The US is Facing a Serious Shortage of Airline Pilots (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry. That requires modern reliable airplanes -- and highly skilled pilots to operate them. However, the United States has a shortage of pilots right now, particularly at the regional airline levels. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, there were about 827,000 pilots in America in 1987. Over the past three decades, that number has decreased by 30%. Meanwhile, during this period, there has been a tremendous increase in the demand for air travel. The International Air Transport Association predicts that, over the next 20 years, air travel will double.

This is a classic case of low supply and high demand. This mismatch has created a perfect storm that could wreak havoc on the US airline industry over the next decade. The somber news is this shortage is going to get much worse. I have not only studied and researched the airline industry since 1978, but I also was a pilot for 19 years, before going back to academia in 2006.

In the 1970s, when most of today's airline pilots like myself were growing up, piloting for an airline was considered a prestigious career. The job offered not only high salaries and nice schedules with many days off, but also a respected position in society. In the early 1990s, pilot salaries approached $300,000 in today's dollars for some international pilots. What's more, during this time, the military had a steady and consistent demand for pilots. A young aspiring aviator could go into the military to receive all of his or her flight training. Once these pilots had fulfilled their military commitment, they were almost guaranteed a good job flying for a major airline. Today, this is no longer the case. The career of the airline pilot has lost its luster.

Comments

Here's a thought:

[XXongo]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Nidi62]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month. Pilots with seniority can easily makes $250k in a year before bonuses or profit sharing. Regionals currently pay about $50-60k yearly plus sign-up and retention bonuses. The issue isn't the pay or the work rules. The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline. Before the changes after the Colgan Air crash you only needed 250 hours to be an FO with a regional carrier.

Re:Here's a thought:

[brxndxn]

$50-60k/year is garbage for a skilled technical field that requires travel 100% of the time. Pay the pilots more and the shortage will go away. Also, the airlines should start paying for training programs if they really want pilots - just like other industries need to train operators for manufacturing plants, IT staff, or maintenance workers.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a short documentary about pilots and regional airlines.

Apparently it sucks the big one working for those guys.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Also people who have flown their tours in the military likely have families at that point or want to become astronauts, politicians, or all of them.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Nidi62]

Also people who have flown their tours in the military likely have families at that point or want to become astronauts, politicians, or all of them.

Most military pilots have enough flight time to go right to a major airline, skipping the regionals. Worst case they are in their late 30s-early 40s, are making 6 figures within 3-4 years, and have a guaranteed 25-year career. Part of the issue is the pool of military pilots is shrinking as well with the adoption of more multi-purpose aircraft and UAVs.

Re:Here's a thought:

[jellomizer]

That is for 80 hours a month. Our normal work jobs in the us have us ordinary folks working 160 hours a month.

The hourly rate is well into the normal 6 figure if working full time.

Higher pay and benefits may help, but I expect the crazy hours, and being away for home on long day stretches factor in too. What is the point in making a lot of money if you are living like homeless bum, because you are never home.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

> Regionals currently pay about $50-60k yearly

Try about half of that. I went to high school with a friend that's now a pilot for American Eagle so I've met quite a few regional pilots through him. From what I've heard them say, none of them make nearly that much. My friend does it since he gets to stay in Hilton Head, SC several times a month in a hotel that's $300 a night during peak. I've flown with him and stayed with him there three times, and while the pay sucks, I understand why he stays with that job. He'll always remain broke unless he wins the lottery and gets a job with Delta.

Re:Here's a thought:

[bws111]

Pay the pilots more and they will find they don't need pilots because nobody is flying on their airline as the tickets cost more. Paying more, training, etc all have a real cost that must be covered by the passengers.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The major carrier business model is to poach from the Regionals. The Regionals expect to pay low Salaries for a person that requires very expensive training.
(even without the 1000 hours) The ROI on the Pilots is to Risky and to hard to borrow. So the Corporations will need to change now, or in 10 years they will total screwed.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the *average* wage for regionals, some pay a lot less (former ATC guy speaking here). And it's funny you brought up Colgan. The copilot on that flight, Rebecca Shaw, was paid $23 an hour and had a capped annual salary of $16,254. Furthermore, the airline specifically declined to comment on Renslow's salary during hearings, and industry observers took that at the time as a signal that he wasn't near that "average" $55K that the airline said was being made when all pilots were accounted for. I agree the training and hours are a huge issue to get anyone into the field ... I had to give up before completing my multi-engine rating even back in the 1980s because of the cost.

Re:Here's a thought:

[hawguy]

$50-60k/year is garbage for a skilled technical field that requires travel 100% of the time. Pay the pilots more and the shortage will go away. Also, the airlines should start paying for training programs if they really want pilots - just like other industries need to train operators for manufacturing plants, IT staff, or maintenance workers.

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Nidi62]

Part of the low wage problem at regionals is the constant churn at lower seniority levels with stagnation at the top. You can actually make captain much quicker at some major airlines than you can with regionals. You have some regional pilots sitting there because they they have good seniority and decent pay, but most are in and out in a few years to a major airline if they are any good.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. What we need is to give pilot jobs to illegal aliens and pay them less than minimum wage.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when you're paying down loans of $150k+ to get that ATP to be able to fly for them in the first place and/or not when you're talking years of making $19k as an instructor to build hours. People want families and other things too.

Re:Here's a thought:

[sjames]

On the other hand, while it is half time work, most of your other time is spent somewhere you probably don't really want to be in yet another cookie cutter hotel room with only the contents of your suitcase.

In other words, a lot like being at work.

Re:Here's a thought:

[_Sharp'r_]

Trust CNN to run a "conversation" article about supply and demand devoid of actual economics.

First, the author starts by blaming deregulation and the related advent of lower cost airlines. Then the author continues by blaming regulation for artificially limiting supply, i.e. the 1500 hour rule. Finally, they author proposes his preferred solution of Airlines creating their own flight academies (trying to increase supply of pilots again), for which the author conveniently is a teaching assistant for the academy he proposes as the solution to the problem. Is he trying to get a better job with the school, but they need more students?

If you've been following along, you might notice government regulations made air travel more expensive until it was finally loosened and airlines could compete on route and price instead of other "benefits" most customers didn't actually want to pay for. As a result, lots more people are able to fly to travel. (P.S. This is a good thing)

Not content with that, the government then comes back later and severely restricts the supply of airline first officers, taking the existing requirement of 250 hours (commercial pilot) and multiplying it by 6 to 1500 hours (ATP pilot). Overreaction to one incident, anyone? The first fatal crash in 3 years and they multiply the requirements to be an airline pilot by 6x?

The best part of the Wikipedia article on the crash is the description of the regulatory solution, "Although it did nothing to address the specific causes of the crash ..." Basically the pilots weren't paying attention to the instruments, according to the flight recorders, then the reacted "not according to their training" to the resulting stall.

So the 1500 hours ATP requirement didn't even do anything to solve the problem of the crash which prompted it (both Colgan flight pilots had more than 1500 flight hours). That's pretty typical of this sort of regulation.

The demand side is fine (we want people to fly!), so how about we take the dramatic step of just fixing the regulations causing the supply problem? Something like, oh, only requiring 250 hours to be a first officer (commercial pilot's license) and keep the 1500 ATP hours for the Captain? That way someone can get experience as an airline pilot while getting paid? Simple supply fix, undo the overreaction in regulations which is causing the supply problem?

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The real answer is: automate most of their job and reduce the skill set required from needing a pilot, copilot, and whatnot, to requiring a button pusher who can troubleshoot any issues which arise during flight. No need to rely on fallible humans for such an important role (sorry, humans, but it's true).

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

That's almost the sort of talk you'd expect if there was a pilot shortage, but it is so far from reality that there obviously isn't a shortage, just a bunch of whiny companies.

If there was a shortage, they'd be offering free training and guaranteed work schedules.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, infighting between the plebs. The divide in the world economy isn't between five figures and six figures. It's between jobs that can only increase pay by working more and jobs that can increase pay by making more people work for you. You will never be rich if there's someone higher up in the hierarchy who divides the money you get by the hours you work. You can only work so many hours and get so much per hour. The only way to break that glass ceiling is by having people work for you. Understand where the wealth goes and stop the infighting.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Maury Markowitz]

> . I had to give up before completing my multi-engine rating even back in the 1980s because of the cost.

Me too, albeit in the 90's. I recently went over to the local regional airport and noticed that the hourly wet price on a C150 rental had well over doubled since I was doing my license. Inflation during that period was about 50%. Older planes, higher insurance and gas costs are killing the low end of the industry.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

Is that all true as stated, or is the "$70-80 an hour" back-calculated by taking the annual salary and dividing what it would be for a 40 hour week? Because by your numbers, pilots with seniority make less than the starting wage.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Stewardess poontang

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

My advice, look up the word "shortage." You're only arguing there is no shortage.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

As a result, lots more people are able to fly to travel. (P.S. This is a good thing)

Why is that good? I say it is bad. How do you know which is correct?

Re:Here's a thought:

[michelcolman]

Those 80 hours a month are flight time. That doesn’t take into account the time preparing the flight, the time on the ground between flights, and the time finishing up after the last flight. That brings you pretty close to the amount of time “ordinary folks” work, and then that doesn’t even take the crazy schedules into account. Early shifts, late shifts, weekends equivalent to weekdays,...

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know of pilots and assistant pilots that still live at home with their parents because the pay doesn't match what you listed for regionals.

Part of the problem seems to be salary.

Re:Here's a thought:

[_Sharp'r_]

1. Revealed preference. Without someone stopping them, people fly more.
2. Safety, comparing similar length trips using alternative modes of transportation.

What are your reasons why it would be bad?

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that is no longer a thing

Re:Here's a thought:

[Faldgan]

While your statements are factually correct they ignore several critical pieces of information that leaves readers with the wrong impression.
    The $70-$80 is for flight hours, not hours worked.
    You will spend as much time commuting and on preflight and postflight tasks as you will flying.
    You will be on standby for a lot of the non-working time as well, where you can do little else.
    Starting at a major carrier is a mid-career job, not a start of career job. You won't get this job until you have been in the industry for 10 to 15 years.

Another semi-random note: The pilot experience requirements would not have changed the Colgan crash. The captain had 3379 hours and the first officer had 2244 hours; both were well above the proposed new minimums. I use as a basic standard for good legislation that if a new law is created in response to an incident, the incident must have been prevented if the new law had already been in effect.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another thought for attracting pilots: Drink specials. 75 cent PBR night. $3 well. But for safety's sake: "Please respect our 3 drink limit."

Re:Here's a thought:

[bobbied]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

Paying more would help, but not enough. It's nearly impossible to get trained and enough flight time when you have to borrow to pay for it. Even getting enough PIC time to fly small cargo routes is nearly impossible, and that is just the first step.

I know of a service that flies banners near where I live. They require you have nearly 500 hours and a commercial rating just to do that part time. Even flying charters takes more time than that, and YOU will be paying for your type rating and minimum hours.

To be an ATP you have to have 1,500 hours of experience, most in complex multi-engine aircraft to even THINK about getting an airline transport job with one of the tiny commuter/feeder airlines. It's really hard to get that many hours when you have to pay for fuel and aircraft maintenance and can amount to hundreds of thousands in debt, and/or have you flying for overseas carriers who still require 700-800 hours of experience and barely pay enough to be able to eat. After 5 years of dangerous jungle flying, you might have a chance to move in to a commuter aircraft, working hard flying garbage routes making peanuts.

Personally, I think the resourceful airline would put these young pilots who lack the necessary hours into some kind of program that allows them to gain flight time, have benefits and eat. Maybe let them be gate agents, or load baggage during the day and earning flight time on their days off. As they get flight experience and training at company expense, they commit to longer and longer employment contacts. They would then establish a path for aspiring pilots to get their training, obtain the necessary experience and start working without having to acquire huge amounts of debt.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is also experiencing a pilot shortage.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

UAVs are still flown by a pilot on the ground. Are those guys earning regular flight hours or not? I never thought about it before.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the issue is the pool of military pilots is shrinking as well with the adoption of more multi-purpose aircraft and UAVs.

It does sound like UAVs would be increasingly needed in the civilian aviation as well as a consequence.

Re:Here's a thought:

[clodney]

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

Long hauls are the most desirable routes, and routes are usually bid according to seniority. A captain on an A-320 flying Detroit to Hong Kong has a very different work life than a first officer on a Bombardier regional jet working for a feeder airline, flying Chicago to Iowa City to Fargo to Duluth.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that is no longer a thing

Sorry, flight attendant poontang.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that is almost what is happe I g outside of the US, with âoepay to flyâ schemes. In the right seat sits a rich kid who is paying like $30K a year to the airline for the experience. Some anonymous internet commenters have speculated discount airlines like Wizz and RyanAir are earning more from the student than from the passengers! But I donâ(TM)t know if that is true.

Part of the problem is they are selected based on their ability to pay, rather than their skill.

Re: Here's a thought:

[peragrin]

Near most of the major cities $60k is just above poverty level.

Minimum wage up poverty lelvel up inflation up. Average wage is down massively

30 years ago my father earning 60k a year could get a house, two cars, a boat and his wife didn't have to work but made things easier.

To reach that same level now requires 120k and all college debt being paid.

My wife will being paying her college debt off right about the time our yet to be born kids go to college. Nursing school sucked and since she is already employed they won't do tution reimbursement. That's only for new hires.

Re:Here's a thought:

[hey!]

What we need to do is give the pilot's job to robots.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

160 hrs is office time. That doesn't count the daily commute, lunch, nor overtime.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Damned straight that's crazy.

The problem is demand. Supply costs money to add, so instead let's decrease demand with mandatory invasive searches. Everyone should be felt up equally! Within weeks of that becoming a requirement I can assure you the pilot shortage will be old news.

Re:Here's a thought:

[GuB-42]

Also worth noting that an airline pilot has huge responsibilities. It means you can't afford not to be in perfect condition to start flying. And that's hard to keep up with all these irregular schedules.
There is a moral responsibility and written rules. For example, there are mandatory health checkups, zero tolerance for alcohol, etc...

There is on-call duty too, where you have to be ready to get to the airport within an hour or so.

It used to be a demanding but rewarding job. Today, it is still demanding but less rewarding.

Re:Here's a thought:

[iCEBaLM]

Who the hell trains IT staff? Where do I sign up?

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

160 hrs is office time. That doesn't count the daily commute, lunch, nor overtime.

I see. 160 hours just to sit on your ass doing nothing is very torturing.

Re:Here's a thought:

[whoever57]

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

The problem with that is that pilots can't just start at a major carrier. Typically, they have to work for many years at a minor aviation company of some sort, earning less than some bus drivers, with a punishing work schedule.

The pay rate you are showing is not a career-starting salary.

Re:Here's a thought:

[mysidia]

The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline.

This insane. If the airlines need pilots that badly, they need to have REASONABLE requirements or foot the bill for this 1500 hours worth of training they are requiring.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Xest]

No, the US airforce currently has a ~2,000 pilot shortfall, so drones can't be causing a decline in the number of pilots coming out of the airforce, because there aren't enough in it in the first place.

The reason for the shortfall is that many are suffering burnout from years of high operational tempo due to deployments to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, and because civilian airlines simply pay more.

As such, retention seems to be the biggest problem - being a fighter pilot looked like a sexy job on Top Gun, but when you realise it means 8 hour flights in a cramped cockpit by yourself with only a tube to pee in and only getting to fire one or two missiles a year at best on a training ground, it kind of gets a lot less sexy. With that taken into account, at that point, sitting in the nice relatively spacious cabin of a civilian airliner for 8 hours with one or two co-pilots to keep you company, getting paid way more, and with a proper toilet to use, and warm meals served to you on the job looks a lot more appealing.

https://www.military.com/daily...

https://www.airforcetimes.com/...

Really though, it implies if the airforce is struggling too that there's just not enough pilots in general. I'm not sure if this is a US problem, or a global problem however, it's possible that non-US carriers are simply paying even more again and pulling US pilots overseas.

Re:Here's a thought:

[MachineShedFred]

It makes too much sense, so it will never happen.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Nidi62]

Those are contractually mandated minimums per hour of flight/block time. Of which they are federally mandated to have no more than 1000 of in any given year. High seniority captains in widebodies can make in the low to mid $200s an hour. And that is the base rate. It doesn't include "overtime" or incentive pay. Some pilots could be making $400-600 an hour depending on the circumstances

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

Don't forget sleep deprivation.

Pilots get to rush to a company sleep facility that is like a crappy motel. Probably has several people sleeping there, but coming and going at all hours so that nobody really gets good sleep.

Pilots don't get to party with alcohol.

Re:Here's a thought:

[bkmoore]

That is for 80 hours a month. Our normal work jobs in the us have us ordinary folks working 160 hours a month....

I'm a regional airline pilot and work well over 160 hours a month for between 80 -100 hours of flight pay. I have worked many 14+ hour days where I only get 4.5 - 5 hours of pay. The rest of the time is aircraft swaps, delays, maintenance, weather, time between legs (airport appreciation), ready reserve, etc.

The only reason people work for low pay at a regional is the carrot of being able to move on to a legacy airline such as Delta, United, America, etc and being able to earn a middle-class living. But there's no clear path to a legacy carrier. Some promise flow through, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. You apply and hope to get invited for an interview and maybe a job. When the economy goes down the tubes, a lot of legacy pilots wind up back at the regionals and take a 70% pay cut to just keep flying. I'm considering going to Asia as a plan B.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

My cousin was on food stamps while working as a pilot for a Delta-affiliated regional carrier in the Southeastern US.

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

If you Don't pay the pilots more, then the pilots will move to another airline that does. You won't have any passengers because you don't have pilots to fly them. Your competitor with higher ticket prices will actually be offering flight routes that you don't and so your customers will go to your competitor.

So is it better to pay pilots and raise ticket prices?

If there really is a pilot shortage then ticket prices are going to rise anyway because there will be a limited number of flights that can be operated by all airlines combined.

Re:Here's a thought:

[sabri]

Mod parent up.

The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline. Before the changes after the Colgan Air crash you only needed 250 hours to be an FO with a regional carrier.

Today, many "fresh" pilots (those with a CPL and 250 hours) need to get a CFI and train other pilots in order to get the required experience. That's nothing else than a ponzi scheme. Once they have 1500 hours, they are eligible to fly at the airlines, but by that time they're "too old" and "too demanding".

Not to mention that a few years ago it was still very common to have young pilots pay to fly. The industry created the problem itself.

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

If the power supply in a production server catches fire, best practice is to schedule a meeting to determine whether DevOps should fix it, or whether the software team can issue a software patch to correct the issue.

