Slashdot Mirror


Airlines Face Acute Pilot Shortage

Hugh Pickens writes "The WSJ reports that U.S. airlines are facing their most serious pilot shortage since the 1960s. Federal mandates are taking effect that will require all newly hired pilots to have at least 1,500 hours of prior flight experience — six times the current minimum. This raises the cost and time to train new fliers in an era when pay cuts and more-demanding schedules already have made the profession less attractive. Meanwhile, thousands of senior pilots at major airlines soon will start hitting the mandatory retirement age of 65. 'We are about four years from a solution, but we are only about six months away from a problem,' says Bob Reding, recently retired executive vice president of operations at AMR Corp. A study by the University of North Dakota's aviation department indicates major airlines will need to hire 60,000 pilots by 2025 to replace departures and cover expansion over the next eight years. Meanwhile, only 36,000 pilots have passed the Air Transport Pilot exam in the past eight years, which all pilots would have to pass under the Congressionally imposed rules, and there are limits to the ability of airlines, especially the regional carriers, to attract more pilots by raising wages. While the industry's health has improved in recent years, many carriers still operate on thin profit margins, with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers. 'It certainly will result in challenges to maintain quality,' says John Marshall, an independent aviation-safety consultant who spent 26 years in the Air Force before overseeing Delta's safety. 'Regional carriers will be creative and have to take shortcuts' to fill their cockpits."

421 comments

  1. Why did they change the requirements? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It didn't seem like we were having any real problems due to inexperienced pilots before. If this is really a problem, let's just roll this back.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The gov has been having knee jerk reactions to all manner of issues. I just wish they would review their own issues in the same manner.

    2. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Disclaimer: I am a private pilot, but know several commercial pilots.

      Congress decided that regional airlines (who pay pilots $18-22K/year to fly) needed pilots with more experience instead of the previous 800 hours they were required to have, due to accidents such as Colgan Air 3407. Others have argued that pilot fatigue (regional pilots schedules are pretty grueling, and you're only paid cabin door close to cabin door open), as well as pressure from the airlines themselves to meet business metrics are the issues.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

    3. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its interesting to note that the crash that seems to have spured Congress into action was Colgan Air 3407. It appears that both pilot and co-pilot had experience far over the newly mandated limits, ruling the 250 hour requirement out as a reason. There are some questions about crew competence. So its more than a matter of sheer hours of flight time. It also requires training and pilot scheduling. Both of these will cost the carrier money. I can imagine the special interest wrangling that went on behind the scenes as this legislation was being crafted. It doesn't surprise me that the end result skirts around all the issues in which various parties have vested interests.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      It didn't seem like we were having any real problems due to inexperienced pilots before. If this is really a problem, let's just roll this back.

      This was in response to a Colgan Air crash in 2009 which found pilot inexperience to be a major cause of the accident. In 2010, the Air Safety Act was updated to include a 1500 hour minimum in order to get the Airline Transport Pilot's License (ATP License - required to carry I think 25+ or 50+ passengers. Lesser amounts you can get by with a commercial pilot's license).

      Of course, a HUGE problem is "hours" isn't necessarily a good way to measure experience (think of those requirements that say stuff like "10 years Java required"). After all, it doesn't specify how those 1500 hours were obtained - it could bet 1500 1-hour local flights, or combinations of longer flights that give better experience.

      The other problem is well, pay. A low-time commercial pilot really earns crap - it's really done more for the love of flying than anything. We're talking about $30k annual salary or less. And now before said pilot is hired, they have to accumulate 1500 hours, usually by giving flight instruction (which pays even LESS), so said student probably ends up in debt.

      Of course, the flip side is, the captain of that regional flight might be a new graduate (remember about shit pay? The instant regional pilots get offers by the big guys with better pay, they jump ship), and still fairly green. So as a passenger, you also want some assurance that the guy in front has the necessary skills and experience to make it through whatever emergency might happen, whether it's pilot-caused or other.

    5. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if airlines are in such dire need, they should raise the pay.
      Also, skimming through the article I was looking for when this law was passed (2010) and goes into effect July 2013.
      Three years to deal with the issue, they had plenty of time.

    6. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me start off by saying that I am a commercial pilot and a flight instructor. I know what I'm talking about.

      There are some real problems due to inexperienced pilots.
      Look up the Colgan Air crash from 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
      Undertraining is also a significant issue.
      Look up the Air France crash, also from 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

      People are afraid of getting into airplanes because they perceive that they lack any control of the situation and they subconsciously think that the pilots are as poorly equipped to deal with flying as the passengers themselves are. In order to maintain the perception of safe flight the FAA has made rules that only allow for extremely safe flights for the paying population. Commercial aviation is amazingly safe. The FAA is going to do whatever they can to ensure that it remains safe, even when it results in higher prices for tickets. Higher minimum flight time is one of these requirements and they are hoping that this will result in safer flight.
      I might not like every rule the FAA makes but they are doing their best to keep the flying public safe and they have done a admirable job of that so far.

      Let's talk prices. Let's say that your average pilot makes $100,000 a year. They don't, but it's an easy number to work with. Check this out for additional detail: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-much-your-captain-earns/
      Let's say that after these changes the average pay bumps up to $200,000 a year. What will that cost you for your ticket?
      Let's pick some numbers out of the air:
      100 passengers for each plane on average.
      200 flights a year per pilot.
      2 pilots per flight.
      That works out to a total pilot cost per ticket of $20 and a cost increase per ticket of $10. How much do you suppose your taxi driver made getting you to the airport? I bet it was more than $10.

      Let's address the pilot shortage issue. It's a total load of garbage. There are hundreds of resumes for every pilot job out there, and for pitiful salaries. The pilots are out there but they can't afford to feed themselves let alone have a family and support them on a starting pilot's pay. Pilot training up to the level required for even the most basic job (instructor) is going to cost $50,000 or more. You can't pay that back on a $20,000 a year salary. Pilots do it because they love flying. As the new rules go into place, salaries will go up to compensate. But it won't be that much. Maybe you'll see a 'pilot pay' line on your next ticket for $20 or $40. And next time you are scared and drunk because you are clueless and getting ready to take off you can rest easy. The FAA in it's bumbling heavyhanded manner is doing it's best to keep you safe and they have been amazingly successful. More successful than any other industry in the world.

    7. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I remember when pilots would make reasonable salaries (think six digits). Less than $30k for someone with that many hours? That is just wrong, and no wonder why there is a pilot shortage, because for that much training, someone can be a lawyer, IT guy, or some other profession and have a chance at making enough to pay the vills.

      I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for airlines and how they treat customers like trash, as well as their employees.

      If they have a pilot shortage, they need to do like every other business: Whine about it to Congress and hire the H-1Bs. Oh, the H-1Bs don't have the training? Well, go and train them.

    8. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      I predict that they will switch to autonomous drone technology before they ever raise pilot pay.

      --

    9. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by ridgecritter · · Score: 2

      Reading TFA, I see it says that 1500 hours is *six* times the previously required minimum, which would be 250 hours. You say the previous minimum was 800 hours. Would you please clarify? Did the WSJ reporters get it wrong? Thanks.

    10. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is shitty job, the pay alone may not be enough. I know a airhostess, who thinks of quitting all the time. You dont really have a home. You spend half or more of your "nights" (you dont keep normal nights, what ever time you sleep is your night) in hotels. The rest in the hub city. I wouldnt do it for twice the money they make.

    11. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thank you. Wish I had mod points for you. I have no problem with the concept of paying a decent living wage to the skilled professionals to whom I entrust my life when the cabin door closes. I hope those who are hiring those professionals feel likewise.

    12. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cwebster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      250 hours is the minimum for a commercial rating, the theoretical minimum for a job as a first officer at an airline. The practical minimum is dictated by the supply and demand in the job market and I have seen it vary between 1500 and 250 hours over the last decade and across different airlines. The 1500 hour minimum is a good thing. There are still jobs out there for the 250 hour people (part 135 freight) and this gives experience that they need to get on their way to an airline cockpit.

      Disclaimer: I flew for a regional airline for 4 years, benefited from the 250 hr baseline (I had 600 hours when hired, 3100 when I left) and I completely support getting more experienced people into those airplanes.

    13. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      Haven't they practically done that already? I remember a Mythbusters episode where an air traffic controller was able to successfully talk the (untrained) team through an emergency landing in a simulated 747. Now, obviously there are a lot of variables with flying a commercial jet, but with so much of the work becoming more and more automated these days, it seems like the trend would go toward lower minimum hours, not more. Granted, you might then run into serious problems should the automated systems ever fail.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    14. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "That works out to a total pilot cost per ticket of $20 and a cost increase per ticket of $10."

      30 bucks total is what I paid for my ticket the last 6 times for a flight from Germany to Barcelona or Malaga.

    15. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (think of those requirements that say stuff like "10 years Java required")

      There are people with over 15 years of Java experience.

      (captcha is "parasite")

    16. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't seem like we were having any real problems due to inexperienced pilots before. If this is really a problem, let's just roll this back.

      No, no. Clearly the free market is working. Obviously. I mean, it couldn't be blamed on government interference, since they were interfering before and things were fine. The only thing that has changed? ROMNEY WON.

      oh wait.

    17. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto for my flight from San Jose to Las Vegas.

    18. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how are they supposed to double the enrollment of pilots in training in 3 years time? This is an issue of a greying workforce. Attracting people into any field is something that takes years to see any fruit from whatever the changes they make to entice increased enrollment. Or to put it in words that someone like you can understand, even if they tripled the starting salary the day the law came out, they would still not be seeing significant increases in new pilots the day the law goes in to effect.

    19. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 2

      Yes, there have been problems with inexperienced pilots, especially in the regional airlines. There was a Frontline episode a year to two ago that addressed it. One of the crashes they focused on was Colgate Air 3407 crash in Buffalo, NY. If you haven't seen that episode, you really should.

      This past Sunday on the weekly morning news shows, one of them discussed this. They had Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger as a guest. He says that the claims by the aviation industry of a shortage is incorrect. The rules did not just come out of nowhere, they are not arbitrary, and the industry has had years to prepare for it. It seems that he is a voice that is hard to ignore.

    20. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing, that the GP didn't mention.

      That workforce? Extended already from 60, to 65. That regulation? Discussed for 5 years before it was implemented to be put in place 3 years later.

      Yeah, they had time to start making changes.

      They sat on their asses.

    21. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by mrjb · · Score: 0

      I'm aware of those crashes. Some rich people died in them, were left without next of kin and now some kind fellow is offering me a big bunch of cash if I help him to get the money outside of his country. Guess he was afraid to fly it out himself after the fact, but sheesh, how hard is it to wire out money these days?

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    22. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only the most senior pilots made six digits. The problem is the ranking system. Pilots are paid by seniority and you cannot take it with you if you switch airlines, including in a merger or move to a regional branded by a major. You can have instances where a pilot with 20 years experience switches airlines and starts at the bottom all over again, making $20K. This system was instituted by the union and still has wide spread support by the pilots.

    23. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup, the captain apparently failed multiple exams... In addition while having something like 3000+ flight hours, he only had 110 in the plane he was in and seems to have had very little experience in icing conditions(he was based out of Florida). The co-pilot apparently NEVER had experience in icy conditions according to the CVR:

      Shaw responded, "I've never seen icing conditions. I've never de-iced. I've never seen any. I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that and make those kinds of calls . . . You know I'd have freaked out. I'd have like seen this much ice and thought, oh my gosh, we were going to crash."

    24. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not in Java 9, iPhone7 edition.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by hattig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems to me that the issue is low pay and poor working conditions.

      You would really have to love flying to get into it as a job with the rewards you've outlined above.

      Maybe if they had raised the pay to be commensurate with the responsibility of the role, the unsociable hours and so on, and paid them when they turned up at the airport rather than when they entered the cabin door, there would be more people becoming pilots.

    26. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More experienced pilots, like... those who towed banners for 1500 hours, or those that gave instruction on little Cessna 152s flying around aeroclub fields?

      Those skills are completely irrelevant in a modern cockpit. In fact, remember the crash of AA587? The copilot used full rudder to get out of what he thought was the onset of a spin. The correct reaction in a small propeller airplane, but completely inappropriate in a large swept wing jet. I bet he had lots of experience flying small planes.

      Anyone can "fly" an airplane with very little training, a few hundred hours is plenty. Then comes the hard part: learning how to handle a large aircraft, with all its complex systems, autopilots, flight management systems, etcetera in a busy airspace in bad weather conditions. You learn those things in the simulator and on the job as a first officer, not by flying in an aeroclub.

      As for freight: those jobs will be filled up pretty quickly if nobody can start in the regionals anymore, and who wants to be a pilot if it means doing night flights for minimum wage for several years first? Also, those companies don't exactly have the highest safety standards so you're giving them bad habits from the get-go.

    27. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      1500 hours for a captain is certainly a reasonable requirement. But now what will happen? People will first get their 1500 hours in little Cessnas, then become a F/O, and then shortly afterwards, since they already have the hours, move straight to the left seat! How's that for safety? Yeah, congress have really outdone themselves again.

    28. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by CRC'99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pilot training up to the level required for even the most basic job (instructor) is going to cost $50,000 or more. You can't pay that back on a $20,000 a year salary. Pilots do it because they love flying.

      Disclaimer: I am a private pilot doing my commercial flight test in ~14 hours time.

      This situation is completely correct. I've lived on sweet fuck all incoming for 5 years (think less than $25000AUD). My training here in Australia has totalled to around $110,000AUD - not including interest on loans etc. After my test, I'll have ~250 hours total flight time. If I manage to get a job straight after my test, in reality, I can probably earn $35-40k AUD. How do most pilots in my situation survive? They get a second job. Not only does this add to fatigue, it certainly doesn't make things safer.

      Why do I do it? Because its friggin awesome. If you want to fly to make a buck, then you live in another world.

      In a nutshell, the aviation industry is fucked. Everyone wants to cut their costs as far as possible without violating the law. This means cheap labour in maintenance, cheaper pilots, crappy pay and benefits.

      I really miss the wages I was paid in network administration, they were double what I'll get here....

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    29. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      In both the accidents you quoted, all the pilots involved had much more experience than 1500 hours. There's simply no relationship between "flight time" and real experience and training. None whatsoever. I've flown with excellent first officers who only had a few hundred hours, and with lousy captains who veered off the runway on a simple engine failure in the sim but who did have ten thousand hours. This new requirement is total idiocy. Worse, since the requirement for captains is now the same as for first officers, people will move from the aeroclub through the right seat into the left seat in no time, at least in the regionals. Expect more crashes in the future.

    30. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by CRC'99 · · Score: 2

      Pilots do it because they love flying.

      Bullshit. They do it for the big money later in their careers. Captains in the majors make good money, get good bennies and union protection. From the WSJ link you provide:

      You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.

      And how big is that big payout they hope to get someday? FltOps said on average, captains top out at minimum salaries of $165,278

      That's the goal. I bet a lot wash out before they get there. That's the breaks. Don't like it get an office job.

      But don't tell me about "they love flying." They love the big bucks.

      Oh, and 100 passenger aircraft are getting rare in the US. We're flying ~70 passenger Embraers and Bombardiers for domestics today. The big planes left for prosperous countries in Asia.

      Ummm yeah - $165k. Hell, training I was looking at in a 8 seat Learjet was $3000 per flight hour. That means a captains salary would earn him about 55 hours training for a year. And thats ignoring things like tax....

      so, 1500 hours prior experience eh? I'll get right on that.....

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    31. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Why does the government establish any cartels? Must be a failure of the free market.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    32. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, the aviation industry is fucked. Everyone wants to cut their costs as far as possible without violating the law. This means cheap labour in maintenance, cheaper pilots, crappy pay and benefits.

      No, they are not. They can always automate! I believe the research is already happening. It might actually be even easier than automated cars. (Most importantly, you don't have to deal with traffic in the same way.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    33. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Just because you are unaware of the minor issues that happen daily doesn't mean they don't happen and aren't narrowly avoiding larger issues.

      As a licensed private pilot who flies into large airports on occasion, its mind blowing that it doesn't all collapse.

      Hell, just listen to the hell some ATC people go through with morons ferrying hundreds of passengers around crowded air space.

      Captain Sully is a diamond in the rough, 1 in a thousand. 900 of the other guys can barely get off the ground ... which is the easy part.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.

      Medicine? Both people and animals. Unless you come out with unrealistically high scores you end up working in generic places like 'Urgent Care' and such. The pay is above 30k, but not by a landslide, and thats where the majority of those people end up for a LONG time.

      1500 hours is 3/4 of a work year. Its is in no way 'a lot' of flight time. Get back to me when you hit 10k hours. The captain of 1549 that went down in the hudson is approaching 30k if I recall correctly.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    35. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      To put it bluntly, as a private pilot myself, you're over paying for training time. Massively over paying.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    36. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      *golfclap*

      I came for an anti-government post and got it frosty piss.

      Clearly, we should just let the free market sort it out. If airlines choose to use crappy pilots who have only ever "flown" in a WW2 combat flight simulator, and those airlines have lots of multi-death accidents, they will be sued out of existence by the deceased people's relatives, plus the good pilots will earn more money from the better airlines as they won't have to pay for ludicrous government-enforced standards.

      Something like that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by lurker1997 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for airlines and how they treat customers like trash, as well as their employees.

      This is easy to say, but not many people are going to pay 5X the price or more to fly with an airline that pays their employees extra and is nice to their customers. Unfortunately, consumers are getting what they want from the air travel industry, a race to the bottom.

    38. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      250 hours is the minimum for a commercial rating

      So much for that geezer who said you had to practise something for 10,000 hours to be good at it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by gutnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not familiar with the Airline unions, but I have experience with other unions in other sectors. Pay based on seniority is often indeed required by the union. However, the fact that experience does not carry over, is not required by the union, it is the price they had to pay. Seniority can be carried over during contract negotiation.

      When you change job, there is negociation for the salary either directly or using seniority as a proxy. You get experienced pilot working for 20K for the same reason you get PHD flipping burger at McDonald, nothing to do with the union stance on seniority.

    40. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      captains top out at minimum salaries of $165,278

      While that's better than a kick in the nuts with a pair of steelcapped boots, it's hardly riches beyond the dreams of avarice. Anyone capable of qualifying as an airline pilot and handling the stress of being responsible for the lives of several hundred people each time they put their working clothes on could quite easily handle a job as a lawyer, CFO, investment banker or something else much higher paying, standing on their head.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Haven't they practically done that already? I remember a Mythbusters episode where an air traffic controller was able to successfully talk the (untrained) team through an emergency landing in a simulated 747.

      ...and at the end of the episode they said that an airline would NEVER do that, they'd just hit the 'autoland' button.

      Did you know that an awful lot of landings are automatic anyway? The pilot just sits there and watches. All airliners have a legal requirement to land automatically at least once a month or they lose their certification. They often do more than that, especially at foggy airports or when visibility is poor.

      These days the pilot is mainly there for when things go wrong, not for when things are going right.

      --
      No sig today...
    42. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      However, the idiot in H.R. doesn't know what Java or an iPhone even is.

      But.. that's off the subject.

    43. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilots that fly those short distances do way more than 200 flights a year though.

    44. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would it cost 5X extra? Doubling the salary of pilot should only make it at most 10% extra. Most people wouldn't even notice.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    45. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, when things work automatically, they work very well. Here's the rub: That person sitting in command of an airliner has to be very well educated and very experienced on many subjects. Navigation, meteorology, aerodynamics, engine performance, hydraulic systems, fuel management systems, weight and balance issues, aircraft performance envelopes, air traffic procedures, Radar performance, Admiralty Law, aviation regulations for all the countries they fly in, and a strong familiarity with regional terrain and every major airport along the flight path capable of handling them in the event of an emergency. And that list is hardly complete. There are many more things that a competent pilot should know

      These people may not look like they're doing much, but it takes a lot of education and experience to get to that position so that you can know when things are going wrong. You don't get captains like Chesley Sullenberger, or Alfred C. Haynes by putting an idiot at the controls.

    46. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by vlm · · Score: 1

      The term you need to google for is "loss leader". Its a marketing term. It turns out, that if you intentionally eliminate a free market by giving every participant a semi-random different price, then you can't do your financial estimates using any old random price, because you might pick an extreme tail of the price distribution. An airline doing its financial planning based on every ticket being a $10K 1st class last minute booking to the other side of the planet would be equally screwed.

      The other thing is, one was to end any argument on the internet is to take it urban. I've taken taxis in NYC and its like $50 flat rate from Manhattan to the major airports. Thats why I took Amtrak last time I went to a HOPE conference, which is right across the street from Penn station anyway. So, because the pilot fee is meaningless if you live in NYC, I invoke the "internet rule" that its now meaningless everywhere.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    47. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by vlm · · Score: 1

      $440/hr average is probably on the high side even for heli.

      Probably he's getting a bachelors degree with it. There are programs like that on this side of the pond too, all for profit operations mostly interested in booking student loans. Graduate in 4 years with a BS in aeronautical engineering AND a commercial cert. Some provide an excellent education, but ALL overcharge.

