Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article
02-18-2011, 08:11 AM
#101
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Sitting
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by gloopy
As for the 2 pilot ultra long haul scenario, I don't think that comminucations is the reason at all for 4 pilots versus 2. By that logic we'd already be single pilot ops for domestic flights today.
Ultra long flights need more pilots so that you always have a full crew in case it hits the fan. Communications are a part of that, but a very small part compared to things over all. And again, the question isn't can planes be automated to the point of redundancy necessary to justify less or no crews. I think the answe to that is yes, although not today, and not by a long shot. If a robot blackhawk crashes, some general sniffing brandy in front of an appropriations committee will three way high five some lobbyst who golfs with a congress critter in the district where they build them and order more. Who cares. But some day, maybe in 10-15 years as some have predicted we might begin to see the onset of the level of reliability and redundancy, maybe. But can the plane itself and the entire infrastructure be brought up to those standards for at or below the price of the nation's FO's? Not for generations IMHO.
Even for single pilot ops, pilots still not only die at the wheel but also become incapicated. And again, what are we talking about here but the cost of the nation's FO's. That doesn't cut pilot labor in half either, as FO's make a good bit less than 50% of the total cost of pilot labor anyway. And there's still all the other issues of CRM. Long term we are a good ways away from getting to the point where single pilot 121 ops or half crew ultra long haul ops becomes a reality.
As for the "pilot shortage" that will be a self correcting problem. While the supply line has dwindled, that really isn't that big of a deal. It has dwindled precisely because there has been very little to no hiring the last decade thanks to the economy and age 65. When the dam breaks and every airline is hiring a ton, it won't take very long at all for the CFI pipeline to ramp up and ramp up big time. Students will quickly flood the flight schools big and small, quickly creaating more CFI's and so on, just like every other boom time the industry has seen. Heck in the 50's or 60's airlines hired pilots with PPL's and took it from there. This will be a non event. The only real obstacle is financing the cost, but if there are actually jobs waiting for those who plunk down the cash, the market will find a way to provide financing. The reason financing has been difficult for this particular career field is because of the bleek prospects for obtaining gainful employment and not being able to pay the loan back. Worst case, even with a 1500 TT ATP requirement, airlines and/or college programs will spool up zero time to ATP programs like some have been doing for years. If we do see a pilot hiring boom time, even 6 figure loans will be given out like candy, at least to those who are going to work in fields that can actually repay them. Heck look at all the 529 money, grants and loans we barf at any and every 6 figure arts history degree so kids can take a 4 year break from reality, develop their alcohol additcion and ruin their credit, all with an almost certain zero chance of being able to pay it back but what the heck it's (yet another) entitlement, and they are still getting the money. That part of the problem (pilot shortages) will be 100% self correcting even at the 1500 TT limit (which will probably be reduced anyway but in any case) single or no pilot ops isn't a viable threat for several more decades. Pilot labor is just not that expensive, but dual pilot 121 ops levels of reliability and reduncancy is.
Ultra long flights need more pilots so that you always have a full crew in case it hits the fan. Communications are a part of that, but a very small part compared to things over all. And again, the question isn't can planes be automated to the point of redundancy necessary to justify less or no crews. I think the answe to that is yes, although not today, and not by a long shot. If a robot blackhawk crashes, some general sniffing brandy in front of an appropriations committee will three way high five some lobbyst who golfs with a congress critter in the district where they build them and order more. Who cares. But some day, maybe in 10-15 years as some have predicted we might begin to see the onset of the level of reliability and redundancy, maybe. But can the plane itself and the entire infrastructure be brought up to those standards for at or below the price of the nation's FO's? Not for generations IMHO.
Even for single pilot ops, pilots still not only die at the wheel but also become incapicated. And again, what are we talking about here but the cost of the nation's FO's. That doesn't cut pilot labor in half either, as FO's make a good bit less than 50% of the total cost of pilot labor anyway. And there's still all the other issues of CRM. Long term we are a good ways away from getting to the point where single pilot 121 ops or half crew ultra long haul ops becomes a reality.
