"Why the World is Running Out of Pilots"

how come all of the hours and prices are wrong?

15 hours to IR after your 35 hour private?
 
ahh, maybe so. I'm too lazy to pull up the FAR right now, but that sounds low even for them.
 
MIFlyer said:
ahh, maybe so. I'm too lazy to pull up the FAR right now, but that sounds low even for them.
Click to expand...

For PPL, it can be done 141 as I mentioned, but I don’t think that applies to IA initial, which is why I put never mind in there.

I haven’t watched the video, so there’s that, too.
 
TCABM said:
For PPL, it can be done 141 as I mentioned, but I don’t think that applies to IA initial, which is why I put never mind in there.

I haven’t watched the video, so there’s that, too.
Click to expand...
it's all good. He makes good points, i'm just not sure why he couldn't have come on here, or read the FAR and actually gotten the numbers right. I would have preferred that he just use average time for the ratings too, not the legal minimums, but that's just a nitpick.

I'm not sure if he included that for most of those jobs, you'll need AMEL at the commercial level as well. you're probably not getting anyone to pay for that rating for you.
 
Hi.
The main reason, in my opinion, is that the Airline industry started getting involved and making it very difficult for the GA to train people, and make a profit. I've predicted this over 15 years ago and we are there now, and it will get worse before it gets better.
To get to 500 hrs takes a lot of money and most people now do not want to go through all the hassle and expense. Add to that all the additional landing, and other fees at many airports and you get the picture. Many airports do not want GA there and the politicians, and airlines, are very successful in deterring or completely eliminating GA from many airports.
If they want pilots now they will have to pay for their training and soon they will find out that theory, and in real life, with the drop out over 50%, for the full requirements, they will have their hands full.
 
I'd go right now and get a commercial/ATP if they paid for my training, paid me during that training, and paid me at least $50/hr to do so. The airlines problem is they want the employee to bare the brunt of the upfront costs to make THEM money. When they start formally going from 0 hours to right seat, their problem will dissipate. Until then, it will get worse.
 
Unit74 said:
The airlines problem is they want the employee to bare the brunt of the upfront costs
Click to expand...
I concur. If they would takeover training and time building costs after the 500th hour, provide a reasonable living wage, and get me into the seniority system, but require an indentured servant style agreement, I'd consider it.

Side question.... what is the history to the requirement for 1,500 hour milestone?
 
RussR said:
I love that the certificates are UAS certificates with "Private Pilot" photoshopped on.
Click to expand...

LOL. I saw that too. Both the Private and Commercial certificates were actually UAS ones. I didn't watch much past that. Obviously not produced by anyone with actual aviation knowledge.
 
RudyP said:
Colgan Air crash in Buffalo I think.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Colgan crash triggered the knee-jerk reaction from Congress due to the airline unions parading the grieving families through DC to push for change. Note, both the captain and first officer in the crash had 2000+ hours. The new law would have zero impact on the events that led to that accident. It was a bad law pushed through by tears, and one that won't be revoked any time soon because the politicians and families responsible for it won't allow it.

One more reason I hate seeing grieving families pushing for legislation as a means of dealing with their loss. We should not pass legislation based on grief. The resulting laws usually are not logical and is only a way to make that person's loss mean "something", even if that something is pointless.
 
Unit74 said:
I'd go right now and get a commercial/ATP if they paid for my training, paid me during that training, and paid me at least $50/hr to do so. The airlines problem is they want the employee to bare the brunt of the upfront costs to make THEM money. When they start formally going from 0 hours to right seat, their problem will dissipate. Until then, it will get worse.
Click to expand...

Well of course. Want fries with that too? I have said the same thing about myself and the notion someone else incurring the cost of medical school for me. People with vocational blinders or otherwise no economic overhead, don't think like that though. And that's the demographic the airlines ultimately care about, not you and me driving a non starter high bargain. Which is why the airlines aren't all that worried.

I also find it interesting we display umbrage about lack of assurances of living wages for ourselves as" professional class" people in training, but would readily dismiss that notion if a hospitality worker were demanding the same relative vocational treatment. It's classist and hypocritical.