Re:Here's a thought:

[worldthinker]

The starting wage at a Regional Carrier has been about $24-30K with few benefits and crazy schedules. Many need food stamps or other living assistance to make ends meet. Now they are trying to pay incentives because of the severe shortage but the airline industry failed to maintain a sustainable pipeline of talent because of its austerity in the past 20 years. And in 2018 even a wage of $70K has lower purchasing power parity than what pilots were paid 20 years ago. Given how poorly pilots are paid there has been an obvious reduction in supply.

The rub is, human labor is a small fraction of the cost of operating a jet. If they want pilots, they're going to have to pay them well and keep up those incentives.

Re:Here's a thought:

[jeff4747]

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier

Pilots do not start at a major carrier. They start at a regional carrier, where the starting salary is about $20-30k/year. The ones who stick it out at the regional carrier for years are the ones getting the "starting" wage you cite.

That's why regional carriers exist: To be the dirt-cheap thing everyone wants to get out of. And not everyone gets out by moving up to the major airlines.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I spent the last 20 YEARS flying jumbo jets full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for nothing?

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

Long hauls are the most desirable routes, and routes are usually bid according to seniority. A captain on an A-320 flying Detroit to Hong Kong has a very different work life than a first officer on a Bombardier regional jet working for a feeder airline, flying Chicago to Iowa City to Fargo to Duluth.

PEDANTIC ALERT!!!!

There is no way an A320 would ever be assigned to a Detroit-Hong Kong route. The range isn't there, and it isn't ETOPS certified.

The distance from Detroit, MI to Hong Kong is approximately 12,620 km. The typical range of an Airbus A320 with 150 passengers is around 6,100 km.

Any captain scheduled to fly such a route should look for a transfer immediately, not matter what the pay is!

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is why a lot of my pilot friends drink heavily and fuck everything that moves while on the "road."

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it 80 hours of work or 80 hours of flying? 80 hours of flying also means that you will be coming and goin to an airport in advance (which is not quite the same as commuting to the office) and staying overnight in remote locations multiple times a week (yes, in a all expenses paid hotel, but still not at home). So is not that you can exactly take another part time job and double the income.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

Long hauls are the most desirable routes, and routes are usually bid according to seniority. A captain on an A-320 flying Detroit to Hong Kong has a very different work life than a first officer on a Bombardier regional jet working for a feeder airline, flying Chicago to Iowa City to Fargo to Duluth.

On the other hand a captain on an A320 flying Detroit to Hong Kong non-stop will probably accrue many hours of submarine experience.

Re:Here's a thought:

[psmoot]

Starting wage for a major airline might be that much. For a regional airline, which is what TFA was talking about, it's much lower. I have niece who's a pilot and she really struggled to make ends meet when she started out.

Re:Here's a thought:

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If there really is a pilot shortage then ticket prices are going to rise anyway because there will be a limited number of flights that can be operated by all airlines combined.

True but what will really happen is airlines will shut down flying unprofitable or marginally profitable routes in order to concentrate on the profitable ones. There will be fewer planes (but they'll always be full instead of partially filled) needing fewer pilots. I'm not saying this is good for the average customer. I'm saying this is what will happen. I used to work at at airline so I know how they operate. They know exactly how profitable each flight is. Triage will mandate they cull money-losing routes first since they only exist to feed people to more profitable routes. Next will be the marginal routes for exactly the same reason.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Areyoukiddingme]

If the power supply in a production server catches fire, best practice is to schedule a meeting to determine whether DevOps should fix it, or whether the software team can issue a software patch to correct the issue.

The result of the meeting will be that the software team should rush out an untested patch which will set the redundant power supply on fire as well.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is most assuredly NOT the 1000-1500 hours required. That is a hurdle more than a sufficient number of people would go through if the resulting job was worth it. It isn't. Look at what's happening right now to Frontier pilots and tell me again how good America's pilots have it?

Re:Here's a thought:

[bws111]

Because there IS NO shortage. If there was actually a shortage of pilots then flights would have to be cancelled. No cancelled flights due to lack of pilots means no shortage. If it gets to the point when there is an actual shortage, THEN it will be a competitive advantage to pay more. Paying more NOW is a competitive disadvantage.

Re:Here's a thought:

[bws111]

Only if there is an actual shortage, not a 'pending' shortage. Since airlines are not cancelling flights due to lack of pilots, it is pretty safe to say there is no shortage. If and when there is an actual shortage, THEN it will be a competitive advantage to pay more (and ticket prices will have to rise). Until then, it is a disadvantage to have higher prices.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't pay me for that lifestyle.
I make a fraction the amount of money, but I also work a fraction the number of hours.

Re:Here's a thought:

[blindseer]

time between legs (airport appreciation)

I "appreciate" my time in airports too. The air is always bitterly cold and life sapping dry. There the vending machines are constantly empty, the coffee is overpriced, and if the shops have fruit for sale its over ripe. There's always a TV to watch for entertainment, where you can choose from CNN, Weather Channel, or Arrivals and Departures.

When the economy goes down the tubes, a lot of legacy pilots wind up back at the regionals and take a 70% pay cut to just keep flying. I'm considering going to Asia as a plan B.

I hope that you choose to stay but I wish you clear skies wherever the winds take you.

Re:Here's a thought:

[DigiShaman]

Or use a fire extinguisher to trash the box. DevOps get a new box, performance is increased, and backup restores are tested. Everyone's happy. Well, except for the department that has to foot the bill. But that's someone elses problem :)

Re:Here's a thought:

[AutodidactLabrat]

As usual, attempting to inject Capitalism to solve a problem created by Capitalism will be rejected as "not profitable enough"
By people who created the underpaid, overworked burnouts in the first place.
Thanks!

Re:Here's a thought:

[onepoint]

Sadly, I do recall around 2009 or 2010, reading something or watch 60 minutes where a pilot for a BIG airline had to have food stamps and worked in a fast food place to make ends meet.Shocked the living daylights out of me.

Re:Here's a thought:

[ghoul]

The Pilots job is supervising robots. Todays planes mostly fly themselves. The Pilot is there just in case the computer screws up. Its a boring job as most of the time you are doing nothing but also demanding as you have to be constantly alert to take over if the computer screws up. You cant use a robot to supervise robots.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

She may qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, maybe cut that down to 10 years instead. PSLF also doesn't count as income for tax purposes.

You have to file paperwork every year, so you might look into it sooner than later.

Re:Here's a thought:

[ElizabethGreene]

Data point: In 'Capitalism, A love story' Michael Moore purports to speak with a regional airline pilot that makes little enough to qualify for food stamps.

Whether or not you trust Mr. Moore to tell the whole, complete, and unfettered truth is a personal matter. I, in general, do not; though I do respect him very much.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother paying a pilot? Just ask (discretely) passengers if any of them want to fly the plane in exchange for the extra legroom?

If planes crash, the market will sort it out later. Also, the parent company can just have a thousand little shell corporations they lease the plane too so if there is a problem the main airline shareholders are protected.

Best of both worlds. Right?

Get rid of air Marshalls too, unnecessary tax wasting. Just pass out a few guns at random on each flight. The market will sort everything out.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Hognoxious]

If there was actually a shortage of pilots then flights would have to be cancelled.

Cancellations happen due to short term unpredictable things.

For long term predictable factors there's no need to cancel, because you wouldn't (and couldn't) schedule it in the first place.

Re:Here's a thought:

[CohibaVancouver]

Not to mention that a few years ago it was still very common to have young pilots pay to fly

...and 50 years ago, the majority of airline pilots came out of the military, where they already had thousands of hours of stick-time.

Re: Here's a thought:

[presidenteloco]

"I see. 160 hours just to sit on your ass doing nothing is very torturing."

Almost as torturing as 4 hours sitting on your ass programming routes into a GPS flight computer followed by 76 hours sitting on your ass dozing off and staring out the window at the aurora borealis.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did GP specify non-stop? Epic fail, you aspie spastic.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pure bullshit. I'm an airline pilot, formerly USAF. At my airline our Union is fighting hard just to get us to acceptable levels. Year after year the pay (adjusted for inflation) stays flat or goes down in various ways (e.g. taking away profit sharing). Pilots with seniority making $250k! hahahahahahahahahahhahaaaa yeah... if you've been with the airline since the Wright Brothers and you have less than 4 years left before you have to retire at 65. 50-60k is nothing, even for regional jet pilots. They ought to START at 90k. Don't forget that you waste a consider amount of money on the profession getting your own training and working jobs that pay less than minimum wage. This is not a glamorous job. You may make $250k your last handful of years, but up until that point, it's peanuts. Oh yes, and you are gone easily at least half the month and it's not just being gone for the day... it's being gone 100% of a 24-hour day away from your wife, pets, friends, etc. Also, you get plenty of exposure to toxic environments in and out of the airplane along with considerable radiation exposure due to cosmic radiation (about 10 times more than a nuclear plant worker). MINIMUM pay ought to start at $150k for First Officers flying 150 passengers (e.g. 737 or Airbus A320).

There's no pilot shortage. There's a shortage of people stupid enough to do the job for the poverty wages they offer. Don't feel sorry for any airline... they created this problem by caring more about shareholders and CEO golden parachutes rather than employees. Remember that pilots are like medical doctors - they require considerable education and experience. Oh, and 1500 hrs is too little. It's very dangerous to put a pilot in charge of things at just 1500 hrs (unless they are military) because time alone speaks nothing of the diversity and quality of exposure/training.

Re: Here's a thought:

[mapkinase]

Stop your crazy talk. It did not work for developers and it won't work for pilots. Better quality of service has never been utmost priority for corporations.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly: the cost of the pilots is a fairly trivial expense compared to almost everything else about air travel.

Secondly: Delta made nearly a billion dollars in profit last quarter. They don't have to choose between raising ticket prices and underpaying pilots. They are going to raise ticket prices anyway, and pay pilots less too, because if you want to get from A to B on a particular day you only have a choice of two or three carriers, and they are all in the same game.

Re:Here's a thought:

[deadweight]

This! Drive to airport. Preflight the plane. Load the cargo. Fly 2 hours. Unload the cargo. Unroll mat and nap in the back. Preflight. Load cargo. Fly 2 hours home. Unload cargo. Drive home. Time away from home = 12 hours. Pay = 4 hours.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most airlines are based at major cities that are extremely undesirable to live in. For example, I'm based in NYC and it's a total dump. I hate it there. You can TRY to live far away but you have to be able to get to the airport in an hour or so (depending on the airline) which means you can't live more than 20-30 miles away, or about 5 miles in city area. Virtually no-one gets to do "long hauls" unless they are jurassic pilots about to retire. 85% of all airline pilots are stuck in hellish conditions at poverty rates for what is expected of them. I'm also an engineer, as well as an airline pilots, and I can safely say that my old big company job was a piece of cake compared to being an airline pilots. Most people don't even have a concept of not being home every night.

Re:Here's a thought:

[CaptainDork]

I'm a retired IT guy.

For server work, I hired a local Microsoft Certified tech company that had a direct line, via a vendor code, to top-tier support.

My boss asked why I wasn't doing that work.

I told him I was outsourcing competency, liability, responsibility and security because I wasn't qualified.

He said he'd send me to the metropolis 2 hours away for training.

I told him that was a very bad idea because he'd have to hotel up, give me an expanse account, and I'd be off the job during the months of training and when that was done, I'd leave for much, much higher pay. .

We just left well enough alone.

I think your idea would create similar risks.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an airline pilot and USAF.

Those pilots crashed because they were not intellectually prepared for the situation. They were not exposed to the physics behind the scenario during any kind of academic training. Furthermore, there is no training requirement to address the issue they faced. Many of these low-tier airlines were hiring at super low hours and that's the problem. It takes 1500 just to make you *safe* to fly. It takes considerably longer to make you good. Civilian training is full of holes, academically speaking.

Do not be fooled into arguments which want to lower training requirements.

Re:Here's a thought:

[hawguy]

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

Long hauls are the most desirable routes, and routes are usually bid according to seniority. A captain on an A-320 flying Detroit to Hong Kong has a very different work life than a first officer on a Bombardier regional jet working for a feeder airline, flying Chicago to Iowa City to Fargo to Duluth.

PEDANTIC ALERT!!!!

There is no way an A320 would ever be assigned to a Detroit-Hong Kong route. The range isn't there, and it isn't ETOPS certified.

The distance from Detroit, MI to Hong Kong is approximately 12,620 km. The typical range of an Airbus A320 with 150 passengers is around 6,100 km.

Any captain scheduled to fly such a route should look for a transfer immediately, not matter what the pay is!

Since you're being pedantic, the A320 does have ETOPS-180 certification, which AFAIK is sufficient for DTW-Hong Kong.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroo...

Re:Here's a thought:

[AHuxley]

All the US mil pilots who cant take the g forces just don't get to have "free" thousands of hours anymore.
In the past the US would give the "thousands of hours" before testing the pilot only to find they would never be ready for g forces.
That allowed the USA to have a lot of really skilled pilots who could never fly for the mil.
The USA was also aware of what Communist nations did to try and create generations of pilots during the Cold War.

The USA did not want a mil pilot gap to be created so it was very open to the costs of educating as many of its own pilots even if a number of them had no mil g force ability.

The US mil now understands the need to test for g force skills before giving away the "free" thousands of hours.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Solandri]

The FAA limits flight time to 1000 hours per year. Which translated into the typical 5 days/week, 50 weeks/yr most people are familiar with, is an average of 4 hours per workday. As you point out, other factors lead to increased time spent working on the ground, which is probably part of the problem (not just for pilots but for air travel overall).

I think the low pay at regional airlines you point out is the bigger culprit. Airlines have tried to cut costs by shifting operations to regional airlines, where they have more leeway to cut costs and wages. This has resulted in them viewing regional airlines as a place to reduce the cost of pilot labor, rather than as "training grounds" for pilots who'll eventually work at the major airlines. I suspect airlines could get away with doing this because for most of the 20th century, there was a large supply of experienced ex-military pilots.

However, we haven't had any extended wars for over 4 decades. Throughout the 20th century, the military was churning out a constant stream of experienced pilots who logged hundreds if not thousands of hours flying during WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Since then, the wars the U.S. has been involved in have only lasted days or weeks - not enough time for pilots to log a lot of hours. Consequently, the crutch of experienced ex-military pilots the airlines had been relying on to justify driving down wages for regional airline pilots, has evaporated. If you consider a military pilot who logged hours over Vietnam, figure he left service at age 25 when the war ended (1975). Today he would be 68, which is right around retirement age. So yeah, right now is about the time you would expect the problem to come to a head.

The obvious solution is to raise pilot salaries at regional airlines. That'll get more civilian pilots to seriously consider it as a career, solving the supply shortage. Unfortunately there's a lag factor at play here. The FAA requires 1500 hours flight time before you can fly for the big airlines. Which combined with the 1000 hours/year limit means a minimum 1.5 year lag between the effect of any changes you make at the regional airline level trickling up to the major airlines.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Michael Woodhams]

The problem isn't with the major airlines, who generally treat their pilots fine, it is the commuter airlines. If you don't go the military route, you need to spend many years at a regional airline, where conditions historically have been much much worse than you describe. The conditions you describe are not available to novices - these are people with over a decade of piloting experience, and with expensive self-funded training. It is also the case that it is not the majors which are suffering from a pilot shortage - they can hire from the best of the current regional pilots, who will leap at the chance to fly for a major.

I am not a pilot, and the above paragraph describes USA conditions. I get my information from the 'Ask The Pilot' blog. The pilot in question addressed the pilot shortage in a post about a year ago. Here is an extract:

An aspiring aviator has to ask, is it worth sinking $100,000 or more into one’s primary training, plus the time it will take to build the necessary number of flight hours, plus the cost of a college education, only to spend years toiling at poverty-level wages, with at best a marginal shot at moving on to a major? For many the answer has been a resounding (and logical) no.

However, things are changing:

The regionals have finally started upping their salaries and improving benefits, in some cases substantially. The cost structures of these carriers, whose existence is primarily to allow the majors to outsource flying on the cheap, limits how much they can lavish on their employees, but frankly they have little choice. New hires at companies like Endeavor Air (a Delta affiliate) and PSA (American), for example, can now make first-year salaries in the $70,000-plus range. That’s three times what these pilots would have made in years past. Other companies are offering signing bonuses of several thousand dollars, and work rules too are getting better. Air Wisconsin, a United partner and one of the nation’s oldest regionals, says that pilots can now earn up to $57,000 in sign-on bonuses. It promises earnings of between $260,000 and $317,000, including salary and bonuses over the first three years of employment. Figures like that are unprecedented.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your notion of the job is not even close to realistic.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month. Pilots with seniority can easily makes $250k in a year before bonuses or profit sharing.
  Regionals currently pay about $50-60k yearly plus sign-up and retention bonuses. The issue isn't the pay or the work rules. The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline. Before the changes after the Colgan Air crash you only needed 250 hours to be an FO with a regional carrier.

Flying - the safest way to travel. I know, let's raise the minimum experience requirement five-fold!

Typical regulators, adding unnecessary burdens to every corner of society. Increasing costs, eroding privacy, and creating work for literally no reason beyond justifying their own parasitic relationship with the rest of society. Still, the regulatory agencies will continue to grow for now because most people believe that, without them, the sky would fall.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

$50-60k/year is garbage for a skilled technical field that requires travel 100% of the time. Pay the pilots more and the shortage will go away. Also, the airlines should start paying for training programs if they really want pilots - just like other industries need to train operators for manufacturing plants, IT staff, or maintenance workers.

But that's $50K a year for half-time work and when you only need to drive to work a few times a month (assuming you're doing long-hauls with overnight stays), you can live well outside of expensive cities.

That makes the pay more attractive.

I make more than that now and I don't have to travel for work at all (other than the commute). I also live well outside the city, and I can tell you that it is indeed garbage pay for something like being a pilot. I only have my associates and work in an office.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The starting wage for left seat may be $70-80 an hour, but that's after working for 20-25 years at $12-14/hour as a SIC.

Your average flight instructor makes more than a SIC.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving between airlines is either difficult or impossible. My understanding (not one myself but with airline pilot friends) is if you go to another airline, assuming you could get hired at all, you go to the back of the line in seniority and in the airline pilot occupation seniority is EVERYTHING, pay, schedule, and route choices. That is thanks to the pilot's unions. There are no good guys in the conflict between airline management and the unions.

Re:Here's a thought:

[blindseer]

The US mil now understands the need to test for g force skills before giving away the "free" thousands of hours.

