Pilot shortage must be real...
- Thread starter Walboy
- Start date
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah, they've been sending those out for a few months now. Interesting times.
If the regionals hired me, you know times are tough!
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
That's the absolute last thing the industry needs.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
You mean "younger people in the industry".
That said, I don't know how many pilots would opt to go to 67 or 70. I'm considering voluntary 60, and I don't get a "retirement".
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,926
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
No, I mean for the vast majority of the industry.
More than you think. They all say they're going at 62, but then you see them walking around at 64...
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,378
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
Well, it'll affect everyone not already in the seat they'd like, regardless of age. For example Jonesey's upgrade would stagnate too.
That said, I'm not losing any sleep over it. It's a band-aid fix at best and won't solve anything long term, but I'm not one to get worked up over stuff I can't control. Just riding the waves and trying to keep my head above water!
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Remember it would also mean that everyone would have the choice to stay until 67 or 70, including the currently younger people.
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,378
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
God I hope that doesn't end up being me. I'd love to still be flying at that age, but I hope to be doing it entirely on my own terms in retirement.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That's the way I feel too, and I'm close to 60. But we don't have a "retirement age" or even a "retirement", so at this point it's pretty much my decision unless I medical out.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Nothing will change so long as the regionals are paying Burger King money. There just aren't that many people who love it that much. To have a surfeit of folks paying those kinds of prep costs the job has to have really good pay and superior social status. Folks who want those sort of jobs are out there. No shortage of folks going to medical school, for example.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
But the entry level pay hasn't changed much over the years, adjusted for inflation. I remember back in the 1980s that the entry level pay was low and the hours required were high, in the 2000 hour range to be hired by a regional. I do think that the cost of training has increased out of proportion to the rate of inflation, though. The aviation industry has also come through a difficult 15 year period when the prospects for being hired were dimmer.
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,378
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
I'm no expert on the history of this stuff, but I think a big difference now is the percentage of regional flying is a lot higher. Low paying regionals back then were operating 19 seat turboprops - you put in your time and got out. These days something like half the domestic fleet is being flown by regional airliners, many of them flying routes that used to be flown by mainline jets. So a much larger percentage of the 121 pilot group is stuck making crummy to mediocre pay in the regional ranks.
It might also be a generational thing. We've talked about this on PoA before - kids these days just don't seem interested in aviation like they used to.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That could be.
Maybe, but young people aiming for an airline career now don't seem that different from the people who were aiming for one back then. I knew people who got discouraged with their employment prospects and went on to other things back then too. The thing is that the industry is cyclical. Semi good times in the late 80s; bad times in the early 90s; good times in the late 90s; bad times in the 2000s; good times now. I can't remember a time when regionals were hurting as bad as now, though. Some people talk about the majors in the 60s, but that was before my time.
Corporate aviation is also cyclical but has followed a somewhat different path than the airlines. Back after 9/11 when airlines were furloughing, people wanted to go corporate and companies were hiring. But corporate aviation was hit harder in the 2009-11 "great recession" than the airlines, and many people I knew who thought they had their dream job got laid off.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Plenty of young folks are interested in aviation, it's just not your Prius driving types. The kids who are into dirt bikes, sky diving, hunting, mechanical things, those guys seem to jump at aviation, the biggest draw back is the price.
I know several who would. I think 67 is inevitable. Whether they jump to 70 is hard to say.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,987
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
kayoh is right. The paradigm shift is the proportion of domestic lift being accomplished by burger king wage pilots today compared to the days of beech 19 "commuters" airlines. Essentially, today more people can play airline pilot for crap money, while the access to the brass ring jobs per capita is lower. Talk of further protectionism upsets the masses because it means less people will get to play airline pilot outright.
Retirement age hurts those waiting for movement in the short term, but ultimately doesn't play as big of a role as scope does. People will medically time out; yes airline pilots and their poor financial choices might get stuck working in old age to make up for their insolvency in retirement, but for the most part the majority of people consider working full time in your 60s a huge life concession at any price point. Life expectancy actuarials also demonstrate the penny wise pounds foolish tradeoff of working in your 60s as a function of how much time you'll get to enjoy your non-working days (hint: they say you die the next day a la Joe Paterno). My personal plan is to work to 57 and ratchet down my employment from that point. If necessity dictates a longer stint so be it, but it will be a failure on my part, because Lord knows I don't want to be doing this ---- past 60, I want to be flying on my own time to where I want to go in my late 50s so I can get a good 15 years before I can't fly avocationally anymore.