      There are people graduation with liberal arts degrees an $100+K in debt and NO pilots cert

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    48. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by vlm · · Score: 2

      No. The general public has the stupid idea that flying is dangerous. Its actually the safest form of transportation ever invented, for a variety of reasons. That means there's a long way to go before its really as dangerous as, say, driving a car. We'd have to have a daily plane crash before aviation is as dangerous per mile as driving, and practically hourly airline crashes to be as dangerous as bicycling or walking/hiking per mile. So rest assured, a lot of people will die before things would get "fixed".

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    49. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.

      At least half the industries that require degrees fit that description.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wondered, back in the 80s when I was in school, why pilots made 100k a year and bus drivers made 15k a year. Looks like pay for driving a vehicle with 60 passengers has equalized. [flame suit on]

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    51. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big difference between a commercial license and ATC. Then there is the 'hours in type' requirement which can be just as high. So you might have a commercial pilots license, but no turbine (jet) experience and the largest thing you've flow is a Piper Aztec. You're quite a ways away training wise from qualifying as an Airline Pilot!

    52. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALPA has the best in terestes of 30 pilots at their heart, and are fucking all of the rest who want to be one of those 30 most senior pilots.

    53. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about raising airfares $3/seat so we can actually pay commercial airline pilots a living wage instead of expecting them to front tens of thousands of $$$ for flight training out of pocket to get a seat flying 737s at a salary rate approaching that of a McDonald's night manager?

      When pilots have to be independently wealthy before pursuing the career, I worry about lack of competition in the field, whether or not the man in the cockpit really takes my safety (and his) seriously, and whether or not management has enough latitude to promote good pilots and fire bad ones, or if we're just stuck with what we've got because there's nobody else willing and able to do the job.

    54. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by jimbolauski · · Score: 5, Informative

      At 5x the price you can fly private, first class is less then 2x the cost. To make the math easy will do an 8 hour flight on a Boeing 747, 4,500 miles that will burn 22,000 gallons of fuel. The price of fuel is somewhere between $3-$5 per gallon depending on the location so just the fuel cost is $110,000. A pilot making 20k a year would get paid roughly $10 / hour a 300% wrap rate would cost $240 for the trip with two pilots it's $480, for a total cost of $110,480 for the pilots and fuel. If the pilots made 100k a year the cost of pilots and fuel would be $112,400 a two percent change in cost, I did not account for maintenance, stewardess, baggage handlers, terminal fees or and other administrative cost. Fuel is by far the number one cost in the airline business labor is a distant second.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    55. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we hear that there is a shortage of nurses for example it only means the salaries are too low. While it is true increasing pilot salaries would increase airline costs, its possible that tickets would not increase, just profits decrease. While airline this would be bad for airline shareholders, it would be good for consumers.

    56. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by captbob2002 · · Score: 2

      I'm not familiar with the Airline unions, but I have experience with other unions in other sectors. Pay based on seniority is often indeed required by the union. However, the fact that experience does not carry over, is not required by the union, it is the price they had to pay. Seniority can be carried over during contract negotiation.

      I am sure this is the case - how would it ever be in the employee/union's interest to include language to prevent pilots from "jumping ship" for more pay (the way IT folks do?) No, this was something put in the contract by the employer. Once done, they may well blame the union for it "we'd like to pay you more, but the union won't let us." - but if one checks with the negotiating team I'm sure you'd hear how management's negotiator pushed that language. Remember, since it is a negotiation you don't get everything you might want.

      I see first hand such baloney where I work: If you get promoted the highest increase you can receive is a 10% pay increase, if they hire from outside, well, the sky is the limit.

      if there is a shortage it is their own fault for not planning for the future and using their regional airlines as a farm system for finding/training good pilots - too bad it made more short term sense to pay the regional pilots crap wages and pocket the money. I know regional pilots than make more money waiting tables than flying the planes. Pity

      .

    57. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by gtvr · · Score: 1

      Not sure 3 years is enough time to get that many pilots through the pipeline. You are definitely going to have to have the airlines help fix it, particularly some kind of exchange of training payment for a work commitment.

    58. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      My old Apt complex was near a big airport and I was surprised how many pilots lived there. Every morning I'd seem em come out single file and line up my bus stop to wait for the metro.

      At the time I was working some shitty call enter job and actually persuaded a few to leave their air lines and come work my company, since despite their higher education and experience, made quite a bit less then me; and the Apts were not just crash pads, but basically all they could afford.

    59. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A pilot isn't going to get a job doing Part 135 freight at 250 hrs. The minimums for Part 135 are:

      VFR: Commercial Pilot with instrument rating, 500 TT, 100 XC, 25 night XC
      IFR: Commercial Pilot with instrument rating, 1200TT, 500 XC, 100 night, 75 instrument (of which 50 are in flight)

      The most realistic job a 250 hour pilot can get is as a flight instructor. (Banner towing, jump plane pilot are others but less available.) For a fairly busy instructor he/she can get to 1500 hrs in a couple years. It's the 500 hrs cross country is the hurdle. Most flight instruction is local.

      I don't see this ending well. It can easily cost someone over $100k to get their ATP certificate and for what? To make $20k as first officer at a regional airline? I know pilots love to fly and will do just about anything to get into the shiny jets but this is getting ridiculous.

      Disclaimer: I'm a commercial pilot, flight instructor and run a flight school.

    60. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You could make walking and bicycling much safer per mile, if the walkers didn't have to share the space with cars. You could make hiking much safer per mile with more trail maintenance. And in those situations, you're in control, which is even more relevant. Every abstraction takes you further out of control.

      I don't feel unsafe about flying, I just won't fly because of the groping. As far as I'm concerned the airline industry can fuck off until that's fixed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Interesting post. I'm not a pilot but I do fly a lot (as a passenger - business travel). In my view pilot salaries are shockingly low. Anyone piloting a 757 or an A320 has a lot of flying experience. A lot. That takes a lot of time and money to acquire. Compare that to an engineer or IT professional with similar experience.

      I might be in the minority here but I think that low airfares are actually part of the problem. Look what it has given us...baggage and other fees, fewer routes, lower salaries for the people that work at the airlines. Airlines, in an attempt to keep fares low and continuing to squeeze every cent they can get. Air travel used to be a pleasurable experience back in the day. Now it's just a sardine can in the sky. I, for one, would be happy to pay more for better service. But all we hear about are low fares. Sure, that's fine if you're taking a once a year family vacation. You put up with it. But for someone that flies a lot you really notice the nickel and dimeing.

      My hope is that airlines will pay their people what they deserve and give passengers what they deserve and charge what is necessary to make that all possible.

    62. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilot who can fly efficiently is worth his weight in gold.
      A 737-300 can burn 916 gph in cruise (5500 lb/hr).
      That's as much as $7,328 per hour in fuel.

      If you manage to save 5% in fuel burn and work 2000 hours/year, then you've saved the airline over $732,000.
      $200k/year is warranted for a skilled pilot.

      Navigating the most efficient routes through the weather is worth millions.
      Since air resistance scales with the cube of the velocity, maybe the planes should fly at 500 mph instead of 550?

    63. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Klinky · · Score: 1

      He is in Australia, something could be said about exchange rates and cost of living...

    64. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't even have so much as a license, but I'm a flight simulation enthusiast and I could see spending money on flying once the kids are out on their own. Flying is expensive, period. If you want to fly professionally you're going to outlay a lot of money on your own much as is the case with college. Once you start flying professionally you're going to be making fairly low incomes (far less than in STEM) for a fairly long time. Sure, eventually if you're at the top of your profession you could end up flying the NYC-Tokyo route and make $150k/yr, but you're going to be living in either an aluminum cabin or hotel for about 70% of the time and see the family a day or two per week at most (oh, right after getting off an international flight - how up for family time are you after flying halfway around the world?).

      The reality, though, is that for much of your career you're going to be sharing hotel rooms and basically crashing for sleep in between a bazillion little flights, where the pressure is there to take off no matter what. If you're only paid for time from door open to close, and on a walkaround you see something wrong with the plane, what is the temptation to just ignore it vs go home without getting paid a dime?

      My sense is that pilots really do get into it due to the love of flying more than anything else.

      The whole industry needs a lot of reform. Safety rules aren't going to put anybody out of business - they apply equally to every carrier as long as they're enforced.

    65. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, the cost of doing things right doesn't go away simply because you don't have the pilots. I'm all for automation, but the airline cost-cutting problem applies to things like maintenance as well.

      But I do agree that automation could be the long-term solution here. For the short term, regulation of pilot training/hours/etc is what we have to go on.

    66. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      The real question is "Why don't they change the salaries?" One of the biggest complaints out of pilots these days is ridiculously low pay (and some of the figures are shocking--we're talking full-time airline pilots making in the $25,000 a year range). So yeah, it's hardly surprising that experienced pilots are leaving in droves. I'm pretty sure you could make more as a bush pilot in Alaska than working for most airlines these days. Hell, you could make more as an office drone.

      In short, there isn't a pilot shortage. There is a decent salary shortage.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    67. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      People are afraid of getting into airplanes because they perceive that they lack any control of the situation and they subconsciously think that the pilots are as poorly equipped to deal with flying

      When I flew* I was never bothered by the skill level of the pilots. It's the age of the planes and the fact that for profit corporations will skimp on maintenance whenever possible.

      *I no longer fly due to the TSA. If you value your job, do whatever you can to oppose the TSA at every opportunity.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    68. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd notice enough to fly with a different airline.

    69. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the pilot's salary is nothing compared to fuel and maintenance costs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    70. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep I might be a pilot right now if not for the bullshit low pay.

      The airline industry is now in a similar position to the IT industry: They say they can't find people, but what they mean is that they can't find highly educated people who are willing to work for peanuts - and therefore they deserve zero sympathy. Fuck 'em.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    71. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      10,000h to be an expert at anything.

      Only the captain needs to be an expert. The co-pilot is still being trained.

    72. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

      You may have no problem, but apparently the ownership would like that money for themselves and fuck the pilots AND the passengers.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    73. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Haven't they practically done that already? I remember a Mythbusters episode where an air traffic controller was able to successfully talk the (untrained) team through an emergency landing in a simulated 747. Now, obviously there are a lot of variables with flying a commercial jet, but with so much of the work becoming more and more automated these days, it seems like the trend would go toward lower minimum hours, not more. Granted, you might then run into serious problems should the automated systems ever fail.

      Wait, if the air traffic controllers are the ones handling all the landing details, maybe we need to increase the training requirements for them too!

    74. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world has managed to find staff that isn't rude. It seems to be an American problem.

    75. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I am also a pilot, and a certificated mechanic.

      I believe the statements made in the Slashdot squib are misleading. Perhaps not intentionally so, but misleading.

      The airline pilots they are talking about are those for short haul (regional) carriers, not the more traditional airliners, like the Airbus and Boeing aircraft. Smaller airliners are not flying aircraft which require the pilot to have an Airline Transport certificate (ATP), because they don't carry as many passengers.

      The ATP required by what most of us think of as airliners requires 1500 hours before the candidate can taken the written test. Thus, pilots in traditional airliners already are required to have at least 1500 hours. This, good or bad, is just bringing the requirement for regional carrier aircraft in line with the requirement for other airliners.

      For a discussion of the requirements of the ATP, please see this link:

      http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8400.10%20Air%20Transp%20Ops%20Insp%20Handbk/Volume%205.%20AIRMEN%20CERTIICATION%20AND%20DESIGNATED%20EXAMINERS/Vol%205-Chap%202-Sec%201.htm

    76. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One key thing - these minimums increases were in response to Colgain Air 3407, as mentioned previously.

      Captain had 3263 hours (only 110 on type though) - I'm fairly certain the new regs don't affect time-on-type... A minimum of 1500 on-type means you'll never have anyone.
      FO had 2200 hours, 770 on type

      Assuming the new regs are for total hours and not on-type, the new regs solve a problem that didn't exist in the first crash. Safety theatre, kind of like the post-9/11 security theater, where the first new regulations passed nationally were ones that were PROVEN TO HAVE FAILED AS A MEASURE by 9/11. (Most of the 9/11 flights were out of Newark, which had only allowed ticketed passengers at the gate for at least a few years at that point.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    77. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew how little most of the airline staff get paid in the US, one would be inclined to be rude too. When in another city, if part of a plane's crew, you don't even get compensation for a hotel. You end up in a dorm at the airport. All this for minimum wage, with only hours that one is in the air counted for that, "door close to door open" as was phrased.

      If it were not for logistical issues (who owns what gates), I'd hope for more foreign airlines, so the domestic ones get kicked to the curb until they figure out what customers want, just like the auto industry. I feel bad by saying that, but I see zero good with any domestic based airlines. They can't even turn a profit, no matter how many fees they charge either.

      Maybe nationalize them, buyout their stock and if they have to be privatized, have a contractor who has a better reputation take care of customers. Even Corrections Corporation of America would be a step up.

    78. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      how would it even be 10%???? If a pilot flies 2x4 hour flights 5 days a week with a plane that carries 250 people average that comes close to 125000 people a year. $1 increase in ticket price could more than double or triple their current pay.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    79. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by GreenTom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strengthening your point, I think labor is a distant third. The #2 cost is the airplane itself. A new 747 costs $352 million. A major airline should be able to borrow money at 5-6%, so the mortgage on the plane will cost about $20 million/year. The aircraft is probably good for 30 years, so that's about $12 million/year in depreciation. It's costing the airline something like $32 million a year just to own the airplane.

      They should get around 3000 flight hours out of it per year (10-12 hrs/day x 6 days/week x 48 weeks/year), so add $10k or so per flight hour to your estimates. This also makes it obvious why fast turnaround is so important--Southwest pretty much revolutionized the industry by being able to flip a plane in 15-30 minutes. That extra hour of flight time each day is huge when you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars in fixed costs.

      Next time you board an aircraft, take a look to the left. If the cockpit door is open, there's probably a small plaque there telling you who the bank is that actually owns the plane.

    80. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, you may not realize it, but you have just discovered a simultaneous solution to the pilot shortage and the oversupply of PhDs.

      I mean, they're qualified, right? 5+ years of circling the airport as a postdoc more than satisfies the 1500 hour requirement.

    81. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about all the extra radiation.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    82. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuel prices are irrelevant. Not saying they aren't a large part of the cost, but they simply don't correlate to the length of the trip. For example, a 2 hour flight from where I live... which I could drive in about 13 hours... costs far, FAR more than a 10 hour flight halfway across the world. Or more specifically, in a flight that was arranged where the SAME LENGTH flight from one city to Mexico and my city to Mexico cost almost a third more than the first city.

      Now how the fuck do you explain that? Until shit like that is fixed, I have no sympathy for them.

    83. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      ...except ALL airlines are subject to the same burden.

      THAT right there is a key benefit of evil government regulations. You can provide a level playing field where no one is allowed to cut any extra corners in order to get ahead. Externally imposed standards restrict the shenanigans a company can pull and no one is at a disadvantage for doing things right.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    84. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two of the most noted crashes of recent days, Colgan Flight 3407 and AF447 were both attributed to pilots with inadequate skills and training. In both cases the pilots stalled the aircraft. Seems like a pilot with better skills and training could have prevented such events.

    85. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have zero sympathy for the flying public. You guys are the ones who insist on pay the lowest possible fair then complain when you get bad pilots, shitty service, and poorly maintained planes. Deregulation was a bad idea.

    86. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you forget the other unseen cost in aviation. Insurance. Insurance makes the cost of aircraft components absurdly expensive. Why is it that a computer that controls something on an aircraft cost $250,000? Why is it a seat belt extension cost $1000. Why is it a tire cost upwards of $10,000? I am not just throwing numbers out there, I work in the industry and I am astounded we make any money at all. Get rid of or change the FAA PMA process and limit the liability forced on companies who make aircraft parts. 2/3 the cost of a part goes to insurance. Even stupid shit you would never imagine cost unbelievable amounts of money. A fucking coffee brewing pot cost $2300. The entire potable water system on a small CRJ, probably around $100,000, just so you can have shitty coffee.

    87. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen an airline purchase an aircraft.

      They lease them from holding companies. They are however responsible for maintenance and up-keep.

    88. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You dislike the TSA, but you want government to run the airlines?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    89. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.

      Teaching?

    90. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification.

    91. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You ignore risk. I'm a former Flight Test Engineer. I work with pilots, the best man at my wedding is a professional pilot, and I'll tell you about some aspects which aren't covered in comparisons of start to finish salaries.

      Rate of increase: This is a guess, but I'm pretty sure that a MD reaches a 100k salary long before a pilot reaches a 100k salary. Sure, ending at the same salary sounds comparable, but reaching 100k at age 40 is a hell of a lot better than reaching 100k at age 50.

      Job Security Risks. A pilot is subjected to a very high risk that they can lose their career over things which are no fault of their own.

      First, I'm going to exclude 'rockstar' positions. Neurosurgeon, Fighter Pilots, and personal pilots for billionaires are fringe cases.

      A medical doctor may invest $100k in education and start at a $30k/yr job, but that is pretty much guaranteed to lead to a well paying job later on as long as they do their job. As a doctor, if you follow the rules, you aren't likely to lose your license. If your health deteriorates, it will be a while before you can't function as a doctor, and afterward you can teach/consult/etc. If you lose your hand because you were an idiot and reached into a lawnmower, a general practitioner won't be prevented from doing their job.

      Now, lets look at what can happen to a pilot:

      Medical Issues: Vision loss? Well, your job is toast. You can keep using glasses for a while, but it doesn't take much beyond simple deterioration to lose your medical cert. Survive cancer? A coworker had melanoma. He had to go for special (and more frequent) medical evaluations as a result. Even though it was surgically removed. The increased scrutiny was permanent. As far as I know, cancer is one of those things that takes a bit longer than an 8 hour flight to progress from 'I feel fine' to 'Drops dead'. Heart conditions sure, melanoma? really? Speaking of heart conditions, hope you don't ever get one. Or lose a hand, or an eye, or have a seizure, or any limb, or ...

      Old Age: Maybe you love your job, maybe you just need the money. But you are not allowed to work as long as a doctor can work if they choose to do so. So you miss out on many years of that 'high' salary.

      Mistakes: A doctor makes a mistake, well, the results can be pretty varied, but consider a family practictioner. He isn't making emergency decisions, maybe he recommends a less effective statin drug than he could. Maybe he misses something critical like a heart murmer. Well, in a couple years, if it isn't caught between then, a single person may experience heart failure (or not). Surgeons are a special case, but it is very rare that a surgeon screws up and kills himself, the patient, and everyone in the room.

      So a pilot screws up: Well, lets ignore the obvious killing himself and 100-400 other people. We KNOW that's a serious risk. But what happens if the pilot screws up, but ends up fixing the situation anyway? He is at much greater risk of losing his license than a MD is at losing their license. First, it's EASY to identify when pilots make mistakes. Their actions are defined by checklists, routines, and obvious and instantaneous results. MDs? Well, maybe he missed the heart murmer, or maybe it just wasn't there when he checked. Was that statin less effective? Yeah... maybe, well it's hard to tell.

      I'm not trying to list out everything here, but there are some serious drawbacks to being a pilot which can instantly kill your career. And unfortunately, a pilot's career without a license is not worth much.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    92. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      All airliners have a legal requirement to land automatically at least once a month or they lose their certification.

      Hold on a sec... Can you cite your source for that? Southwest Airlines hand-flies all of their approaches, even under instrument conditions (Legal, because they have a HUD). Plus, not all airports have the instrumentation required for automatic landing. ILS cat 3 is pretty uncommon, and Cat 3C isn't in operation anywhere. I could see them having to shoot an automatic instrument approach once a month per aircraft just to make sure the system is working right, but otherwise, I've heard nothing about that specific requirement.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    93. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I might be in the minority here but I think that low airfares are actually part of the problem. Look what it has given us...baggage and other fees, fewer routes, lower salaries for the people that work at the airlines. Airlines, in an attempt to keep fares low and continuing to squeeze every cent they can get. Air travel used to be a pleasurable experience back in the day.

      I can see someone will write a book sometime in future when airlines are really bad, "Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Airfares" modeled after the book "Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion" http://www.amazon.com/Overdressed-Shockingly-High-Cheap-Fashion/dp/1591844614 where it talks about how such low cost obiterated quality clothing, industries, and craftsmanship.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    94. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by czth · · Score: 1

      From this article on pilot salaries posted by another commenter, it appears SouthWest is at or near the top of the pay scale and Wiki calls them "the largest low-cost carrier in the United States". It appears as if lower fares don't translate directly to lower pay, or as the WSJ article put it, "The obvious lesson: A profitable company, whether UPS, FedEx or Southwest, can pay its workers more."

    95. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      +1 I used to be a flight instructor. My students were engineers and IT guys. They had $$$ and I had none. Now I am one of them and the Pointy Haired Bosses are whining like a dog being told to drive someplace with Mitt Romney about the "shortage" so they can h1B the IT world into airline like slave wages :(

    96. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by strikethree · · Score: 1, Insightful

      WTF makes you think consumers demanded it? Sure, consumers always look for the lowest price but they always look for the lowest price on gas and home mortgages and we can see where that went. Nowhere.