What is the standard for this g-force testing? I can understand such testing for fighter pilots but there are a lot of pilots that don't fly fighters. Maybe a pilot that flew a F-18, F-16, or F-22 would make a good airline pilot but then so would someone that flies a C-17 cargo plane, B-52 bomber, or KC-135 tanker. Someone that flew a tanker for the military would be perfect for the airlines and not need to be g-force tested, unless I'm missing something. Even a military helicopter pilot would be a good pick for an airline since they've had experience and training that would directly translate to flying fixed wing aircraft.

What did the military do with the people that failed the g-force test but passed all the other testing? I'm guessing they'd at least try to get some payback on that training by shifting them over to a "low-g" air frame like a helicopter or tanker. I'm thinking someone that had training on the F-16 but failed the g-force test would make great candidates for a KC-135 or other tanker, since they'd understand the F-16 they'd be tanking up. Flying a big fat four engine airplane that was derived from the Boeing 707 would later be perfect candidates to fly a 747 or 787 as a civilian, or at least I'd think so.

Just how many "extra" pilots that failed the g-force test did they have, and where did these pilots go? I cannot disagree with what you stated but I'm just curious of the scale this happened, why the military would not address this sooner, so as to understand better how airlines benefited from this.

The USA was also aware of what Communist nations did to try and create generations of pilots during the Cold War.

I'm not aware. What were the Communists doing?

Re:Here's a thought:

[blindseer]

The US military has had a recruiting shortfall for a long time. I remember reading for years on how there's been problems finding recruits because applicants are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record. I also remember sitting in a recruiter's office and see it happen firsthand. A young man comes in with who I assume is his mother and talks to a recruiter and the conversation went something like this...

"Did you graduate high school?"
"Yes."
"Have you been arrested for anything?"
"No."
"Any traffic tickets?"
"I had a DUI 4 months ago."
"I can't take anyone with a DUI in the last 6 months. Talk to me in 2 months."

He leaves while quietly conversing with his mother about something. Given how quickly the recruiter went through the questions, and the specificity of them, I'm thinking he's had some experience with other people coming in. He didn't even bother to ask what MOS he wanted, or even bother with getting the guy's name or something that might speed up the process if/when he came back. Given the guy looked a bit heavy I expected him to ask about his weight.

Then there's competition between the services and among the openings in each service. Someone coming in and looking for a job, and is officer material, will find all kinds of options. These people will also be thinking of what kind of work they could get after they get out. The Air Force may be looking for pilots but the people coming in have their own goals in mind. There's shortages in legal, medicine, security/police forces, and special operations. If you are fit and smart enough to be a pilot then there's a good chance you'll be recruited for pararescue and special operator too. People that don't much care which branch they join can play each recruiter off the other to see which wants them more, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, or National Guard.

Getting back to the problems of the military recruiting people that are too fat, can't pass a drug test, or have a criminal record, then flight schools and airlines will find problems finding people for the same reasons. There's FAA requirements on passing a medical exam and a background check. If one can't be a military pilot then they are likely ineligible to be a civilian pilot.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked into getting commercial heli license. Awesome machines but cost/value/risk didnâ(TM)t pan out. Min hours to work commercial was high, chance of many uses replaced by drone or auto pilot is very high. Cost and experience required is to high for these risks.

Re:Here's a thought:

[RevDisk]

Na. It's geared around FAA requirements, and pretty much the expectation that you're either a former military pilot or are willing to near starve working for tiny places to rack up the hours.

1000 flight hours charitably will cost $200,000 at $200/hour plane rental cost. For a Piper Arrow. For a smaller Cessna, half that. That's still not an insignificant investment. Oh, and every pilot is one busted medical away from being unemployable. Potentially forever as pilot.

Re:Here's a thought:

[AHuxley]

The US mil was creating a lot of "pilots" to a very advanced level only later to test them for g-force testing.
That resulted in a lot of people who could only ever do further "tanker" work.

Re "Just how many "extra" pilots that failed the g-force test did they have, and where did these pilots go?"
The more smart mil tested their people who wanted to enter their mil before all that with an entry g-force test.
Could not pass the needed g-force test? No mil further spending on that person.
The US did all the work with people only to find out near the end that they could never work under any g-force conditions.
In terms of g force amount and ability to think and take in vast amounts of new information quickly under stress.
Re "What were the Communists doing?"
Getting a lot of people interested in flying with free flight clubs, flight schools. The CIA and US mil thought a skill gap would open up due to the amount of people per generation invited into further free flying education.
Not everyone was skilled and had the ability and fitness but the numbers invited in to try was different from the USA.
The CIA did not like the numbers discovered per decade getting to try flying vs the average skilled US mil intake.

That was all made good now with drones and AI for free fire zones.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck takes a job where they only pay you for half the time?

As long as my employer tells me what to do and where to go, they better pay me for the time. That includes prep and finish times. As for pilots, work should end when they arrive at the hotel or home and start when they leave those. Unless the do flight prep there, then it stops once that is done.

Why do airlines think only flight time counts as work and expect the pilot to give them free work?

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anne Thwacks]

Corporations will need to change now, or in 10 years they will total screwed.

They are corporations - they only care about next quarter's results. If the one after that looks bad, short the stock

Re:Here's a thought:

[im_thatoneguy]

That is for 80 hours a month. Our normal work jobs in the us have us ordinary folks working 160 hours a month. The hourly rate is well into the normal 6 figure if working full time.

As mandated by the FAA you can't fly on average more than 40 hours a month. So it's not like you can take on an extra shift. And those are just flight hours, getting a plane into the air isn't exactly like turning on a laptop and logging in, that shit takes time.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Help me with the math. Iâ(TM)m sure youâ(TM)re right; please tell me what information Iâ(TM)m missing:

If youâ(TM)re guaranteed 80 flight hours a month at a regional airline and you need to get 1500 hours of flight experience, shouldnâ(TM)t it take

1500 / 80 = 19 months?

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

It helps those 4 hours net a few thousand dollars.

Re:Here's a thought:

[_Sharp'r_]

The pilots had more than 1500 hours already and they didn't change the requirements to address the specific issue they faced. So what's the point of the 1500 hour requirement for the FO in terms of addressing that specific crash?

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I will fly on the robot-piloted passenger plane only through my telepresence robot.

Re: Here's a thought:

[c6gunner]

It's not really a capitalism problem, it's a government regulations clashing with capitalism problem.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

environmental I'm guessing

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a capitalism isn't good enough to solve the problem by itself and needs government to make it work problem.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Hodr]

I live near a regional airport and work with many "hobby" pilots. While I don't know much about the industry, I know these guys only pay a couple grand to get certified, then belong to clubs or have group ownership/leasing deals such that they all seem to be able to fly every week (for I assume several hours) for a couple hundred bucks a month.

It would take a while, but I imagine if you did this for a few years you would end up meeting the requirement just in time for a late-in-life career change.

Re:Here's a thought:

[jellomizer]

Consultants.
Companies always try to get consultants on a hourly rate with a fix cost cap.
Because if the consultant is asked for a Fixed Cost Gig, they will factor in the project is harder then expected, and hope to make it under so they can get extra money. If it is hourly their rates are normally lower knowing they they will have steady work, until the project is done.

Fixed cost to the company normally means they are paying more for work that may not need to be done.
Hourly to the company means the consultant doesn't has a motivation to complete the work.

Companies think they are being clever deal makers when they have the hourly with a fixed cost cap. Thinking they can get the best of both worlds, but not so much, any consultant worth their salt, knows for that case the hourly rate will be adjusted for the risk of hitting a cap, extra overhead making sure the specifications are clearly written and drawn out, any extra effort is considered a new contractual change. and overall making the overall process far more expensive. Because there was some VP at the company who thinks they are this super smart deal maker.

However consultants have say on what they will accept and not, Pilots should be paid for their work including the administrative stuff as well.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Miser]

.... and that's when I'll only fly when it's no-other-option absolutely necessary.

When it's worse than it already is, I'll pass. (and flying now is like being herded up like cattle ....)

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

> DevOps get a new box
[Citation Needed]

> performance is increased
[Citation Needed]

They might just keep the burned out box. If management, after six months of meetings, decides to get a new box, it is not a four gone conclusion that it will be a better box than you had before.

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

It's like being packed in a can of sardines. There is not one cubic centimeter of space not filled with something. In order to move anything, you must first move something else out of its way -- recurse.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Better solution: make planes 100% self flying but staff the plane with an experienced pilot and hire co-pilots with fewer hours of experience. Pay the co-pilot far less and let them accumulate flight hours babysitting the automated systems while the experienced pilot occasionally turns off the automated system to let the co-pilot go hands on to get a feel for everything. It will reduce operating costs up-front while allowing new pilots the opportunity to get their flight hours in to become fully certified pilots.

Re: Here's a thought:

[c6gunner]

Yes, problems created by government need government to solve them. Cue the look of shock and surprise.

Re:Here's a thought:

[PrimaryConsult]

Trains are pretty safe (at least for the passengers on them). And railway crews, unlike flight crews, get paid like normal people - regular pay or OT for every minute they're on the job, whether the train is moving or not, whether they're in the cab or in a station or crew office. Might be why there's not much of a shortage there.

How the hell did airline crews get such a crappy deal?

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only get seniority, assuming that the airline doesn't restructure and WHOOPS you're on the bottom again.

c.f. TWA fucking over all the pilots

Re:Here's a thought:

[clodney]

After I wrote that I realized I meant to say A330 rather than an A320. You are correct.

And also a pedant.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

If there was actually a shortage of pilots then flights would have to be cancelled.

Cancellations happen due to short term unpredictable things.

For long term predictable factors there's no need to cancel, because you wouldn't (and couldn't) schedule it in the first place.

You might have an unrealistic concept of what "scheduling" means. What if it turns out that the typical case is not something you believe will happen for sure, but just an aspirational goal? (spoiler: this is the case)

That something is scheduled tells you, literally, that it has been written down on a piece of paper called a "schedule." No more, no less.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

That's like claiming that if a lack of consequences would increase the rate of theft, you've proven theft is good because people prefer to do it. It is complete horseshit. Individual preference tells you nothing about if an outcome is desirable, and it doesn't even try to address the topic of desirability.

Do you also think that drug addicts prefer to be drug addicts, because they've demonstrated a pattern of behavior? Are all patterns of behavior inherently desirable? Is that truly a natural characteristic of behavior patterns?

Re: Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

I scanned your answer very heavily in attempting to detect if you provided an answer to my question, or not. And it appears to be "or not."

You posted a misleading comment; I asked a simple question for narrow clarity on a very specific aspect of it; you responded with a bunch of mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.

Clearly, the answer is that it was not all true as stated, but is one of those infamous "versions of the truth" instead. Truth doesn't have versions, though. There is either a lie, or an error, and you deny that there is any error. I'll leave it at that.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Nidi62]

I answered it perfectly. Pilots cannot be considered to work a 40 hour week because, by federal law, they can only work the equivalent of 20 hours a week if doing flight duty. Pilots with seniority are making well over $200 an hour base pay.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

Right, but that wasn't even close to the question. It is mealy-mouthed bullshit that avoids the question.

Why would you respond to that observation by repeated the mealy-mouthed bullshit? You already know it doesn't have any value in the context you're posting it.

Re:Here's a thought:

[djinn6]

If they flew 3 hours a week, that's 156 hours per year, or 9.6 years before they can apply for a job at an airline. In the mean time, they'll need some way of feeding themselves, which means they'll need some other well-paying job.

At that point, it's no longer a career choice, but a hobby.

Re:Here's a thought:

[iamhassi]

Trust CNN to run a "conversation" article about supply and demand devoid of actual economics.

Soon as I saw it was from CNN I rolled my eyes. The article starts out with thousands of well paying jobs available, then by the end they sound like fast food workers with 100K in school loans. Complete waste of time to read this. Drones will replace pilots anyway, if a car can drive itself then a plane can too, actually it's easier to make a self flying plane then a self driving car because cars have a lot more obstacles to watch out for on the ground than planes do and planes are all tracked while cars go everywhere. I'm surprised pilots haven't been replaced already.

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 50-60 dollars per HOUR not 50-60 K per YEAR

Re:Here's a thought:

[q_e_t]

The GP's meaning was pretty clear. If you can't hire pilots to fly twice as many flights, you don't try to offer that many flights, even if you could fill them if you offered them.

Re:Here's a thought:

[q_e_t]

Paying more doesn't necessarily increase the supply of pilots in the short term overall, although it might allow one airline to tempt pilots from another. However, that might just end up in a bidding war, and so an airline might end up with no more pilots overall, but higher costs. It might encourage people to eventually become pilots that could be hired, but there might be a long lag.

Re:Here's a thought:

[q_e_t]

Isn't the fire the responsibility of Microsoft/Amazon/Google to deal with?

Re:Here's a thought:

[DickBreath]

Not for those big enough to have their own server rooms and connectivity.

As an extreme example, if you're a Facebook or Twitter you might not be using Azure / Google / Amazon hosting.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

Yup. And taking the cost of training into account (expects around $10K for the private pilot license), it's going to be a while before new recruits are interested in - or able to - get into this. Especially at burger-flipper wages that are available.

The student debt crisis is just starting. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the U.S. in 15 years.

Re:Here's a thought:

[q_e_t]

whoosh

Re:Here's a thought:

[eric_harris_76]

Pay the pilots more and the shortage will go away.

Yep. And/or make the job more appealing other ways: fewer hours, longer intervals between flights, whatever.

That's the compensation side. There's also helping prospective employees meet the flight hours requirement, so they can become actual employees.

Passenger airlines could perhaps make some kind of a deal with air cargo shippers, so pilots could get experience hours on cargo planes (which I assume have less rigorous experience requirements for their pilots).

Or they could foot the bill for some of the prospective employee's training costs, with the pilot not paying it back if they work for the airline for x number of years.

Each airline wants pilots, and as does the airline industry as a whole. If they don't do something to get them, they won't be airlines any more, just owners of idle used airplanes. "Ain't nobody want that!"

(Yes, I did not RTFA. These possibilities may have already been covered.)

Re:Here's a thought:

[_Sharp'r_]

Revealed Preference is a specific economics tool for helping determine which of several consumer choices result in the most utility for a consumer.

So yeah, it tells you what people want. We should let people have what they want because it generally makes them happier than forcing them to do what someone else wants instead. That's the default position. If there is some other negative effect of what they want, then that needs to have evidence and be demonstrated before moving from that default position.

If you don't agree with that, then I want you to agree anyway, in which case not agreeing with the former, I guess you have to agree with the latter, by your logic...

Re: Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to do away with capitalism and governments?

I'm sure that will solve the problems...

Re:Here's a thought:

[Aighearach]

You don't seem to have even considered what was said, you only considered what you believe and rephrased it, without any thought to what you're replying to.

That there exists a "specific economic tool" in the world is not in doubt. There are many of them. And yet, that doesn't change the meaning of English words. If you can't tell the difference between a tool, which by definition is not a simulation of reality but merely something literally incorrect that has some defined utility, and a discussion of what is actually happening, well then you won't succeed at adding anything to the conversation.

All you do is re-assert an assertion, but the actual assertion you're trying to use isn't an assertion of reality at all, it is an assertion of an contextual tool. Repeating it will not cause it to bridge over to reality and become a truism.

And of course in economics you get to totally ignore one side of something that is mutually subjective; the whole context of "economics" implies that one side has a fixed subjective perspective, and that you don't care about the perspective of the other side at all, only about their final behavior. Analysis tools for that context will never ever be relevant to general discussions that are considering the subjective perspectives of all the stakeholders. In economics that would always degrade your results, you're always going to want to be asserting a subjective perspective on one side, and measuring behavior on the other.

Re:Here's a thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots don't get to party with alcohol.

Ha! Pilots are some of the heaviest drinkers I've ever known. And they keep very careful track of their schedules to fit in as much as possible and still be sober when required.

Re:Here's a thought:

[_Sharp'r_]

Again, you haven't addressed anything yourself.

Individual preference tells you at least one person (that individual) finds that option better than another one. That's what a preference is.

So they've used their specific knowledge of themselves to determine that. As a result, in a society which values individual rights and self-determination, honoring that preference is the default position. If you're going to claim it's instead bad, then the burden at that point is on you to show why it's bad. Until then, I'll go ahead and continue to assume people are right about what's better for them by default, rather than saying it's bad by assertion.

Individual preference tells you a lot about if something is desirable. It's a rebuttable presumption. The part you haven't bothered to do with the original discussion (flying) is make any attempt at rebutting that presumption by providing evidence or arguments why people getting their preferred outcomes would be bad. Instead, you've gone off on some tangent about how by default, what people want for themselves doesn't matter. I suspect that's not actually what you believe, if only about yourself and what you personally want.

Re: Here's a thought:

[AutodidactLabrat]

No, it's a Capitalism problem
The Airlines, NOT GOV'T has been cutting flight hours, pay, and perks for 40 years.
Now they whine.

Re: Here's a thought:

[AutodidactLabrat]

Gov't had nothing to do with Airline's cutting pay and perks.

Re:Here's a thought:

[dyslexicbunny]

Trains are quite safe. But their travel time are a turnoff compared to flights in the US for anything long range. New England and the Mid Atlantic coast might be the only routes time competitive with air. It's basically a 3 day trip from New England to San Diego by train while it's one day by plane. Even if the airline is twice as much, the convenient will always trump rail.

But yeah, we definitely should fix airline salaries so they aren't shit.

regional airlines pay very low

[Joe_Dragon]

regional airlines pay very low

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

^^^^ This, or so I heard. A friend of mine finally "made it to (national/international airline)" after umpteen years and it was the difference between his wife being the breadwinner and his wife staying at home with the kids.

Re: regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here to say this as well. A regional pilot friend of mine makes less than $40k a year ten years into his career.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[Austerity Empowers]

Whenever there's an article about a shortage of X, it's usually because the pay/conditions of X are terrible, nobody wants to do it FOR THAT WAGE, and thus there's a shortage. But the hope is that somehow this shortage will etiher drum up business for schools/certification, remove regulations that prevent unqualified people from doing the work, or otherwise prevent having to take the revenue that is lost to profit and use it for employees. Really hard to give a flying fuck.

Re: regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

That is awful. No wonder supply is so low.

Want more? Pay more. Next!

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's the Millennial Problem again: Millennials entering the job market who expect instant senior level pay, and not to have to work up to that level, starting at entry-level wages.

Re: regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

Smh. I would say why do you care? You will be dead soon anyway. You old fart.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[RyoShin]

Really hard to give a flying fuck.

Especially right now because it's difficult to find someone to pilot that fuck.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

not to have to work up to that level, starting at entry-level wages.

Or they just want the entry-level wages that their parents had.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[Anonymous Coward]

No, regulations were changed that made entering the industry far more expensive and time consuming than previously, and nothing else was changed to compensate.

