Whats the aviation job market actually like?

schmookeeg said:
For my first midlife crisis, I went into 135 Cargo thinking exactly like you -- "flying any airplane has GOT to be better than flying any cubicle"

Pro tip: When you turn a "fun" hobby into a job, it draws in all of the "suck" that every job has and stops being fun. Being TOLD "go fly" for fractional peanuts of income you have become accustomed to is a really tough pill to swallow.

I'd address your burnout, because if you're burned out at a JOB, the solution will almost certainly not be to apply more JOB -- particularly one that demands an investment of several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

$0.02
Click to expand...
I remember one time one of our mechs said “all you pilots complain about flying…I thought pilots love to fly?” Yeah, when it’s for fun and not when we’re being told. After the newness of it all wears off, it becomes a job.

Also, I don’t take my plane out at 0300 and consider that fun. I don’t take my plane flying at 15 degrees in the winter or 95 degrees in the summer. Nothing fun about that. And, when you do it over and over again, it becomes “Ground Hog Day.” When that happens you do one of two things. You either go get a new job, or act like a professional and realize you’re still lucky to be employed as a pilot. Of course there’s retirement as well. Ok, three choices.
 
Clip4 said:
I tell people desiring an airline career that technogy will be replacing 1st officers over the next 10 years. People tell me how wrong I am. Right….

“Airbus is actively working on technologies to support single-pilot operations, particularly during the cruise phase of flight, with the goal of eventually reducing crew size on commercial aircraft. This initiative, known as Extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO), is driven by the potential for cost savings and increased operational efficiency for airlines. While single-pilot operations are not yet authorized, Airbus is developing the necessary technologies and collaborating with regulators to pave the way for future implementation.”
Click to expand...
EASA just came out and stopped all research on single pilot ops. It might happen someday but definitely not in 10 years.

www.airport-technology.com

EASA suspends research on single-pilot operations

EASA has announced the suspension of its research into single-pilot flight operations, emphasising the aviation sector commitment to safety.
www.airport-technology.com www.airport-technology.com
 
Clip4 said:
I tell people desiring an airline career that technogy will be replacing 1st officers over the next 10 years. People tell me how wrong I am. Right….

“Airbus is actively working on technologies to support single-pilot operations, particularly during the cruise phase of flight, with the goal of eventually reducing crew size on commercial aircraft. This initiative, known as Extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO), is driven by the potential for cost savings and increased operational efficiency for airlines. While single-pilot operations are not yet authorized, Airbus is developing the necessary technologies and collaborating with regulators to pave the way for future implementation.”
Click to expand...

I doubt it very seriously. Congress and the FAA still require 1,500 hour pilots in the right seat with no sign of relaxing that stance. I really don't seem them jumping to no one in the right seat, regardless of technology. Add in the potential factors of a lone wolf bad actor of a captain, I think they will always want two in the flight deck, just like the missile silos of the cold war.
 
Until we get past the Andreas Lubnitz effect, I don’t see single pilot ops in the pax-carrying airline space.
 
My UPS pilot mentor once hesitated to recommend the job to me after switching from the DC-8 to the MD-11. "I dunno Kayoh, this plane does everything. We might not see pilots at all in another couple of decades." That was in the late 90s when I was in college.

And one other thing - making a midlife career switch will almost always require a large initial sacrifice - that's not specific to aviation. These threads always have that one guy: "Yeah, I have a friend that quit his job applying sunscreen to bathing suit models to go work for a 135 flying emu spunk in a Twin Commander. He hated it. Totally ruined his passion for flying." ;)
 
Last edited:
kayoh190 said:
My UPS pilot mentor once hesitated to recommend the job to me after switching from the DC-8 to the MD-11. "I dunno Kayoh, this plane does everything. We might not see pilots at all in another couple of decades." That was in the late 90s when I was in college.

And one other thing - making a midlife career switch will almost always require a large initial sacrifice - that's not specific to aviation. These threads always have that one guy: "Yeah, I have a friend that quit his job applying sunscreen to bathing suit models to go work for a 135 flying emu spunk in a Twin Commander. He hated it. Totally ruined his passion for flying." ;)
Click to expand...

Emu spunk might have got me to stick around a little longer. You haven't lived until you've chased a few hundred live crickets out from the instrument panel of a Be99 due to shoddy packaging.
 
@Clip4 there ain’t no way the captains are going to do the walk around inspection! The FO position is safe. And without an FO, who is the cappy going to share all his personal problems with? Wingman at the hotel bar? AI can’t do that!
 
There will never be single pilot ops for the airlines.

When the technology is adequate for safe single pilot ops it will be safe with zero pilots.

We will go from two pilots to none when/if it happens but it definitely won’t be in the near term.
 
