs then took the pension money and in one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history, instead of investing in their company and creating jobs, gave it to themselves. It's part of the reason CEO compensation went from 20x worker salary to 400x worker salary from 1980 to today.

Then pleading that the now empty pension funds and now newly unfunded future obligations (remember the "$2000 of every car goes to union pensions" propaganda?) were killing their business and making them unable to be "be competitive and create jobs," (that mantra always seems to work) they threatened or entered BK in order to eliminate pensions altogether.

Voila, the once fully-funded pension money has been transferred, there are no more pensions for workers, the economy tanks, jobless and retirees increasing rely on the government, and the same folks who took the pensions--impoverishing the retiree and not creating the promised jobs--turn around and buy politicians who will "get government out of our lives" by defunding safety nets.

It's all been conducted like a symphony. Darwinian capitalism at its finest. Read all about it in the book "Retirement Heist."

Well, I'm not an expert on the subject didn't Delta petition the government to allow it to prefund it's pension plan (with pretax money) in 1999/2000 time frame because congress had set up the rules that since the pension funds were rockin with stock returns, the companies actually could not contribute to them (unless it was post tax money) which made it excessively expensive. Then when stock market and economy tanks a couple of years later and while the companies are losing money the government says cough up huge pension deposits.

Not saying the companies are pure and virtuous, but often congress and bizness work hand in hand to muck it up.

 

[densoo]

Not saying the companies are pure and virtuous, but often congress and bizness work hand in hand to muck it up.

oh yea, it couldn't have happened without politicians who were lobbied and bought by the companies.

 

[pilotyip]

oh yea, it couldn't have happened without politicians who were lobbied and bought by the companies.

yea this has nothing to do with the ticket buying public who would not support airline ticket prices that allowed the pension funds to stay stable. It is always greedy management, or some other factor beyond the control of the work force.

 

[Lear70]

yea this has nothing to do with the ticket buying public who would not support airline ticket prices that allowed the pension funds to stay stable. It is always greedy management, or some other factor beyond the control of the work force.

It has very, very little to do with that.

You'd know if you'd had done some research. They are 100% accurate in their analysis of what happened with the stock market, how it affected pension funding, and what CEO's and senior management did with that surplus.

End of discussion. Do some research.

 

[007]

Replace the red highlighted area with "The majors will be taking young inexperienced pilots that HR is looking to meet its quota or who have great internal recommendations". Or "the majors will be excluding any with too much experience (rumor about Delta's Airapps will not even look at your resume if you have over 7500 hours) or is too old as HR has done studies about the great abilities and trainability of those right out of flight school"

Yeah, this is a hook line and sinker thread, quite enjoyable to read. But the truth of the matter is that there are what, an expected 10,000 mainline jobs coming in the next ten years? Great, there just happens to be 20,000 regional pilots. And with Comair (Delta) putting 600 out on the street and you can look at Pinnacle and see there will be about another 1000 more by 2015 there will be a lot more applicants for those jobs. I love how the majors will lower their hiring minimums to hire the inexperienced but will not over look the lack of currency for those who have lost their jobs.

If you are at a major, why not ask why your HR departments are not taking the best most qualified, but are just lowering the bar in order to get the "ones they want"

^^^^^^^^^^
THIS

Heard this a lot now and it's true, everyone getting jobs is junior to me and has less time....and yes, I have been applying myself.

 

[pilotyip]

If the airlines were smart, and we are not sure of that, they would hire across a uniform age range to ensure a steady turnover instead of the stagnation in movement we have today. Besides if you hire guys in their late 50's they will never max out the pay scale

 

[clippyrip]

It has very, very little to do with that.

You'd know if you'd had done some research. They are 100% accurate in their analysis of what happened with the stock market, how it affected pension funding, and what CEO's and senior management did with that surplus.

End of discussion. Do some research.

Research is hard to do, it's easier to turn on Fauxnews and regurgitate whatever they say.

 

[livin'thesim]

Research is hard to do, it's easier to turn on Fauxnews and regurgitate whatever they say.

Another Fox News hyperventilator? Heh, anytime a news source reports something that is unfavorable to your viewpoint you go into hysterics.

People like you talk about Fox the way the way some wild-eyed bible-thumping pastor talks about rock and roll being "from the devil".

Really, it makes you look a little crazy. Or a lot crazy.

 

[Data]

Research is hard to do, it's easier to turn on Fauxnews and regurgitate whatever they say.

Claiming someone is regurgitating Fox news is the equivalent of regurgitating whatever someone else says without 'doing the research'. A bit ironic if you ask me.

 

[livin'thesim]

...with the ticket buying public who would not support airline ticket prices...

Yip, I'm not sure that is accurate. There is a market for tickets at many different price levels.

If airlines raised ticket prices 10%, it's not like you are going to lose 50% of travelers. Obviously the supply/demand function is a curve, which I'm sure you know.

I think that we did go through a fare-war / market-share war where airlines ran prices lower in order to get to a different point on the demand curve, hoping to eventually be profitable at that price point (due to higher loads), or to bleed out their competition and return to a higher price point later.

The recent bleeding of cash is not really a function of the public "refusing to buy tickets", or "demanding lower prices". People ALWAYS like lower prices.


I would rephrase your statement to be:
"...with a marketplace that would not support profitable airline ticket prices at the level of volume that the airlines were seeking..."