Specifically, the FAA increased the minimum experience for a first officer to six times the level it was at previously, in response to an accident where both of the pilots had over that experience level already anyway.

In the past, obtaining a commercial certificate was expensive but not impossible. Today you obtain a commercial certificate, and then spend years accruing flight hours as a flight instructor while making less than a Barista. Or you pay out of pocket for those hours and accrue medical-school levels of debt. At that point, you may get into a regional airline that wants to pay you entry level wages, jerk around your schedule, and put you on furlough. If you're really smart, you get that commercial certificate and then go fly for an airline in another (still civilized) country, since many are also experiencing shortages but did not raise experience levels for no reason.

Also, few millennials are "entering the job market" at this point. The very tail end of that generation are finishing up college right now, while many have been in the job market for over a decade.

But yeah, those millennials suck.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[MalachiK]

Exactly this. I teach physics. All you hear over here in the UK is that there is a shortage of physics teachers. There are plenty of people walking around with engineering or physics degrees who could do the job, but for reasons that nobody other then working teachers can understand most people would rather be doing something else. Rather than pay more or improve working conditions we're seeing more unqualified staff working in schools. Another thing I hear is employers bitching and moaning all the time about a shortage of engineers. Again, this is just means they can't get enough people to work at a price that they're willing to pay. No shortage of bright students, but they all want to go into medicine or law.

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[lexman098]

remove regulations that prevent unqualified people from doing the work ... Really hard to give a flying fuck.

What?

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[bhcompy]

Indeed. Perfectly fair to desire an entry level wage that kept with inflation from decades ago

Re:regional airlines pay very low

[RevDisk]

There's also the problem of FAA mandated flight hours before you can get an ATP. It's 1500 hours of flight time, or was back when I did that sort of thing. Also, you can't just spend that time as the FO anymore. You need 1500 hours to sit in the other seat as well, not the 250 previously. That makes it hugely difficult. That's a minimum of $100k in training costs, and the pilot could flunk a medical at any time through no fault of their own.

It's not just whiny corps. They didn't help by failing to address this a decade ago.

drone planes are fine

[Anonymous Coward]

most pilots are drunks anyway

Top Gun 2 will boost people into the milltary

[Joe_Dragon]

Top Gun 2 will boost people into the milltary

Re: Top Gun 2 will boost people into the milltary

[Anonymous Coward]

Abd the upcoming wars in Southeast Asia will provide a future pilot pool.

Re: Top Gun 2 will boost people into the milltary

[Aighearach]

Your math might be suspect; a war would cause a lot of pilots to be recalled, even ones whose service would otherwise have already been finished for years.

Training increases related to a war would likely focus on unmanned aircraft.

Here's the reason

[DaMattster]

The pay is very low and the training is very expensive. New pilots come into the field debt laden and have difficulty making ends meet, let alone paying on the student debt. Either make the training substantially less expensive or make the starting wage substantially more.

Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Applehu Akbar]

Airline pilot used to be a prestige job which for a system airline could be a lifetime career. Starting pilots now make $24 an hour, which is slightly higher than a Walmart greeter:
http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/...

Think about that the next time you roar down the runway on your way somewhere.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Nidi62]

Airline pilot used to be a prestige job which for a system airline could be a lifetime career. Starting pilots now make $24 an hour, which is slightly higher than a Walmart greeter: http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/...

Think about that the next time you roar down the runway on your way somewhere.

Your article is about 4 years and $26 per hour out of date.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[known_coward_69]

that was when it was all ex navy and air force pilots who were at the top of their HS classes and went to one of the best colleges in the world and had 20 years experience flying planes

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting hours requirements to even get into those positions, which is almost always accomplished making pennies as a flight instructor on top of paying for your own training. Just a single engine PPL is around $10k, then you get into the expensive programs.

For first officier:
Must have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) OR ability to obtain an ATP or Restricted ATP

1500 hrs total flight time or
Graduate of Restricted ATP authorized institution with:
1,250 hrs, associate’s degree with aviation major
1,000 hrs, bachelor’s degree with an aviation major
750 flight hours if military-trained and qualified

Keep in mind, if you are paying for those hours instead of getting paid for them, it is likely around $100 an hour or more just for a Cessna.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Albanach]

Your article is about 4 years and $26 per hour out of date

We should note though that the $50+ figure is based on limited hours. If we're comparing it with other jobs, we'd want to compare against a 2080 hour work year which sees their pilots earning about $29/hour.

$29/hour for highly skilled employment with unsociable hours and lots of travel is not high. Add to that the very high training cost.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[religionofpeas]

Starting pilots now make $24 an hour, which is slightly higher than a Walmart greeter:

Pilots have nicer uniforms.

Re: Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Type44Q]

...when it was all ex navy and air force pilots

If you ever get a chance to meet a bunch of carrier aviators... and then get to meet their 'not-so-cool, calm & collected' fundie/Southern fratboy counterparts - i.e. Air Force fighter pilots - you wouldn't even risk mentioning them both in the same sentence.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Nidi62]

According to the FARs(specifically 121.471), no commercial pilot can work more than 100hrs a month or 1000 hours in a calendar year. A person working 40hrs a week, assuming 2 weeks off, works 2000 hours in a calendar year. The average wage for someone with an advanced degree in the US is $70,000. If a pilot were to work at their wage for the standard 2000 hours a year at that $50 an hour rate, they would be making $100-120k a year, well over the average wage. Show me other part-time jobs that pay $50 an hour.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[angel'o'sphere]

Software developer ...
Doctor ...
Lawyer ...
Teacher ... (probably not in the US, though)

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[BLToday]

Show me other part-time jobs that pay $50 an hour.

Strippers, I mean exotic dancers. And dental hygienist apparently, my cousin’s wife gets paid that much as a dental hygienist but she has to string together work at three dental offices to make it a full time job.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Aighearach]

It may turn out that even though they're only getting paid for that many hours, the actual time commitment is much higher.

Other part time jobs only use up part of your time; this is a part time job that uses up all your time.

It isn't like you can work a typical second part time job from a random airport hotel. All that time is taken up by the job.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Nidi62]

It isn't like you can work a typical second part time job from a random airport hotel. All that time is taken up by the job.

Fun Fact: Many pilots have side-jobs (actually, for some pilots senior enough that they can sit reserve and not fly while still getting full pay, "pilot" is their $200k a year side job). They might be away from home 3-5 days at a time (sometimes as long as 9 days for some international trips) but then they could be home for the next 2 weeks straight. plenty of time to have another career. Many own another business of some type.

Re: Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Nidi62]

...when it was all ex navy and air force pilots

If you ever get a chance to meet a bunch of carrier aviators... and then get to meet their 'not-so-cool, calm & collected' fundie/Southern fratboy counterparts - i.e. Air Force fighter pilots - you wouldn't even risk mentioning them both in the same sentence.

Is it really true that while the other branches of the military have their recruits qualify at the rifle range Air Force pilots have to qualify at the driving range?

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[bobbied]

Multi-engine is double that. $100 is a small single engine non-complex aircraft, with fuel and oil. For your 1500 hours you need complex and multi engine time ($200/hour or so), preferably even turbine time ($1k/hour or more). Then there is the instructor cost, which I'm sure is over $80/hour these days.

My calculations on the back of the envelope tell me you will be out a quarter of a million paying for flight time, offset some if you get your CFI and can get some of that time paid for by your students and make $80/hour to eat off of.

It's going to take a LONG time to pay back a quarter of a million dollars on a pilot's pay.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad's buddy was a co-pilot for overseas 747 flights. He kept the co-pilot seat instead of moving to captains just so he would have the seniority to do exactly this. He was also an alfalfa farmer (besides...you can land in alflalfa...) with a full blown farm. He worked for 4 days or so and got 2 weeks off :O

Remember almost half of those jobs are for CO-pilots at less pay. A starting pilot is the guy that gets the 1 hour flights back and forth all day everyday. Get paid for 4 hours of flight time but takes all day. Not enough time between flights to do anything useful. LOL, also there is a shortage of bus drivers that have the same schedule!

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Khyber]

"Show me other part-time jobs that pay $50 an hour."

Competent network cable runners can do that in 15 minutes with a single cable run.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand...

1 FLIGHT HOUR involves around 2-5 hrs of NON-FLYING time. So, if you work 70 hrs, you may still be away from home 15-18 days a month. It's not like the 40 hr/work week you are thinking of. Also, that 15-18 days a month is NOT AT HOME. It's in hotel rooms away from wife, pets, family, and friends. It's a very solitary life.

If you converted pilot time to normal people time, try doing this math: $100,000 per yr / (18 days per month * 24 hrs * 12 months per year) =~ $19/hr

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[RevDisk]

They're only paid flight hours, unless salary or contract. There's a bit more to the process than just hopping in the plane and taking off. Figure twice as many 'unpaid' hours as actual flight hours for more realistic estimate. So, that $50/hour job is closer to $15-25 in realistic terms.

Re:Talk about a no-brainer issue

[Anonymous Coward]

That normalization exxagerates the pay of part-time jobs that are paid hourly. You should subtract out paid time off and possibly some fraction of federal holidays for the divisor.

Regional airline pilot pay SUCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Old news.

Why airlines are running out of pilots

According to data for 14 regional airlines, the average new pilot’s hourly wage is about $24 per hour, the report says. But the Air Line Pilots Association estimates that the average starting salary is even lower than that — $22,500 per year, which for a 40-hour work week equals an hourly rate of $10.75. Unsurprisingly, 11 of the 12 regional airlines the GAO interviewed reported difficulties filling entry-level first-officer vacancies.

Not only that - the lifestyle of a regional airline pilot absolutely sucks.

Re:Regional airline pilot pay SUCKS

[greenwow]

> $22,500 per year,

I helped two of my neighbors with their taxes a couple of years ago that are pilots for a regional Delta affiliate, and I can confirm the pay is low. Both made around $24k a year. They didn't have to work that much since Delta is severely limited by SEATAC's terrible design that limits capacity (which is supposed to be helped by an upgrade in 2020), but that's still not much money to live off of in the Seattle area.

Re:Regional airline pilot pay SUCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple that with the cost of training.

I've wanted to get my pilots license, but I'm going to be too old for an airline once I've got the hours in.

It's also not worth it to switch careers, but for a hobby it seems like fun.

Re:Regional airline pilot pay SUCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

An expensive hobby, but PPL+instrument is not terrible and as long as you're healthy there's no aging out.

Doing it for a living unless you just wanted to train students for fun, much worse prospects. All of my instructors have been retirees from other careers who enjoy flying and supplement their income.

Supply falls because pay and status have declined

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no mystery in this. Airlines will have to increase pay to attract more pilots.

If they're that desperate

[Oswald McWeany]

If they were that desperate they would be training pilots themselves.

Re:If they're that desperate

[Nidi62]

If they were that desperate they would be training pilots themselves.

They are. Jetblue has an ab initio program and other major airlines are following suit with similar programs.

Re:If they're that desperate

[apoc.famine]

This is the answer.

Every time someone bemoans that there aren't enough X or the X they have aren't good enough, there are two questions to ask: 1) Are you paying people enough to want to do that job?/are the working conditions so shit that nobody wants to do that?, and 2) What are you doing to lower the barrier of entry for people who want in?

Almost always the problem is that the organization complaining is trying to be cheap.

Re:If they're that desperate

[Anonymous Coward]

The sort of are; for a person accepted off the street ab initio tuition is still $125,000. The others assume you've already done a hefty bit of that investment on your own.

Re:If they're that desperate

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL WOMEN ARE QUEENS

Re:If they're that desperate

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Almost always the problem is that the organization complaining is trying to be cheap.

Yet in this case it's a multitude of factors, not all of which are under the control of airlines. Training costs are very high but unavoidable for a profession charged with the care of 100+ human lives several times a day. This presents a formidable barrier to entry that heretofore was mostly taken care of by ex-military pilots. Now that supply isn't meeting demand and the extreme costs of private training are being felt more keenly.

Training is affected by regulation, mainly by having very high minimum requirements. I won't debate whether this is good or bad. I merely state it's something outside the control of the airline. Sure, airlines can foot the bill if they're desperate enough but then you have the issue of employee retention. To recoup those costs that employee needs to stay with the airline for quite a while and few employees will want to sign something binding them to a particular job -- or with the penalties of having to repay the education -- for the decade it will likely take to repay it.

Then there are fuel costs. There's an old saying in the airline industry: how do you turn a billionaire into a millionaire? Have him buy an airline. You may think airlines are awash in cash but they're not. Most are barely making it. A slight upturn in fuel costs can turn a barely-profitable airline into a sinking ship overnight.

Then we have regulations again, this time on the maximum amount of flying time mandated by the FAA and mandatory retirement ages. Again, I won't debate the merits of said regulation, only draw attention to it as a limiting factor in the current shortage.

Basic economics would tell anyone who can fog a mirror that high barriers to entry, low starting pay, high regulation, and demanding job conditions would create exactly the situation we're currently facing. It's been artificially sustained by military retirees for decades. Without that stimulus the current setup cannot last.

Re:If they're that desperate

[Anonymous Coward]

JetBlue has a horrible program. You are paying for your own education. It's better to go to a normal college, do their aviation program, and get another skill at the same time. These ab initio programs are dangerous and also they do not guarantee any success. If you fail any part of it, you're out all that time and money. JetBlue's program needs to be shut down ASAP. It's just a ploy to further drive down wages and lower safety standards.

Getting started is horrendous

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation has gotten absolutely miserable for student pilots, worse than trying to become a doctor in many ways (and that's saying something). And taking that risk (debt) buys you entrance to starving as a regional pilot for many years, until MAYBE you get hired on for a wage that can finally provide a life.

And then you're still just a bus driver in the sky. Passengers certainly treat it as such, in no small part due to the airlines treating the passengers like cattle. Honestly, I think the whole US air industry is just fucked.

Re:Getting started is horrendous

[ghoul]

A surgeon is just a butcher who puts the parts back together too. Its the money which makes it prestigious so a Bus Driver in the sky can be prestigious if paid enough

Thank Sully

[aaarrrgggh]

I imagine when small markets no longer have air service the political pressure will repeal the 1,500 hour rule with something logical.

Paying $200,000 for an ATP to work for the regionals is like paying $200,000 for a BS in Poly-Sci to work at Mc Donald’s.

But, senior pilots are paid very well with good benefits. They (like Sully) are the ones that caused the problem, for no improvement in safety.

Re:Thank Sully

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Regionals can not pay a salary that covers the cost to trian, then capitalism says they have a flawed business model and will go out of Business.
That is how Capitalism works.

Re:Thank Sully

[aaarrrgggh]

Which is not necessarily in the best interests of the country, and certainly not in the best interests of the communities that will lose air service. It comes out to about $4/passenger-flight-hour to improve pay for regional pilots to one that is sustainable with the 1,500 hour rule. The safety improvement can be better made at a lower cost... but regulation is trumping capitalism.

Re:Thank Sully

[knorthern knight]

> But, senior pilots are paid very well with good benefits. They (like Sully)
> are the ones that caused the problem, for no improvement in safety.

How many new, relatively inexperienced, pilots could've made a "deadstick" ditching of an A320 without resulting in a catastrophic cartwheeling that would've killed most people on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Thank Sully

[aaarrrgggh]

What Sully did in the Hudson was amazing. His politics on this particular issue less so.

Re:Thank Sully

[djinn6]

That's not an argument for requiring 1500 hours for the copilot. Captains should have a lot of experience, but the 1500 hours + ATP requirement hasn't changed for captains since the Colgan crash.

Also, as amazing as the ditching was, it does not in any way prove that a less experienced pilot would've failed. I mean, how many deadstick ditchings were there in A320s? How many of those where flown by glider pilots? Frankly, requiring glider training probably would've done much more for improving the average skill level than the flight time requirement.

No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay decreased, while workload increased.

Get rid of the 1500 hour rule...

[b0s0z0ku]

Get rid of the idiotic 1500 hour rule, keep the rules as far as crew rest hours. Both of the pilots in the 2008 crash that precipitated the 1500 hour rule had more than 1500 hours in the cockpit. Most of the world does fine with co-pilots starting with 250 to 500 hours -- this allows them to be trained on the job.

It's the major's fault...

[TigerPlish]

...because they've pushed huge chunks of their route coverage onto regionals that pay very little, all in the name of Profit!

By pushing it all on the regionals, the majors have lowered expenses, and also push away some of the responsibility.

What's the result? Worse service.

Keep at it, Legacy Carriers. Keep diggin' that grave.

Re:It's the major's fault...

[Anonymous Coward]

> By pushing it all on the regionals, ...

You aren't exaggerating. American Eagle that is a regional for America Airlines, is a collection of nine different airlines that operate flights to over 230 destinations that I can remember off of the top of my head. I'm sure there's another fifty or so that I can't remember.

why train when they can get an 100K student loan

[Joe_Dragon]

why train when they can get an 100K student loan to cover it.

They did it to themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to airline pilot during the 2000s was accompanied by years with a $19k salary, crappy routes, and numerous furloughs on top of paying for expensive flight training out of pocket, all while the FAA raised hours requirements. In the long term it is still a prestigious career, but only those who truly love flying and have few other goals are willing to slog through the crap.

Chinese airlines are sending students to train here beginning with the single engine Cessnas. US airlines are going to have to create their own similar, smooth training pipeline and supply a living wage if they want to have pilots. Luckily, they depend on pilots, so something will change.

The military shrunk, and is having their own pilot shortage. The Air Force is even testing enlisted pilots again despite enlisted members not being part of the gentlemen class.

Re:They did it to themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

And that living wage should be appropriate for a highly-skilled worker spending a lot of time away from home with as many or more lives in their hands every day as a doctor.

This industry should have school not much different in intensity from medical school, internships similar to medical internships, and salaries similar to doctors when they are through.

These are not bus drivers. A bus driver would have to try really, really hard to achieve a crash that kills everyone on board. A pilot has to be well-trained in order to avoid that same crash.

Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[XXongo]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

So, why does the first hit on my google search for "starting pay for airline pilots" say "Starting Salaries. A regional airline pilots in the U.S. typically starts out making an hourly rate of $20 – $50 per hour, or about $20,000-$40,000 per year, depending on the airline, type of aircraft, and the pilot's experience level."

with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

...and, as the very same page on my google search helpfully tells me, "The average airline pilot logs 75 hours a month in the air and sometimes up to 150 hours per month performing ground duties like simulator training, maintaining records, performing pre-flight inspections, flight planning and traveling to and from hotels and airports."

...

Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.

I know, that's crazy talk.

The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

So, why does the first hit on my google search for "starting pay for airline pilots" say "Starting Salaries. A regional airline pilots in the U.S. typically starts out making an hourly rate of $20 – $50 per hour, or about $20,000-$40,000 per year, depending on the airline, type of aircraft, and the pilot's experience level."

with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.