      Did airlines lower their prices and see a sudden influx of new customers? Did they raise their prices and see a sudden migration of old customers? Seriously, *I* do not demand that my airline pilot slave for nothing but I see no way of affecting this from my point of view. Stop blaming the customer. It is too easy.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    97. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The gov has been having knee jerk reactions to all manner of issues.

      And well, ya'll should just get used to it, and expect even more federal regulation, requirements and mandates for your business, and even private lives.

      Ya'll just voted in the administration that just LOVES to regulate everything about your lives and livelihoods...

      Does anyone really see this as a surprise?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    98. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      At 5x the price you can fly private, first class is less then 2x the cost. To make the math easy will do an 8 hour flight on a Boeing 747, 4,500 miles that will burn 22,000 gallons of fuel. The price of fuel is somewhere between $3-$5 per gallon depending on the location so just the fuel cost is $110,000. A pilot making 20k a year would get paid roughly $10 / hour a 300% wrap rate would cost $240 for the trip with two pilots it's $480, for a total cost of $110,480 for the pilots and fuel. If the pilots made 100k a year the cost of pilots and fuel would be $112,400 a two percent change in cost, I did not account for maintenance, stewardess, baggage handlers, terminal fees or and other administrative cost. Fuel is by far the number one cost in the airline business labor is a distant second.

      Your math looks good, but I certainly hope that the pilot behind the yoke of a 747 is not really making $20K/year. That's a big bird.

    99. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's been over-adjusted. Granted, this is an extreme case of a bus driver with a lot of seniority and a lot of overtime, but even his base salary is probably more than you would expect for a bus driver.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    100. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there seems to be a pattern here. Low cost reduces quality. I see it all the time in the software consulting business. Companies scramble to find cheap offshore workers and the code you get back is shit. We end up fixing it on our end before it ever goes into production. But management doesn't seem to count that added cost.

    101. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      I wondered, back in the 80s when I was in school, why pilots made 100k a year and bus drivers made 15k a year. Looks like pay for driving a vehicle with 60 passengers has equalized. [flame suit on]

      My cousin was just finishing up commercial flight school when 9/11 happened and the market for pilots dried up. He was a new graduate with around $70k in loans, facing an industry were no jobs were to be found for a new grad. As plan B, he instead joined the military as they promised some help with his loans. Now we fast forward 11 years and hear there is a shortage of qualified pilots? Color me surprised...

    102. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by danwiz · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can import pilots on H1-B Visas like the IT industry?
      (free shipping by the airlines?)

    103. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ya'll just voted in the administration that just LOVES to regulate everything about your lives and livelihoods...

      Partisan idiot. The other guy ran on an anti homosexuality, anti abortion, anti birth-control platform. We elected the guy who has been actively working to reduce government regulation of our lives and bodies.

      Also, this kind of policy is set by the FAA, not the feds. The current FAA administrator is a former pilot and professor.

      http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=58196

    104. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      We elected the guy who has been actively working to reduce government regulation of our lives and bodies.

      Seriously? Wow...you might wanna lay off the Kool Aid.

      Also, this kind of policy is set by the FAA, not the feds.

      Which part of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did you miss the Federal part?

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    105. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong on many levels. No airliner is required to have auto land capability.

      The largest US domestic carrier does not use auto land. I have 20,000 hours commercial airline piloting experience.

    106. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Every pilot I've ever met, GA, military or commercial, to a man (and that's only because I haven't met any women pilots), fucking loves flying, in ways that most people simply don't. Most of them spend the kind of money on it that is usually reserved for things that float or fornicate, even when it's their day job.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    107. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were obviously never a flight instructor for any significant amount of time. A pilot (flight instructor) learns much more sitting in the right seat then just how to teach a person to fly.

      Anyone can "fly" an airplane with very little training, a few hundred hours is plenty. Then comes the hard part: learning how to handle a large aircraft, with all its complex systems, autopilots, flight management systems, etcetera in a busy airspace in bad weather conditions.

      Ask any experienced pilot that "handles a large aircraft" for a living if it was easier to fly a small part 91/135 twin or the big fancy jet.

    108. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's a lot of paperwork - they have to fill out a form for each dollar they fail to sacrifice to upper management.

    109. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't mind, I'll just ask myself since I have about 15 years of experience flying large jets.

      Yes, flying a small part 91/135 twin is actually harder than flying a large jet, although either is "difficult" in different ways. The workload in part 91/135 is certainly higher, but large jets are more complex in different ways. Jet conversion courses exist for a reason. But yes, it certainly is excellent training.

      But that has little to do with the point I was making, that flying *really* small airplanes, like single engine Cessnas on sunday afternoon, in no way qualifies you for airliners. You need certain basic skills, and anything above that doesn't help anymore and may even be counterproductive.

      I was never a flight instructor, and I'm sure you learn a lot of useful CRM skills from being one, but not how to plan a decent properly, how to handle bad weather, how to handle complex system failures, how to program an FMS, etcetera.

    110. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      Most of the airplanes in airline service do not carry anywhere near 250 people, and most of the legs flown are nowhere near 4 hours duration (door close to door open).

      Embraer ERJ-145 carries 50 passengers. There are a LOT of ERJ-145s flying, and they are nowhere near the smallest of the regional jets.

      Boeing 737 carries anywhere from 85 to 215 passengers. It is one of the most popular transport airplanes on Earth.

      For historical perspective: Boeing 707 carried 140 to 189 passengers. As of 2011, there were still 10 airplanes in airline service. (Boeing builds good airplanes.)

      McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 variants seat from 130 to 172 passengers. There are a LOT of these puppies flying, despite being older and more fuel-hungry.

      Also note that there are two pilots in the front office on every flight. (If it is a long over-water flight, there will be more, and they'll rotate in and out of the cockpit, so that the guy (or gal) landing the airplane after 13 hours in the air is not exhausted.)

    111. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10%?! I'd be shocked if the pilot's time is even 0.1% of the cost of the fuel.

    112. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Wow...you might wanna lay off the Kool Aid.

      Yes, seriously. Do you have any coherent objections to GP's point? Republican platform stance on abortion, drugs and same-sex marriage are all gross violations of personal rights and freedoms. Do you think that it's all fine to sacrifice for the sake of laissez-faire economy (which Republicans promise, but never actually deliver on, but let's ignore that for the moment)?

    113. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down, please; the numbers are completely nonsensical.

      First of all, first class is not "less than 2x the cost". Let's choose a random, popular route between two hub airports on a random date a good way in the future (so the flights are nowhere near fully booked) and see, shall we?

      05/15 to 05/22 and up to three days before or after, booked through Orbitz, JFK to LAX, per adult fare
      Lowest prices:
      Economy -- US$317.60
      First Class -- US$1287.21

      That is precisely four times the cost for a random US domestic flight. Check some more and you'll spot a trend. The same is true of international flights; more so, actually. JFK to LHR is $6112.70 in first, or $824.40 in economy on the same random dates, with the same date window. That's 7.4 times as much cost for the same dates.

      As for the assertion that you can "fly private ... at 5x the price", yeah, no. I'm not even going to bother to refute that, it's so nonsensical. You're talking orders of magnitude between the cost of buying a ticket in economy and the cost of flying private, even if you're doing the flying yourself. Pay to wet-lease a business jet and you're likely talking multiple orders of magnitude.

      And then we have fuel cost. You do know jet aircraft don't run on the same thing you put in your car, nor do airlines buy their fuel the same way you would for your private jet, right? They (mostly) run on Jet A or Jet A-1, and they buy in bulk and with tools like hedging to try and control cost fluctuations. For realistic pricing info, look at the IATA Jet Fuel Price Monitor, which is based on info from Platts. As of a couple of weeks ago, IATA reported a price of about US$2.97 per gallon, not up to $5. And if you were talking about the cost of Jet A to individuals, no again; in that case $5 isn't enough. 100LL.com reckons you'd currently pay closer to $6 per gallon, double what the airlines do.

      And then, as the other reply has pointed out, you've completely ignored the cost of the aircraft itself.

      My point is this: don't make unsubstantiatable claims, and don't pretend to tell the story when you're leaving out the majority of it and making up the rest.

    114. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Republican platform stance on abortion, drugs and same-sex marriage are all gross violations of personal rights and freedoms.

      First..I'm not a republican. I lean conservative fiscally, more liberal on most social issues.

      Yeah, the republicans need to get off the abortion thing...hell, I thank God for it being legal....many times over.

      :)

      I've not seen the Dems, on the federal level doing much about drugs at all....certainly the Obama administration has not made a single move to legalize even pot. And I've heard the Feds are saying they're ready to go after those in the states that just passed legalizing pot (WA and CO was it?).....and guess what...the Dems are in charge. Why don't they try to at least get pot off the "schedule of drugs" the Feds have...?

      Same sex marriage.....have you forgotten Obama, especially in the first election...stated quite clearly he supported marriage to be between a man and woman, and did not agree with same sex marriage?

      Personally...I think the govt....fed and state, should get 100% OUT of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious thing....

      Let people that want the married moniker do it through their church.....but everything that binds people for property, etc.....the state/feds can oversee that and all that would be a separate civil union type contract, which any 2 or more people could enter into.

      Fair enough?

      But in this last election, I was forced to the lessor of two evils, and right now, I'm MUCH more concerned about the economy and deficit....and about over- regulation of so many things that will touch everyones lives....than I am of a few social issues that would not get any movement or traction on if Romney had won.....

      I do fear what Obama and clan will do, unhindered by need of being re-elected.

      I think he wants to fundamentally change what the US has stood for....and spending us into oblivion and getting as many folks dependent on the Fed govt. for handouts/entitlements is part of that long term strategy.

      I think he'll try to take us somewhere that we may not be able to come back from....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    115. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have no problem, but apparently the ownership would like that money for themselves and fuck the pilots AND the passengers.

      Then the pilots and passengers can buy their own damn planes and fuck themselves at their leisure. These are businesses, not charities. And as far as transportation safety is concerned, they are pretty damn good.

    116. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      1500 hours is 3/4 of a work year. Its is in no way 'a lot' of flight time. Get back to me when you hit 10k hours. The captain of 1549 that went down in the hudson is approaching 30k if I recall correctly.

      That assumes the pilot is in the air, and I mean in the air the equivalent of a 9 to 5 workday with 2 weeks of vacation a year. What about ground safety checks? What about paperwork preparing for the flight? Boarding, preflights, taxying, etc...? Heck, what about the excessive transit times just to get through airport security?

      It's a bit like saying that 1500 hours of surgery shouldn't be a big deal. 2k hours is a work year. But surgeons have even more non-surgery tasks than the pilots.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    117. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what you are talking about. "Those skills" are totally relevant. Full rudder was how the -Airline- trained them.

      Since you are so fond of quoting accidents (as evidence of your flawed theories):

      What about Colgan 3407 or Air France 447, Clearly "those skills" are more relevant than ever.

    118. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their safety records are only good because they've been forced to engage in practices to help with safety via the good offices of government regulation.

    119. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lease them from holding companies.

      Doesn’t lessen the gp point. The cost of leasing the aircraft will be higher than the cost of mortgage plus depreciation, otherwise the leasing company wouldn’t be in business.

    120. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Although Obama ran on a platform of supporting same sex marriage, he has come out in favor of it since, and he did end the DADT policy in the military. He's made demonstrable progress on that front. He also seems to have somewhat resisted picking a fight with the states over pot. That's movement in the right direction.

      I agree that the government shouldn't be in the Marriage business, however I somewhat disagree with it not being in the civil union business - a civil union has impact on federal tax status, mandating some level of involvement.

      Regarding the economy: Business is doing fine. I've made previous posts about economic indicators. The short version, is that additional business stimulus will do nothing to improve the economy. Business have more than enough funds to hire additional people, however they don't because there simply isn't demand to justify it. Demand for goods drives hiring, not the availability of resources. Hiring someone you don't need is simply Altruism, which isn't something many companies are big on. Again, you can't fix the problem by throwing more tax incentives or more money at business.

      The issue right now is that real income for the middle and lower class has been falling over the past 30 years. The middle class doesn't have the funds to drive hiring.

      We needed a president that would strengthen the middle class, not a president that would continue to push supply side economics and the trickle down theory. The recession ended in 09 for business - we're still waiting for it to end for the employees. The middle and lower classes have only been hurt by trickle down economics.

      Regarding the comment about the FAA: I misspoke. I meant that the policy was set by the FAA, not the POTUS.

    121. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And having to come into contact with those morons in TSA.

    122. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      He is in Australia, something could be said about exchange rates and cost of living...

      This is correct. $390AUD per hour will get you a Cessna 172RG with an instructor. Thats before the 7 theory exams and the rest of the study...

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    123. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another uninformed opinion on Slashdot.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

      Thanks to "TooMuchToDo" for citing this originally.

    124. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I agree that the government shouldn't be in the Marriage business, however I somewhat disagree with it not being in the civil union business - a civil union has impact on federal tax status, mandating some level of involvement.

      I think you misread me...I think the govt should ONLY be in the civil union business...and get out of the Marriage business.

      And, a civil union should be able to be done between any 2 or more people that want to do this.

      The issue right now is that real income for the middle and lower class has been falling over the past 30 years.

      I agree...but them wanting to place taxes on the $200K and above crowd does and CAN hurt the middle class.

      There are people out there, running small businesses, many of the S corps (I have one too)....all the income that comes in through the company falls through at EOY onto your personal taxes...even if you are keeping it IN the company for reinvestment, etc.

      This set up is good for keeping the money from being double taxed, like a regular (usually LARGE) corporation.

      This tax raise Obama wants to do...will specifically hurt small businesses doing this...and there are MANY of them.

      If he wants to exempt people that have this business set up from this tax hike....that would be ok with me since it would help keep businesses from being pounded.

      If he wants to tax the rich..why not go after the REALLY rich...people makein over $1M year? At that level, they aren't deriving income through a small business corporation (described above)...they are starting to be int he wealthy bracket.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    125. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about. "Those skills" are totally relevant. Full rudder was how the -Airline- trained them.

      I learned to react that way on a Cessna, but then during stall recovery exercises in the 737 simulator I did the same thing and was immediately told never to do that in a swept wing jet. That was well before that particular accident. It baffles me that the airline would have trained them that way. Even if the tailplane did not brake off, you do end up with enormous oscillations left and right when you start using the rudder in such a situation. You just bring the nose down a bit and use the ailerons, period.

      And more to the point, more aeroclub training would only have reinforced this incorrect action.

      Since you are so fond of quoting accidents (as evidence of your flawed theories):

      What about Colgan 3407 or Air France 447, Clearly "those skills" are more relevant than ever.

      All the pilots involved had many thousands of hours experience. The Colgan accident is quite mysterious (some speculate that the captain thought he had a tailplane stall instead of a regular stall, which requires a different reaction), but in any case I fail to see how any amount of aeroclub flying would have taught him to react differently in that particular case. You don't do stalls that often anyway, and simulator training at the time focused on losing less than a hundred feet of altitude, negating anything you had learned during initial flight training before.

      In the Air France case, Airbus pilots always used to be taught how an Airbus cannot stall, it used to be one of their main selling points, and no actual stall recovery exercise was even mandatory back then. Just an "impending stall" where you simply added power when you came close to the stall. They never realised they were even in a stall except maybe at the very end when it was too late, otherwise they would have (tried to) bring the nose down. Which, incidentally, is not easy to do. Test pilots recreated the conditions and very nearly crashed themselves, only to recover by cutting one of the engines. Not exactly a manoeuvre you learn in the aeroclub.

      The airplane was also giving them inconsistent signals, sounding a stall warning whenever they did bring the nose down (because the stall warning is inhibited below 60 knots IAS and came back on when they went above that speed), etcetera. The situation in no way felt like the kind of stall you get in a small plane, and they were clueless about what was happening to them. So in this case as well, they probably would have reacted the same way if they had had 1500 hours before joining Air France. I really don't see how that would have made any difference.

    126. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, a typical MD will make about $50-60k/year stipend during their residency, which is a 3-5 year process. After that, they'll jump to $150-500k/year depending on their specialty. They'll also typically graduate with $200-350k in debt.

      I married a Physician Assitant with 4 MDs in her family across a variety of specialties.

    127. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      One of the crashes they focused on was Colgate Air 3407 crash in Buffalo, NY

      Well, what do you expect when you put a toothpaste company in charge of a safety-critical service?

    128. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (who pay pilots $18-22K/year to fly)

      Here lies the problem. There was a time when pilots made really good money. Who wants to spend the time and money it takes to be a pilot for 22K?

      This is the problem with a lot of the crying from businesses. "I can't find good help!"

      Pay a person a decent wage and you might find some help. Or Mr. CEO fly the damn planes yourself your making all the money.

    129. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The highly experienced pilots aren't leaving in droves, at least that's not what I've heard. They're actually making good money, though they're all close to retirement. The problem isn't people leaving, it's a lack of people going into the profession, and enough of them partway through so there's a large enough pool of experienced pilots to do the work.

      This pilot shortage flap sounds just like the claims of an "engineer shortage" that comes around every so often, and also of a "nursing shortage". Companies complain there aren't enough of some highly skilled worker, but they absolutely refuse to raise salaries, even though Economics 101 dictates that when there's a high demand of something that's in short supply, prices must go up.

    130. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i do agree what u saying they should raise the pay as well.
      High school diploma

    131. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by Shadowkahn · · Score: 1

      I'll point out that deregulation was not the choice of much of the flying public. Deregulation happened when a large number of us were playing with airplanes from Matchbox. Speaking personally, I wasn't even at that stage - I was three when the President signed it into law. We didn't get a voice in that decision. While you're right that deregulation is the culprit for the mess we find ourselves in now, the blame goes to Congress for drafting it and President Carter for signing it, and subsequent Congresses for failing to repeal it even after AA's former CEO has said publicly that it was a mistake.

      As for paying the lowest possible fare - well, from a consumer standpoint, airlines are parity products. I'm not going to get noticeably more legroom or a smoother ride or a better guarantee that my suitcase will arrive undamaged in the same airport I arrive at by paying more for a coach seat on the more expensive airline, so I might as well fly as cheap as I can.

      The idea that we are unwilling to pay more for better service is untested, as really, "better service" is vaporware in the commercial aviation industry.

    132. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by PintoPiman · · Score: 1

      You're a partisan hack. The change came before the election and probably would have come regardless of who was in charge. The FAR/AIM was a pretty fucking long document back when Bush II was in charge, and it was pretty long when Bush I was in charge and it was pretty long when Reagan was in charge...

    133. Re:Why did they change the requirements? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So say it is your nearly lowest number of 50 passengers. That's still only a $5 difference. Point still stands.

      Most of the recent flights I've been on have been on planes that seated a bit over 200.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. what about adding a apprenticeship system into by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    what about adding a apprenticeship system into prior flight experience??

    1. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      This is already done. You earn your 1500 hours (previously 800) needed to become a regional pilot by acting as flight instructor to new pilots.

    2. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apprenticeship system?

      Like having a younger pilot (let's call them a 'co-pilot' or 'first officer') fly right alongside a more experienced pilot (let's call that person the 'captain')?

      You are brilliant. Can I have your baby?

    3. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      You can get your hours doing anything in a plane.
      It doesn't have to be instructing. Crop dusting and towing banners counts, as long as your log book gets filled out.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 3, Informative

      Instructing is not an apprenticeship. First Officer is an apprenticeship, a program which of course already exists.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    5. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get your hours doing anything in a plane.

      I'm here to verify this. New a former stewardess getting ready to fly her first airliner and she earned most of her hours just serving dull witted customers and occasionally helping someone join the Mile High Club.

    6. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check his posting history, he's obsessed with apprenticeships.

      Don't feed the trolls.

    7. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      That's a brilliant idea, really, isn't it? Get people with zero airline experience to train your future airline pilots. It's like the blind leading the blind.

      (I am an airline pilot)

    8. Re:what about adding a apprenticeship system into by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Those are hours, true, but they're not in-type hours. Employers may have requirements that you have X hours in the type of aircraft that they'll be flying (on top of the requirement for Y hours PIC, which can be in any aircraft), or at least in a similar aircraft. A crop duster is not like a 757.

  3. Simple solution by PPH · · Score: 1

    Air travel prices go up, demand goes down until they match. The riff-raff will have to travel Greyhound.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Simple solution by lucm · · Score: 2

      Air travel prices go up, demand goes down until they match. The riff-raff will have to travel Greyhound.

      This plan is already in motion, that's why the TSA has started to search "the bus people".

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Simple solution by c0lo · · Score: 2
      Even simpler: deep freeze and tightly packed container transport.

      (grin)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Simple solution by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wish the TSA would go ahead with the plan to place an agent in every home. Got up last night to fetch a glass of water, and having an agent waiting in the hallway to grab my balls could have provided much needed warmth and a feeling of security against the threat of copyright infringing terrorists.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    4. Re:Simple solution by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Yea, TSA is already coming to the public transit near you:

      http://houstonfreethinkers.com/all-news/79-local-news/2551-sheila-jackson-lee-partners-with-dhs-brings-tsa-to-houston-metro

      *And yes, I made sure to voice my distaste at the meeting.