So let's talk about scope, that's the real issue here. You could say that in a way, the advent of the regional feed expansion via the R-JET flying mid-continental routes is an "internal cabotage" of sorts. Once the formal textbook cabotage is allowed (i.e. the repeal of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka the Jones Act), it's good night, as the band Fall Out Boy sings: thanks for the memories even though they weren't so great. Remember, as much as the mainline players wince at it, from a domestic feed perspective, the regional dreamers do the EXACT SAME JOB as the guy flying domestically for Delta. With automation, he does it to the same level of statistical safety as the six figure income earning FO. This is a downward wage pressure setting precedent and everybody knows it, management included. Regional guys may be dreamers, but they are still rational players in the long term. This is to say, if they foresee the absence of the brass ring, even if it is due to their own existence in the industry, they'll exit stage quicker than you can say "but Kit Darby told me...". So we better beware what we wish for.
As a mil pilot, I believe I am helping the industry by not taking a regional job, even if for the sake of getting turbine currency or 121 stink on my resume. That kind of touch n go stint helps the regionals keep their footprint and I don't consider that beneficial to the sustainment of brass ring jobs. Of course, people will behave individually and that's apparently the new America (FU I got mine), but for my part I'm not married to the idea of being an airline pilot, so I can afford to behave this way. Ultimately, I don't lose sleep over the retirement age piece, but I would be remiss if I didn't project the next 20 years of my working life with the inclusion of a fracture of the cabotage law, which would decimate my future income projections and those of my progeny if they are to choose this line of work. So caveat emptor bi----s.
Retirement age hurts those waiting for movement in the short term, but ultimately doesn't play as big of a role as scope does. People will medically time out; yes airline pilots and their poor financial choices might get stuck working in old age to make up for their insolvency in retirement, but for the most part the majority of people consider working full time in your 60s a huge life concession at any price point. Life expectancy actuarials also demonstrate the penny wise pounds foolish tradeoff of working in your 60s as a function of how much time you'll get to enjoy your non-working days (hint: they say you die the next day a la Joe Paterno). My personal plan is to work to 57 and ratchet down my employment from that point. If necessity dictates a longer stint so be it, but it will be a failure on my part, because Lord knows I don't want to be doing this ---- past 60, I want to be flying on my own time to where I want to go in my late 50s so I can get a good 15 years before I can't fly avocationally anymore.
So let's talk about scope, that's the real issue here. You could say that in a way, the advent of the regional feed expansion via the R-JET flying mid-continental routes is an "internal cabotage" of sorts. Once the formal textbook cabotage is allowed (i.e. the repeal of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka the Jones Act), it's good night, as the band Fall Out Boy sings: thanks for the memories even though they weren't so great. Remember, as much as the mainline players wince at it, from a domestic feed perspective, the regional dreamers do the EXACT SAME JOB as the guy flying domestically for Delta. With automation, he does it to the same level of statistical safety as the six figure income earning FO. This is a downward wage pressure setting precedent and everybody knows it, management included. Regional guys may be dreamers, but they are still rational players in the long term. This is to say, if they foresee the absence of the brass ring, even if it is due to their own existence in the industry, they'll exit stage quicker than you can say "but Kit Darby told me...". So we better beware what we wish for.
As a mil pilot, I believe I am helping the industry by not taking a regional job, even if for the sake of getting turbine currency or 121 stink on my resume. That kind of touch n go stint helps the regionals keep their footprint and I don't consider that beneficial to the sustainment of brass ring jobs. Of course, people will behave individually and that's apparently the new America (FU I got mine), but for my part I'm not married to the idea of being an airline pilot, so I can afford to behave this way. Ultimately, I don't lose sleep over the retirement age piece, but I would be remiss if I didn't project the next 20 years of my working life with the inclusion of a fracture of the cabotage law, which would decimate my future income projections and those of my progeny if they are to choose this line of work. So caveat emptor bi----s.
Interesting observation. I had some dirt bike racers in my new hire class.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,987
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Block hours. Defined differently depending on the airline. Generally parking brake off to parking brake on. There are credit hour guarantees to that value on a monthly basis, generally 70ish or so depending on reserve line or hard line.Then there are trip or duty rigs that further define daily guarantees of pay for duty time incurred during your trips in your monthly line. Crappier jobs have no rigs or worthless ones.
As to how people pay their bills? Is that a serious question? On a major airline, the job past year one is lucrative enough to pay for a family and then some. As to regionals, specifically FOs, I have not the slightest idea how those people pay for cost of living. Subsidy of some sorts (pension, sugar wife, parents, savings from another job) would be my guess.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Airline pilots are generally paid by the flight hour with a minimum as described above. Many others (including me) are on a salary. I like it that way since I don't fly all that much, and when I'm "on-call" I'm at home, not sitting in a hotel.