...and, as the very same page on my google search helpfully tells me, "The average airline pilot logs 75 hours a month in the air and sometimes up to 150 hours per month performing ground duties like simulator training, maintaining records, performing pre-flight inspections, flight planning and traveling to and from hotels and airports."

...

Explain your maths please, $20 - $50 is $40,000 - $100,000 for 40 hour weeks, so hows $40k at $50/hr work at 150 hours a month of whatever on top of flight time? Anyone can find random numbers on the Internet, but if they are not coherent...

Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[Nidi62]

...and, as the very same page on my google search helpfully tells me, "The average airline pilot logs 75 hours a month in the air and sometimes up to 150 hours per month performing ground duties like simulator training, maintaining records, performing pre-flight inspections, flight planning and traveling to and from hotels and airports."

...

Any simulator training that an airline pilot receives is paid on top of whatever flight time they have for that month (and must adhere to the same FARs as flight time such as 30 in 168). Pre-flight is about a 30-minute process, most flight planning is already done for them, and maybe an international pilot would spend about 3 hours combined going from cockpit to hotel room and hotel room back to airport. If a pilot is spending 150 hours in a simulator they are getting a type rating or qualifying on a new aircraft which can take over a month.

As for pay, well, I can also tell you from personal knowledge that the quoted pay they give in a specific example is out of date and off by about 25%(as in 25% too low)

Re: Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't PLUS 150 hours. It's 70 flying, 80 other shit. You add he time in the air and the time in the ground together. He's not saying 150 on the ground plus 70 in the air.

Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. When I was younger I considered going to pilot school. The pilots I talked to convinced me not to. It just wasn't the up and coming thing anymore, and the industry was all about cost cutting, so I took a pass.

Re: Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[suutar]

yeah, he is. "Ground duties" does not include air time.

Re: Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[suutar]

On the other hand, "sometimes up to" is not anything like "averages"...

Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[Anonymous Coward]

....giggity gone

Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a thought:]

[DRJlaw]

Pre-flight is about a 30-minute process, most flight planning is already done for them, and maybe an international pilot would spend about 3 hours combined going from cockpit to hotel room and hotel room back to airport. If a pilot is spending 150 hours in a simulator they are getting a type rating or qualifying on a new aircraft which can take over a month.

So the average pilot is obtaining a type rating or qualifying on new aircraft 12 times per year? Because, and let's process this carefully, the average pilot works an additional 150 hours per month performing other duties. So sayeth them, them, them, and them, for example. These guys definitely disagree with your expressed sentiment that '150 non-flying duty hours is exceptional.'

FLIGHT 77

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists only spent a couple weeks on a simulator before flying a 747 into the Pentagon, so how hard can it be?

Re:FLIGHT 77

[krray]

Flying a plane takes little skill [IMHO -- I am a pilot :=].
Flying a plane into a building DOES take a bit of skill (and stupid as fuck).
LANDING a plane safely is a completely different beast. It's not easy...

Re:FLIGHT 77

[nitehawk214]

"Fly? Yes. Land? No." -Indiana Jones

Re: FLIGHT 77

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't have to calculate the fuel endurance, for one thing

Re:FLIGHT 77

[Anonymous Coward]

Well here's an idea: Let planes fly completely automatically once in the air, and have pilots on the ground at airports, logging into planes and controlling them remotely only for take off and landing. Airplane crashes in past were mostly caused either directly by rogue pilots' malevolent actions, or by technical malfunctions pilots wouldn't be able to overcome any better than computers (sensors/instruments malfunction, engine failure, control actuators failure, hidden explosive devices).
You can have one of the cabin crew trained for, and assigned to, monitoring the instruments (but not being able to steer anything) and if they note anything suspicious alert ground control pilots to connect in and check out. Also, seeing that plane "has captain" would calm the passengers down.

Re:FLIGHT 77

[PrimaryConsult]

I figured landing happens whether you want it to or not. Landing the plane such that it can take off again is where things get hairy...

Not a secure future.

[BitterOak]

Given that the technology exists today to build passenger planes which require no flight crew at all, I can imagine why someone in their late teens/early twenties deciding on a career path would be hesitant to make the HUGE investment of time and money it requires to become a commercial airline pilot. My guess is within ten years, you will start to see automated commercial flights in which the "pilot" doesn't need to touch anything from pushback at the departing gate to pulling up at the arrival gate, and within twenty, you'll start to see flights with no flight crew on board at all. Why would anyone want to start a career in that field now? I think the pilot shortage problem is only going to get worse in the years to come, before automation takes over, and the shortage may accelerate the trend to automation.

Re:Not a secure future.

[DanDD]

You are spot on. Pilots will increasingly become IT workers - babysitting the data paths in the cockpit to ensure all the users are happy.

There will always be a market for special mission pilots - slurry bombers for fire fighting, off-airport operations for remote delivery/rescue, etc, but, those are very small markets.

Re:Not a secure future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, who wants a well-trained, experienced human at the controls when something goes wrong, anyway?

It'll be just like your driverless car- if anything unusual happens, the plane will just slow down and pull over until a mechanic comes.

Re:Not a secure future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the technology exists today to build passenger planes which require no flight crew at all,

It's not that the technology exists today, any major airplane today has an incredibly good autopilot which pretty much does everything. The pilots are there just in case something goes wrong.

I don't see those pilots going anyway anytime soon though.

Re:Not a secure future.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Optimistic Technical Future would have automated piloted planes with drone pilots on the ground. The planes would essentially be large drones with passengers. Pilots then could be responsible for multiple airplanes with of course multiple back ups in case more than on plane went wonky at one time. They could then head home to their families after a flight, instead of staying in a crappy motel. The advantages of this system are countless.

This is great except, I would only fly on a commercial jet if the pilot had "skin in the game." So count me out unless the pilot dies in the crash, also. I am sorry, but human nature doesn't always follow the Optimistic Technical Future. I don't even think I would be the only one.

I might consider flying in a drone if the remote pilot was strapped to an electric chair set to go off in case of a crash. I would consider that enough "skin in the game."

Re:Not a secure future.

[psmoot]

The pilots I know say this is a long way off. Airplanes can do all sorts of wacky things and for now, you want a human pilot to handle the more-frequent-than-you-want-to-know cockpit glitches.

Re:Not a secure future.

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Given that the technology exists today to build passenger planes which require no flight crew at all

Technically possible? Yes. Socially acceptable? No fucking way. Look at how people are reacting to the (extremely few) crashes of autonomous cars or even semi-autonomous vehicles. They're freaking out to the point of asking they be banned in some places. Never mind that per mile they are far safer than human-driven vehicles. That doesn't register on the average person's cranium. They want to hold on to that cherished illusion of control despite all data to the contrary. This is exacerbated in no small part by the media which sensationalizes every autonomous fender bender there is serving the "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy.

There is much in this world that is technically possible, economically feasible, and "better" overall but isn't accepted because of ignorance or prejudice. You can engineer a better system but we have yet to come up with a way to engineer a smarter human.

Re:Not a secure future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me give you some insight as a computer programmer and an airline pilot (also USAF).

It is not true that the job is an IT job. IT has a high tolerance for error - aviation does not. It is like being a lawyer in a scientific discipline. It's very easy to break regulations/laws as well as break procedures that damage the aircraft.

Software solutions are great. I love them, but they are nowhere near a replacement for 2 humans. Firstly, the computer always requires electricity. A simple bird strike can disable the entire electrical system. Second, a computer is not programmed to deal with a high number of variables that are involved. A computer is only as good as its sensors. Just a few missing or erreoneous sensors will cause a computer to command a fatal maneuver. As an Airbus pilot, we actually have a procedure now to disable 2 of the 3 parallel flight control computers for situations under which it gives the pilot suspected faulty data. This has caused crashes before therefore a human override protocol was necessary. Also, a computer only performs a very limited subset of tasks, none of which require thinking. For example, flying the aircraft out of windshear in mountainous terrain. It forces a human to think intuitively and without infinite time to reason. A computer will only follow a pre-programmed instruction set from a procedural programming language. It has no ability to invent solutions.

Rest assured that all the computerization of the profession is only skin deep and superficial at many levels. 98% of the profession has no algorithmic equivalent and if it did, it would be leaving out too many critical variables.

Re:Not a secure future.

[DanDD]

Yep. Or in Sully's case, a boat...

Re:Not a secure future.

[RevDisk]

Aircraft tend to lag technology by a couple decades. The day you can see a driverless car on a normal road under normal circumstances? Figure 20 years after that that passenger service aircraft will be rated for no-pilot cert from the FAA. Another decade or two for it to be accepted widely, as airframes tend to stick around.

So we're still roughly 30-40 years away from automation taking away pilots. Technology could exist today perfect, there's just that much lag time built into aerospace due to a lot of reasons. Largely regulatory, but not entirely.

Re:Not a secure future.

[twosat]

There's an old aviation joke that says that in the future the flight crew will consist of a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot in case he tries to touch anything.

Re:Not a secure future.

[PrimaryConsult]

Heck there's still planes flying around that require 3 man crews in the cockpit. Figure the time from when the first MD-11 / 747-400s rolled off the production line to whenever Fedex retires their last DC-10 is at least how long it will be before our current two man crews are reduced to one (going two to 0 is probably too much of a jump).

Re:Not a secure future.

[RevDisk]

Robo-co-pilot is much more likely than no-pilot aircraft. They were working on it when I was at Sikorsky. Based off some of the tech we developed essentially to keep an aircraft stable in hover. Basically just slightly smarter autopilot.

Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAGES

[augustz]

There is no shortage of pilots for those $300K/year jobs. Period.

There is a shortage at the 36K - $40K per year level - especially now that you need 1,500 hours which takes a fair bit of time to get (and $$). Add in quality of life issues at that pay rate - yes there is a shortage.

Put all the regional pilots on mainline contracts. Pilot shortage would go away pretty quickly.

The russians did it

[Anonymous Coward]

We dont have enough pilots because of the russians

Re:The russians did it

[The Wild Norseman]

In Soviet Russia, you fuck airline!

No, wait...

Yea Right

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way there's a shortage of tech workers.

Can Negroes fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see plenty of Negroes lying around all day doing nothing - can they be taught to fly?

Re:Can Negroes fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

they already do, just in their minds, hence the drug problem.

an artificial shortage

[DanDD]

I just visited with a former US Navy pilot who's been flying for Frontier for the last 20 years. He hates it. Even in some major airlines, pilots are often treated poorly, have poor schedules, and are expected to have no life. This leads to a high rate of "AIDS" - Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome. Pay has been increasing, but quality of life isn't.

If you work for an airline, regional or major, you have to establish 'seniority' before you can gain any sense of a normal schedule or choose a base of operations. Until you've establish seniority, a pilot is at the whim of the company. If you change companies, you give up seniority and start at the bottom all over again.

Federally Regulated Indentured Servitude. What a rewarding career choice. Not.

The real issues are the MBA mentality, and innovation and competition limiting FAA regulations. The airline industry and the FAA have been in bed together for decades to create regulations that go far beyond safety, and in reality limit competition and innovation. Profit and protecting the status quo comes first, everything else comes second. As a result, the US has seen a real decline in the pace of innovation in aviation. Other markets have seen dramatic increases in innovation, service, and safety. Aviation, not so much (except in safety). Yes, we have more efficient engines, better avionics, and more advanced materials (787 Dreamliner, etc.), but these innovations are in increasingly niche markets.

General aviation special interest groups like EAA and AOPA are starting to chip away at the FAA/Airline industry monster: Basic Med is helping hobbyist pilots keep their medicals and continue flying smaller aircraft safely. And, the recent FAA Part 23 regulation re-write is helping revive general aviation engineering and production in the United States. These are drops in the bucket, but hopefully this trend continues.

Re:an artificial shortage

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear almost exactly that same feedback (complaints) from physicians. (Adjusted for medical terms, regulations, technologies, and bodies though.)

Re:an artificial shortage

[Anonymous Coward]

As an AOPA member and roughly 80 hour pilot with an engineering career I cannot agree with this poster more. General aviation has been slowly been eroded away into a rich man's hobby. FAA and "safety" rules driven by industry has not helped bring new blood in. In fact they have driven me reconsider flying as something fun. Here are some issues AOPA is fighting and loosing more times than not.

Airport runway and tower Fees
Controlled Airspace resizing
Airport closures due to urban sprawl
Excessive TFRs
Excessive fees, fines
Pilot's license bans due to minor offenses

This is not hard to fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see these articles every once in a while that talk about some 'shortage' in a class of skilled or specialized worker, and how the industry just doesn't know what to do. Are these not business people, the same ones that pontificate at length about supply and demand driving price. I'm pretty sure the solution is simple, the industry just doesn't like it... you have to pay people what they are worth. If you want more people to go into your industry, you have to compensate them according to what the effort required for your industry demands. If the current regulations require 1500 hours of flight before a piolet can even start, guess what, starting price for a piolet is going to be high to make up for the investment of time (isn't this the same argument we get for why new medicine costs SOOOOOOO much, we have to make up for the initial research investment?).

But the airlines just don't want to pay what people are worth.... and somehow regulations are to blame. So we would rather decrease safety then pay for fully qualified people?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't get student loans to cover it. Student loans are only for education, not experience. You need 1500 hours of experience. That cost is on you.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[zlives]

coming soon, we must increase rates... also more h1b pilots needed....

Stop Right There

[sexconker]

The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry.

No, it doesn't. That's absurd. The military flies its own shit.

The economy does, sure. But that's a self-correcting problem (as long as you actually let it self-correct).
If there's a shortage of pilots, then raise fares to either lower demand or hire more pilots to fill demand.

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if shtf. In the world wars, governments paid luxury boat liner companies for the use of their ships for military purposes, the highway system was deliberately designed with long straight stretches to be used as a Nationwide system of aircraft landing strips, and passenger airplanes would be used for military purposes, you can bet.

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes it does. In the event of a major war, civilian airlines will nationalized. The Air Force does not have enough transport to airlift all the logistics needed.

You may recall that operation Reforger called for significant airlift from the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. The CRAF is still required component of any large scale sustained conflict.

Re:Stop Right There

[Richard_at_work]

Commercial airlines fly a *lot* of military personnel around for cost, so if you removed that benefit then the US military would definitely suffer significantly.

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

The airlines' solution to a pilot shortage will be to bring in foreign pilots, most likely from Eastern/Central Europe and India.

Won't that be fun.

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you too young to remember how the government took over the Airlines for the build up to the first gulf war?

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

See also, CRAF. http://www.amc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/144025/civil-reserve-air-fleet/

Re:Stop Right There

[Geodesy99]

The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry.

No, it doesn't. That's absurd. The military flies its own shit.

etc.

Yes, yes, it does. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet ( http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fac... ) provides a huge air logistical capacity for U.S. forces in an emergency, and most of those 'ex-military" pilots for the carriers are also military reserve officers. for that matter, 10 U.S. Code 688 "Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member described in subsection (b) may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time."

The CRAF's 553 aircraft available at 24 to 48 hours notice more than double the more specialized 430 aircraft of the Air Mobility Command ( not to mention global maintenance and other support functions ) - already with military aircrews. This is in addition to run of the mill contract capacity that take a little longer to spool up.

... and this is key - that can operate without reservation into and inside of combat zones. No checking with insurance companies, airline management, etc.

It simply doesn't matter what 'X' number of tanks or artillery or infantry you have, what matters is the capability to concentrate forces and then shift them again if needed. The commercial air transport capacity this country is a very large force multiplier.

Re:Stop Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry.

No, it doesn't. That's absurd. The military flies its own shit.

This is incorrect. The airline industry plays an important role in our national security now and would be hugely significant if something like WWIII began. The military relies currently on the airline industry to transport personnel and equipment overseas. It does not "fly [all of] its own shit." Moreover, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which is basically a bunch of airliners under retainer, would be used heavily in case of emergency (WWIII).

This is not supply and demand.

[Anonymous Coward]

The âoeclassic supply and demandâ argument is bullshit. The market for pilots is an incredibly distorted one, and itâ(TM)s a complex legacy of corporate greed and union fears.

There was a time when airline pilot was a great job. You had it for life, could advance, you got training. As the industry was hit by price shocks, deregulation, low cost and ultra-low-cost carriers, etc., airlines began to squeeze pilots. They wanted to lay less, or hire new pilots (many ex-military) with less seniority, etc. Also, airlines started to poach cheaper pilots from their regional affiliates (e.g.Skywest, who operates many regional flights under contract from United and Delta).

Pilots unions hit back with threats of work stoppages, and today there are incredibly Byzantine rules on who can be hired, how seniority works, etc. this goes so far as restrictions on which planes regional carriers can fly, specifically to deny regional carrier pilots flight hours in mainline jets so they canâ(TM)t be hired to replace mainline pilots.

Iâ(TM)m not blaming the airlines or the unions directly for the current state of affairs. Itâ(TM)s highly complex, both sides have done good arguments in their favor, and both have tried to flex muscle in unhelpful ways.

Read about any recent airline merger - one of the biggest issues they always involve is reconciling the pay and benefits of the higher-paid carrier in the merger to the lower-paid one. It always results in a bunch more rules protecting the stays who in some ways by creating future issues.

But the problem in the industry right now isnâ(TM)t just a supply and demand one. Airlines continue to do all they can to squeeze more expensive pilots out, and pilots unions continue to take steps to oppose being replaced by cheaper, less experienced ones. Itâ(TM)s a somewhat toxic environment to get into, and one that largely doesnâ(TM)t welcome new pilots.

work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[Thud457]

Nah.
Better to make the pilots we have work more hours for the same pay.

No possible downside to that.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[XXongo]

Nah. Better to make the pilots we have work more hours for the same pay.

Can't. The FAA put a piloting limit of 1000 flight hours per year, to limit pilot fatigue.

that meddling government, always taking profit away from businesses just because "safety". People should be allowed to fly unsafe airlines if they want to save some dollars, it's their right.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[rnturn]

Taking a cue from the trucking industry. Pay peanuts so there's an incentive for drivers to stay on the road longer than they're legally allowed to be. (Sleep? Sleep is for chumps.) Nobody in management ever pays the price for what goes wrong.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a right to fucking crash airplanes, you moron. That right is reserved for only the US Government when we need an impetus to attack the world nonstop and coincidentally, to strip citizens of their rights.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[tech10171968]

Taking a cue from the trucking industry. Pay peanuts so there's an incentive for drivers to stay on the road longer than they're legally allowed to be. (Sleep? Sleep is for chumps.) Nobody in management ever pays the price for what goes wrong.