    5. Re:Simple solution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How simple minded.
      "You're not paying enough"
      Or
      "it has no respect"
      or
      "it's freaking boring"
      or
      "People just don't want to do it"
      or
      "It's expensive and time consuming to get into"
      or
      "Too much time away"
      or
      "You are treated poorly"
      or any combination of those.
      There are many reasons, and contrary to what some people in the media have been spoon feeding you that money is the only thing that motivates anything.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Simple solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      "it has no respect"

      Someone who loves flying won't care that much about this.

      "it's freaking boring"
      "People just don't want to do it"

      This isn't cleaning toilets we're talking about. There's no shortage of people who absolutely love to fly.

      The real reasons for any "shortage" of pilots is these:
      "You're not paying enough"
      "It's expensive and time consuming to get into"

      and maybe
      "Too much time away"
      but really the first two.

      But really, there's no shortage at all, otherwise pay would be much higher. The truth is, there's no shortage of people willing to rack up loans to try this career path, because they haven't yet found out just how horrible a career path it really is. Aviation schools will not tell you the real story, which you're all reading here in these comments from people in the industry; they hype it up and talk about a "coming pilot shortage", which is a total lie. And by the time kids figure out the truth, they figure they're too invested now to make a change.

  4. Hyperoptimistically, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would expect this to usher in an era of complete flight automation, right from taxi-ing, to taking off, to flying, and to landing. That would be so cool :D

    1. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2

      I would expect this to usher in an era of complete flight automation, right from taxi-ing, to taking off, to flying, and to landing. That would be so cool :D

      Unlikely to happen for the same reason we don't have robots dispensing pills instead of pharmacists. If a human makes an error you can blame them and end their career and cut ties.

      If an automated system makes an error then you blame the company(s) that engineered, wrote, tested and built the automation system. Too much blame pointing back that can't be easily put off on a scape goat.

    2. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by mattr · · Score: 1

      No thanks! A robot does not feel their life is on the line.

    3. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...And will therefore not panic when something goes wrong.

      Commercial drone aircraft are coming, the only questions are timing and regulatory regimes.
      In this size class (as opposed to tiny surveillance drones) expect them to be proven out in unmanned cargo flights first. By the time they're used for passenger flights, they'll have tens or hundreds of thousands of hours logged on similar platforms.

    4. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's exactly what I said
      Now you got to be initiated with a drone kill
      it ain't about flight hours, it's about points.
      the more innocent people eliminated, the more points, can push world war three forward

    5. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unlikely to happen for the same reason we don't have robots dispensing pills instead of pharmacists."

      Perhaps true in Buttfuck, Idaho where you live, we've had such robots for years.

    6. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely to happen for the same reason we don't have robots dispensing pills instead of pharmacists. If a human makes an error you can blame them and end their career and cut ties.

      Apparently you've never been in a modern pharmacy. Robots do sort and dispense pills into containers. A pharmacist does a lot more than just double check prescriptions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C44zgA6edsA

    7. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      No thanks! A robot does not feel their life is on the line.

      ...And will therefore not panic when something goes wrong.

      ...And will also fail to react correctly to stimuli it is either unequipped to sense (strange vibration indicating a problem, landing gear lock didn't 'sound' right, indicating another possible problem, strange smell, etc etc) or not programmed ahead of time to handle correctly. Sensors and actuators fail. Software glitches.

      It also has no intuition or learned experience. It cannot make a leap of logic and intuition and perform actions "outside the envelope" to save a desperate and logically hopeless situation. If you want to know what I mean, go read up on some of the stories about how many WW2 pilots managed to bring their aircraft home after severe damage when they should not have logically been able to stay in the air. Many private, charter, and airline pilots can tell you about similar seemingly-doomed mid-air situations, especially in places like Alaska, where it was an experienced and intuitive move counter to normal logic on the human pilot's part that saved the day.

      If some military drone goes down, oh well, just another item on the next supply req form. When it's a plane full of passengers, people get all excited for some reason.

      You'd really need something close to a true human-level AI, IMHO. We ain't there yet.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Drones do exist that can take off, fly some given route, come back, and land. If the weather is fine. With systems no more complicated than simple flight controls, an engine, and whatever surveillance equipment they're carrying. Even with those extremely modest requirements, a pretty high number of them still crash due to some malfunction or other.

      If you ever have a chance to witness a flight simulator session, by all means do. As soon as systems start failing (which they do in real life, from time to time), both pilots are extremely busy and we would often wish for a third pilot to help out. Airplane manufacturers are not even considering moving to a single pilot, let alone no pilots. Maybe in a hundred years or so, but certainly not in the near future.

      Remember Qantas flight 32, with an engine that exploded and cut a number of fuel lines and electrical systems? They actually had five pilots in the cockpit instead of the normal minimum of two (observation, check pilots,...) and still took hours before they could get all the checklists done to land the plane safely.

      Whenever systems start failing in a serious way, automation starts giving up as well. Big failure in the electrical or hydraulic system? Say bye-bye to the autopilot too. Trust me, you still need us.

    9. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They actually had five pilots in the cockpit instead of the normal minimum of two (observation, check pilots,...) and still took hours before they could get all the checklists done to land the plane safely.

      I think the question is - isn't it possible to do this remotely? It's not like humans can do significant repairs anyway, is it? At least, provided that reliable connection is available, a whole team could participate in solving the problem, not just a few people in the cockpit. Think of spaceflight mission control centers.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      And then the data link breaks or gets jammed (or even hacked?) by a terrorist. Especially when electrical systems start failing, the connection will be lost. Human pilots have their actual, physical hands on the controls. Even on fly by wire airplanes, there are still some things that work even if all electricity fails.

    11. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      As soon as systems start failing (which they do in real life, from time to time), both pilots are extremely busy and we would often wish for a third pilot to help out

      I seem to remember a case in the southern US, where something went wrong and both pilots were so intent on finding out what was wrong, they essentially forgot to keep flying the plane and crashed.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    12. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      The ones where the plane went down because the pilot wasn't able to handle a situation that a computer would have been able to by adjusting trim and flight parameters don't make such good stories.

    13. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And then the data link breaks or gets jammed (or even hacked?) by a terrorist. Especially when electrical systems start failing, the connection will be lost.

      I believe that this is where the experience from the military and space research could come in handy. You know, reliability and fault tolerance? And given proper communication channels, I can't honestly imagine the terrorists having the resources necessary to hack into the system. You know, satellites, directional antennas, encryption... If it's good for military vehicles, who's to say that some of the future iterations on the topic (extra comm channels, AI for handling the failure) won't be reliable enough for commercial applications?

      Human pilots have their actual, physical hands on the controls.

      Both humans and machines can fail. They just have different modes of failure. Machine-driven cars, for example, seem to be less lethal already, if I'm not mistaken.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by czth · · Score: 1

      How frequently are these "leaps of logic" needed rather than calmly following a checklist?

      Yes, they do use checklists, and checklists save lives. Surgeon Atul Gawande wrote The Checklist Manifesto (apparently back when "manifestos" were cool, but it's a good book despite that), and studied checklists used in commercial aircraft and implemented some checklist procedures at his own hospital department that measurably saved lives, reduced post-op infection, etc. ("Make sure you're removing the right leg": obvious but still possible to get wrong.)

      So some numbers about cases where (1) machines could not detect a problem, and (2) "leaps of logic" were necessary would be nice. I have a hunch that lives saved by "leaps of logic and intuition" are dwarfed by those saved by calmly and mechanically following checklists, but I don't know for certain.

    15. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by vyvepe · · Score: 1

      And then the data link breaks or gets jammed (or even hacked?) by a terrorist. Especially when electrical systems start failing, the connection will be lost.

      Then open big parachutes and let the plane land with them (wherever it is currently located). Then send rescue to pick up passengers ... or whatever is left from them :)

    16. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Like the ACs said.....you are a bit late to the party as many ARE indeed filled by robot. Most all mail-order prescriptions and most filled for facilities(nursing home(LOTS!), hospital,etc) certainly are. Indeed i would bet the majority are filled by robot now.

      Pharmaceutical company i deal with just installed a $500k machine to fill those little pill punchcards for facilities...It does 1000-something scripts a day. Would you really trust your human counting out script number 963 for the day on Friday?

    17. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      As for the reliablity of the military, when I see that in most recent wars the coalition forces lost more planes due to malfunctions than due to enemy action, I'm not very optimistic.

      As for the different failure modes of people versus machines: if Google's car detects a serious system fault, it simply stops the car. You can't just stop an airplane. It has to be guided to a runway no matter what, or everyone on board dies. Machines are very good at one thing: doing a repetitive task very accurately. They can fly an instrument approach much more accurately than a human can. But they have no common sense and even the latest and greatest technology in modern airplanes (especially the latest and greatest) will often just fail completely when something unexpected happens.

    18. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      You jest, but some recent small jet designs do indeed have a parachute for the entire airplane. They were designed to be flown by rich people with little flying experience, and if they ever get into a situation they can't get out of, they push a button and the plane shuts down the engines and opens a big parachute.

      But you'd need one hell of a big parachute for an airliner...

    19. Re:Hyperoptimistically, by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Machine-driven cars, for example, seem to be less lethal already,

      This is because human drivers are mostly morons and are completely untrained for the most part, at least here in the USA. It's a totally different situation from pilots, who have tons of training, and have specifically been trained to deal with emergencies and mechanical failures. Car drivers are not, they're really not trained at all in any way, they're just given keys, and quick lecture on the rules of the road, and allowed to pilot a 6000 lb vehicle at high speed in busy traffic among millions of other such vehicles and drivers.

  5. 2025? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't most planes be pilotless by 2025?

    1. Re:2025? by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Precisely when I'll begin wailing hysterically about cyber-security for the first time ever. I already have a phobia of large aircraft, despite them being statistically far-safer than smaller planes. I kind of prefer a human backup. However, I am now confusing myself with questions as to who should have over-ride privileges, man or machine. I suppose some are already (and have been) capable of being over-ridden by remote systems.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    2. Re:2025? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      However, I am now confusing myself with questions as to who should have over-ride privileges, man or machine. I suppose some are already (and have been) capable of being over-ridden by remote systems.

      Jury's still out on that. Airbus favours machine/computer over man, Boeing believes humans have the final say after providing pilots with necessary info. Both approaches have led to crashes and loss of life.

  6. If only there was something they could do by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This raises the cost and time to train new fliers in an era when pay cuts and more-demanding schedules already have made the profession less attractive.

    Golly....if only there was something the airlines could do to make being a pilot more attractive.

    1. Re:If only there was something they could do by lucm · · Score: 1

      This raises the cost and time to train new fliers in an era when pay cuts and more-demanding schedules already have made the profession less attractive.

      Golly....if only there was something the airlines could do to make being a pilot more attractive.

      Creative suggestion: give them a share of the iPads stolen from honest people by TSA agents (aka: the terrorist tax).

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:If only there was something they could do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Golly....if only there was something the airlines could do to make being a pilot more attractive.

      Maybe they could hire ugly pilots, then pay for plastic surgery to make each pilot acute pilot.

      Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week! Try the cheesy bytes!

    3. Re:If only there was something they could do by WCVanHorne · · Score: 1

      Well from my travels I'd say that most airlines have already been suffering from acute flight attendant shortage for years... I'm here all week too!

    4. Re:If only there was something they could do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey hey now, pilots are just little people, look at how much debt they have.

  7. Nice looking pilots wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're tired of all of these ugly ones.

  8. ups and down in the industry by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    Well, this is certainly an up in the industry. Just 3 years ago, most pilots were complaining that the economy as well as the reluctance of travelers to deal with the security measures were driving travel to an all time low. I guess if we were serious, we could drop the mandatory retirement age temporarily (and replace it with a more comprehensive physical and mental exam which allows able pilots to continue flying) until more pilots become trained.
    Or we could have different categories of pilots, full commercial pilots having the full 1,500 hrs of training, and categories for pilots having less training and experience flying small planes with fewer passengers, and ones having say 300 hrs for flying only cargo and staff.

    1. Re:ups and down in the industry by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      All of this already exists. Type rated Captains, First Officers, ATPLs, CPLs

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:ups and down in the industry by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They don't need more pilots. Pilots have extremely low salaries, in relation to how much it costs to get the required training. Low salaries = low demand. If there were really a shortage, salaries would be through the roof.

  9. Supply and demand by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    This raises the cost and time to train new fliers in an era when pay cuts and more-demanding schedules already have made the profession less attractive.

    Well, duh! Cut pay, make schedules more demanding, and whine about a pilot shortage!

    1. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget being an industry where companies routinely go through a "tactical bankruptcy" to get rid of all those pesky pension obligations and such. Can't wait to start a career there!

  10. price sensitive consumers?? by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers"

    I think consumers are sensitive to more than just price. The humiliating experience that flying has become in the USA could contribute.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by stox · · Score: 2

      I have to admit, flying has become very cheap compared to what it used to. Even in unadjusted dollars, flying between Chicago and New York is cheaper than it was 50 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, that route is less than 20% of what it once cost. I really can't blame the airlines, they're giving us what we wanted most.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

      I've taken Amtrak or my car for every trip since they began treating passengers like jail inmates.

    3. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how the summary acts like cutting supply like a normal capitalist system isn't mentioned since that suggests that companies actually can go out of business through no fault of their own.

    4. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, if the deal includes being groped and generally treated like a terror suspect, then crammed into a cattle car it HAS to be really cheap to be even remotely attractive.

    5. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The savings are a myth caused by unconstatutional fiat currency.

      (roman_mir, can't post due to government interference)

    6. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0

      the airlines didn't give us that, George W. Bush did.

    7. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      No , utterly incompetent - bordering on non-existent - security checking in sept 2001 gave us that..

    8. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Consistently full flights would indicate otherwise. I know it's Slashdot's collective wet dream that the airlines fail because they're flying empty due to mass consumer protest - but it just ain't happening. Flying remains the most convenient way to travel any significant distance, and people appear inclined to put up with the inconveniences.

      On the other hand, the existence of sites like Kayak and others offering a convenient way of finding the cheapest flights, and the popularity of airline miles as credit card rewards point to TFA being correct. Such behavior would also be consistent with the general behavior of the American consumer, which judges things primarily on price.

    9. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "roman_mir, can't post due to government interference"

      Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day. What's the matter, some G-man take away your tinfoil hat? Or have you finally been arrested for being terminally stupid?

    10. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't the lack of security checking that gave us 9/11, lack of cockpit security maybe, but people with intent to stand up and misbehave during a flight are just as capable of doing that today as they ever were.

    11. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a troll posing as roman_mir. He's not that crazy.

    12. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      They brought the weapons on board with them. Its unlikely the hijackings would have succeeded if they'd been armed with some plastic knives from the food trays.

    13. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The airlines did give us the cattle car treatment. As for the TSA, the airlines didn't create it but it is nevertheless part of the deal and it is a factor in people's decision making. If the airlines were smart, THEY would be protesting the groping and nudie scanners themselves due to the damage it does to their bottom line.

    14. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The OP said the airlines are giving us what we wanted most, which is cheap flights. The airlines are not giving us gropings and treating us like terror suspects. That's the Federal Government doing that. The airlines have no part in that, and surely would prefer something else. Treating customers that way isn't good for business. Cramming in cattle cars, sure, they do that because it lowers costs, and we go along with it for the same reason. Many airlines even offer an option, called "business class" or "first class" where you get nice big comfortable seats, but the cost is so much higher that very few of us choose that option. But don't blame the airlines for gropings, only the government (and Obama) deserves blame for that.

    15. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And what are they going to do about it, shut down in protest? Then their competitors will get more business while the protesting airlines go out of business.

      This is what happens with government regulation, and a perfect illustration of how it levels the playing field in a market economy. If companies won't do the right thing, the government can step in, institute regulation, and force the right thing to be done even though it's bad for short-term profits. But it's a double-edged sword: if the government steps in and institutes bad regulation, everyone is forced to suffer with it. The fault is with the voters, for electing a bad government.

    16. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      TSA is already starting to get involved in rail transport, and also highway transport.

    17. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's two kinds of travelers: business travelers, and non-business travelers (usually people traveling to meet family, or for tourism). On top of this, we (Americans) live in a country that is geographically very large, and where a lot of economic activity takes place in cities on two opposite coasts. In short, we frequently need to travel between destinations that are over 1000 miles apart.

      With business travelers, time is money; if you're a professional and your business wants to send you to a customer site to deal with an urgent problem, they are NOT going to put up with you wanting to take 3 days to drive there because you don't like the TSA. They'll find a new employee; either put up with gropings or get a new job.

      With non-business travelers, many of us don't have a lot of vacation per year; many jobs only give you a pathetic 2 weeks/year. If you take a week of that to have a vacation, you're not going to want to spend over half that time driving.

      So, flying is by default the only option, due to a lack of time.

    18. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's still part of the deal even if the airlines wish it wasn't. Because it will happen, it affects the potential customer's assessment of the desirability of that option negatively. To compensate, the airlines must offer something that will be seen as favorable, such as cheaper flights.

    19. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The airlines are free to gather the facts together and air television ads urging the public to demand an end to the TSA.

      They CAN get together and declare a 'no-fly' day if they want. They could even stage a protest and serve refreshments.

    20. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting a bunch of different corporations to agree to that. Any that did would probably face a shareholder lawsuit.

    21. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      With non-business travelers, many of us don't have a lot of vacation per year; many jobs only give you a pathetic 2 weeks/year. If you take a week of that to have a vacation, you're not going to want to spend over half that time driving.

      So, flying is by default the only option, due to a lack of time.

      That depends on how far you're traveling... Unless you live someplace remote, or just *have* to go to Disneyland... there's generally things to do within a few hours drive. And those places were doing a thriving business before 9/11 and (modulo the downturn) are doing roughly the same business today.

      We fly on vacation only about every fourth year, since there's lots of interesting places to stay within just a few hours drive. In fact, that's pretty much true of my entire extended family and has been stretching back into the 1970's. We just rarely fly. But of those I know who *do* fly (a pretty good number), pretty much none of them complain at the volume level that Slashdot does, and the subject of the TSA pretty much never comes up. The complaints are about the same ol', same ol' that airline passengers have been complaining about for decades.

      So, once again, you're confusing the Slashdot echo chamber with how Joe Sixpack thinks.

    22. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, if they can't get together on that, they'll just have to race to the bottom until they flame out. The shareholders will be so proud!

      Not my problem, I refuse to be treated alternatly as a terrorist and then livestock so I gave up flying.

    23. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      pretty much none of them complain at the volume level that Slashdot does

      That's probably because they don't fly very often: they don't have jobs that require them to travel, and they, like you, don't travel for vacation or family. You mention extended family: many professional people don't live near their extended family, they live across the continent from them, because their careers took them far away from their families. For those people who do visit their families once a year or more, having "interesting places to stay within just a few hours drive" doesn't help them much when their families are 2500 miles away.

      So, once again, you're confusing the Slashdot echo chamber with how Joe Sixpack thinks.

      When did I ever say anything about Joe Sixpack? I'm on Slashdot, so I'm looking at things from the viewpoint of professionals, not blue-collar workers who never leave the state or town they were born in. Obviously, people who never travel aren't going to complain much about TSA, at least not until they're forced to go through security lines every time they try driving outside their city.

    24. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm on Slashdot, so I'm looking at things from the viewpoint of professional

      My apologies, I thought you actually read and comprehended what I wrote and were replying to that. I see now that you're merely an extraordinarily clueless elitist asshole with the intelligence of a rotting cabbage.

    25. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The shareholders will be so proud!

      Shareholders only care about short-term profits, so it's really irrelevant. It's not like they can win a lawsuit against the executives for not colluding with their competitors to restrict service.

      I refuse to be treated alternatly as a terrorist and then livestock so I gave up flying.

      Good for you. Very few people can do that. Of course, along with giving up flying, you've also given up on things like vacations to Hawaii or Europe (unless you have a lot of spare time for a transatlantic cruise perhaps), so have fun being stuck in the United Police States of America.

    26. Re:price sensitive consumers?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I could always drive to Mexico, then travel to Europe.

  11. How about you pay them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Starting pilots have been woefully paid and live in miserable conditions. The average pay for a regional starts around 20k a year. To get the 1500 hours to get that crappy pay you have to pay to rent 1500 hours worth of airplane time. Oh you might get a discount by instructing for a while but that just turns it into a ponzi scheme.

    The market will sort this out over time. Everyone needs pilots so the cost of tickets will have to rise. Some people won't be able to afford to fly. Fewer pilots will be required. That's the impact they should have expected when they passed this new reg.

    1. Re:How about you pay them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The pilot is cheap when compared to the cost to keep tons of metal in the air.

      A 747 burns 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer)*
      That fuel costs 434.0 cents/galon (115 cents/liter)**
      For a 1,000 km trip that's US$1,380,000.00 in fuel alone (500 miles: US$1,085,000.00). You also have to account for maintenance, fees, etc.

      *: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm (they say a plane is efficient compared to a car but forget that cars and planes don't use the same fuel so it's bullshit, but I'm hoping their numbers are right...)
      **: first result from http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Energy-Prices-Supplies-and-Weather-Data/Kerosene/Average-Kerosene-Prices.aspx

    2. Re:How about you pay them? by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 1

      The market will sort this out over time.