Clip4 said:
The pig is the US Congress and they can be bought with airline money.
Click to expand...
You do realize 80% of the FARs are there to satisfy ICAO requirements? And while congress can do what they want, it would only affect aircraft registered or operated in the US.

Tarheelpilot said:
We will go from two pilots to none when/if it happens but it definitely won’t be in the near term.
Click to expand...
Remote pilot will be the next step on the civilian side which can be done with existing airframes. And more than likely will be sooner than later since there are various examples flying already.
 
Bell206 said:
(W)hile congress can do what they want, it would only affect aircraft registered or operated in the US.
Click to expand...
Any industry or organized group with an appreciable number of members or amount of money has great lobbying power. In a global economy, Congresscritters can not allow their US based contributors to be disadvantaged by making them adhere to more stringent (read: expensive) standards unless there is a statistically greater number of contributors who have organized to oppose it.
 
Bell206 said:
You do realize 80% of the FARs are there to satisfy ICAO requirements? And while congress can do what they want, it would only affect aircraft registered or operated in the US.


Remote pilot will be the next step on the civilian side which can be done with existing airframes. And more than likely will be sooner than later since there are various examples flying
Click to expand...

You really think a ICAO member like Indonesia or China is going to object? The EU certainly won’t, they are subsidizing the the research to sell more planes.
 
Clip4 said:
You really think a ICAO member like Indonesia or China is going to object?
Click to expand...

You mean the same China and Indonesia that adheres to the age 65 requirement? The same China and Indonesia that requires both crewmembers to be typed? The same China and Indonesia that adheres to most of the ICAO conventions?

But somehow, magically they will allow a single pilot jet transport to use their airspace and land at their airports?
 
Clip4 said:
You really think a ICAO member like Indonesia or China is going to object? The EU certainly won’t, they are subsidizing the the research to sell more planes.
Click to expand...
Ya, know, sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies. Instead of worrying, we need to educate and be organized against those with foolish ideas, who unfortunately, often seem more organized and patient than us.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Ya, know, sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies. Instead of worrying, we need to educate and be organized against those with foolish ideas, who unfortunately, often seem more organized and patient than us.
Click to expand...
yeah, but who’s got time for that ****? ;)
 
billsgs126 said:
In a global economy, Congresscritters can not allow their US based contributors to be disadvantaged by making them adhere to more stringent (read: expensive) standards unless there is a statistically greater number of contributors who have organized to oppose it.
Click to expand...
Don’t quite follow what you are implying, but I’m unaware of any other global industry that has the equivalent of the Chicago Convention and ICAO. Any attempt by congress to make ICAO standards internally less "stringent" for the US aviation industry would only be detrimental to that industry on several levels.

Clip4 said:
You really think a ICAO member like Indonesia or China is going to object? The EU certainly won’t, they are subsidizing the the research to sell more planes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I would have thought someone who taught people to be pilots would have a better understanding of ICAO and its purpose.
 
Bell206 said:
Don’t quite follow what you are implying, but I’m unaware of any other global industry that has the equivalent of the Chicago Convention and ICAO. Any attempt by congress to make ICAO standards internally less "stringent" for the US aviation industry would only be detrimental to that industry on several levels.
Click to expand...
Whatever may be said about politicians, they are really smart when it comes to self-preservation. They won't allow the US Airline industry, which has resources, to be disadvantaged relative to other ICAO nations, by requiring significantly "higher" standards (and suffering significantly higher costs) than carriers from those other ICAO signatory nations.

By the same token, any attempts to significantly benefit national carriers over those from other ICAO nations will result in an undesired response from those nations.

As to flights wholly within the US. Organized labor has a predictably organized response to the airline industry's desire to minimize costs.
 
billsgs126 said:
They won't allow the US Airline industry, which has resources, to be disadvantaged relative to other ICAO nations, by requiring significantly "higher" standards (and suffering significantly higher costs) than carriers from those other ICAO signatory nations.
Click to expand...
Well considering the US aviation regulatory system is the least stringent of all other ICAO member countries I don't think that will be an issue. However, even it was more stringent I still don't follow how the US congress could make any difference with ICAO guidance for any US carriers. You either follow that guidance or are limited in how you operate at the international levels. Regardless, the US and other member countries already provide various rules that do not meet ICAO standards for their respective domestic aircraft. However, if those aircraft were to leave their national airspace they would then have to conform to any applicable ICAO standards if needed.
 
Bell206 said:
Don’t quite follow what you are implying, but I’m unaware of any other global industry that has the equivalent of the Chicago Convention and ICAO. Any attempt by congress to make ICAO standards internally less "stringent" for the US aviation industry would only be detrimental to that industry on several levels.