Better yet, DON'T take any advice from the trucking industry. They are also experiencing a shortage of workers. They have been for years but, in recent times, this shortage has become acute enough that it's starting to affect the logistics chain for many companies and even prices for some items in your local store. Companies are responding with 5-figure signing bonuses but it's like closing the barn door after the horse already escaped. The problems in the industry have been allowed to fester for far too long and too much damage has been done.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was being sarcastic.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[MoaDweeb]

Yeah but what about all that FREEDOM! you are dispensing from the drones?

Can't put a price on that FREEDOM!

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[Aristos Mazer]

Freedom costs a buck o' five.

Re:work 'em to death, it's cheaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't. The FAA put a piloting limit of 1000 flight hours per year, to limit pilot fatigue.

Nothing that multiple identity per pilot paperwork wouldn't solve.

Cost

[darkain]

A pilot's license doesn't make someone an active commercial pilot. I work with a bunch of guys in their 60's who in their youth were hobbyist pilots that would just go and fly for fun out of local airfields. ALL of these airfields are now gone, and the cost to take up a small plane just isn't feasible for a hobbyist anymore.

Re: Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

You Yankees sound poor. You should get petro-chemical job in Canadian oil sands. Everyone has Cesna here!

Re: Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a Tesla, you insensitive pedo Canuk roughneck!

Training

[Anonymous Coward]

My cousin's husband was trained by United about ten years ago. After a pretty horrible initial two years, he's making a pretty good living now.

No Shortages, Or Surpluses

[brian.stinar]

There is no such thing as a shortage, or a surplus. Those two things only exist within a price point, at a specific point in time. With enough money, you could buy ALL the pilots. I am pretty sure the very last pilot would be very expensive. Then, after a few more years, there would be even more pilots, and then they'd be even more expensive. Eventually this would stabilize, as even if there were one extremely rich person with all the money, not everyone could be a pilot. Some people would have to grow food, and work on airplanes.

This article seems to miss an important point - regional airlines choose not to pay as much for pilots, so they will feel a 'shortage' at or below their preferred price point, for a specific time period.

Re:No Shortages, Or Surpluses

[hey!]

You are absolutely correct that from a market standpoint there is no such thing as a shortage or a surplus, provided you make certain simplifying assumptions, namely (1) that if the price rises the quantities supplied can rise (in effect) instantaneously and (2) there are no externalities -- costs that are borne by people who aren't a party to the transaction.

Some commodities like gold can increase in supply relatively quickly as prices go up. There are marginal gold mines that start up and shut down as gold prices fluctuate because the concentration of gold in their ore is on the lower end of what is economic to recover.

At the other end of hte spectrum, consider brain surgery. If we suddenly discovered a lot more people needed brain surgery than previously believed, the pay for brain surgeons would go up, but the supply of brain surgeons would take years to change. During those years you would have a shortage.

Externalities can also cause markets to undersupply. Lets assume the number of pilots is too low for our "national security needs", whatever they are. This is not a problem for the airlines, nor the pilots; those national security needs are external to the transaction between them. So a shortage can exist, because it is not a shortage from the point of view of the airlines. It's not their problem, but that doesn't mean it's nobody's problem.

Re:No Shortages, Or Surpluses

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no such thing as a shortage, or a surplus. Those two things only exist within a price point, at a specific point in time."
Aaaargh, this reminds me of the "USA is not a democracy argument that certain people want to start." (The correct retort to which is "STFU you useless argumentative troll.")

So in your first sentence you say there is no such thing and then in your second sentence you say that there is.

Of course, you can have shortages and surpluses of things, because you have time lags between when something is needed and when it can be produced. It takes a long time to produce a commercial pilot. It also takes a year to grow wheat. So one year you can end up with too little wheat which encourages people to plant extra wheat for next year, which causes there to be a surplus.

If you could instantly train pilots, then it would be a question of desirability of being a pilot. What this probably represents is the undesirability of being a pilot 10 years ago.

Re:No Shortages, Or Surpluses

[brian.stinar]

I should have said, "in general" after the first sentence. That was confusing and kind of a weird way to say that.

My father isn't a brain surgeon, but a lung doctor. When a hospital REALLY needs his services, the contracts they offer him reflect this need. He works a lot harder, putting in more hours and splitting his time between his private practice, and other gigs, family, exercise, whatever, with the hospital that needs his service. Eventually, if the situation became bad enough, you'd have all sorts of not-exactly-qualified people offering medical services because the demand was so high. This is what happens during wars. I think the flex within one doctor is somewhere between 100%-200% sustainably, and could likely go up to 300%-400%, since there are something close to 120 waking hours in a week. With pilots, there isn't this kind of flex, since there is governmental action requiring them to not work insane hours. Doctors, especially the older ones, are used to that kind of abuse after their internships. This is actually how hospitals deal with these problems now - they work their interns like slaves.

Likewise, when the price for wheat drops significantly, it starts being used for all sorts of bizarre things.

Humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is a classic case of low supply and high demand. This mismatch has created a perfect storm that could wreak havoc on the US airline industry over the next decade.

Plane tickets just need to go up until the supply catches up. Nothing tragic. Or people just need to travel less to reduce demand AND do some good for the environment. Win-win!

10,000 hr training for $8.95/hr

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a pilot is "cool" so you get paid less than a good waitress. Amerika.. what a cuntry!

This is perplexing because pay is so low

[kriston]

This is perplexing because the pay is so low and pilots have to pool their housing.

Re: Management is part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

>waaah

whitey got it sooo bad y'all!!

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[clodney]

coming soon, we must increase rates... also more h1b pilots needed....

I know you were being sarcastic, but yes, this will require airlines to increase rates. Pilots aren't a huge part of an airlines labor force, but if airlines are forced to invest in training/apprenticeships to bring new pilots into the system, and to raise pay to make it a more appealing career, that will raise their costs, and they will seek to pass it along to their customers.

Since deregulation, airlines have been a very low margin business, so they don't have lots of ability to absorb the increased costs.

And if foreign pilots want to work with an American carrier, an H1-B would be one of the ways.

Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[XXongo]

Pay the pilots more and they will find they don't need pilots because nobody is flying on their airline as the tickets cost more.

What fraction of the price of an airline ticket is the price of paying the pilot? Quick back of the envelope calculation: somewhere around 1%. I'm guessing that a 1% change in ticket prices won't make much of a difference.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[rnturn]

``I'm guessing that a 1% change in ticket prices won't make much of a difference.''

Something tells me that they'd never even bother to ask the passengers whether 1% would put them off flying. According to one pizza chain, paying their employees a livable minimum wage would result in pizzas costing something like $0.17 more and the CEO claimed he'd have to lay people off because a wage increase was going to do the company in. Does anyone doubt that the airlines' C-level execs knee-jerk reaction would not be anything but screaming and shouting about government regulation?

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[bws111]

It doesn't have to make 'much' of a difference, it just has to make ANY difference. For all the whining that people do about cramped seats, bag fees, being treated like cattle, etc, they continue to demonstrate that they will tolerate just about anything to save a buck. So when someone goes to a travel site and puts in their itinerary, MANY people go for the one at the top - the cheapest (even if only by a small amount.) Paying your pilots more than your competition is unlikely to cause many to choose your airline, but costing more than the competition surely will have a negative effect. And if you lose ANY fares, then that means you must raise prices again to cover those lost fares, Rinse and repeat.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[AvitarX]

I suspect if all prices went up 1% it wouldn't make a difference, but being the first mover their would quite possibly have short term consequences with limited long term benefit (others can follow suit at any time and your advantage of being better paying evaporates after the short term disadvantage of charging more).

Maybe 1% price increase and a PR campaign that you pay double the industry standard to assure that you have the best pilots in the industry could offset the higher ticket prices.

Essentially, if there was 1% more to charge and not lose out, the airlines would already be doing it.

I'm not sure where your 1% napkin math comes from though.

if we say 100k/year for 1000 hours limit annually for domestic flights that means $200/hour for pilot time (2 pilots @ $100/hour), 140 seats per 737, that means on a 4 hour round trio (8 total hours) flight (PHL to DEN) for $300 (typical real airline price just typing it into google right now) you have $11/person being paid to the pilots (8*200/140, assuming zero non pay compensation), that's 3%, not 1%.

To be at 1%, current pay would need to be 33k/year.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the airline. I get the impression that United and American would whine about it while Delta would be ok with it. But Delta sells to a different demographic than United or American.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference that makes this comparison false:

Airline pilots are amongst the most PROFESSIONAL of jobs you can possibly get anywhere in the world.

Pizza guys are not a "living wage" type job. You need literally no education beyond 5th grade, if even that. It's for people starting out that need to just learn to get to work on time from not being drunk.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Maxo-Texas]

Small businesses report increased business resulting from higher wages vastly swamps the increased cost of their own employees.

Wages have been held too low so long that it's actually hurting the economy

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[demonlapin]

Is it that big of a difference? I'm not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the industry. It has been my experience that Delta is generally nicer - but then again, they're pretty much the only game in town from my home airport, and I've got status, and I fly first class. It's been six years or so since I flew American, and over a decade since I flew United. The American plane certainly looked dingier than what I'm used to on Delta, even up front.

But then you get on KLM, and it's just amazing by comparison to Delta.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to make 'much' of a difference, it just has to make ANY difference. For all the whining that people do about cramped seats, bag fees, being treated like cattle, etc, they continue to demonstrate that they will tolerate just about anything to save a buck. So when someone goes to a travel site and puts in their itinerary, MANY people go for the one at the top - the cheapest (even if only by a small amount.) Paying your pilots more than your competition is unlikely to cause many to choose your airline, but costing more than the competition surely will have a negative effect. And if you lose ANY fares, then that means you must raise prices again to cover those lost fares, Rinse and repeat.

I don't know about that. I don't fly if at all possible because of most of the complaints you mentioned here.

If I could avoid all of those and pay a little more, maybe even quite a little more, I might consider flying instead of driving in a lot more situations.

The fact is, it is much more comfortable and enjoyable to put in an audio book and drive for a few hours than it is to suffer while flying.

Flying is reserved for extreme distances.

Re: Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[astrofurter]

Working full-time at ANY job should pay a living wage. There is absolutely no one who deserves to work a full day every day then not be able to afford healthy food and decent shelter. If companies prefer to starve their workers so the fat cats can get a little fatter, the state needs to stomp them out of existence. When your business is profitable and your employees are starving, that means you are STEALING your profits from your workers. I'm all about free enterprise. If you're an honest businessman, you run a solid business, do something useful, pay your workers well, conserve the environment, are an asset to your city - then I hope you make big giant bags of money. Live it up! Drive around in a big limo, eat at the best restaurants in town. Everyone will smile and wave when they see you go by. Little kids will want to be just like you when they grow up. But if you wanna get rich by disreputable shit like dumping toxic waste in the river or paying your workers so little they have to live in public assistance. Well fuck you. The state's not going to let you do that. We'll seize your assets and redistribute them to other businessmen who can do a better job than you. Get out of town, you're a parasite, you're not welcome here.

Re: Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[astrofurter]

Ugh... Line breaks not working on mobile... ugh.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

You know if there was an airline that actually had transparent and stable prices, as opposed to trying to trying to charge everyone as much as they can be milked for I'd fly that one, even if it's a bit more expensive.

As it it I have yet to be on airplane where I could find anyone paying the same price I did, heck you can visit the same website twice within 10 minutes and get a price diference of hundreds of dollars

Airlines and air-travel is completely crazy, for me, it's already way past the point where it's bad enough that I don't fly (if I have any other choice at all, and that includes taking a different vacation)

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

``I'm guessing that a 1% change in ticket prices won't make much of a difference.''

Something tells me that they'd never even bother to ask the passengers whether 1% would put them off flying.

I'm pretty sure in the USA and probably Europe (and maybe everywhere) that customers won't agree to that. There's no need to ask. American customers have made it clear that EVERYTHING is negotiable about flying except the cost and they will put up with ANYTHING to get a cheaper price. Every US based airline that has tried to offer a higher quality but more expensive service has seen it lose business to cheaper competitors. Southwest makes so much money here in the US because it is so cheap and passengers are wiling to risk being bumped off flights to save money. I've never flown them, but Ryan Air has no shortage of posts online talking about how truly awful it is and yet Europeans won't stay away from them just to save money. So I don't know what to say except to tell you that passengers have shown that they'll put up with anything to save money. They'll never agree to pay more to get more or better pilots.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[PrimaryConsult]

Agreed. Here's also a fun calculation I once did for Economy Premium versus Economy:
The economy premium cabin on international flights is typically 3 rows by 8 columns (24 seats).
That same space, were it to be configured for economy, would be 4 rows by 10 columns (40 seats).
I took the discount (no perks no refunds) economy price, multiplied it by 40, then divided by 24, and found it equaled the (yes perks and refundable) Economy Premium price.

In other words, people are paying the same price per square foot of the plane they are occupying in both classes. Yet people still chose the cheaper ticket and complain about the "shrinking airline seat" and "no frills" travel. If airlines could configure the entire plane as Economy Premium with some guarantee that all the seats would fill up, they'd love it! But they cannot fill the plane at that price point, because people would rather pay less, squish in like sardines, then complain.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[MachineShedFred]

I don't think passengers would even notice 5%, because the price for a seat on a commercial aircraft changes 100 times a day. It would be lost in the wash unless someone started doing some data collection to statistically compare.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[q_e_t]

Many people delivering pizzas are not 'starting out' but relatively mature, but possibly without stellar education.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[q_e_t]

With some irony, Ryan Air has been experiencing strikes over pilot pay.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 90s you could fly across the Atlantic for $600 with the leg room of Economy Premium. Now it is $1200 in Economy (no premium) on the same sort of notice. Taking into account inflation, the square footage is more expensive. That's what people are complaining about.

Re:Cost of pilots, cost of tickets

[PrimaryConsult]

While $600 in the 90s -> $1200 now doesn't track with regular inflation, it absolutely does track with passenger transportation inflation.
In the late 90s, gas prices hovered around $1.40, they are now hovering around $3. More than doubled.
In the mid 90s, the NY subway cost $1.25, now $2.75. More than doubled.

Intercity bus got cheaper, but that's mainly thanks to competitors sprouting up and challenging the 'hound, and the internet making it easier for people to find these competitors.

So a flight going from $600 to $1200 in that same time frame is still not bad. And trans-pac seems to have gotten cheaper, I recall pricing out round trips to Australia in the late 90s and not finding anything under $2400. Now I can get ~1800-2000 prices.

Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctor: Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.

Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

We know.. you cant explain that. Keep sucking that capitalist cock.. itll pay off all over you face any day now Donald!

Multiplication [Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a...]

[XXongo]

Explain your maths please, $20 - $50 is $40,000 - $100,000 for 40 hour weeks, so hows $40k at $50/hr work at 150 hours a month of whatever on top of flight time? Anyone can find random numbers on the Internet, but if they are not coherent...

I don't understand the question. The math is trivial.

$20 per flight hour, times the legal FAA maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $20,000/year. $50 per flight hour, times the legal maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $50,000/year.

What part of that did you need to be explained?

Re:Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this flamebait? Don't they realize lighting a flame after creimer beefs is dangerously reckless?

https://youtu.be/8Qt95KUOX_8?t...

Why on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this news for nerds?

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[sjames]

Exactly this. The options are many, all they need to do is pay enough in some form or another to make the expensive training worthwhile or pay for the training while the new employee is on a training salary.

This is nothing more than the overpaid "financial geniuses" not just cutting expenses to the bone, but cutting out part of the bone too now complaining that it's hard to walk on a broken bone.

Rather than planting, they ate the seed corn.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[bobbied]

why train when they can get an 100K student loan to cover it.

100K isn't going to get you enough flight time to fly charters and is only a drop in the bucket towards the 1500 minimum hours to be an ATP. Especially when a small twin engine is going to run you $150+/hour and a flight instructor another $80. It's going to take YEARS to accrue enough flight time and at least $300K in flying expenses.

By my rough calculations you will blow a quarter of a million dollars in flight time and at least 5 years of living time before you can manage to land a charter pilot gig at about 800 hours. Then, it will take you another 5 years of being a busy charter pilot to get you near 1,500 hours, but you will be destitute trying to service your debt on that salary. Once you get to 1,500, you have the option of taking a ATP job with a feeder airline, flying awful routes in shoddy old aircraft for another 5-10 years before you can land a job at one of the majors, with 15 years experience and about 3,000 hours of time.

The pilot gig is not a comfortable one. You got to really love what you do to live like a pauper working the night shift away from home until you are 35 or older.

Views on jobs....

[Pitawg]

I hear other jobs have the same issue, loss of job image, after certain poeple enter the employ.

A recent one turned on his advisors, and on his people, taking a murderer's word over theirs' on international television. That is one job that will never look as special as it did the day before that mindless fool was voted in. Not involving transportation, but it did have a lot lives on the line.

I have to admit, however, that job did start coming up short on good people that wanted to fill the role properly, a while before that one got the chance.

Re:Views on jobs....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh give it a fucking rest with the politics already. Is no place safe from this drivel anymore?

Re:Views on jobs....

[Pitawg]

If you think the lack of candidates for an employment oppurtunity, due to politically driven corporate de-regulation, and employee side/supporting unions being dismantled by polititions is not political, I have some bad news for you. Of course, there also seems to be a temp job that you seem to be a modern prime candidate for, "ignorant supreme leader of a suicidal nation".

Re: Management is part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wahhhhhhh whitey no longer gets the world handing to him in a silver platter and
Has to work for it.

Cry me a river. It's your turn to feel the burn.

Re:Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you take your toilet bowl humor to 4chan?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[SumDog]

> h1b pilots

Other countries don't have shortages because they get paid a lot more. Why the hell would anyone want to get a visa to be a pilot here?

No worries, guys

[Theaetetus]

I've been playing X-Plane 11, so I'm happy to step in.

Seems like a great fit for Syrian refugees

[Anonymous Coward]

There's thousands and thousands of them, so supply shouldn't be a problem. They are doctors and engineers so probably pilots as well. And the best part is there is really no need to vet them at all because that would be racist. Just bring them right on in, even the ones who clearly are not Syrian but identify as Syrians, they should come in too.

Only problem is we'll have to fight hard to acquire that kind of diversity-strength from other countries who are sure to try to poach them. Sweden has a hand-grendade boom at the moment so they'll be looking for grenade boom expert children doctor scientists. Britain is in great need of some child protection personnel. France I hear needs more riot police.

Be that as it may, the really great thing about enlightened progressive western countries taking the best and brightest talent from developing countries is that you really screw over the most disadvantaged people left behind, so they're sure to produce many more waves of doctors and pilots and engineers or us.