      Yes, it's been doing a lovely job of that lately. If I had to guess, the new rules are increasing the skill requirements, and thus decreasing the current supply. So ... wages should go up, theoretically.

      They have to, in fact - if airlines want to hire pilots, anyways.

      --
      - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    3. Re:How about you pay them? by mrjb · · Score: 1

      In other words, teflon-coat a 747 for reduced drag, make more money.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    4. Re:How about you pay them? by macshit · · Score: 2

      they say a plane is efficient compared to a car but forget that cars and planes don't use the same fuel so it's bullshit, but I'm hoping their numbers are right

      The numbers you give for the 747 don't look unreasonable to me, but it seems worth noting that jet airplane efficiency is downright awful compared to other mass-transit. While jet planes are the only practical solution in many cases (overseas, extremely long haul), they're overused in the U.S., where poorly developed regional transit leads to an over-reliance on inefficient (in terms of fuel usage, landling slots, etc) regional jets. It would be a good idea to better develop regional and medium-distance rail, and concentrate on using air-travel for cases where it works better (many countries have already done this of course).

      5 gallons of jet fuel per mile is around 450MJ/km; if we assume a 747 holds 450 seats, that's about 1MJ/seat-km. A bit of googling suggests that this is roughly accurate, but probably based on cruising efficiency only; takeoff/landing is much less efficient, and regional jets are signficantly less efficient than large ones.

      Modern HSR (and modern non-HSR electric rail) uses around 0.15MJ/seat-km or better....

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    5. Re:How about you pay them? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Good idea until you factor in the weight of the teflon and realise that frictional drag is only a small portion of total drag...

      My money would be on more fuel consumption, not less. Otherwise they would have done this already.

      But I'm sure you knew that and were just pulling our leg.

    6. Re:How about you pay them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to put in cents and get out dollars then you should move your decimal over a couple of places somewhere along the way.

    7. Re:How about you pay them? by lurker1997 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I'm not sure how the AC got modded. You would think that seeing a 747 cost $1,000,000 per 1000 km to fly would have raised a flag for someone.

    8. Re:How about you pay them? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've long suspected that the reason airlines are in such trouble is, frankly, that it is actually too expensive to haul people around that way.

      Yes, the TSA isn't helping, but the simply fact is, people often drive long distances simply because it's cheaper.

      Air travel is really something that should be almost the last resort, based on cost, but because we've completely fucked up rail in the US, it become the first choice.

      The fun thing about rail is that space stops being so important. Sure, adding space per passenger eventually means another car, which means more weight, so more cost, but that cost goes up much more slowly than a plane. (Cargo rail regularly hauls around half-empty _giant metal boxes_ without the slightest concern.) And airplanes, of course, cannot have passenger space added on the fly.

      Trains do not care about luggage weight. Trains have almost no incentive to remove another three inches of space so they can add another row of seats. Trains are much cheaper to operate, even including tracks and whatnot. (And if you include track cost you really have to include airport cost.)

      Trains are, in theory, slower, but that theory becomes somewhat dubious when you have to wait at the airport for two hours before your flight, which is then delayed another two hours because of some mechanical issue, and then delayed landing another hour because of a thunderstorm. As opposed to just walking onto a train.(1)

      Trains are, frankly, more appropriate than planes for almost every circumstances that we use planes for. Obviously, we need planes for overseas trips, and they might even make sense on trips over about 1200 miles, as that would require sleeping on a train. (OTOH, plenty of people would rather take a nice comfortable 20 hour train ride than a 2 hour airport + 8 hour cramped plane ride. Bring back compartment cars!)

      1) Yes, I know some idiots have started screening train passengers, which is so actually stupid I'm astonished those people have not been lynched. You cannot drive trains into buildings, and if you want to crash a train you do not stupidly bring a bomb onto a train, you put a bomb on the _tracks_.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:How about you pay them? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Trains are, in theory, slower, but that theory becomes somewhat dubious when you have to wait at the airport for two hours before your flight

      The TSA is already working on inserting themselves into passenger rail operations, so pretty soon you're going to have to wait 2 hours at the Amtrak station before your train ride as well.

    10. Re:How about you pay them? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The TSA needs be beaten with a baseball bat. With rail, the TSA can't even use the _imaginary_ reasons that they have for air travel.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  12. Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by zippo01 · · Score: 0

    Why do you need more training when you have planes that almost fly themselves? http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/81570/

    1. Re:Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupidity.

      Flying is extremly safe comparitively speaking. We should be doing more to cut the costs. Eliminate the TSA (even if it isn't in the ticket price we are all paying for it), reduce the hours required to get a pilots license, etc.

      Then if you want to do something with the money saved put it elsewhere. Like into curing diseases or something that'll actually give you a return on your investment!

    2. Re:Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The senior pilots get the planes that fly themselves.

      The junior pilots get the 737s and worse.

      --
    3. Re:Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by BovineOne · · Score: 1

      Although commercial planes do fly on autopilot for most of the flight once they are in cruise, you still need the pilots that are fully capable of controlling the plane and landing it when the autopilot suddenly drops offline because the pitot tubes freeze, wings ice over, a gyro fails, or an engine catches on fire. The routine flights can indeed be handled by most any low-time pilot, but the unusual circumstances are where you need pilots with sufficient experience.

      --
      Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/
    4. Re: Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh here we go. It's amazing how ill-informed so many of these posts are. Why is it that * everybody * is an aviation expert?

      Modern planes "fly themselves" about as much as an operating room performs brain surgery "by itself."

      Patrick Smith
      www.askthepilot.com

    5. Re: Don't modern plans almost fly themselves? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You're a pilot AND brain surgeon too? Remarkable.

      FWIW I'm not a comedian.

      --
  13. Fuel prices? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers

    Really? Actually, jet fuel prices have leveled off in the last six months.

    Not all the airlines are doing badly. Southwest--a low-fare carrier--is doing just fine. Maybe there are other problems at the "traditional" airlines.

  14. huge mistake by lucm · · Score: 1

    > [..] John Marshall, an independent aviation-safety consultant who spent 26 years in the Air Force before overseeing Delta's safety.

    If instead they had hired someone who spent 26 years in the Delta Force before overseeing Air safety maybe I would not have to step in bare socks on a mat covered with foot sweat while holding my pants at the security checks in airports since all terrorists would have been Chuck Norrised.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  15. Look to the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The military will train you to be a pilot. You're required to serve with them for a period of time though. What if the airlines just did the same thing? Get them their hours, but the pilot trainee agrees to work under pre-negotiated salary and benefit package for a period of time after training. After that they become "free agents". If that's legal under the labor laws, the only thing holding the airlines back from doing it is their own misgivings. What are they afraid of? Going bankrupt? Yeah, like, that never happens... to. an. airline. Get over it. Just start a training program, and if you can legally bind the pilot to a contract that contract is an asset in bankruptcy? Not sure. Once again. Labor law. Not sure how it works, but they bind baseball players to contracts, so I don't see why they can't do it with pilots. Once again, it's a fair deal--the pilot gets to fly, and then agrees to fly with the carrier that trains him/her. Just don't exploit them with these $20k pay packages and ungodly hours. I don't want my pilot worrying about losing his house. The only thing hard about the training should be... the training. Everything else should be easy. Good dorms, good meals, good pay. I want my pilot worrying about just one thing: the fucking plane.

    1. Re:Look to the military by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. Don't know enough about labor law to know if your idea is currently legal, but with legislation it could quite likely be implemented. I concur, the only thing I want my pilot to be concerned with is safe completion of the flight.

    2. Re:Look to the military by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The problem is under current labor law this kind of contract would not be enforced in a lot of state. It's not a bad idea, you just need a federal statute allowing that kind of arrangement, and some kind of oversight system to prevent the airlines from abusing it.

    3. Re:Look to the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese airlines already do this, new pilots are on 99 year contracts. They, or another company, can buy out the contract if they want out. It's a horrible system which demeans people and is destroying the industry around the world.

    4. Re:Look to the military by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK lawyers and accountants have a similar set up. You leave college, sign a contract to be trained and get your qualifications paid for by the firm, then at the end it's up to you either to stay or go.

      It's only two generations ago that the professions worked on the basis of you (or rather your parents) paying the partners for the privelege of joining the firm and getting trained. You do at least get a reasonable salary nowadays.

      In case you're wondering why the firms bother, they do get a lot of chargeable hours out of you while you're learning/studying too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Look to the military by lurker1997 · · Score: 1

      The problem is the unions. I don't think that needs any explanation.

    6. Re:Look to the military by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's illegal. You can't force someone to work for you; that's called "indentured servitude". It's one step above slavery. That sort of thing has been illegal for over a century.

  16. High Speed Rail! by ThePackager · · Score: 1

    Let's invest in a US transportation infrastructure that * Uses less fuel ( air travel has become more efficient - but so could rail if we made lighter trains * Get's you closer to your destination with less traffic - train stations are usually downtown - airports aren't * No 'pilot problem' * No air traffic controller mayhem * Lots more room to move around on board * Makes lots of JOBS!

    --
    Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
    1. Re:High Speed Rail! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Is there a chance the track could bend?

    2. Re:High Speed Rail! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Not a chance my Hindu friend!

    3. Re:High Speed Rail! by khallow · · Score: 1
      What's the business case for high speed rail? Airplanes are faster for long distances, cars more convenient and faster for short. So you have this iffy middle case with mediocre ridership numbers.

      Makes lots of JOBS!

      Just give them spoons.

    4. Re:High Speed Rail! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      There are no spoons!

    5. Re:High Speed Rail! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I've travelled several times on the high-speed (320km/h or so) trains in China. Every train I took was at least 90% full (i.e. seats used, standing isn't permitted).

      They've built some *really* nice infrastructure, and are clearly planning on adding many extra lines (stations have many more platforms than are necessary for the current service).

      The service is not much different to Europe -- stations in good locations, good public transport connections, restaurant carriage, etc. The differences are
      - The Chinese have lots of security theatre (metal detectors and must show ID to buy and use a ticket)
      - Their trains are wider, and the seats are slightly larger
      - The prices (to me) are really cheap, although I think they're pretty expensive for most Chinese people
      - The daft restrictions make it less convenient to buy a ticket, especially if you're a foreigner, and mean you have to arrive at the station sooner to go through security checks.
      - Their "limitless concrete plain" style of architecture means you have to plan for a 5-minute walk from the train to get out of the station, but that's the same as their airports.

    6. Re:High Speed Rail! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What's the business case for high speed rail?

      That not all journeys are for business?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      What's the business case for high speed rail?

      That it's a fuckton cheaper than flying?

      Airplanes are faster for long distances

      Oddly enough, 'faster' is not the only attribute people look for in transport.

      'Not being crushed into tiny seats' could be one of them. 'Being able to carry luggage' could be one of them. 'Not randomly delayed all the time for no logical reason' could be one of them. 'Not having to drive hours to start my trip' could be one of them. 'Arriving in town instead of an hour outside it' could be one of them.

      And like I said, 'Being a third the price of an airplane ticket' is a pretty damn good one by just itself.

      So you have this iffy middle case with mediocre ridership numbers.

      No, in the US the numbers for rail are mediocre, because we've built a completely shitty system. (In fact, the number of riders far outstrip the quality of the system, which ought to tell you something about what would be going on if we didn't have a shitty system.)

      In places with actual working high speed rail, or any working rail at all, the ridership numbers are quite good.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:High Speed Rail! by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's the business case for high speed rail?

      That it's a fuckton cheaper than flying?

      Hasn't been the case in practice. Every one of the high speed rails in practice is highly subsidized. As I've said before, give us a few hundred million European or Chinese taxpayers and I'm sure we can make a really cheap high speed rail.

      (In fact, the number of riders far outstrip the quality of the system, which ought to tell you something about what would be going on if we didn't have a shitty system.)

      How do you measure "quality of system"? And what system are we speaking of and how heavily subsidized are they?

      Apparently, the Acela line (from Boston, Massachusetts to Washington, DC) is supposed to have good ridership numbers (and is one of the few Amtrak lines that turns a profit in any sense of the word) as are a few urban systems (like the New York City subways). And there's a lot of systems that don't come close.

      In places with actual working high speed rail, or any working rail at all, the ridership numbers are quite good.

      Would they be as good, if the riders had to pay what the service actually cost?

    9. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Every one of the high speed rails in practice is highly subsidized.

      I'm thinking you aren't aware of how much air travel is subsidized. And I'm not just talking about airline bailouts.

      I live in Georgia. The City of Atlanta just spent $5.4 billion on expanding the airport.

      Airports are pretty damn expensive. Running ATC is pretty damn expensive.

      Yes, rail needs the equivalent of both of those, but they are a _lot_ cheaper.

      This is due to a lot of little cost differences, like the fact there's no incredibly complicated baggage moving system (People carry their own baggage), and no need for security. And the fact you can build them in a spur pattern so you don't need giant fifty-acre parking lots to keep cars. And rail 'air traffic control' is like one guy who doesn't have to constantly deal with complicated stuff. (You can actually make that entirely failsafe, where in a worse case scenerio all that happens is the trains all end up parked somewhere.)

      And you don't have to have _passenger accessible_ space to park trains while they are checked and refueled. Planes have to spend an hour between flights at airports to get ready to go, so you have to overbuild everything. (Or, alternately, they could land the plane, let everyone out, leave the gate and go fix up the plane, and then come back to load passengers...but no airport does that. So they have to waste a gate on every plane.) Trains need five minutes to refuel and swap personnel, and that's it, so in actuality they can leave as soon as they load and unload. A train station that handled exactly the same number of trains as an airport a day needs like a fifth the space.

      And that is assuming that the amount of trains would be the same...in reality, trains hold more people, so there's less of them needed. Also, trains drop people off along the way, so there are less 'destinations' to deal with.

      And you can build train stations a lot shittier because, frankly, people aren't spending hours trapped inside them.

      So, to compare the cost differences...they both have expensive maintenance to keep from accidents...with trains the rails have to be maintained, and with planes the planes themselves do. But _everything else_ is cheaper for trains.

      And that's not even getting into the fact that even if the costs were same...rail is still cheaper. Why? Because it can be put _closer_ to people, cutting travel expense to and from it. (Which means less government subsidies of the roads.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:High Speed Rail! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That it's a fuckton cheaper than flying?

      I call bullshit on this one. I think it'd probably be more expensive than flying.

      We already have passenger rail in the US: we have Amtrak, and we have lots of light rail in certain urban areas. Obviously, these trains are quite slow, but slow is cheaper, right? Well, all these trains are horribly expensive in my experience.

      Go to amtrak.com and check out prices for a trip between, say, LA and Seattle. Now compare to economy airline tickets. Amtrak is almost certainly far more expensive. Or look at light rail prices; I was in NYC recently and got tickets from Penn Station to New Jersey on the light rail, probably a 5 mile ride. It was almost $20 per ticket! I just bought airline tickets from Phoenix to Boston on Southwest, and it was about $130 per ticket, and that's probably 2500 miles I'm guessing.

      In my experience, rail travel is very, very expensive in the US, compared to air travel. Putting in HSR isn't going to fix this, it's going to be exactly the same. The fundamental problem with rail is that it generally needs to be done either by the government itself, or by a single utility corporation that's regulated by the government (like MTA in NYC, where a short ride costs you about $2 now). By contrast, with airlines there's dozens of them, all in competition. There's no competition with trains, due to their fundamental nature (can't exactly build dozens of parallel tracks), and while effective government regulation would make them cheap and efficient, we don't have that in this country, we have blatant corruption.

      As far as I'm concerned, HSR would be an expensive boondoggle here in the USA.

    11. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Why the _hell_ are you comparing a 5 mile trip to a 2500 mile trip? Of course the five mile trip costs more per mile. You know what's even worse?! A 5 miles airplane ride. Damn, is that expensive or what?

      And I should also point out that 5 miles airplane trip takes three hours, whereas a 5 mile train trip takes 30 minutes. So under your crazy-land rules, I can conclude airplanes are actually 6 times slower than trains.

      Or, you know, we can conclude that it is completely idiotic to compare costs and times of trips that are difference distances.

      Go to amtrak.com and check out prices for a trip between, say, LA and Seattle.

      $106

      Now compare to economy airline tickets.

      $231

      Amtrak is almost certainly far more expensive

      If by more you mean less.

      I just bought airline tickets from Phoenix to Boston on Southwest, and it was about $130 per ticket, and that's probably 2500 miles I'm guessing.

      Wrong. A trip from Phoenix to Boston actually costs about double what you said, about $250:
      https://www.google.com/search?output=search&q=airline+ticket+Phoenix+to+Boston

      Meanwhile, Amtrak tells me that such a trip is $230.

      In my experience, rail travel is very, very expensive in the US, compared to air travel.

      In my experience, you say dumb things here and have no idea how to compare the price of things. (The _smaller_ dollar amount is _cheaper_.)

      I suspect in actuality you're used to cheaper airline fares because of something...which I have to point out _exist on rail also_.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:High Speed Rail! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong. A trip from Phoenix to Boston actually costs about double what you said, about $250:

      I honestly don't care about your Google search results, because I just booked the trip for that price ($130/ticket). Google isn't God. Granted, it was a "wanna get away" fare, and leaves early in the morning, so it's not the average fare for that route, but it is (or was, probably no longer) available.

    13. Re:High Speed Rail! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Airports are pretty damn expensive.

      And they have a fair return on investment as well. That $5.4 billion (actually $9 billion now) increases its number of passengers per year from roughly 90 million per year to 120 million per year. It is already the highest volume airport by passengers per year. Looking at their annual budget from 2010, it looks like they turned a profit of roughly $100 million in 2010 and $200 million in 2009.

      Yes, rail needs the equivalent of both of those, but they are a _lot_ cheaper.

      Rails also need rails between those cheap train stations. That rail and the cost of the land, especially for high speed systems, is where their costs truly lie. For example, I wager for the cost bandied about for the California high speed rail ($68 billion at last check), they could have built half a dozen or more huge airports. And the ridership is expected to be around 120 million a year, which incidentally is what it is for the Hartsfield-Jackson airport (the Atlanta airport you mentioned).

      The same number of passengers served, just for a modest multiple of the cost of the biggest airport in the world. And let us not forget that this airport is also a huge cargo airport as well. The high speed rail wouldn't be handling cargo aside from the baggage that passengers choose to carry on.

    14. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And they have a fair return on investment as well. That $5.4 billion (actually $9 billion now) increases its number of passengers per year from roughly 90 million per year to 120 million per year. It is already the highest volume airport by passengers per year. Looking at their annual budget [atlanta-airport.com] from 2010, it looks like they turned a profit of roughly $100 million in 2010 and $200 million in 2009.

      ...I don't understand why you think that's a fair return on investment at all. One terminal costs 9 billion dollars, which they can make up in...60 years? Of course, by then, they will have had another three giant construction projects to pay off.

      Now, Hartsfield is a good investment, simply because the city makes a hell of a lot of money from visitors, hopefully more than it spends. But presumably, such a thing would also exist with HSR. (Not in these specific circumstances, because the traffic at Hartsfield is very international so HSR can't replace it, but we're not debating if Atlanta should remove their airport and replace it with HSR, which is clearly a stupid idea.)

      Rails also need rails between those cheap train stations. That rail and the cost of the land, especially for high speed systems, is where their costs truly lie. For example, I wager for the cost bandied about for the California high speed rail ($68 billion at last check), they could have built half a dozen or more huge airports. And the ridership is expected to be around 120 million a year, which incidentally is what it is for the Hartsfield-Jackson airport (the Atlanta airport you mentioned).

      Except the airport expansion only handled, as you pointed out, 30 million more people. For $9 billion. A new airport for handling 120 million people would have been, even under the most _ideal_ estimations, $27 billion.

      That's still less than half the cost of HSR...except that's half for _one airport_ and _no airplanes_ compared to the entire California HSR system, with multiple stations(1), and presumably the cost of actually buying trains included in the HSR estimate, whereas the airport expansion did not buy any new planes.

      California is thinking about spending $68 billion on an _entire system of transportation_. How much do you think it would cost to build as many airports as they wish to build stations, and then buy enough airplanes to handle the same capacity? They could barely build _two_ airports and enough airplanes to shuttle 120 million people a year back and forth for $68 billion. (They both might be handling '120 million', but that 120 million will be traveling through (at least) two rail stations in California, assuming people can't just teleport on and off trains, whereas the Hartfield expansion is just dealing with that many at one airport.)

      Yes, yes, we're talking about government subsidies, which airplanes are not...but the problem is, the cost of airplanes, and company profits, are causing rather large overheads that eat into 'paying back the subsidies'. Seriously, Hartsfeld is make one dollar a person to pay back government subsidies.

      Like I said, for some reason we've all just decided to _ignore_ the amount of money we're pouring into airports. Whereas pouring basically the same, or even less, into any sort of rail is a horrible idea...Amtrak has gotten approximately one billion dollars worth of subsidies in the entire 40 years it has existed. Republicans in Congress apparently thinks this is way too much.