As for the "pilot shortage" that will be a self correcting problem. While the supply line has dwindled, that really isn't that big of a deal. It has dwindled precisely because there has been very little to no hiring the last decade thanks to the economy and age 65. When the dam breaks and every airline is hiring a ton, it won't take very long at all for the CFI pipeline to ramp up and ramp up big time. Students will quickly flood the flight schools big and small, quickly creaating more CFI's and so on, just like every other boom time the industry has seen. Heck in the 50's or 60's airlines hired pilots with PPL's and took it from there. This will be a non event. The only real obstacle is financing the cost, but if there are actually jobs waiting for those who plunk down the cash, the market will find a way to provide financing. The reason financing has been difficult for this particular career field is because of the bleek prospects for obtaining gainful employment and not being able to pay the loan back. Worst case, even with a 1500 TT ATP requirement, airlines and/or college programs will spool up zero time to ATP programs like some have been doing for years. If we do see a pilot hiring boom time, even 6 figure loans will be given out like candy, at least to those who are going to work in fields that can actually repay them. Heck look at all the 529 money, grants and loans we barf at any and every 6 figure arts history degree so kids can take a 4 year break from reality, develop their alcohol additcion and ruin their credit, all with an almost certain zero chance of being able to pay it back but what the heck it's (yet another) entitlement, and they are still getting the money. That part of the problem (pilot shortages) will be 100% self correcting even at the 1500 TT limit (which will probably be reduced anyway but in any case) single or no pilot ops isn't a viable threat for several more decades. Pilot labor is just not that expensive, but dual pilot 121 ops levels of reliability and reduncancy is.
Couldn't have said it better myself. No offense to gearjerk, but I can't stand the UAV cheerleaders (former Nav's, Missileers, etc....) who tout that the last pilot has already been born. It's just not practical for all applications, IMHO. There are a "bijillion" technical issues to work out to make it worthwhile on that scale, not to mention the ungodly amounts of $$ required. But hey, at least when it finally happens, we'll all have cancer from all the "live" streams of communication to these RPA/UAV/UCAS/whatever cooking our organs.
02-18-2011, 09:40 AM
#103
Feeling blessed.
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: Was I finally in the right place at the right time?
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Have you read the previous 10 pages? Nobody is talking about a "pilot-less" jet, and anytime in the near future for that matter. What the thread the "OP" started, and is trying to highlight, is if it's possible for airlines to reduce the amount of crews actually required on the airplane due to "augmented" crews operating the aircraft from a "remote" location.
There will ALWAYS be pilots aboard aircraft. Will the required number be reduced by "remote operations"? Maybe.
GJ
There will ALWAYS be pilots aboard aircraft. Will the required number be reduced by "remote operations"? Maybe.
GJ
There is no, nor will there be, a pilot shortage. Ever. There will only be a shortage of pilots willing to work for the wages offered by the regional/feeder carriers. I've read 20,000 apps are into FedEx right now. When employers have to compete for employees, and flights have to be routinely cancelled due to crew shortages, then the training will ramp up to fill those positions. Look at what the Asian carriers are doing to attract expat pilots.
In this country, for the foreseeable future, you can't swing a cat without scratching 1000 pilot-applicants begging for a job.
02-18-2011, 11:13 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by shiznitobam
+1
Couldn't have said it better myself. No offense to gearjerk, but I can't stand the UAV cheerleaders (former Nav's, Missileers, etc....) who tout that the last pilot has already been born. It's just not practical for all applications, IMHO. There are a "bijillion" technical issues to work out to make it worthwhile on that scale, not to mention the ungodly amounts of $$ required. But hey, at least when it finally happens, we'll all have cancer from all the "live" streams of communication to these RPA/UAV/UCAS/whatever cooking our organs.
Couldn't have said it better myself. No offense to gearjerk, but I can't stand the UAV cheerleaders (former Nav's, Missileers, etc....) who tout that the last pilot has already been born. It's just not practical for all applications, IMHO. There are a "bijillion" technical issues to work out to make it worthwhile on that scale, not to mention the ungodly amounts of $$ required. But hey, at least when it finally happens, we'll all have cancer from all the "live" streams of communication to these RPA/UAV/UCAS/whatever cooking our organs.
Without going any further than the 2nd line, your post lacks all credibility. We could compare resumes, but I'm pretty sure I have just as much, if not more "hostile fire/imminent danger" pay as a "rated pilot" of a "manned asset" as you do?
I'm not a UAV/UAS/RPV cheerleader by any means, but to equate those operations to billets filled by "non-rated" personnel proves your lack of understanding beyond what I can teach you here on an anonymous web based forum.