In the end it matters not. People DO know what side their bread is buttered on, so most people with the ability to earn a higher wage earlier in life will not entertain the highly protracted compensation model of a professional pilot. The young and unencumbered who otherwise don't have the inclination or aptitude to do something else are generally well suited for both the lifestyle and income structure of flight training and time builder work. As the economy is finding out, we re running out of price inelastic dreamers.

The airlines categorically do not want ab initio. That would increase their costs dramatically. So it is not accurate to say the airlines have a vendetta again piston aircraft outright. They just don't want us in their corridors. Their real food fight is with turbine part91. Also, ab initio is not a good thing for the dreamers, as it would make it more competitive to access training leading to the airline job, much in the way military flight training is desired but not attainable by the majority. Many disillusioned aspirants would exit stage bitter and empty handed if the airlines went ab initio. So people should beware what they wish for, when they clamor to be treated as first class citizens of the world and demand median wages amortized through the training years.

As it is they shall not fret, their cheapskate future employer has no interest in attriting him by undergoing the expense of an initio training in the first place. All is well in the airline pepper grinder.
 
I love it how the article states " we cannot afford a labor shortage in aviation". Um, he'll yeah you can, and you are. Flying is not a birthright turns out. Neither is getting to disney for 99 bucks. To quote Jerry Maguire: SHOW ME THE MOOONAY!!!!

Or my favorite, "wheres the money lebowski...". Rolling upside down and island hopping in the caribbean? yeah ill do that for free on my own dime. Schlepping it for a living behind paint drying FMS babysitting gone 180 nights from my house at a time? Yeah you re gonna have to pay me pretty penny for that. No? Ok good luck with your hiring... Lol.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Well of course. Want fries with that too? I have said the same thing about myself and the notion someone else incurring the cost of medical school for me. People with vocational blinders or otherwise no economic overhead, don't think like that though. And that's the demographic the airlines ultimately care about, not you and me driving a non starter high bargain. Which is why the airlines aren't all that worried.

I also find it interesting we display umbrage about lack of assurances of living wages for ourselves as" professional class" people in training, but would readily dismiss that notion if a hospitality worker were demanding the same relative vocational treatment. It's classist and hypocritical.

In the end it matters not. People DO know what side their bread is buttered on, so most people with the ability to earn a higher wage earlier in life will not entertain the highly protracted compensation model of a professional pilot. The young and unencumbered who otherwise don't have the inclination or aptitude to do something else are generally well suited for both the lifestyle and income structure of flight training and time builder work. As the economy is finding out, we re running out of price inelastic dreamers.

The airlines categorically do not want ab initio. That would increase their costs dramatically. So it is not accurate to say the airlines have a vendetta again piston aircraft outright. They just don't want us in their corridors. Their real food fight is with turbine part91. Also, ab initio is not a good thing for the dreamers, as it would make it more competitive to access training leading to the airline job, much in the way military flight training is desired but not attainable by the majority. Many disillusioned aspirants would exit stage bitter and empty handed if the airlines went ab initio. So people should beware what they wish for, when they clamor to be treated as first class citizens of the world and demand median wages amortized through the training years.

As it is they shall not fret, their cheapskate future employer has no interest in attriting him by undergoing the expense of an initio training in the first place. All is well in the airline pepper grinder.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you just said but it sounds impressive as hell!
 
Because who cares about the facts....

I can’t take a “news” article seriously when they can’t even google search their “facts”.

Credibility lost in 3 2 1

8_FFC734_F-13_F3-4163-8695-16_A4_CB7_B88_BD.png
 
I have no idea what you are saying... far too many big words for me.


Can anyone translate?:idea:

hindsight2020 said:
Well of course. Want fries with that too? I have said the same thing about myself and the notion someone else incurring the cost of medical school for me. People with vocational blinders or otherwise no economic overhead, don't think like that though. And that's the demographic the airlines ultimately care about, not you and me driving a non starter high bargain. Which is why the airlines aren't all that worried.

I also find it interesting we display umbrage about lack of assurances of living wages for ourselves as" professional class" people in training, but would readily dismiss that notion if a hospitality worker were demanding the same relative vocational treatment. It's classist and hypocritical.