      1) This is unfair, because it's including the cost overruns on the actual airport construction, but not any cost overruns on not-started HSR...but, OTOH, we're not including the fact Hartsfield was actually designed to be expanded and there are parts of Hartsfield that were not touched at all, and stuff that just had be expanded for much less cost than starting from scratch like the transport and baggage system and parking, and it was constructed on already-owned lands, etc, etc. The actual average construction cost of the airport almost certainly is higher than an average cost of $3 billion every 10 million people, in today's dollar.(And, let's not forget, Hartsfield has an economies of scale that almost no other airport does.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure discounted fares exist under passenger rail, also.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:High Speed Rail! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've never seen them. All the light rail systems I've seen are pretty much flat-rate.

      Here in Phoenix, they want $5 for a round-trip; it's far cheaper to own a (older) car.

    17. Re:High Speed Rail! by khallow · · Score: 1

      ...I don't understand why you think that's a fair return on investment at all. One terminal costs 9 billion dollars, which they can make up in...60 years? Of course, by then, they will have had another three giant construction projects to pay off.

      Because it is a positive return on investment. While with high speed rail projects, we spend larger sums of money to eventually get a money sink in a couple of decades.

      Now, Hartsfield is a good investment, simply because the city makes a hell of a lot of money from visitors, hopefully more than it spends.

      I didn't recall "hope" being a good investment strategy. Point is that they'll turn a profit even without that boost from visitors, property values, etc. While with high speed rail, one hopes that the income that these governments get from these sources will more than counter the revenue gap and the money lost from road systems, airports, and associated property which are somewhat less used now.

      Except the airport expansion only handled, as you pointed out, 30 million more people. For $9 billion. A new airport for handling 120 million people would have been, even under the most _ideal_ estimations, $27 billion.

      That's still less than half the cost of HSR...except that's half for _one airport_ and _no airplanes_ compared to the entire California HSR system, with multiple stations(1), and presumably the cost of actually buying trains included in the HSR estimate, whereas the airport expansion did not buy any new planes.

      Another advantage of airports, you don't need to buy or maintain the planes in order to have a working airport. It's just another hub on a vast network. And as I note, you could have built several major airports serving most of the urban areas rather than a couple larger than the current world record.

      Like I said, for some reason we've all just decided to _ignore_ the amount of money we're pouring into airports. Whereas pouring basically the same, or even less, into any sort of rail is a horrible idea...Amtrak has gotten approximately one billion dollars worth of subsidies in the entire 40 years it has existed. Republicans in Congress apparently thinks this is way too much.

      Amtrak received a billion dollars in subsidies last fiscal year. And per passenger-mile, it's subsidies are an order of magnitude larger than they are for air travel.

    18. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I didn't recall "hope" being a good investment strategy. Point is that they'll turn a profit even without that boost from visitors, property values, etc.

      No. Because there are _ongoing_ subsidies in addition to building subsidies.

      For example, the TSA. The Federal government is operating security at airports _at no cost_ to the airport. Assuming that security costs at least $2 a person, that's an unreported cost of $240 million a year, which more than wipes out any 'profits' at Hartsfield. And that's just one completely random example, and a totally unrealistic cost per person.

      Airports do not turn profits. Period. They are nowhere near turning profits. They are giant pits of money that we throw more money in.

      Airports, like all infrastructure, make society money solely by increased tax revenue from the result of the infrastructure.

      While with high speed rail, one hopes that the income that these governments get from these sources will more than counter the revenue gap and the money lost from road systems, airports, and associated property which are somewhat less used now.

      That is the premise under which all infrastructure is built.

      And as I note, you could have built several major airports serving most of the urban areas rather than a couple larger than the current world record.

      And those cost much, much more, in addition to causing all sorts of logistics problems with ATC. Airports do not scale well in the 'build more of them' direction, which is something that has become more and more clear with increasing urban sprawl. Airports (Over a certain size, not tiny county airports) have almost fixed cost in security, and baggage, and maintenance. Reducing the airport by two thirds might reduce the cost by only one third. Doubling it might increase costs by 30%. There is a reason we end up with giant airports.

      Also, in the specific case of Atlanta...there's nowhere to build another airport. You could go south or west, but making a smaller airport even farther away from the city is not actually helpful. Skip over the city proper and try to build one on the north or east side...even in this recession, the cost of property would be astronomical, unless you went an hour north of town. (Atlanta was actually pretty damn lucky where it was able to build its airport. Visitors are often astonished it's _inside_ our perimeter road. It's just annoying to get to because it is _so_ big, but the solution wasn't 'We should have built two smaller airports in the same space'...that makes no sense.)

      There are things rail is suited for. Rail allows much smaller stations, it allows almost no security, it allows shorter trips, it allows stations _within_ cities instead of fifteen minutes outside.

      OTOH, it's much slower, both because it's actually slower, and because it often is somewhat indirect.

      So no one is saying we should stop using air travel. What people are saying is that considering the massive imbalance in passenger rail vs. air, it's probably time to expand rail some.

      And part of that is we need to stop hypocritically ignoring the _massive_ subsidies in air while bleating about them in rail.

      Amtrak received a billion dollars [wikipedia.org] in subsidies last fiscal year.

      That is correct, I was wrong. OTOH, we weren't really talking about Amtrak, I was just trying to to point out the irrational dislike of rail. So I like the fact it points out that cruise lines (Which are not actually a form of 'transport' at all.) got $8 billion in 2010. (Also, Amtrak is only 31 years old, not 40.)

      And per passenger-mile, it's subsidies are an order of magnitude larger than they are for air travel.

      Except somehow, when talking about airplane subsidies, somehow the TSA gets entirely left out, and the _repeated_ airline bailouts get left out, and even the cost of airport construction gets left out... You know, that $9 billion dollars I was talking about? Not inclu

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:High Speed Rail! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Assuming that security costs at least $2 a person

      It's $2.50 per leg of a trip and the flying public already pays it. Any high speed rail would be paying those sorts of costs as well. I don't know why people think that terrorists are never going to target trains, especially when they've had great success at doing so in the recent past.Seems awful weak to assume trains will remain safe merely because the fad is blowing up airplanes at the moment.

      Nor do I see a rationalization for why security would be any cheaper per passenger for a train station than it would be for an airport.

      What people are saying is that considering the massive imbalance in passenger rail vs. air, it's probably time to expand rail some.

      Why should there be balance? My view is that until someone drops the cost of the rail infrastructure itself, say to around $10 million per mile in current dollars, it will never make sense economically to balance rail and air.

    20. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      .Seems awful weak to assume trains will remain safe merely because the fad is blowing up airplanes at the moment.

      Erm, the fad _isn't_ blowing up airplanes. It i ssupposedly, and this is the justification for the added security, flying them into buildings.

      Nor do I see a rationalization for why security would be any cheaper per passenger for a train station than it would be for an airport.

      Because you cannot drive trains into buildings.

      However, I believe you have entirely missed the context of the point, in that air travel doesn't include that cost in calculating airport profits, and that one item, by itself, erases any 'profit' Hartsfield might make. (And, of course, that's not the only thing Hartfield gets for free.)

      The point is not that air travel has more costs than rail, the point is that air travel is entirely dependent on subsidies. For all the people complaining about subsidies of rail, air has just as many.

      My view is that until someone drops the cost of the rail infrastructure itself, say to around $10 million per mile in current dollars, it will never make sense economically to balance rail and air.

      First off, it might make sense to build trains even if they cost more. Air travel costs a hell of a lot more than automotive travel, and yet somehow air travel apparently makes sense.

      Second, as I was just pointing out, using the cost of the California system you brought up, I pointed out that the entire system was, in actual fact, cheaper per passenger than the Hartfield expansion would be for two airports.

      You can't just pretend that all rail is more expensive than all air. California, right now, is looking at a system to move 120 million people by rail that is (on paper) cheaper than expanding the current system used to move them by air.

      Third, $10 million per mile is nothing. That's how much roads cost to be built. And automotive travel is cheaper than air. Trying to cleverly claim it's expensive based on 'infrastructure cost per mile', the one expense that air travel doesn't have, isn't fooling anyone. It's just as valid to point out that airplanes cost $27,000 a mile to operate and trains tend to cost about $1 a mile to operate. So, after building a mile of infrastructure, running the train or airplane just 300 times over it would make up a cost difference of $10 million. Of course, HSR rail infrastructure actually costs about $30 million, not ten, but that just changes the break even point to 1200 times.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:High Speed Rail! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Actually, the air cost is $2700 per mile is in total, whereas the train cost is $1 is per passenger, so the train cost is more like $300 per mile.

      ...which doesn't actually change any of my math significantly.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  17. autopilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd rather fly on a fully automated. or remote operated plane, where human errors are less likely.

    1. Re:autopilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remote operated plane

      Flight control in one window. FaceBook in the other. Oh yeah, that'll work out well.

    2. Re:autopilot? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      What if the autopilot or some sensors critical to its operation malfunction?

    3. Re:autopilot? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      i'd rather fly on a fully automated. or remote operated plane, where human errors are less likely.

      Do you really not think the airlines would be all over that like a rash if they thought they could get away with it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Downsides outweigh Upsides by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The simple fact is that there are just not enough reasons that makes one want to be an airline pilot.

    Some of the downsides are:
        Expensive outlay in initial training through to Commercial Pilot Licence level.
        Huge time investment in hour building after that, flying usually as an instructor, hacking about with students doing their best to kill you, for nowhere near enough money to live on without a second job or two.
        Even more expense to get multi engine rating, turbine rating...
        Then you get to sit your ATPL.
        Then if you're lucky you might get offered a job as first officer (copilot)
        Then you have to do a rating on the aircraft you're going to be flying, which you'll have to pay for, and is generally stupendously expensive, or your employer pays for your rating but you are then indentured to the employer for years. All the time earning diddly-squat.
        Ascending to captains chair, or onto larger types, is usually seniority based, and if you want to move to a new employer, you go back to the bottom of the ladder.

    Most of the upsides are:
        You get to fly planes for a living.
        You get to wear a pilot hat and put bars on your sleeves.

    It's just not an attractive job any more. It's not even an "impressive" job any more, once upon a time, pilots were seen as near enough to gods, today, they are barely a step above your local bus driver.

    For some, getting to fly panes for a living is enough,they just love flying *that much*. But there are not enough of those people to meet the demand.

    --
    NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    1. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more thing they have to look forward to is having their jobs replaced by self-flying UAVs.

    2. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes you wonder how Hani Hanjour managed to fly that plane into the Pentagon, doesn't it...

    3. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Most of the upsides are:
      You get to fly planes for a living.
      You get to wear a pilot hat and put bars on your sleeves.

      I always assumed that "you get to have sex with lots of attractive young women" was the main upside to being a pilot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      So...what has happened to the military pilots who have racked up thousands of hours each over the past 10 years. Have they all decided to go be elementary school teachers?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Flying a plane isn't hard per se.

      What is hard is being trained to handle all the things that can go wrong, and doing it at a level of proficiency where you can land 10,000 times in storms and not have a single engine strike.

      For all the programmers on slashdot - writing a script to get a computer to do exactly one thing once is WAY different than writing a robust piece of software that can handle many different situations and any kind of input (including hostile input).

      Hani probably couldn't even set up the autopilot to fly an ILS approach, which actually isn't that hard to do. If your only goal is to crash a plane into something that isn't terribly hard to accomplish - it takes all that fancy equipment to PREVENT that from happening.

    6. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, there are still only so many of those - there are a LOT more commercial airliners out there than F35s. Plus, I'm sure the military is doing eveyrthing they can to hang onto the pilots they have right now since they're being kept busy blowing things up all the time.

    7. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Seems like most of the stewardesses out there must have started work in the 70s.

    8. Re:Downsides outweigh Upsides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...what has happened to the military pilots who have racked up thousands of hours each over the past 10 years. Have they all decided to go be elementary school teachers?

      I can only speak for my circle, but they're arguably the best heavy pilots in the military. One separated and took some shit job that barely kept him off food stamps. The rest are retired or will soon be retired, and will soon be ex-pats fucking hookers throughout SE Asia. I don't know of any who say, "Hey, I'd really love to work for American Airlines, get paid less than I'm making now, and have to deal with that bullshit." Instead, it's more like this: "Let's retire somewhere fun or do something else entirely. Plus, fuck TSA."

      You can only imagine how I felt whenever I flew commercial. Not allowed to carry my weapon, no parachute, TSA groping... and then getting put on a plane where I can't get on ICS, walk around when I want, go lie down on top of a pallet, etc.? I really would rather have people shooting at me when I fly.

  19. Overregulation = poor customer experience by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The shortage of doctors in the U.S. is due to the AMA cartel's control over university accreditation and corresponding rent-seeking state laws requiring accreditation. The result is speed-exams when you go visit a doctor (or maybe not see the doctor at all, but rather a "nurse practitioner").

    Similarly, with legislatively reduced supply of pilots, look for cattle class throughout, with even tighter row spacing. Better keep those 747's tuned up, airlines, because you're gonna need to convert them to full economy class the way Japan uses all-economy class 747's between Osaka and Tokyo.

    Don't worry, even though there won't be a business class to upgrade to with your frequent flyer miles, you'll still be able to spend your miles on magazine subscriptions.

    1. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similarly, with legislatively reduced supply of pilots, look for cattle class throughout, with even tighter row spacing. Better keep those 747's tuned up, airlines, because you're gonna need to convert them to full economy class the way Japan uses all-economy class 747's between Osaka and Tokyo.

      Consumers are getting exactly the level of service they are willing to pay for.
      It's why airlines have had to soak the passengers in other ways, including baggage fees and overpriced onboard snacks/meals.

      Maybe we need to go back to the golden days of regulated airfares and routes.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I love how your entire post is moaning about the loss of business class. Suck it, one-percenter!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by boethius · · Score: 1

      Uh, no it's not, dummy. He's not moaning the loss of business class, at all, and therefore the "entire post" is not about about moaning the loss of business class, at all. Read again then complain, if you dare.

      Can't you read or is a monkey typing for you?

    4. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like neither of the two posts above mine are contributing to the quality of discourse on /. You guys mind suiciding so we can raise the bar a bit? Thanks.

    5. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... rent-seeking state laws ...

      Doing paperwork is expensive; it's one reason why the military pays $750 per hammer purchased. While the apprentice system is very successful, there is no other way of formally proving that someone is a competent practioner.
      The point of business class and first class is the customer pays a premium for a marginal increase in quality: Just like rolex watches. Removing these classes will reduce revenue.

      ... look for cattle class throughout, with even tighter row spacing ...

      There are two reasons this is possible: 1) seat demand is very high; 2) a higher fixed contribution per seat compensates for the loss of premium-paying passengers.

    6. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Guppy · · Score: 1

      The shortage of doctors in the U.S. is due to the AMA cartel's control over university accreditation and corresponding rent-seeking state laws requiring accreditation. The result is speed-exams when you go visit a doctor (or maybe not see the doctor at all, but rather a "nurse practitioner").

      As an Osteopathic medical student in the U.S., I just wanted to point out there is a second source for physicians available to you. The AOA has its own system of university accreditation, its own separate schools, and separate board exams, which produces licensed doctors with full practice rights but with the degree of "D.O." instead of "M.D.".

      Note: This system exists only in the U.S., and in other countries you have "Osteopaths" which are non-physician practitioners.

    7. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The shortage of doctors in the U.S. is due to the AMA cartel's control over university accreditation and corresponding rent-seeking state laws requiring accreditation.

      Yes, clearly the better alternative is to allow anyone to practise as a doctor and let the market sort it out. Because it's so much more satisfying to sue a quack after he's butchered one of your loved ones, rather than letting the government interfere in advance.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

      I love how your entire post is moaning about the loss of business class. Suck it, one-percenter!

      Due to my height and previous knee injury, I take advantage of Frontier Airlines' "Economy Plus" for the extra $25. That's one of the things that will be going away.

    9. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Suck it, one-percenter. I love every time the world gets together to fuck your kind over - even if it's unintentional.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the golden days when only the well off could afford to fly. And everyone else filled their stationwagon with bologna sandwiches and drove across the country for their vacations.

    11. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Consumers are getting exactly the level of service they are willing to pay for.

      Bullshit. Consumers get whatever is fed to them and that is decided by someone else. Fuck, this might as well be Central Planning from the old communist countries.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    12. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by czth · · Score: 1

      Your fallacy is: false dilemma.

      Why? Because you assume that if the government doesn't do quality control, then it won't be done (not that it does such a good job anyway). But consider Underwriters' Laboratories, or Consumer Reports. Ah, but people aren't surge protectors, you say! This is true. Can you think of any occupations—even ones where lives might be at risk—where people can practice without government approval (or did in the past without more harm than is caused by licensure)? One common to Slashdot members, perhaps, even?

      De facto standards tend to be better than de jure: good ones are used, bad ones are discarded. If you want to go to an AMA-certified doctor, go to one; but don't forcefully stop people from doing business with otherwise-certified or even non-certified doctors, even if those certifications are questionable. It's none of your business.

    13. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by John+Newman · · Score: 1

      The shortage of doctors in the U.S. is due to the AMA cartel's control over university accreditation and corresponding rent-seeking state laws requiring accreditation. The result is speed-exams when you go visit a doctor (or maybe not see the doctor at all, but rather a "nurse practitioner").

      The situation of pilots and doctors does seem similar on several levels, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions.

      The proximate cause of the "speed-exams" is not a doctor shortage, but an artifact of how most doctors are paid - by the visit. You get a tiny bit more money for a long, complicated visit, but not nearly as much as if you see two or three patients in the same time. This is true for almost every payer - private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The financial incentives are strongly on the side of the speed-exam.

      A more fundamental question is why the financial incentives matter so much, and that's where I think the pilot and doctor stories have some overlap. These are both highly skilled professions with a long, poorly paid training period and a strong incentive on the part of the "payers" to keep downward pressure on wages. Every time an insurance company or Medicare cuts their provider reimbursement rate, the incentive to cram more visits into a day grows that much stronger, because when you start your career at 30 or 35 with hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, it's hard to take an arbitrary pay cut. (Talking about primary care doctors here, the situation may be different for the "lucrative" specialist du jour.)

      Besides, the US actually has plenty of doctors, similar per capita numbers to Canada or the UK. But the financial incentives drive too many of them to lucrative specialties and urban practices, leaving too few doing primary care or working outside the big cities. Attempting to control costs by cutting doctors' fees creates perverse incentives.

      The rise of nurse practitioners is more of an alternative attempt at cost control than a response to too few doctors. If you don't need 8 years of school and training to take blood pressure readings or insert an IV, and these things are actually done better by people who do them all the time, maybe some aspects of primary care can be done better by people with shorter but more focused training.

    14. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I actually work in healthcare, I'll respond: bullshit.

      Every job in healthcare that involves direct patient care requires actual clinical time; that is, direct patient contact under the supervision of a licensed practitioner. Since one can either instruct or get work done, or get a reduced amount of work done and reduced amount of training (the usual course at the smaller facilities), the number of clinical slots is limited. It doesn't matter how many classroom positions there are, only a limited number of students can complete their training in preparation for the licensing exams.

      WRT docs, they come out of their training several hundred thousand dollars in student debt. Malpractice insurance ain't cheap. It costs a lot to keep an office open (did you know there are over 65000 different insurance charge numbers?), there's a couple full time jobs just in the paperwork. An RN, an LPN or two all who need decent pay and benefits. He has to see as many patients per day as his conscience will permit just to survive financially. The hours can be brutal. I know a surgeon, his day starts at eight or nine am, he's still in the hospital after ten pm. The average pay for a doc isn't high enough, considering.

    15. Re:Overregulation = poor customer experience by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Consumers are getting exactly the level of service they are willing to pay for.
      It's why airlines have had to soak the passengers in other ways, including baggage fees and overpriced onboard snacks/meals. Maybe we need to go back to the golden days of regulated airfares and routes.

      Or maybe not. I'd say seeing somebody else get "soaked" on baggage feeds or onboard meals, is an argument for not going back to a regulated industry.

      The fewer bags you take, the less you pay. If you bring your own food or eat before you get on the plane, you pay less. And similarly, if you want to live it up, you can have what you want and there's somebody there to say "yes sir" and take your damn money, if it's so important to you to have an extra drink or bring an extra bag. What could be better?

      Flat rates just mean everyone pays more, and half of the time that means you're paying for something you didn't take advantage of, to subsidize someone else's elective expenses.

      I like being a miserly grudging cheapskate in some ways and a gushing luxurious cowboy in others. Don't we all have our own tastes and needs?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  20. You get what you pays for. by Lisias · · Score: 1

    This works for everyone, everywhere.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    1. Re:You get what you pays for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or less.

    2. Re:You get what you pays for. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Sometime good people do good work for the sake of the work, not the money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Ever looked in the cockpit? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1
    I for one am not surprised....

    Airlines Face Acute Pilot Shortage

    Most of the pilots I've seen are pretty fugly.

    Absolutely a great face for radio!

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  22. Re:Why... by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why am I not surprised that the libertarian with the malware download link completely glossed over the low pay and bad schedule?

  23. Pilots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1. We cut their pay.
    #2. We extended their hours.
    #3. We jerk them around, hey, stay in Bumfuck, Idaho for a few days because it'll save us a penny. You have to pay for yourself to stay.
    #4. We increased the requirements to become a pilot.
    #5. We tell them daily that as soon their jobs will be taken over by the lowest bidders due to snazzy autopilot programs.
    #6. Higher than ever monetary cost to enter.