Airlines pay by the flight hour with certain "soft time" guarantees. For example, we are guaranteed 4:12 pay per duty day even if flying a :30 minute leg. Plus there's a per diem paid per hour for every hour away from your home base, which though small, adds up over a four day trip.
I average 90-100 hours a month pay on 60 or so hours of flying, with 12-14 days off a month. I've got enough free time to still pursue other business interests, including flight instructing... something I've always enjoyed.
A captain I flew with twice this week averages 115 credit on about the same number of flight hours (the joy of seniority!) At $90+/hour that's not too bad. He is headed to Hawaii right now for a week of vacation with his wife. They go somewhere in the world for a week every month. Last month they were in South America.
This month it's only 12 nights out and they're all very nice rooms! It's not as much of a hassle as I thought it might be.
As for the actual "work" it is fun and constantly challenging as new things continually arise. I'm sure over time it becomes more routine, but I still hear "I've never seen THAT before!" from even the most senior captains.
A couple of nights ago we pulled into the gate (actually no gate as it was a smaller outstation with no jetway.) The captain set the brake and slid his seat back. Suddenly the plane was moving forward! The parking break had not set for some reason. I jammed on the brakes and we jerked to a halt. He had never seen a parking brake fail. Thankfully we stopped before the ground power unit and no rampers were under the wheels. The following morning we tested it and it set just fine.
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
The regionals who are paying a reasonable wage aren't having a problem getting people to show up. The ones still paying junk are getting, well, junk.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,987
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Define "reasonable" wage in the context of domestic part 121 lift. And what regionals are in your opinion paying a reasonable wage?
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
50K to start as a first year FO on a 50 seat jet, is, IMO, a reasonable amount of money
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,179
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
So what do you think a 7 year 777 FO is worth?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,179
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
By the way, you shouldn't look at first year rates. Second year rates are more realistic.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
777?....rock star status. 
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,378
- Display Name
Display name:
Kayoh@190
I'm of the opinion that it's only worth what we're able to negotiate. At my company a 7 year 777 FO is worth about $200K/yr. Probably a bit more for you guys.
How many 7 year FOs are on 777s? I have no idea...just curious.
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
What's a fair wage for an entry level job on an entry level jet? I mean, come on Greg, be realistic. It isn't realistic to think that a 50 seat jet is going to pay what a 115 seat mainline jet pays. I think in terms of work actually done, you're not going to like my opinion, regional guys work way harder than mainline international types.
Face it, 80% of people going to fly for a regional for the first time, is their first turbine airplane, first crewed airplane, first time in a structured environment. I don't think 50K starting and going up from there is unreasonable.
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
That's BS. Who cares what year 2, 3, 4, 5 are, if you physically can't survive on first year pay, it doesn't matter what down the line is. That's the only reason I finally jumped into the regional game, I could afford to live on what they are willing to pay now.
Consequently they dump a lot of money into your training the first year. I recognized that at the outset. And I knew I'd be a "lifer" at my regional, and am happy to be so....no pressure whatsoever to move to the next level. If I make captain, that's just a bonus.
ircphoenix
En-Route
Well let's see... I spent $12-13k on my PPL at 42.3 hours in Southern California. To get to my 250 hours for commercial in a 172 at $150/hr would be another what.... 32-35k? Then from 250-1500 hrs, what do I do? And then get picked up by some regional at 1500 hours for less than minimum wage?
OR stick with my current gig which is 55-60k a year plus pension, deferred comp, and benefits. I would LOVE to fly. I can't afford to be in debt and broke for an indefinite period of time.
OR stick with my current gig which is 55-60k a year plus pension, deferred comp, and benefits. I would LOVE to fly. I can't afford to be in debt and broke for an indefinite period of time.
No argument there. And no one is saying it makes economic sense to pursue it using traditional training scenarios. It's only working for those who've ended up having the requisite time via their prior bad decision-making!
KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
Cost of doing business, not my problem. They shouldn't pay you less first year because it costs them to train you.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
You set yourself up perfectly for your second career!No argument there. And no one is saying it makes economic sense to pursue it using traditional training scenarios. It's only working for those who've ended up having the requisite time via their prior bad decision-making!
Personally I think it's nuts to lay out $75K to get your flying with most 141 programs. I think the smarter way is the way one of my students went. He joined a flying club, got his license, then flew to build time towards his commercial, then immediately got a gig flying parachute jumpers weekends, then a gig flying pipeline patrol. Within two years of setting his mind to it he was at my regional, two months behind me. Just bumped into him at the airport last week and he's having as much fun as me, and still doing his software development gig to maintain his life style.