In the end it matters not. People DO know what side their bread is buttered on, so most people with the ability to earn a higher wage earlier in life will not entertain the highly protracted compensation model of a professional pilot. The young and unencumbered who otherwise don't have the inclination or aptitude to do something else are generally well suited for both the lifestyle and income structure of flight training and time builder work. As the economy is finding out, we re running out of price inelastic dreamers.

The airlines categorically do not want ab initio. That would increase their costs dramatically. So it is not accurate to say the airlines have a vendetta again piston aircraft outright. They just don't want us in their corridors. Their real food fight is with turbine part91. Also, ab initio is not a good thing for the dreamers, as it would make it more competitive to access training leading to the airline job, much in the way military flight training is desired but not attainable by the majority. Many disillusioned aspirants would exit stage bitter and empty handed if the airlines went ab initio. So people should beware what they wish for, when they clamor to be treated as first class citizens of the world and demand median wages amortized through the training years.

As it is they shall not fret, their cheapskate future employer has no interest in attriting him by undergoing the expense of an initio training in the first place. All is well in the airline pepper grinder.
Click to expand...
 
basically, the folks that need pilots are in la la land
 
It’s interesting how this has gone back and forth over the years...in the 50s, Northwest was hiring 250-hour VFR Commercial Pilots. By the late 60s into the 70s, guys were flight instructing for a couple thousand hours before getting another job. Just prior to 9/11, the regionals were hiring at 250 hours again (although Instrument-rated this time). And now I’m regularly giving jet type rating rides to 1000-hour pilots, and guys are complaining that 1500 total time for the airlines is excessive.

I guess it’s all relative.
 
Unit74 said:
I have no idea what you are saying... far too many big words for me.


Can anyone translate?:idea:
Click to expand...


That's my bad. In dumber words: Airlines are being dishonest when they whine about a pilot shortage. They have the power to pay what it requires to attract the talent they desire, as illustrated by the shadow inventory of ATP holders who refuse to go work for regional wages, let alone those who have made the conscious effort not to endure the training costs without the assurance of a much shorter ROI. I merely added the comment that I find it hypocritical that people get huffy about airline aspirants demanding such assurances, when in other industries having the expectation of a much shorter timeline to above median wages is considered par for the course and not an entitlement complex in the least.

As to training costs, the airlines have zero issue with the flight training status quo, beyond perhaps relaxing the ATP rules and going back to the days of Colgan where a regional FO could sit at 250 hours and the whored out Captain did all the flying AND the OJT, while paying passengers get taken for a russian roulette ride for 99 dollars in the wintery Midwest or Northeast at night, and are otherwise none the wiser.

Ab initio would be more expensive to them and they have no intention of carrying the training costs. That's an aggregate behavior on the part of Corporate America though, not just the airlines. A country full of employers whining like petulant children about the "skills gap" but they won't pay fog all for a nickle of the training they're whining about. Waaaah.

Like I said...
9d66365d-909b-4b79-b31c-00a9321741d5_text.gif
 
hindsight2020 said:
That's my bad. In dumber words: Airlines are being dishonest when they whine about a pilot shortage. They have the power to pay what it requires to attract the talent they desire, as illustrated by the shadow inventory of ATP holders who refuse to go work for regional wages, let alone those who have made the conscious effort not to endure the training costs without the assurance of a much shorter ROI. I merely added the comment that I find it hypocritical that people get huffy about airline aspirants demanding such assurances, when in other industries having the expectation of a much shorter timeline to above median wages is considered par for the course and not an entitlement complex in the least.

As to training costs, the airlines have zero issue with the flight training status quo, beyond perhaps relaxing the ATP rules and going back to the days of Colgan where a regional FO could sit at 250 hours and the whored out Captain did all the flying AND the OJT, while paying passengers get taken for a russian roulette ride for 99 dollars in the wintery Midwest or Northeast at night, and are otherwise none the wiser.

Ab initio would be more expensive to them and they have no intention of carrying the training costs. That's an aggregate behavior on the part of Corporate America though, not just the airlines. A country full of employers whining like petulant children about the "skills gap" but they won't pay fog all for a nickle of the training they're whining about. Waaaah.

Like I said...
View attachment 67785
Click to expand...

That's for the dumbed-down explanation. I wasnt raised right....
 