    I wonder why the number of pilots is dropping?

  24. High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a problem with high speed rail. It requires good public transportation at the end nodes. It works in Europe because they have good local public transportation systems. It will not work in the US because we do not.

    High speed rail is step 2, not step 1.
    Step 1 is good local public transportation.

    1. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by sjames · · Score: 2

      It requires no more or less good public transportation at the endpoints than air travel does.

    2. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by perpenso · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It requires no more or less good public transportation at the endpoints than air travel does.

      High speed rail is not merely an alternative to air travel. It is also an alternative to driving.

    3. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      As a replacement for air travel, high speed rail is an alternative to air travel with the same public transportation requirements at the endpoints.

      Better public transportation would expand the uses of high speed rail but let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.

    4. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a problem with high speed rail. It requires good public transportation at the end nodes.

      Also, it is communist.

    5. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It requires no more or less good public transportation at the endpoints than air travel does.

      High speed rail requires the rail itself though, and it is very expensive. It is much cheaper and faster to start a new airline than starting a new high speed railway network.

      The rails are also very vulnerable to terrorist attacks and trains are vulnerable to attack along their entire route.
      Railways are very sensitive to disruptions such as snow, people on the track or fallen trees.
      One broken train on the railway also blocks the entire railway section for travel by all other trains.

      There are many good things with high speed rail but they are not a replacement for air travel. They work great as an alternative, but they can not replace air.

    6. Re:High speed rail is step 2 at best ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The rail is a significant up front expense, but trains also consume less fuel per passenger mile and so it is paid back over time. That payback will only increase as fuel costs go up. Everything is vulnerable to terrorist attack, but at least a train cannot be diverted to Cuba or crashed into a building. We have been using trains for over a century now. People on tracks, snow, etc are not new problems, we know how to deal with them. Besides that, snow at the airport can create plenty of problems for air travel as well.

      If a train malfunctions, it doesn't fall out of the sky killing everyone on-board and whoever was unlucky enough to be where it landed. They can have fresh air and actual leg room without being prohibitively expensive, so passenger comfort is greatly increased and medical problems reduced. I could as easily argue that air travel is no replacement for trains.

  25. Talk to my credit union. by loonwings · · Score: 0

    They're the bastards that cut me off of student loans (far short of their advertised maximums) when I was maybe 1/3 through a professional piloting program. I could have graduated by now and I might already have the 1500 hours the article mentions. Fuck it. I'll stick with my B.B.A. program. I'm sure I'll make more money anyways.

    1. Re:Talk to my credit union. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they made a good decision here. How were you planning to pay back those loans?

    2. Re:Talk to my credit union. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      You probably should thank them. You'll live a better life this way. They saved you from crappy pay and being fired the day before you reach a level of seniority to actually enjoy the job and instead having to start at zero seniority at another exploiting outfit. I looked into it myself - it's for enthusiasts these days. And even enthusiasts are better off getting their PPL and just doing it for fun with a well paying job on the side.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  26. this is the beginning of a pr campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article states:

    -there aren't enough pilots.
    -the poor airlines don't have enough money to pay for new ones, anyway.

    what this really might be: the beginning of a pr campaign to make the masses more comfortable with automated aircraft.

    autopilot tech has been good enough to go from takeoff to landing without human input. For a while now. My landings are prettier, but those magic boxes can do the job safely.

    The real problem with full automation is that passengers feel creeped out by the idea of flying without a uniformed authority figure sitting above the nose of the plane.

    Maybe this is an attempt to get the normal people onboard.

  27. Re:Why... by sjames · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It couldn't possibly have anything to do with airlines dumping on pilots for the last couple of decades, now could it? Less pay, longer hours, training programs slashed, and pension plans reneged on repeatedly. Gee, I wonder why less people find it worth the costs in time and money to become pilots.

    The airlines had three years warning about this and they're just now getting around to realizing that some action might need to be taken.

    Naturally, they would have us blame the bad 'ol government and it's eeeeeeevile regulations because it couldn't possibly be that the million dollar golden boys at the top are dumber than a sack of hammers and have been eating the seed corn.

  28. Steve Miller Band - Fly Like An Eagle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1f7eZ8cHpM

    time keeps on slippin slippin slipping into the future
    REALLY LISTEN TO IT THIS TIME

    1. Re:Steve Miller Band - Fly Like An Eagle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airlines FAKE Acute Pilot Shortage

      I want to say that in anger. But ..
      Instead just really listen to the music.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6lAwbE1J4

  29. No, it's not the "government's fault" by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's a shortage of airline pilots because the job doesn't pay well any more and takes extensive training. Training most US airlines are not willing to pay for. The WSJ is whining that the FAA raised the standards for an Airline Transport Pilot rating and requires pilots to get more sleep. That's in response to the crash of Continental flight 3407 on February 12, 2009. The WSJ conveniently does not mention that.

    Some airlines do pay for training. Here's the British Airways training program. BA pays pilot trainees as employees through the whole training process. Most US airlines expect pilots to work for years for less than a typical city bus driver makes to build up their hours before they fly the big iron.

    A First Officer (copilot) on RyanAir starts at $3700 a month.

    1. Re:No, it's not the "government's fault" by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      A First Officer (copilot) on RyanAir starts at $3700 a month.

      But that's before uniform charge, uniform cleaning charge, meal costs (or food waste disposal charge if you don't eat), seatage fees, seat cleaning fees, administration fees, administration fee administration fees, HR overhead contribution, payroll processing charge ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:No, it's not the "government's fault" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the same as deductibles in any other job, basically. Cry me a river, sky bus driver, my job as a research scientist doesn't pay that much and I had to get a PhD for it.

    3. Re:No, it's not the "government's fault" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British Airways makes you pay a security bond of over eighty thousand before you can start training, and don't cover every single cost. You then have to repay that for several years once you start earning.

      Don't know about you, but I'd struggle to scrape together four thousand pounds, let alone eighty.

    4. Re:No, it's not the "government's fault" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

      (that wasn't a Ryanair jet, BTW)

  30. I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. There is no shortage of pilots, just a shortage of pilots willing to work for 18k a year and be treated like crap. I went into the airlines after 4 years of college for a bachelor in Aeronautical Science, several years of flight training and being an instructor and over 100k in debt. What I found out was that the old theory of working for a commuter to build your time was gone. The major airlines outsource over 65 percent of the flying to the commuters who are now flying tons of the majors old routes. So what you have to look forward to someday is maybe making it to a major after surviving several furloughs and years of 18k in pay. Oh yeah the furloughs? They are because the majors move the flying around to whoever is cheaper, and if a commuter starts to get too powerful, they shut them down and open them back up under a different name after filing bankruptcy and selling the assets off to their new company. Over the years it has gone from needing to be super experienced and professional to guaranteeing people jobs if they pay the airlines 70k. Yes that's right people now pay them for guaranteed jobs. Oh and the crash rate? There was years without a pilot error crash, then the airlines started lowering their minimums, and requirements from college degree to heartbeat, and they plowed 3 or 4 into the ground within a few years. The whole thing is really complicated, and the airlines like it that way. On top of all this they put out propaganda that the avg pilot makes $120k a year. Guess what the average pilot now makes $22k a year, has to pay for a dump crashpad, parking, their own uniforms etc... All this for a job that you are never home and on avg is letting you get home to your family maybe 10 days a month after the bitch of commuting. Oh and on top of it, the government bails the bad airlines out every time they go into bankruptcy. United and US Air were out of business in 2005 ish time. Guess what the government came in, wouldn't let the creditors re po their airplanes, and bailed them out. So the next time you say you "won't fly this airline", don't bother. Because your tax payer money allows them to run the crappiest operation they can. Politics gets involved and they say "we have to keep the airline" x amount of people will lose their jobs. Guess what, all the airlines that were doing a good job have planes and pilots ready to go on furlough, and can help the "FREE MARKET" prosper. The problem is it's not free, especially when cities and states fund their pensions on US Airways stock, and the shit starts hitting the fan. Sincerely, a bitter ATP pilot that isn't going back to that crap hole job for less than 200k!

    1. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by vlm · · Score: 2

      I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. There is no shortage of pilots, just a shortage of pilots willing to work for 18k a year and be treated like crap.

      So its the same working experience, except you don't get to fly. Also, H1B for computing, but not piloting... yet. These kind of articles are the drumbeat... I bet money that within 10 years domestic airlines will have exclusively non-american pilots, just like very few american cruise lines have american captains or american registered boats.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 10 years, there won't be an America. Not in it's current state at least.

    3. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no shortage of pilots, just a shortage of pilots willing to work for 18k a year and be treated like crap.

      So pilots are like programmers...

    4. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now we know how in the year 2012 a 'tard can now fly a plane.

    5. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by glideair · · Score: 2

      Thanks for your candid and honest appraisal of the airline industry. I earned my private pilot's license in '72 at 23 years old. I had hopes (like so many other wanna-be pilots), of some day having a career in flying. Without the G.I. Bill or other assistance for my further training and being married with children; it just was'nt in-the-cards for me to pursue my dream. Having spoken with many pilots in my quest for more pilot time over these past years and your insight of the industry; has proven to me that my unsuccessfulness at becoming a professional pilot could be considered an instance of devine providence. I still remain a poor-pilot's advocate by flying when affordable, albeit more not, than often. My take on the F.A.A. is that it would be more efficient and safer if it were to be privately-managed by seasoned pilots instead of lawyers. Yes, it would be to the world's benefit for airline pilots to be able to shop at Krogers rather than Save-A-Lot. My hat's off to you. Sincerely, Gary

    6. Re:I am an ATP Pilot turned computer programmer. by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      I bet money that within 10 years domestic airlines will have exclusively non-american pilots
      How 'bout... in 20 years the planes will have nopilots. Self-driving cars are just around the corner and the planes have been automated for years anyway.

  31. GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the free market take care of it.

  32. H1B is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as the US has faced a critical programmer shortage for the past, oh every year since "Information Week" was first published,, perhaps this pilot shortage can be filled with H1B's !!!

    Why let the free market work (raise wages enough to garner more aplpicants) when you can just bribe the US government to allow lower wage workers to work those jobs instead. Perhaps these H1B's will go through pilot certification mills...."I have 1500 hours on MS Flight Simulator and a newly printed certificate from the Mumbai Aeroplane Academy.

    And if you don't feel 100% safe with two of these guys/ladies in the cockpit, dont' worry instead of just two we'll put in six, that's right six pilots for the price of two...feel better?! Sully eat your heart out...

  33. Oh god by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, myth busters in a sim, where the "pilot" was not tired after a long shift and had to land the aircraft already put in line with the runway, was perfectly functional, with a perfect radio connection, with no real life pressure, could land it in perfect weather conditions.

    Well, here is a fucking hint, I did that WITHOUT someone talking me through it. It is fucking easy! That they even managed to crash shows how stupid these guys really are. Anyone can try it themselves, you can play with high quality sims as "games" on the PC all you want and most come with scenario's that do put you in line with the runway and all you got to do is land. As long as you don't start freaking out and jerking the controller around, you will be able to land the plane pretty easily.

    The problem in real life is that when shit happens, it happens in spade. Bad weather, confusing communication, failing instruments, high pressure, lack of sleep. THAT causes accidents, not having to land fresh on a sunny day with no wind on an wide open runway.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh god by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Fine. What about when you do all that in the sim instead of letting it float you down to the runway all on it's own?

      I landed without ATC contact, a significant crosswind, only one engine, and half my instruments out. Oh, and it was raining. (yes, and i was NOT aligned to the runway, as I had been up in the air and diverted for the landing)

      Sure, it's different than doing it in the real thing, but not different enough to discount the sim experience.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Oh god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hardest part according to them was knowing what switch does what. They couldn't find the landing gear or flaps or brakes so they probably would not have been able to land at all on the runway.. That ignores all the other things like the autobrake, arming the spoilers, reversing the engines and setting a proper trim that the controller walked them through on the episode.

    3. Re:Oh god by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Your standard computer sim tends to make the task of landing rather easier than reality. As stated elsewhere, the main difficulty they had was not knowing the controls - which with a computer sim you can find out via the tutorial/quick reference guide. What I'm surprised about is that neither Adam or Jamie had any flight experience.

      Your standard keyboard has 101-105 keys, the mouse has ~4, etc... There's several hundred controls in a 747 cockpit. Landing a Cessna with like 20 is easy, though I'd have never guessed where the flap controls are located before I started training on one.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  34. Obligatory reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer: I am a private pilot, but know several commercial pilots.

    That's not a disclaimer. That's a *disclosure*.

  35. The complexity is going up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though the plane does more on its own, the pilots need to know about more systems, and more complicated ones at that.

    We've come some way from planes with a flight stick, a couple of pedals, and a rearview mirror.

  36. low pay by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They didn't offer sufficient pay and now they don't have enough pilots. Seems pretty simple to me.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:low pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't offer sufficient pay and now they don't have enough pilots. Seems pretty simple to me.

      It is simple: immigrants have ruined America!

      Thankfully, I know just the solution: tax cuts for corporations and fewer regulations!

    2. Re:low pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came to post just that. Cut that pay and you lose your candidate pool.

  37. There's nothing cute about it by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    and stop calling me "Shirley".

  38. Pay sucks, raise pay and get more pilots. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, they better start paying pilots a lot more money then. I don't see what the problem is. If they have to start charging more for tickets to cover the overhead, then they have to charge more for tickets. It is not like it is a cost that will affect one airline but not another.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Pay sucks, raise pay and get more pilots. by oskarfasth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems many people are arguing "but that's not going to work, the airlines are already on so very thin profit margins".

      Ticket prices are going to rise. A number of airlines are going to file for bankruptcy. Well bohoo. That's just the way it should be - market economy at work.

      --
      "Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand..." - James Randi
    2. Re:Pay sucks, raise pay and get more pilots. by jwdb · · Score: 1

      If they have to start charging more for tickets to cover the overhead, then they have to charge more for tickets. It is not like it is a cost that will affect one airline but not another.

      That's fine as long as no foreign airlines are allowed to fly to US destinations, or as long as these restrictions apply to them as well. Somehow I don't see the latter happening.

      But this'll limit US airlines to US destinations, as they won't be able to compete using the same staff and probably can't afford to have parallel staff for foreign destinations.

      Think I'll buy stock in RyanAir.

    3. Re:Pay sucks, raise pay and get more pilots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price distortion caused by government regulation = market economy.

      Yep.

    4. Re:Pay sucks, raise pay and get more pilots. by PintoPiman · · Score: 1

      A market economy working would be where airlines advertised the experience levels of their pilots and customers chose between more experience and cheaper flights. This isn't that. This is the government choosing a new equilibrium for everyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's pretty obviously not market economy at work.

  39. Hire Spanish pilots from Iberia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since British Airways and Iberia "merged" the first one is hiring and the second one is firing. Oh, irony, the first pays better salaries and the second one is supposed to be in red numbers due to the salaries of the employees (it's just the salaries of the big fishes).

    In any case, another Spanish airline went bankrupt not long ago, and since Iberia will be also firing crews, it might be a WIN-WIN situation.

  40. Statistics for pilots from US Derpmt. of Labor by mha · · Score: 2

    http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm#tab-5

    Just to bring some numbers into the discussion.

    Personally, I'm a private pilot, I would NEVER make this my profession - so much more money to make in IT, and working hours as a pilot are pretty bad mostly.
    Don't forget that entry level pay is much less than those stats show - that's the MEDIAN (not even average).

    "The median annual wage of commercial pilots was $67,500 in May 2010. Among commercial pilots, the lowest 10 percent earned less than $34,860 and the top 10 percent earned more than $119,650."

    For such an important job this pay is RIDICULOUSLY LOW.

    1. Re:Statistics for pilots from US Derpmt. of Labor by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Trash collectors have an important job. They prevent life threatening diseases. Should they be paid $119,650?

    2. Re:Statistics for pilots from US Derpmt. of Labor by mha · · Score: 1

      Is it troll-time? I'm sorry, but how else should I react to this question, which does not take anyone more than a second to reply to:

      - How long do trash collectors train for their job? And...

      - ...how much do trash collectors pay for their training?

      - If a trash collector forgets a trash can, how many people die? In the case of the pilot a lot of people are gone *immediately*, ye know, with just a single mishap.

      Etc., I stop here, this isn't worth it.

    3. Re:Statistics for pilots from US Derpmt. of Labor by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how hard the job is or how important the job is.

      The point is that money/salary/pay is directly correlated to replace-ability. If there are a lot of pilots and they are replaceable, then they won't get paid much. Likewise with trash collectors. Britney Spears has no talent and she makes a crap ton of money, because her brand/image is not replaceable.

      I could work hard at getting 20 PhDs in various fields. But I won't get paid for it. I will get paid for how irreplaceable I am for the work I am doing.

      I has nothing to do with how many people die. The training is a requirement put in place to try to prevent that from happening. This makes it harder for pilots to be replaceable. However, there are STILL too many pilots for the salary to go up.

  41. Worse than that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And even worse, there's a cute stewardess shortage too!

  42. Pilots by the dozen in the Netherlands by Barryke · · Score: 3, Informative

    How odd, in the Netherlands we have a surplus of trained pilots. It was big news here of few weeks ago, with many freshly graduated pilots even willing to fly for known unsafe Africa/Asia based airlines just to get a job!

    Some news articles (dutch) i grabbed just now via Google:
    - http://www.nrc.nl/carriere/2012/10/16/zorgen-over-opleiding-en-banenmarkt-verkeersvliegers/
    - (dated) http://blog.spitsnet.nl/2010/06/28/jonge-piloot-zit-zonder-baan/

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  43. Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Years ago, I knew guys that wanted to become pilots. The costs were extremely prohibitive, with very few job prospects. One found it cheaper to become a lawyer. Breaking into law is a tough gig, but 20 odd years ago, becoming a pilot was much tougher. You had to be an 18 year old millionaire to get trained, and then spend at least another dozen years being unemployed before you get a job. I have no sympathy for airlines or the entire industry.

  44. Maybe there's a hidden agenda ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... who knows?

    Maybe the gubment hikes the basic requirement to force the airline to think of the unthinkable - to employ robots as pilots

    Hey, Hong Hai (Foxconn) is doing it in China, Canon is doing it in Japan, what is stopping USA from joining in the fun?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Maybe there's a hidden agenda ... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Stopping the USA? How do you think the USA has been steadily and heavily increasing its manufacturing output while shedding jobs?

      I'll just leave this here: Making It In America.

    2. Re:Maybe there's a hidden agenda ... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      employ robots as pilots

      Sounds like a good idea to me!

    3. Re:Maybe there's a hidden agenda ... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      There are already airports where the plane flies itself and the pilots are required to sit back and let the autopilot do all the work.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Maybe there's a hidden agenda ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They make it sound as if the airlines were just notified of these changes this week and have had no time to prepare. In reality, this was on the books for the past two years.

      But it's just like everything else, business waits until the last second, then announced "We don't have time to implement/follow these regulations. Delay them or else we'll go out of business."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  45. Solution: H1-Bs by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Grittings! I am Sanjagandra and I am being your pillot for this flight to Denwer. We will be trawelling at a height of one lakh feet...

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Solution: H1-Bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a US citizen, the requirements are 20,000hours of flight time. Or for that IT position, don't bother applying if you don't have a minimum of 10 years of Windows-8 experience, and have at least 15 years programming the iPhone5.

      "OMG, we can't find anyone qualified, we need more H1B visas!" - for whom, of course, all those requirements are not needed.

  46. Funny math by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They need 60000 pilots by 2025 (i.e. in the next 13 years), and only 36000 have passed the ATPL exam in the past eight years...

    60000 divided by 13, times 8, makes... 36923

    Slightly less dramatic than you thought, no?

  47. Well maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's time they start hiring the ugly ones.

  48. Why is raising the pay such a big deal? by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

    If each passenger has to pay $1.50 per hour of flight more then before they would not even notice a difference. The crew on the other hand - with 30 passengers on average and 6 hours of flight a day, 5 days a week that would add up to about $70K to split up between the two pilots.

  49. If the defense budget cuts happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the rethuglicans comtinue to stall and Obama doesn't cave, then the budget for the DoD will drop and one place they can remove a lot of cost is by retiring a lot of USAF pilots.

    Many of which will have a lot of flying hours.

    And a requirement for lots of flying hours for civil aviation pilots...

    Join the dots.

  50. Having heard the horror stories from my cousin by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    I cannot see why anyone would want to be a pilot for a living unless you just want to fly.

    I was shocked when I learned that he gets no pay while sitting on the ground, the stewardesses/stewards/flight assistants (whatever), were getting like a buck fifty an hour until the doors closed.

    and all this even after years of working his way up through the commuter lines to being a captain where his pay is still less than what most programmers make.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Having heard the horror stories from my cousin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unions and the airlines both want to screw new pilots.

      Airlines want to pay everyone as little as possible.

      Unions say "if we're stuck with a small pie, the experienced guys running the union should get the biggest piece."

      So new guys get paid crap, because the employer is happy to do it, and the union is happy to do it.