Interesting. I would have thought someone who taught people to be pilots would have a better understanding of ICAO and its purpose.
Click to expand...
Thats ok. There were people claiming the ICAO wouldn’t allow the end of flight engineers too.
 
Bell206 said:
Well considering the US aviation regulatory system is the least stringent of all other ICAO member countries I don't think that will be an issue. However, even it was more stringent I still don't follow how the US congress could make any difference with ICAO guidance for any US carriers. You either follow that guidance or are limited in how you operate at the international levels. Regardless, the US and other member countries already provide various rules that do not meet ICAO standards for their respective domestic aircraft. However, if those aircraft were to leave their national airspace they would then have to conform to any applicable ICAO standards if needed.
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing with you.
 
Clip4 said:
Thats ok. There were people claiming the ICAO wouldn’t allow the end of flight engineers too.
Click to expand...

Curious - what percentage of airliners do you think will be single pilot in 10 years? 20 years?
 
Clip4 said:
Thats ok. There were people claiming the ICAO wouldn’t allow the end of flight engineers too.
Click to expand...
Except thats not the responsibility of ICAO. And if you check in Annex 1 you'll see ICAO still provides the licensing standards and SARPs for Flight Engineers and even Flight Navigators. Perhaps find some different people to hang around with?
 
Dave Theisen said:
www.aopa.org

Demand for airline pilots 'normalizes'

An industry expert says hiring rates for airline pilots remain healthy as they settle toward pre-pandemic levels.
www.aopa.org
Click to expand...
If by healthy they mean concurrent with furlough, displacements/downgrades all over kingdom come, plus zero time line requests that sound like an auction house... sure, market is "healthy".

Love those summer non-farm payroll revisions too. yummy yummy in my tummy, and they shot the messenger in public too. Can't make this stuff up lol.

house and airplane sellers: "I know what I got!"

Where's my baghdad Bob meme when I need it.... :biggrin:
 
hindsight2020 said:
If by healthy they mean concurrent with furlough, displacements/downgrades all over kingdom come, plus zero time line requests that sound like an auction house... sure, market is "healthy".
Click to expand...

What percentage of pilots are moving backwards right now? Those at Spirit, JetBlue? Who else? The vast majority of us continue to move forward, just not at the crazy post covid rates. You see everyone hired after '16 as born on 3rd base (I'd call it '13 and on, myself), but brother that's almost a decade ago and those pilots now make up over half of everyone flying. And as they say, if everybody is special, nobody is special. ;)
 
I realize that I am too young to know better and wearing rose-colored glasses. But, to me, it's better to be sitting on the bench of the Colorado Rockies than to be a starter for the Iowa Cubs.
 
billsgs126 said:
I realize that I am too young to know better and wearing rose-colored glasses. But, to me, it's better to be sitting on the bench of the Colorado Rockies than to be a starter for the Iowa Cubs.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: Agreed. You’re too young to know better.

Is it better to be laid off by the Colorado Rockies than to be a starter for the Iowa Cubs when you have bills to pay?
 
Half Fast said:
:yeahthat: Agreed. You’re too young to know better.

Is it better to be laid off by the Colorado Rockies than to be a starter for the Iowa Cubs when you have bills to pay?
Click to expand...
No bills. And all the girls run (away) screaming when I say I fly an Apache.
 
Bell206 said:
Except thats not the responsibility of ICAO. And if you check in Annex 1 you'll see ICAO still provides the licensing standards and SARPs for Flight Engineers and even Flight Navigators. Perhaps find some different people to hang around with?
Click to expand...
Ok, train and apply for those positions. The ICAO didn’t stop the technology that replaced those positions in aircraft or require the jobs be retained. They’re not going to do that for 1st officers either.
 
Clip4 said:
The ICAO didn’t stop the technology that replaced those positions in aircraft or require the jobs be retained. They’re not going to do that for 1st officers either.
Click to expand...
Nor would they. What exactly do you think is the purpose behind ICAO?
 
kayoh190 said:
What percentage of pilots are moving backwards right now? Those at Spirit, JetBlue? Who else?
Click to expand...
Southwest. Then there are small fry stuff like Silver, Air Whiskey and other assorted FFDs. Those don't count of course, they're not real airline pilots. /s

None of that inside baseball kerfuffle was my point anyways. My point was merely to highlight to the OP that the macroeconomic indicators of present circumstances give a more likely probability his personal timing will not be expedient enough to meet the very expectations that are motivating him to ask the question in the first place. I never said he'll never get to ShAAngri-La. Just not in the timing he thinks he can emulate based on anecdotes closer to your experience. When that expectation is the inflection for whether or not to pursue it in the first place (given the imposition of debt), I think that's quite relevant to the conversation.

He's free of course to disagree with my opinion, believe his career timing will emulate yours, and full send it. We're rooting for him! :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top