MauleSkinner said:
It’s interesting how this has gone back and forth over the years...in the 50s, Northwest was hiring 250-hour VFR Commercial Pilots. By the late 60s into the 70s, guys were flight instructing for a couple thousand hours before getting another job. Just prior to 9/11, the regionals were hiring at 250 hours again (although Instrument-rated this time). And now I’m regularly giving jet type rating rides to 1000-hour pilots, and guys are complaining that 1500 total time for the airlines is excessive.

I guess it’s all relative.
Click to expand...

And then there was the early-mid ‘90s when hiring was in the crapper; I had 4500+ hours (2500 ME) when I finally scored a turboprop Beech 1900 FO job making $12k/year. It’s kinda funny to see people these days whining about needing 1500 hours... wahhh! Listen boy, back in my day... damn, I’m starting to sound like my Dad!

At least the “regionals”, aka, B-scale airlines, are finally upping their pay to get people in the door. Hell, it only took 25+ years...
 
jbDC9 said:
And then there was the early-mid ‘90s when hiring was in the crapper; I had 4500+ hours (2500 ME) when I finally scored a turboprop Beech 1900 FO job making $12k/year.
Click to expand...

I remember that well. I told the chief pilot of the regional I had been hired at that I was leaving before the ground school ended. He was all over me on that and wanted to know why I was leaving. I simply said I can make a 2000 bucks a week in Alaska, and staying here flying a plane that carries more people and carries more responsibilities pays only a thousand bucks a month.?? No brainer.
 
Two points.

The majors are not having any issues finding people. Probably because the pay and QOL is much better than the regionals.

And how many fatal passenger airline crashes have there been since the 1500 hour rule was put into place? Not counting the SWA uncontained engine failure, zero.
 
Clip4 said:
A 4 year degree to be a commercial airline pilot is nonsense.
Click to expand...

It’s always just been a method to make the huge stack of applicants more manageable. If (when?) the shortage hits the majors, that’ll go away.
 
A few guys at my airport were hired on with Piedmont with 250 hour. It's not so much the pay that's the issue, it's the 1500 hours combined with the pay that is the issue.
 
Groundpounder said:
And how many fatal passenger airline crashes have there been since the 1500 hour rule was put into place? Not counting the SWA uncontained engine failure, zero.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument. There hadn't been fatal crashes in almost a decade prior to the Colgan crash that triggered the 1500 hour rule. As I already pointed out, both of the Colgan pilots had well over 1500 hours, so the rule would not have applied anyway.

Kind of like TSA claiming there hasn't been another 9/11 style attack since their creation.
 
hindsight2020 said:
That's my bad. In dumber words:

....

Ab initio would be more expensive to them and they have no intention of carrying the training costs. That's an aggregate behavior on the part of Corporate America though, not just the airlines. A country full of employers whining like petulant children about the "skills gap" but they won't pay fog all for a nickle of the training they're whining about. Waaaah.
]
Click to expand...

I agree with that but I think it's only half the problem. The other half is consumers demanding low prices with no insight into the cost on the production/ operation side of things. Example: I have heard someone complain about the cost of bottled water, "A faction of a cent worth of water and they charge $x.xx??!?" And they seem literally unaware of the cost of the plastic bottle, the label, the process of filling, the crates, the pallets, the transportation to the store, the employees doing all of that, taxes on all of that, some profit otherwise no one would bother to produce the thing, etc. Half the country has an IQ less than 100. They apply that same brilliance to their airline ticket. So the airlines in competition with each other to meet low ticket price expectations are driven to minimize cost. They'll start paying for pilot training when the shortage is so bad they are dropping enough flights that the consumer becomes willing to pay more for a ticket when the only other alternatives are Greyhound or driving yourself in a car. Or the Federal Government will nationalize the whole industry so they can provide the masses with dirt cheap tickets while the taxpayer makes up the red ink, and that will solve the problem of the evil corporations.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Straw man argument. There hadn't been fatal crashes in almost a decade prior to the Colgan crash that triggered the 1500 hour rule. As I already pointed out, both of the Colgan pilots had well over 1500 hours, so the rule would not have applied anyway.

Kind of like TSA claiming there hasn't been another 9/11 style attack since their creation.
Click to expand...

So what you think should be the minimum total time for someone to act as a flight crew member on a 121 aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top