      Happens in schools and government jobs, too. Both the teachers and the anti-union people are being truthful when they protest. New employees are paid like crap. Long-term union employees have high pay and crazy good pensions, even though they're both doing exactly the same job. It's the result of the basic incentives of union-employer negotiations.

  51. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm certain airlines would ensure that adequate safety standards were met for aircraft and their pilots all on their own, as history has shown time and again when businesses are left to police themselves.

    [snicker]

  52. The expert shortatage by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    When the job is too unattractive, because of exhausting work schedules, low payment and high entry cost, then there is an easy way to fix it. Pay them more. I do not want to sit in a plane where the pilots have to think about their dept or the financial situation of their family. They should be awake and focused on the job. You normally get that with a fair salary and good working conditions. And yes when the ticket prices will go up a dollar or two. So be it.

     

  53. How To Become a Pilot in 14 Easy Steps by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a step by step approach to becoming a commercial airline pilot:

    1) Spend $15-20K on getting your private pilots license
    2) Spend another $10K on your instrument, high performance, and complex ratings
    3) Fly 250 hours at a cost of about $100/hr to build time and experience
    4) Spend another $5-10K on a commercial rating
    5) Become a flight instructor, getting paid about $10-15/hr to put your life in the hands of a student pilot - fly about 500 hours as a flight instructor
    6) Spend another $5-10K on a CFII rating, so you can instruct instrument, getting a ~$2/hr raise
    7) Fly another 500 hours at $12-17/hr teaching instrument
    8) Spend $5-10K on Multi Engine Instrument and MEI-Instructor ratings
    9) Fly 200 hours Multi
    10) Apply for a first officer position at a Charter or Regional making $10-12/hr, but with benefits, if awarded job, spend $5-10K of your own money on the rating for whatever aircraft you'll be flying, and your ATP rating
    11) Fly 1000-2000 hours as a first officer, and then apply for a captain position making $15-20/hr with benefits.
    12) Fly 1000-2000 hours as captain for a Charter or Regional, then apply for a First Officer position for a major airline, making $20K/year - the airline MIGHT pay for your rating on their B737 or whatever you'll be flying
    13) Do that for 25 years
    14) On a seniority basis, you'll be able to apply for a captain position when an existing captain quits, dies, or retires. Then you'll make $100K plus.

    So the short story is, you'll lay out $200K of your own money to get a job that pays $10/hr, and you'll make that for 25 years, and then maybe you'll get a left seat and make the big bucks, but chances are you won't, because you'll either get sick of working 100 hours/week for 40 hours of $10/hr pay and quit, or you'll fail your Class-1 Medical on Blood Pressure and lose your job.

    1. Re:How To Become a Pilot in 14 Easy Steps by epSos-de · · Score: 1

      Join the army and get it for free.

    2. Re:How To Become a Pilot in 14 Easy Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean join the army and get the taxpayer to foot the bill.

      Nothing is free, pal.

  54. Re:Why... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Why am I not surprised that the libertarian with the malware download link completely glossed over the low pay and bad schedule?

    When you're a nut every solution starts to look like a wrench coming to twist your head off..

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  55. "Flying Cheap" by Frontline on PBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See how underpaid pilots have to live and work as well as other consequences of cost cutting:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/view/

    Also available on Netflix

  56. Acute by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    At least there is not a shortage of acute flight attendants!

  57. This message brought to you by by square317 · · Score: 1

    Kit Darby. Who for 20 years ran Air Inc. This company sold interview prep and other get you hired by the airlines services. For every year he was in business he predicted a pilot shortage was just around the corner so get in now! Air Inc has now ceased operations but he is still in aviation consulting, http://www.kitdarby.com/. Gee, after reading the artice I wonder who was the main source for this article?

  58. rawr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better than an ugly pilot shortage.

  59. Simple solution by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    This is a rather silly problem. If you have a shortage of a particular kind of worker in any industry, the cause of that problem is very simple: You're not paying enough. We live in a relatively free market, when you want something that's in short supply, you get it with $$$, not whining to the press.

  60. what's really driving business away? by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers

    I'm stunned the article doesn't include the public's distaste for dealing with the TSA as a substantial contributing factor in lower patronage. I've always assumed it was at least a relevant number. I know I don't fly anymore unless unavoidable due to TSA. I've had friends lose computers at the airlines. I'm avoiding the airports, and keeping both my dignity and my property safe.

    Maybe the airlines need to do some serious lobbying to get rid of the TSA, if only to be looking out for themselves? I've heard they understand it's affecting sales, but I don't see them doing anything about it other than cowering and going along with it. Ad when their customers complain, they just blame all the inconvenience on the TSA. (who really doesn't give a damn) I can't believe they have no ability to influence change here.

    If they're really in as dire straights as they're saying, evicting the TSA from their terminals ought to be somewhere on their how-to-avoid-bankrupcy list.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:what's really driving business away? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, you are in a very, very tiny number.

      Tickets are too cheap, that's the problem.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:what's really driving business away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Course not, can't badmouth the TSA. That would be doubleplus ungood.

    3. Re:what's really driving business away? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      I know I don't fly anymore unless unavoidable due to TSA.

      Really? Personally, I didn't even notice when the TSA came into existence. Possibly it's due to being a Canadian, but I do fly to the US occasionally. It doesn't seem like the regulations / security / processing in the US is significantly better or worse than anywhere else. Heck, I remember being split into male/female lines & patted down/groped in Venezuela well before the establishment of the TSA in the US. And I don't remember any dignity-impacting activity the last time I flew to California.

      However I've also never lost a single piece of baggage, so maybe I'm just lucky.

  61. Automation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our experience is that UAVs require roughly twice as many pilots as manned aircraft. Apparently, sheer terror won't keep you awake when you're sitting in a building.

    1. Re:Automation? by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Automating a process doesn't mean moving the manual operation to a different location.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  62. Good by gelfling · · Score: 1

    We need a 50-60% reduction in the number of flights. And just quadruple prices to compensate. I for one am fed up with hearing year after year after year that the airlines are in trouble and billions of dollars in the hole. Just let them massively contract. It's not as if they're doing anything like a good job.

  63. Pilot shortage by Alioth · · Score: 2

    What you have to understand is this. When the airlines talk of a pilot shortage, what they are saying is "There are only 20 applicants for each job". Normally, there are 200 applicants for each job.

    The thing is most people who fly *really want to fly* and will practically prostitute themselves just to be in the air. This causes several bad things to happen. For instance, the majority of flight instructors aren't instructing because they want to, they are instructing merely to build hours to get that airline job. This means many private pilots are being trained by instructors with a few hundred hours, who aren't good teachers and have no interest in actual teaching. (This is why I found a grizzled old freelance instructor who did instruction as something on the side to his main job as an engineer, he was instructing because he cared about instructing, and also had thousands of hours of experience). That's not to say all young instructors with their eyes on the airlines are like this -- there are some who really do care, and continue to instruct after they get the coveted airline job. But at the same time, whenever I go for a checkout to rent a plane somewhere, it's not unusual that I have three times the hours than the instructor who is checking me out, and a much broader depth of experience. Aspiring airline pilots also take on some other pretty awful flying jobs such as flying canceled checks around in marginally airworthy aircraft in weather conditions they have no business flying in (single pilot IFR in a marginally airworthy light twin is pretty risky). I get the impression that half the aspiring commercial pilots would do these jobs for free, or even pay for the privilege.

    Because there's never really a shortage of pilots as most normal people understand it, even during times of "pilot shortage", the pilots of smaller airliners (think the small turboprop aircraft feeding into airline hubs) are paid peanuts. You can make more as a first level supervisor at Mc.Donald's than you can as an airline first officer in these outfits. It's not until you have quite a lot of seniority and are flying a jet do you actually get a liveable wage.

  64. A cute pilot shortage by Brucelet · · Score: 1

    Maybe they just need to hire more cute flight attendants!

  65. Bring Back Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously commercial aviation causes a lot of problems. Just parking your car for a one week vacation costs a fortune at the airports. Rail was a miracle in America. So if we have so many issues with passenger planes why not simply bring rails back to the forefront? Yes, trains are slower but boy can they move a lot of people and freight.

  66. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the way they've treated pilots recently, this is absolute bullshit. The pilot shortage is because you expect pilots to overwork themselves for slave wages.

    Let's take a highly skilled profession that costs tens of thousands to certify for, make them overwork themselves to the point that they are barely concious while doing something that requires incredible concentration, and then pay them slave wages...

    Oh my God! Why doesn't anyone want to work there?!

  67. win win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe there will be less flights - therefore a lower carbon footprint.

    and the price goes up, so those pesky lower classes will be less able to afford travel - that is the right of the elite.

  68. No shortage of *pilots*... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    There's a shortage of people who want a shit job with huge responsibility for lousy pay. Here's a solution. Figure out what it would take to pay each and every pilot at least 6 figures, and take that percentage of salary from each and every manager. I guarantee there'll be no problem paying and very soon, not shortage of pilots.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  69. Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this story tagged with "Obama"?
    This story has nothing to do with Obama.
    How about something relevant like "airline", "pilot", etc...

  70. Becasue by geekoid · · Score: 1

    it's a boring job no one respects.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. Should check the local bars by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    That's where they hang out.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  72. Re:Why... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    When you're a nut every solution starts to look like a wrench coming to twist your head off

    Whoa this seems to be original work. Another world-class great quotation has made its debut on Slashdot!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  73. There is no shortage by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Every few years some idiot journalist sees an ad for a flight school that touts there is a severe shortage. They imply that getting your pilot's license and degree (for a mere $50k to $80k) will be your ticket to riches.

    I know many pilots with over 1500 hours and a commercial flight certificate that cannot get into the big airlines due to too many pilots.

  74. what's the problem? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    we have a bunch of trained pilots sitting on their ass in guantanamo. they just need to finish their landing training. i don't think they need 6 figures either, i bet 73 virgins would do it.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  75. turn commercial aircraft into drones by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Hell, about 75% of gamers have more than 1500 hours sitting in their parents basement playing video games, drinking red bull...no problem! LOL.

  76. Had to read the title twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought there was a shortage of good looking pilots and the air lines were forced to hire ugly ones. Fortunately its only a shortage of qualified pilots.

  77. The perils of the free market by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    About 10 years ago, I got into a heated debate with a few friends over paying salaries to what I'd call high-responsibility jobs like pilots. Their answer was, well if the free market dictates a pilot make $20K/year then so be it.

    Fast forward 5 or so years and we see the Continential flight 3407 accident with a copilot making $16K a year and overworked and a bottom-of-the-barrel pilot. Sometimes salaries aren't just compensation, they're an enticement for a level of professionalism and ability you want. How many people would bother with a $16K salary and years of a low-paid internship while having to deal with the responsibilities and liabilities of being an airline pilot? How excited would you be to get onto a plane knowing the pilot is overworked and making less than your daughter does waiting tables?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  78. Bogus News by jhutchins · · Score: 1

    There is no way that anyone with the 250 hour current minimum for commercial flight is getting a job with any company that an ordinary citizen would identify as an "Airline". 1500 - 3000 hours has been the practical minimum since WW II when veterans with that kind of experience became available. At 250 hours you are still paying for your own flight time. To build time in between you can become a flight instructor, but jobs such as utility survey (pipline/powerline inspector), traffic, and corporate pilot are heavily over-subscribed.

    Once again, a bogus "labor shortage" is being sold to us not because there aren't plenty of newly trained people eager to work, but because corporations are requiring extensive experience in the exact same position for "industry standard" wages that aren't any better than people with that experience are already getting.

  79. Free Hand of The Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > This raises the cost and time to train new fliers in an era when pay cuts and more-demanding schedules already have made the profession less attractive.

    Looks like the Free Hand Of The Market is about to bitch-slap employers. Why are they surprised to lose their supply of labor when they lower pay?

  80. "Pilot Shortage" is partly bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea that airlines face an "acute shortage of pilots" is both true and untrue. Mostly untrue.

    Will there be a "pilot shortage"? That depends very much on which sector of the airline industry you're talking about.

    The major carriers will ALWAYS have a surplus of highly qualified candidates to choose from, coming from the regionals and the military.

    At the moment there are something like 2,000 pilots still furloughed from the US majors, some of whom have been laid off for ten years or more. A friend of mine, who had worked for TWA and American, recently took a job in Dubai because decent US flying jobs are so scarce. Shortage?

    At the regionals it's a slightly different story. It much depends on how the FAA and carriers interpret the new hiring standards rules. Either way, there are still going to be a thousand applications for every available job.

    More here, in a column I did for Salon....
    http://www.salon.com/2007/12/07/askthepilot256/

    Patrick Smith
    www.askthepilot.com
     

  81. how much of this is TYPE certification?? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    given that there are big differences between planes how many of these hours are on the type of aircraft in question??

    small prop planes mean exactly JACK when you are dealing with Jets (and even lear jets mean JACK when you are dealing in the 7XX type of planes)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  82. Screw flying anyway by cellocgw · · Score: 2

    No, really: who says flying has to be cheap? If ticket costs skyrocket, what might happen? Here's a couple possibilities.
    1) Business use of video conferencing goes up.
    2) People learn to take vacations nearer to home.
    3) Buses and trains handle all the short-haul traffic (as it is right now, it's faster to go Boston-NY by Acela than by air when you factor in travel to /from airports and pre-board time).
    4) More sunny days due to reduced quantity of contrails.

    Ok, that last one is a stretch. But I see no reason to exempt airline corporations from the rules of Economics 101.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:Screw flying anyway by geekoid · · Score: 1

      4 isn't a stretch. Something that was very clear with the 3 days of empty skies following 9/11
      Also, increase in temperature, a pretty big one.

      But, yes. Airplane tickets are too cheap. You want nice comfortable flights with accommodating staff and descent food? stop trying to weasel the cheapest ticket and think about whats going on.

      You are put into a tube, hurtle through the air like some god riding a magic carpet, and then land thousands of miles away in a few short hours.
      Pay the extra 50 bucks.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  83. Hire arab pilots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But when the pilot says:

    Would you be sweating pigs?

  84. We told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is, in fact, a case of "I told you so."
    I was attending ERAU when this measure was passed two or three years ago. The entire aviation community was in uproar.
    Pilots make absolutely pathetic pay until they make it to seniority in commercial airlines or corporate jet flight. So first Washington demonized corporate jets, then raised the requirements to become even an airline *co*pilot. Now pilots are stuck making $18k/yr for five years *after* they complete their (very expensive) commercial flight training and get the bare minimum of experience in jet and large aircraft before being eligible.

    For many pilots, this means the only way to become an airline pilot now is to join a military that has had its flight programs cut repeatedly and looks for absolutely any excuse not to accept new pilot trainees.

    This information is all first hand experience. I have spoken to many pilots and pilots-in-training. My former roommate is currently 6 figures in debt from attending a university program (getting a flight degree is the only way to lower the legal requirements) and is so swamped he is still joining the Navy to avoid bankruptcy. The new requirements were put in place after he enrolled in school. Both the Navy and Air Force require that pilots be officers, so he has to borrow more to finish school, and even though he made friends with someone who promised him a flight school slot, the branch is making every minor medical into something he must have fixed before entering service in hopes they won't have to pay for his training(which requires a minimum of 8 or 10 years of service).

    That's just one anecdote, but it's a pretty good representation of the difficulty of becoming a pilot of you don't have very wealthy parents who are willing to pay your way.

    In short, way to go, Washington. You've crippled yet another industry with regulation. Wasn't the price of aircraft outpacing CPI inflation by over 300% in the last forty years enough of a warning about giving in to the pressures of ignorant, paranoid trial lawyers?

  85. A solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High speed rail. If it's not feasible to simultaneously make an airline profitable AND safe. Then let's build out America's high speed rail infrastructure. The rest of the world is already doing this. It will create thousands of jobs and prepare America for the next 100 years.

  86. Re:Why... by czth · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you might want to do something about that "linkbucks.com" redirect. And I think I even clicked your link in the past and it didn't do that; recent development? There are plenty of other short URL providers.

  87. Employe mobility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of a shitty union allows their members to work in the kind of conditions that would make a walmart job attractive ?

    This problem has a market solution. Offer vs demand. When their planes are sitting on the ground they'll be fighting over the few remaining pilots that bothered to stay in the industry. If they actually pull their thumbs out of their nethers, fire the bottom feeding management and hand their salary to the people who do the actual work, they might make the profession attractive again in 10 years or so.

    Best of luck !

  88. No, what's surprising... by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    is that spoiled little children like you still haven't figured out that the adults are getting tired of your self-entitled whining and tingking that we should all be honored for the privilege of being forced to clean up your messes.

    1. Re:No, what's surprising... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      is that spoiled little children like you still haven't figured out that the adults are getting tired of your self-entitled whining and tingking that we should all be honored for the privilege of being forced to clean up your messes.

      What do you mean 'my' messes?

      Anyone coming after Obama (if it had been Romney this time, or someone else after this term) is gonna have one huge fuckton of a mess to clean up.

      Are you missing it that Obama in 4x years has run things into the ground almost twice as bad as Bush II did in 8 years?!?!?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  89. Rebuttal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a rebuttal/clarification to this whole "pilot shortage" thing up on my site, for those who want to see it....

    "As the pundits have it, our airlines are running out of pilots. But is this true? The fact and fallacy of the looming 'pilot shortage' "

    It's on the home page, here...

    http://www.askthepilot.com/

    PS

  90. University of North Dakota?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A study was conducted by the University of North Dakota that says we have a pilot shortage? Haha....UND makes their money teaching people to fly (aviation degree). They should have asked some recent graduates how they're doing out there trying to find a job.
    http://www.aviation.und.edu/Home/Default.aspx

  91. Demand for air travel is elastic by 200_success · · Score: 1

    If air travel becomes more expensive, alternatives like teleconferencing become more attractive. Leisure travelers may choose closer destinations or skip vacations altogether. People can also choose other modes of transport, which in the U.S. usually means driving.

  92. Didn't see this mentioned yet! by hurfy · · Score: 1

    One issue i didn't see anywhere below that i'll just insert here as it is as close a match as anything...

    Not all the pilots moving up the chain from little to big and co-pilot to pilot may want to make that final step to pilot of one of the big boys. They also lose seniority when they move from co-pilot to pilot. My dad's best friend was a 747-level co-pilot for ages because he was top of the chart for seniority and got to chose his routes/schedules first. When you 1st move to pilot you would then get whatever route noone else wanted at a slight pay increase or even less income because of less time/easier route.

      $75k income with 3 days on and 4 days off
    vs
      $90k income working nearly everyday for partial days

    He had a farm and several days off in a row was much more productive. (ok, productive consisted mostly of building an airport in the backyard and a hanger in the barn) He had enough free time still to build a couple planes from a box of parts.

  93. Easy Solution by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Paying pilots more will attract more pilots at the same time discouraging customers due to increased ticket prices. At some point the two trends will intersect and there will no longer be a pilot shortage. Problem solved.

  94. Tests too hard? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    No Pilot Left Behind! Aka dumb down the tests. Works in education. More slacker students wasting educational resources than you can shake a stick at!

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  95. Oh boy. by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I am a pilot.

    Pilots do not "sit back and let the autopilot do the work" in any case on approach. And, on the contrary, they are required to maintain active control over the aircraft should conditions change unexpectedly.

    Watch the following video to see an ILS Category II automated landing procedure from start to finish.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=MdK1Q8gdgmo

  96. You are overestimating revenue. by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    I worked for an airline that operated between 4,000 and 6,000 flights daily. After you account for the aircraft lease, flight and ground crew salaries (and per diem rates when applicable), fuel, ground operations, gate auctions, aircraft maintenance, and so on—all adding up to an appreciable sum—the average profit per flight, across the network, was about $200. Worst still, nearly every domestic flight (especially regional legs) lost money.

    This is why most airliners no longer hand out free peanuts and pay their entry-level pilots between $18-30K yearly salaries.

    Every player in the air transportation industry is running on razor-thin margins and the slightest perturbations cause substantial losses. How these companies have survived this long is beyond me, but it is no wonder all the major players have now filed for bankruptcy (including AMR, which was the longest-lasting hold out).

    Add a dollar here, another dollar there, and before you know it you have eaten into all your profits. And before people get out their pitchforks and cry foul about how businesses are evil and greedy, realize first that they have to make profit to buy new aircraft as old equipment deteriorates, and build buffers against cancellations due to weather conditions, changes in demand, and so on.

    Let me put it to you this way. Next time you find yourself in an airport, look out a window and find a jet sitting on the tarmac with its engines running. Now look at your watch. For every second that passes, that plane burnt about $20. Tick-tick-tick

    As the public demands cheap airfares, the airlines have to keep costs low wherever and whenever possible.

  97. Errata. (Typo.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should be about $10, not $20.

  98. Conspiracy? by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    New regs are all about making it harder to fly, so we can reduce our carbon footprints, so we can delay the end of the current ice age by another 100 years (it's coming whether we all start walking yesterday).

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  99. I'd rather not fly by nobaloney · · Score: 1

    Federal mandates are taking effect that will require all newly hired pilots to have at least 1,500 hours of prior flight experience — six times the current minimum.

    I'd rather not be able to fly because of a pilot shortage than fly in a plane piloted by someone with only 250 hours experience.