Passenger Drones are the clear answer

[PackMan97]

1) How often do we hear about military drones crashing? 2) Remote piloted drones would allow pilots to work anywhere and avoid having to travel. Just fire up Microsoft Flight Simulator 12, log into your assigned Passenger Drone and off you go. Now if we can just automate flight attendants!

Re:Passenger Drones are the clear answer

[bromoseltzer]

The military have converted many of their air operations to drones, and that must be part of the pilot shortage story. If we can operate in Afghanistan from a comfy seat in Reno, isn't this the inevitable future of air transport? It's much like the self-driving car situation, only a mistake kills ~300 people at a time. What would it take to convince YOU to fly on an automatic airplane?

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing as with STEM fields. There isn't a shortage of labor, only shortage at the wages companies are willing to pay.

Re:Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the man who overshared every single detail of his bowel movements.

Wouldn't Otto Pilot Work?

[filesiteguy]

I'm just thinking that Otto was able to land the plane in Airplane! so why not fly more now?

Here's a Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

We could build high speed rail which would reduce the need for Airline pilots.

If it's a supply and demand issue, treat it like 1

[viperidaenz]

Pay the pilots more and more people will train to become pilots and fewer will leave the industry.
I know it's pretty radical thinking.

https://skift.com/2013/08/28/t...

I sit at a desk and write code with no formal qualifications. I make more money per hour than a pilot with 10+ years experience.
I get to work 40 hours a week and I'm only away from my home for less than 50.
Pilots only work 21.5 hours a week and are away from home for 60 to 75 hours a week.

Fuck being a regional pilot in USA. I'd make half the money I do now and it would take up 40% more of my time.

Do what the military does

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay them while you train them to be pilots.

Druggies and dopers need not apply.....

Airlines have become good at only increasing fees

[Lucas123]

And, consolidating flight schedules and passenger leg room. Frankly, I'm shocked they continue to be profitable the way they treat not only passengers, but their crew.

Re: Calling Capt Oblivious

[Anonymous Coward]

It put more morans like you in the air.

I remember a classier time before overhead storage bins when people wore nice clothes and behaved with respect for themselves and their fellow passengers. I was only a child, but old enough to remember there were no exposed rolls of sweaty fat wearing flipflops walmart shoppers on board.

There was also smoking and free visits to the cockpit. Talk about a more civilized age...

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[Richard_at_work]

You can't put regional pilots on mainline contracts, the mainline unions restrict the airlines from doing so (see the scope restrictions), just as they restrict the mainline airlines from using smaller aircraft more economically by flying them further (mainline unions would rather see 737s flown uneconomically at the shorter end of their range than allow an E175 to be flown in such a way that it competes with the 737).

This is a *lot* more nuanced than simply "pay them more". In many cases, airlines are restricted in what they can offer in certain segments of the pilot market because the unions would want that increase across the spectrum.

here's a crazy thought

[originalGMC]

There's a tremendous shortage of doctors, pilots, and in the near future, many more forms of skilled labor. Are the companies of the world betting on AI to save us from this shortage? I would put my money in a training program - because its a win win. Train a bunch of pilots & you have ... a bunch of pilots.

Make it attractive and people will sign up in droves. Like growing a fruit tree, you feed and water them, wait a few years, and you're good to go.

"Hey, let's just eliminate pilots and use AI!"

[Rick Schumann]

Yes, please, compensate pilots better, do whatever you must to get them to want to fly planes, otherwise some jackhole will decide to use some shitty excuse for AI to fly the planes with no one in the cockpit at all, or just some low-paid idiot who won't know what to do when the shitty AI fucks up and can't handle something.

Obvious solution

[nospam007]

We're going to need a bigger boat^h^h^h^hplane.

Re:Obvious solution

[PrimaryConsult]

Finally, a practical reason for the A380.

Automation

[friedman101]

Regardless of the pay, I'd be hard-pressed to suggest that my son or daughter pursue a career in something as likely to be automated out-of-existence as piloting an airplane.

I wonder if that line of thinking could be part of the reason for the shortage?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[cayenne8]

And if foreign pilots want to work with an American carrier, an H1-B would be one of the ways.

Hmm...have you heard about all the foreign plane crashes past few years?

From everything I've read, at many foreign airports, especially where H1-B's would come from....they are a chaotic mess, not something we'd want to import "here"....that and language barrier between them and control towers.

National Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry."

It does? Why? What security function does it serve?

It certainly does contribute an enormous amount to global warming. You want to cut back your carbon footprint, stay off airplanes.

Re:National Security?

[Hognoxious]

I thought that. Then I remembered seeing a few documentaries where they had to commandeer civilian transport aircraft in wartime.

Re:Management is part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there such a thing as a conservative christian male who isn't prejudiced against women? I think you would sooner find a unicorn.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[tlhIngan]

100K isn't going to get you enough flight time to fly charters and is only a drop in the bucket towards the 1500 minimum hours to be an ATP. Especially when a small twin engine is going to run you $150+/hour and a flight instructor another $80. It's going to take YEARS to accrue enough flight time and at least $300K in flying expenses.

By my rough calculations you will blow a quarter of a million dollars in flight time and at least 5 years of living time before you can manage to land a charter pilot gig at about 800 hours. Then, it will take you another 5 years of being a busy charter pilot to get you near 1,500 hours, but you will be destitute trying to service your debt on that salary. Once you get to 1,500, you have the option of taking a ATP job with a feeder airline, flying awful routes in shoddy old aircraft for another 5-10 years before you can land a job at one of the majors, with 15 years experience and about 3,000 hours of time.

There's a bit of work between graduation with around 250 hours and the 1500 (or less) hours to ATP. At this level you should have your commercial pilot's license, so you can fly for money.

And an ATP is only needed for more than 20 people, so you can fly air charters, air taxi instructor, ferry, banner, airshow, corporate, even cargo!

No one expects one to self-finance all the way to ATP. After you get commercial, you should be able to pick up work to get you to 1500 hours and be paid for it. None of those jobs needs more than a CPL You only need to finance your way to a CPL, which can take various routes. If you want to be cheap and quickest, you get CPL Single Engine Land (which is not much) but lets you do air taxi small charters, instruct and banner tow until you can finance your multi-engine and commercial-multi-engine license (which you need to get into the big leagues).

The only people who self-finance are those who don't actually need to work.

No such thing except when there is?

[skam240]

"There is no such thing as a shortage, or a surplus. Those two things only exist within a price point, at a specific point in time."

So there's no such thing as a shortage or a surplus except when there's a shortage or a surplus?

That's just.... I don't know what to say to that...

Re:No such thing except when there is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody wins! Unless they lose.

Re:Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell us what creimer's bowel movements have been in the last two years since he wrote the comment? This year? This month? Last week? Or this morning?

Re: why train when they can get an 100K student lo

[Anonymous Coward]

requires 15 years experience in 787

"Starting" is a bit misleading...

[Fringe]

Major carriers don't hire "starting" pilots. Pilots start by doing traffic reports, sight seeing tours and tiny regionals. Regardless of the ATP cert.

And those per-hour wages... they aren't allowed to work 40 hours a week, max out at 90 hours a month and only average 900 hours a year. (A standard salary is 2000 hours a year.)

You -could- make a decent living as a pilot, but it takes ten years to get there. During which you're pretty poor. Why bother? (Yes, I'm certified. ;) )

Re: "Starting" is a bit misleading...

[Nidi62]

I didn't say starting for pilots, I said starting at the company. And honestly, I have no sympathy for people starting at $20-30 an hour but will eventually make $200-300 a year. I started out making $13 an hour. Unless you are lucky or born into money everyone starts out struggling

Re: "Starting" is a bit misleading...

[sphealey]

= = = And honestly, I have no sympathy for people starting at $20-30 an hour but will eventually make $200-300 a year. = = =

Try counting the number of regional and short-haul airliners flying on FlightRadar24 and compare it to the number of long-haul international flights. Hint: think pyramid. It isn't as bad as the high school to NCAA Div I to NBA pyramid but it is close.

Re: "Starting" is a bit misleading...

[Nidi62]

The major airlines do get hundreds more applicants than there are positions, but much like the NBA there are other options. Ups/FedEx, foreign carriers, etc. And remember, there is a hard retirement age of 65. A lot of pilots will simply be aging out soon and the worry is there won't be enough to replace them.

Re: "Starting" is a bit misleading...

[RevDisk]

$20-30 per flight hour. Cut the rate in half or by two thirds to more accurately reflect true payrate of the total number of hours worked. Easy to calculate. Max flight hours per year is 1000. Or was back when I worked aerospace industry. $20 per hour means absolutely max of $20,000 per year, if paid by flight hour which most pilots are unless salary.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Daemonik]

That's not necessarily on the pilots. Low income airlines that pay bribes rather than pay for maintenance is how you get problems like that.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[DontBeAMoran]

Does that mean we're going to get more dog pilots? After all, they only need 214 hours, 17 minutes and 9 seconds of training.

Louis Gossett Jr. lied to us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't May-o-nnaise get a job with YOU-nited Airlines after he gives Uncle Sam 6 years?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[zlives]

if ever one was, this industry is ripe for automation.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[DigiShaman]

If you're anti-H1B, then you're racist. That's what the Democrats will tell you.

Heres another thought

[ghoul]

900000 pilots and we have a shortage?
Assuming each pilot just flies twice a day and there are 150 passengers on each flight , thats 270 Million passengers taking a flight each day. The population of the US is around 300 million.
Something doesn't add up.

Re: Heres another thought

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is flying NYC to Tokyo twice a day.
Most flights don't have 150 passengers.
Most planes can't even seat 150 passengers.

If you checked your calculations and the numbers dont make sense, check your assumptions.

Self flying planes

[ghoul]

The trucking industry is solving the problem with self driving trucks. We need self flying planes. Oh wait we already do. Pilots work for 15 minutes at takeoff and 15 minutes at landing. The rest is autopilot. They are getting paid to be on call. Its very much like being a Fireman. The FAA should easily allow 2000 hours flying time each year and also allow napping in cockpits while the autopilot is flying. Problem solved.

Re:Self flying planes

[blindseer]

We need self flying planes. Oh wait we already do. Pilots work for 15 minutes at takeoff and 15 minutes at landing. The rest is autopilot.

Not even close, but let's assume that's true.

They are getting paid to be on call. Its very much like being a Fireman.

If you want me to be ready to put out those fires 30 minutes of every day then you have to pay me to sit on my thumbs for the rest of the day or I'll go find something else to do. My time is money. For someone with training as a pilot makes them very valuable for a lot of non-flying jobs. Airline pilots often have a college degree in mechanical engineering or something similar so they can get a jump on the technical training they'll see in flight school and look good on a resume for hiring. They'll speak English, because English is the language of international flying and other business. They will know weather patterns, mechanical systems, and just even knowing how to talk on a radio is a valuable skill. They don't have to fly a plane, they'll get a job doing something else if they think the pay is shit.

The FAA should easily allow 2000 hours flying time each year and also allow napping in cockpits while the autopilot is flying. Problem solved.

Do you even know how many hours are in a year? 24 * 365 = 8760. Let's go with 2500 hours of flying time, that's nearly 7 hours flying every day with no weekends, holidays, or vacation days, or sick days, off the clock. Or, that's nearly 30% of the year. A typical 9-to-5 job will have 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, 2000 hours.

Flying 1000 hours in a year, with all the dead time on the ground to wait for their next flight, weather delays, time off, and so forth, sounds about right.

Re:Self flying planes

[ghoul]

Since you are allowed to sleep in the cockpit, when you are not flying or at the Airport you dont need to sleep.
Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week and get paid far less than pilots so boohoo

Re: Self flying planes

[astrofurter]

Developers work slave hours for increasingly shitty pay because we have no solidarity. Jealousy and infighting with our brothers in labor the airline pilots is the opposite of useful here.

Re:Self flying planes

[blindseer]

Since you are allowed to sleep in the cockpit, when you are not flying or at the Airport you dont need to sleep.

Just how restful of sleep could a pilot get in a flying airplane when they get woken up every couple hours to do a takeoff or landing?

There's saying the FAA could allow it then there's getting people to actually do it.

Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week and get paid far less than pilots so boohoo

Yep, they do that. And if I could choose between being able to sleep in my own bed every night, even if it's just 4 or 5 hours straight, vs. the same pay as a pilot where I'm expected to get my sleep in a series of "catnaps" while strapped in a chair in a noisy airplane, then I'd choose to sleep in my own bed.

Would this fix the shortage by doubling the availability of the pilots? Or, make it worse because pilots find out they can get the same pay, see their families in the daylight, and get 8 hours of sleep in their own bed, working at a desk somewhere?

What would you have to pay people to fly 2000 hours per year to keep their job? If that annual wage is twice what it would take to get two people to fly 1000 hours per year then there is nothing gained.

There's already a shortage when pilots know the airlines cannot force them to fly more than 1000 hours per year, and put other limits to prevent fatigue. "But you don't understand, they get to sleep on the plane!" I understand perfectly. They "get" to sleep strapped in a chair, with dehydrated air, with all kinds of noise, while placing their survival and the survival of dozens of passengers on the perfect functioning of an autopilot built by the lowest bidder.

This reminds me of a joke... I hope to die quietly in my sleep like my grandfather did, not crying and screaming like the passengers on his bus.

Re:Self flying planes

[knorthern knight]

> Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6
> days a week and get paid far less than pilots so boohoo.

Do you really want planes crashing as often as Windows 10?

Re:Self flying planes

[Daralantan]

We need self flying planes. Oh wait we already do. Pilots work for 15 minutes at takeoff and 15 minutes at landing. The rest is autopilot.

And this is why people are crashing their Teslas with autopilot.

Re:Self flying planes

[q_e_t]

Pilots have a lot of work to do before they take off, such as ensuring that the plane has the required amount of fuel to get where it is going, checking weather reports, and pre-flight checks. I expect it adds up. And at the very least, during the flight, they are on call for what could be a very skilled job of, say, landing the thing in a river.

Re:Self flying planes

[q_e_t]

Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week

Seems excessive.

Re:Self flying planes

[ghoul]

Software engineers write the autopilot which flies the plane 90% of the time. Its written much better than mass market software that retails for 39.99.
And the trope about Windows crashing has got old. Since Windows 7 , Windows doesnt crash that often.
In fact my Mac is crashing at least once a day. I never had my Windows 7 crash everyday when I used to be on Windows (7-8 years back).
Yes my Mac is old and needs a replacement but the fact is both WIndows and Mac are pretty stable so the trope is outdated.

Do they really go for the cheapest?

[ishmaelflood]

Frankly I don't believe you. I know anecdote != data, but in my own case we have certain times we want to leave, certain times we want to arrive, and certain airlines we won't fly with. Then we look at the overall flight times, and lengths of stopovers.

So that's 4-5 layers of filtering before we look at price. Admittedly that is the next criterion.

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Put all the regional pilots on mainline contracts. Pilot shortage would go away pretty quickly.

And the regionals would also go out of business. I'm no cheerleader for them but I know from working at one they aren't rolling in dough. Most are barely making it. They don't pay peanuts so the top exec can live in a solid gold mansion. They pay low because their profit margin is razor thin, their costs for things like fuel can spiral out of control in a heartbeat based on the whims of international relations, and a single crash can put them out of business for good even if they were not at fault. It's not a business for the faint of heart.

Re:Multiplication [Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a...

[DRJlaw]

I'm pretty sure they have other duties they are paid for. Paperwork, pre-flight checks, etc.

You're pretty sure based upon what exactly? Your authoritative gut feeling?

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[prisoner-of-enigma]

all they need to do is pay enough in some form or another to make the expensive training worthwhile or pay for the training while the new employee is on a training salary.

And where would the money for this pay increase or training budget come from? Find me an airline that has a fat enough profit margin to absorb these costs without raising ticket prices. You won't be able to.

Sure, it may eventually come to this where the airline absorbs these costs and passes them onto the customer with higher ticket prices. However, the first airline to do so is going to be absolutely murdered into oblivion as customers flee it in droves for tickets a few dollars cheaper. Don't laugh. With online shipping people sort the fares "low to high" and pick the one at the top more often than not. Mark my words, the first airline to try this will be the first to die trying. A few more will follow until all are forced to adopt it en masse and fares go up uniformly. But no airline wants to be the first, and can you blame them?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, we'll hire H1Bs for the control towers too (sad)

and you're pretty wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

pilots only get paid for flight time (time IN the air)

Re: why train when they can get an 100K student lo

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, H1Bs are supported by Republicans more than Dems. Dems favor equal protection under the Law, which the indentures servitude nature of the H1b disallows.

It's not about racism, it's about undercutting the domestic wages of largely technical and non-doctor medical (nurse assistant) personnel.

The Republican party has most of the pro racism people, so I understand why you would try to label it as such though.

In the end, you will post want you want regardless of truth. As you often say "I'm not gay, but a 100 rubles is a 100 rubles."

Re:Multiplication [Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a...

[DRJlaw]

I'm pretty sure they have other duties they are paid for. Paperwork, pre-flight checks, etc.

AC versus NBC News. Fight!

"A portrait of these hourly pay scales becomes even more pathetic when you consider that regional airline pilots, who are paid only from the time the airline leaves the gate to the time it arrives at the destination, only are on the clock on average about 21.5 hours per week."

"They have a minimum pay for time on duty at some airlines, like one hour of pay minimum for every two hours on duty, and one hour of pay for every 4-5 hours away from home,' Darby says. 'These rules are often not in effect at the smaller airlines, and are always guaranteed by the larger major airlines' union contracts."

Oooo... half-time pay, if you're lucky. Color me jealous.

We need regulation

[ghoul]

1500 hours spent in Legislative jobs before you can apply to run for Governor. Once you have spent enough time at the regionals then you can apply for the Mailine job

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if someone could turn this into a competitive advantage.
Say... you are a regional airline (one of the bigger ones like ExpressJet or SkyWest)...
Step 1: find some venture capitol (I know, easier said than done)
Step 2: Bump all pilot salaries by 40-50%.
Step 3: Send job offers to all pilots working for one or more large regional airlines, promising the higher salaries
Step 4: Use the venture capitol to lease a bunch of additional aircraft
Step 5: After starving the other regional airlines of pilots they can't replace quick enough, thereby causing them to fall behind on their ability to meet their contracts with the majors, swoop in and offer to pick up the slack with new pilots + leased planes
Step 6: capture significant market share from other regionals, possibly driving some of them out of business in the process, or forcing them into selling

Sure the other regionals would simply increase their salaries to compete, but if they didn't have the venture capitol already lined up, they might not be able to get the funding in place fast enough to stop the drain of qualified pilots to survive... It would be like a hostile take over, only with employees...

Dunno, between union rules, the time it takes to negotiate contracts, FAA rules, government restrictions, anti-trust laws, etc., etc., etc. it probably wouldn't work, but it is fun to think about.

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[k6mfw]

I fully agree. I'm not a pilot and occasionally see various articles of pilot shortage. In another forum I commented problem is requirements are very high and prospective pilots will have to endure low pay during time to meet these requirements, some may give up. Another replied, "that's your problem! You don't understand becoming a pilot is a calling, not to make lots of money." I see this attitude in other fields, ask for a living wage and get shouted down for being liberal or greedy or [insert word of the month].

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[bobbied]

Charters are going to take pilots that have turbine time and are type rated. FEW charter companies will touch you under 3,000 hours, and none will foot the bill for type ratings or check rides until you actually are their employee. That's on you. You *might* get some time flying specialized cargo or short passenger runs, but that's not going to be a regular paying job. Being a CFI would be much better for that, but that means you have to find a bunch of students with money, and all those PIC hours will mostly be single engine non-complex.

Flying piston aircraft for charters or cargo is a low probability because there simply isn't enough of that kind of thing going on here in the states. Nobody flies piston aircraft for cargo or charter, not anymore. Turbine gigs for cargo are even more limited. Why? FedX requires an ATP rating, UPS is similar and they fly nearly ALL the freight out there now.

Flying banners is an option, but there are not that many hours available for that as there are few places where this happens much. Where I live, they fly banners about 2 months out of the year because of the weather. Competition for these hours is going to be fierce because there are a LOT of guys with 500 hours dying to get PIC hours for free.

All in all, it's *really* hard to get enough PIC time without significant amounts of debt.

Personally, I think Airlines would be advised to supplement such business activities to get pilots enough hours to get their ratings, say supplement cargo businesses for low volume and unusual routes. Maybe they could supplement flight training schools or individual students and build a feeder program designed to get pilots hours built up at less cost to the students. Maybe provide promising pilots other working positions with suitable hours and access to low cost flight schools to allow them to quickly build hours and move into meaningful flying work sooner and faster.

Re:Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

"My poop comes out like soft yogurt. If the cone-shaped top is above the water line, it's a Mt. Everest. One time I pooped a Olympus Mons that filled the bowl. Fortunately, it flushed without incident."

Continuous pwesent tense, Cwiss. You didn't wite "came out" or (more likely for you) "comed out", did you, Cwiss?

PS: What does that have to do anyways with the fact that you (past tense) overshared your hideous gastroenterological anecdote with us?

Again with your classic misdirection. It doesn't work anymore, fat man. Go make another hideous video with your teleprompter reflecting in your glasses, you dweeb.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes about 10-15 yrs of experience to be safe and useful as a pilot. 1500 is too little.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise those foreign pilots fly their foreign planes to America. No?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has pilot shortages, it's a global not US problem.

And it's because the pay hasn't met the hassle factor and costs of being a pilot, and airlines cut back on training of new pilots.

In particular the middle east and asian airlines have been snapping up pilots to grow quickly - and paying for them.

US airlines suck anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The best one (Delta) only ranked 37 in the latest survey. The entire country is losing its luster and prestige thanks to idiot voters who elect sociopaths

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[sjames]

Well, as an alternative, I suppose they could ask Earl the janitor to fly the plane but you won't like where that leads. It's that simple, pay what it costs and pass it on or they can fold up and trade Cryptokitties.

Had the "financial geniuses" running the airlines actually thought about this a year or two ago, they wouldn't be between a rock and a hard place now. Not only was this predictable, it was predicted.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Avidiax]

Airlines could pressure the FAA to change how PIC hours are calculated to make it a bit easier, and basically promote some of the current stock of low hours pilots immediately.

Merely position for automation in the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

These articles are merely positioning for more automation/autopilot usage and customers being satisfied with fewer pilots per flight. Instead of requiring two pilots per plane, they'll allow one pilot to control the plane complimented by automation. What these articles are position for is public perception. They need the public to be comfortable with only one fully qualified human pilot being on board.

Cut down to one pilot and the "30% shortage" becomes a 20% surplus...and wages will be cut too ;)

Long hours, low pay

[AHuxley]

Fix both and the very best people will be more attracted to flying in the USA.

Here's a series of thoughts:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Bring back Aviation classes in high school.
2. Make it easier for young people to learn to fly.
3. Shut down the NIMBYs who are closing GA airports.
4. Protect GA pilots from frivolous noise lawsuits.
5. Make flight school expenses tax deductible.
6. Downgrade the medical requirements for pilots.
7. Encourage "fly-along" programs.
8. Curtail the FAA's assassination of GA.

PILOT H1-bs would come from Europe, Russia China

[Bruce66423]

Especially Eastern Europe and of course Russia and China. Their safety records are respectable, especially when you remove the accidents caused by poor maintance rather than pilot error.

Crap industry that treats pilots like crap.

[slasher999]

That is what happens when you treat pilots like shit for at least 30 years and your industry business model is a race to zero with your competitors.

50k?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sat next to a regional jet pilot 2 years ago in the terminal during an interminable hold... I don't think they're pulling in 50k. More like 30-40s. It's a matter of work hours vs "away from home hours" - you only get paid for time you're flying, and if you're deadheading 5 hours to get to the next 1.5 hour flight, then deadheading 4 hours somewhere else, that's a pretty sucky way of life. Looking online, it looks like they pay a base of $25-30k, plus a 1 yr bonus of $20k, so yeah, maybe 50 is where it's at. Call it around $25/hr

just as a note, welders average about $18/hr and they can collect OT (most do) - and they go home every night, take a lot less time and money to become qualified. Work on an offshore oil rig, and you can do a lot better (but then you aren't going home every night)

ya gotta love flying to be in the business.

Self-flying planes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't this job be automated?

The national security of the United States relies

[Anonymous Coward]

The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry.

So, we're just going to ignore that non-sequitur?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty lousy way to get there. The usual way for a pilot to get time is to become a flight instructor (CFI) and get the majority of time this way. Then you can get a job in a not-so-desirable region (California or Alaska, or even New England) and get the rest of the hours this way. All that remains is an ATP and you are done. I am speaking from experience here. Flying in Alaska also pays handsomely, even for relatively inexperienced pilots. Paid for my helicopter ratings in fact. One thing is true, though, piloting is a lousy career, losing your medical means the end to it all.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[nehumanuscrede]

and, unless the Military paid for it, that cost is quite expensive.

You want to see ludicrous ? Go price what it will cost to be a commercial helicopter pilot.

No worries

[nehumanuscrede]

They're working hard on autonomous cars, you can bet that autonomous aircraft can't / won't be too far behind.

Early on, they'll still require human pilots on hand for safety but, over time, my guess is they simply won't be needed.

Re: why train when they can get an 100K student lo

[Anonymous Coward]

Most foreign shit isnâ(TM)t anything we want to import here. But that never stopped the shitlibs before.

No Pilots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if Judges did not allow Air Lines Like United to file bankruptcy on employees pensions they would have Pilots.
Things like that have consequences.
I say F em Lump it.

Re:Multiplication [Re:Starting pay [Re:Here's a...

[RevDisk]

Not sure what he's basing his statement on, but I worked for five years at an aerospace manufacturing company and worked with numerous pilots. Test pilots, charter pilots, transit pilots, corporate pilots, medevac pilots, some airline pilots. He is correct. It varies, but most places pay by flight hours. Airlines near always pay by flight hour There's a lot not covered in those flight hours. The rate is set to semi accurately reflect those hours. $50 per flight hour sounds good, but that caps you at $50k/yr due to FAA regulations on max flight hours.

It's entirely possible to fly from point A to point B with say... 4 flight hours in the air. With two hours of pre-flight, two hour flight, hour ish of post, 12 hours of sitting around, two hour pre-flight, two hours of flying, hopefully half an hour to and hour post, then home to hopefully sleep in your own bed. That's 4 hours of pay for 10-22 hours of work depending how you count it.

Being a commercial pilot sucks until you rack up seniority. If you're not former military pilot, the system is entirely rigged against you to the point you're near insane enough to try.

The failings of the liberal education system

[Anonymous Coward]

i do believe pilots should be paid more and that there should be a employer funded apprenticeship training program.

A big part of the problem may also exists with the failings of our education system which gives people the idea that the only way to be successful is with expensive degrees, piles of debt, for useless degrees in french art. This has created the illusion either your college material or your doomed to poverty. Stories like this really are infuriating juxtaposition on claims that there must be racism behind how more prevalent poverty is in the inner cities, minority communities, etc. There are clearly plenty of jobs available, the problem is the failure of the guidance and training system to direct them to where the jobs are available. Its almost like they don't want to reduce poverty because the narrative "of the oppressed and disadvantaged in the evil wicked america" is just to convenient for certain political parties which depend on keeping people on welfare programs and in poverty.

Re:Shortage of pilots willing to work for POOR WAG

[The Wild Norseman]

Well... lessee here... where would the money come from....? This is hard.

Hey! How about CxO salaries! So, in 2011, the average corporate salary for airlines was $3.5 million (and they whine because the rest of the corporate world has an average of $5 mil) NOT including other compensation. The other compensation runs from a minimum of around a million a year (no lower than that) to a high of $17 million for the CEO of the top airline. All per year, of course.

So let's say that $500,000 a year is a generous wage for example ten board members for a total of $5 million for a yearly salary for the ten of them, rather than the $35 mil that they'd ordinarily be paid. Now let's say this company employs 300 pilots. Basic math says that they can afford to give every one of those pilots an additional $100,000 per year on top of their regular salaries.

And, as I said, this does NOT include non-salary compensation.

So, there ya go. A base pilot could now earn conceivably $135,000 base rate and a top pilot could earn around $300,000. Not too close to the Corporate Overlords though! Can't have that!

-------------- Begin Rant ------------------

This is where I think Americans are truly psychotic, anti-social, and immoral greedy fuckers. How it nearly always is that executive salaries are considered sacrosanct and totally morally legitimate as a just compensation for their work.

And how they cry! the crocodile tears when they say that "razor-sharp margins means we HAVE to soak the suckers for more money because we caaaannn''ttttt aaafffooorrrdddd more or better pilots!"

Please, Uncle Sam! Bail us out! We'll blackmail you if you don't! Too big to fail, remember! LOL

Oh, the poor, poor (not literally) dears!! Why, I think I could do without eating this week just so I can give you my last fifty dollar bill for you to wipe your ass with! Oh, no worries! It's the least I could do for little ole you!

Re: why train when they can get an 100K student l

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dems favor equal protection under the Law"

Oh ho ho hahahahahahahaha hee ha ho hahahahahaha haha hahahahaha - whoa boy, hahaha, that's rich! Tell me another one, Marty, tell another one!

I'd consider it...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had some form of radiation shielding for the pilots. These guys cop more rads than any other career I can think of, I'm not sure the pay is worth that.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Chrisq]

Does that mean we're going to get more dog pilots? After all, they only need 214 hours, 17 minutes and 9 seconds of training.

I hope so.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Chrisq]

coming soon, we must increase rates... also more h1b pilots needed....

muslim pilot coming, skipped the training on landing

BS.

[Mike Frett]

There is a highly skilled pilot down the road from me. They won't hire him because he has a "bad back" and he is 62. I've flown with him and trust him with my life. So there is no shortage of pilots, there is only companies that discriminate.

They don't want pilots, not really.

National security? WTF?

[houghi]

The national security of the United States relies on a healthy airline industry.

Why? So we can have an excuse to get peoples data against terrorism? Because the control at airports is the only way to catch them?

Does that mean that Luxembourg is run over by terrorirsts, because they do not have an airline industry? I have so many actions and would like to know what other industries can be healthy and what industries can be sick when talking about National Security.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know man, they could hire Muslim pilots just to spite Drumpf. They did a pretty damn good job during 9/11 with little experience, and transported a lot of those damned evil straight white males to Hell where they belong. #i'mwithher

That's a lot easier when the planes are being flown by remote control. Such inexperienced pilots could not have pulled that off.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Immerman]

Yes, because hiring inexperience pilots to fly their $100-400 million aircraft sounds like an extremely good investment to me...

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[bobbied]

Airlines could pressure the FAA to change how PIC hours are calculated to make it a bit easier, and basically promote some of the current stock of low hours pilots immediately.

Yea, and the FAA will tell them to go pound sand. This was an NTSB recommendation from an accident report that the FAA made into a regulation.

One can argue that this regulation was overreach and went too far, but it doesn't seem right to roll back to 250 hours where it used to be.

Personally, the issue is Airlines have been cutting costs and managing to quarter profit numbers and not thinking strategically about how all this expansion and low fares would play out in the long run. The smart money would be grooming young pilots by paying for their training and locking them into flying for you. I think a smart investment would be pouring money into flight schools and cargo flying businesses to get pilots hours in the air, even if the businesses lost money. You could fly seafood from the coasts inland and specialty produce back, establish charter and sight seeing services around tourist areas, anything that offsets the costs, even if it loses money, but gives learning pilots jobs and hours.

Been Building for Years

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a problem that's been building for years. It's a supply problem.

I got my private pilot's license in the late 70's, when a single person with a disposable income could afford it. My nephew became an airline pilot (today he flies 777's and such) about 10 years after that.
Becoming a private pilot was simple, and a lot of people did it for recreation back then. Between cost and regulation, it got progressively more difficult, meaning fewer people doing so. My nephew followed the route I saw for several of the instructors who trained me - he got a private commercial and instructor license (thanks to well-off parents), he spent a few years scrimping and living at home while he built hours doing instruction with small planes on a piecework basis when weather was good. At he time, he added twin endorsement and instrument. Since mostly the well off could afford private pilot as a luxury, he met a lot of doctors, executives, etc. Eventually he got a job with a regional airline, and over a few years worked his way up to major airlines and jets and was finally making good money.

The supply problem is at both ends. Between costs and the general crackdown on the rules after 911 it was harder and more expensive, so the rich types who would pay for flight training became fewer; this supported fewer of the instructors who would eventually become airline pilots, and the cost of getting to the level of instructor became higher and since the opportunities were fewer, the initial investment was much less appealing.

On top of that was the regular news that airline pilot unions had taken pension promises in lieu of larger raises, only to be screwed over by the airlines declaring bankruptcy - also making the job less appealing. The initial cost and early years of horrible working conditions were much like training to be a doctor - except the news showed that unlike doctors, they payout from that effort could vanish.

Like developers?

[micahraleigh]

Is this like the developer "shortage" where they eject everyone over 43 and whine about how there aren't any?

Oh boo ...

Doesn't help that the airlines canabalized their pensions.

Pay up or keep it to yourselves, airlines ...

Recruit Muslim pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that once the Muslims learn to take off and land (without crashing into buildings), the pilot shortage will disappear - or maybe it'll be replaced by a passenger shortage!

Medical is part of the issue

[sizzlinkitty]

The FAA has blanket bans on people with ADD/ADHD from obtaining a third degree and above medical certification. The FAA also has a ban on the medications used to treat ADD/ADHD. Anybody that has been treated for ADD/ADHD at any time and never officially diagnosed by a psychologist, including as a child, will either be denied or will require a separate series of psychological tests that can cost up to 7 thousand dollars.

I am unable to take my first solo flight required to get my private pilots license. The FAA won't issue me a third degree medical certificate, because I have ADD and I treat it using Adderall. I've accumulated 19 hours of flight time and that does not matter to the FAA.

The outrageous part, the FAA has issued exceptions for pilots in the past to continue taking their ADD/ADHD medications.

Canada

[DarthVain]

While the experience might be a bit different in the US, it's probably much the same as in Canada, and largely do do with training and certification.

1) Getting your pilots licence is expensive.
2) Going to college for your commercial pilots licence is very expensive.
3) Even after graduation, you will need X number of hours before you are certified for even the worst most rural routes.
4) Getting hours is very hard to do.
5) Jobs like pilot training and the like pay very little (after rental, fuel, hanger fees, etc).
6) About the only way to get your hours is the Air Force (However in Canada at least, there is little opportunity, and few living options).

So yeah, if it is very expensive to become one, with very few opportunities, and difficult certifications to meet, as the older pilots retire or burn out there will be a lack of pilots ready to fill in. They don't just come out of thin air (ha! pardon pun). From what I've heard the hardest part is getting your required hours while not living in the poor house or going into serious debt. So if airlines took a bit of responsibility and say had programs for assisted training whereby prospective pilots could get some seat time as part of a work program that might help in the long term. However like most companies, they just expect employees to somehow just be magically trained and ready to go with the required experience.

The very first sentence is an example

[ToddInSF]

Of why I rarely bother with slashdot anymore. What a crock of 911 bullshit.

They just need some courage!

[Anonymous Coward]

The airline industry could learn a thing or two from the tech industry.

First, pay Congress to open the H-1B program up to foreign pilots -- foreigners don't whine about pay or hours.

Second, implement a "plane sharing" model and give the "vendors" financing options for purchasing their planes. Just as with "disruptive innovators" like Über, this will push risks such as seasonal and economic cyclicality off onto their "vendors" as well as remove the cost of capital investment from their balance sheets.

BOOM. Nailed it!

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

> h1b pilots

Other countries don't have shortages because they get paid a lot more. Why the hell would anyone want to get a visa to be a pilot here?

The same reason they come to take positions as in IT/tech..... To immigrate to a more desirable place to live. It attracts folks to tech, why not pilots? I am not defending that practice, but I do not see why it would not have the same affect for airlines as it does for tech companies.

The Air Force Hasn't Been Hiring....

[kenwd0elq]

A major source of airline pilots has always been the military, and the military has been cutting WAY back. To the point that the USAF and the Navy are offering bonuses to keep the pilots that they have - which reduces the number of experienced pilots who are separating from the services and looking for airline jobs.

And while very experienced captains are still very well paid, regional airline salaries have been quite low, and work conditions not all that great. Remember that pilots (and other flight crew) are only paid for FLIGHT time. They don't get paid for sitting on the ground, or waiting for an aircraft to be repaired. So it's not all that it used to be.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[stealth_finger]

And if foreign pilots want to work with an American carrier, an H1-B would be one of the ways.

Hmm...have you heard about all the foreign plane crashes past few years?

From everything I've read, at many foreign airports, especially where H1-B's would come from....they are a chaotic mess, not something we'd want to import "here"....that and language barrier between them and control towers.

Which plane crashes are these?

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay cargo supervisors 15 an hour to do weight and balance on 100 million dollar aircraft all day long. Sorry to pop your bubble.

Re:why train when they can get an 100K student loa

[Hognoxious]

Hmm...have you heard about all the foreign plane crashes past few years?

No, to be honest.

Care to enlighten us?