I'm not advocating the "last pilot being born" scenario, not sure where you get that idea? If you'd like, read the previous ten pages and then return with better "reading comprehension" skills. What people are asking/saying for in-depth discussion purposes, are whether crews can be reduced or in other words, "augmented" by "remote operations". Before you reply with, "the technology isn't ready yet", or "the flying public would never allow it", I've heard it all before, and all others, to include FTB's posted links, see this being a plausible effort in the next two decades, read - 20 years. Not tomorrow, not without improved technologies, not without other factors allowing the "slippery slope" of "remote operations" taking hold.
As always, thank you for your service, no offense taken.
GJ
02-18-2011, 11:44 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
Technical issues can, and will be resolved. But, I believe pilot labor will still be cheaper.
At some point the pilot's role will become to... take the blame (preferably posthumously) for any event, so that everyone continues to buy tickets. For this to work, you will have airplanes that barely allow pilot input, but you have to keep appearances up, and pretend the pilot had enough authority to crash the thing in the first place.
While playing that game, you might have to play the game of putting a second pilot in the cockpit, to watch over the first, and because of physiological limitiations of each individual "meat-servo". If one crashes after a fifteen-hour flight, and the "pilot" was asleep, exhausted, or high on speed to stay awake, the hwole thing comes to grind, and people don't buy tickets anymore.
I do agree with many of the non-cheerleading posters: we should be focused elseweher, for example on maintaining high training standards. When we stop riding on the inertia of previous good habits, and we start seeing hull losses again, they're not going to blame training budgets: they're going to argue that we failed, and use that to speed up the development and introduction of our mechanical replacements.
I'm going to go study.
02-18-2011, 11:50 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
One thing forgotten in the mix. Insurance. What insurance company in their right mind would insure a pilotless jet? If there is one, what airline would be stupid enough to pay that premium?
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
Yes, I have. Plenty of talk. Again, I ask, have you considered the insurance costs of remotely operated aircraft, either with one or no pilots on board? Technical issues can be solve, but that does not make it realistic. High speed rail, with dedicated tracks, are NOT "pilotless." That is a much easier technological feat, yet it hasn't happened. I'd like to hear your answer. I bet it's half PR, and a mix of insurance and cost/benefit analyses in favor of a staffed vehicle.
There is no, nor will there be, a pilot shortage. Ever. There will only be a shortage of pilots willing to work for the wages offered by the regional/feeder carriers. I've read 20,000 apps are into FedEx right now. When employers have to compete for employees, and flights have to be routinely cancelled due to crew shortages, then the training will ramp up to fill those positions. Look at what the Asian carriers are doing to attract expat pilots.
In this country, for the foreseeable future, you can't swing a cat without scratching 1000 pilot-applicants begging for a job.
There is no, nor will there be, a pilot shortage. Ever. There will only be a shortage of pilots willing to work for the wages offered by the regional/feeder carriers. I've read 20,000 apps are into FedEx right now. When employers have to compete for employees, and flights have to be routinely cancelled due to crew shortages, then the training will ramp up to fill those positions. Look at what the Asian carriers are doing to attract expat pilots.
In this country, for the foreseeable future, you can't swing a cat without scratching 1000 pilot-applicants begging for a job.
I may have misunderstood your position, but from your first post, you only mentioned "pilot-less" aircraft? In your next post, quoting mine, you bring up the option of "reduced crews". Two totally different scenarios in my mind.
Let's begin with the first idea. Again, I don't "EVER" see aircraft going fully autonomous is my career, or lifetime for that matter. Is it possible? Maybe, but we're still equipping the fleet with "Wi-Fi" on board, think that a fully autonomous aircraft flying 100+ people around is still going to take a while.
Now, to discuss the possibilities of insurance for "reduced" crews. Since you brought it up, I'm assuming you have some knowledge/expertise in the arena of aviation insurance? If so, I'd like to learn more, as it's a valid idea/point, but don't know enough about it myself to offer a solution. (No sarcasm intended.) Instead of offering up an idea that it's prohibitive due to "our current" insurance policies, why not counter with, "here's what we have now, and here's how our insurance laws could be changed in the future to reflect reduced crew air transport."
Just because you "expected" it, I'm going to give you the answer you're looking for.
Insurance, as I'm sure you'd agree too, is a "cost" based from "perceived or actual risk". Hence the reason most rental car companies don't rent automobiles to kids less than 25 years of age. Same goes for "remote operated transportation" in the year 2030 and beyond. You're making an assumption that "perceived/actual risk" maintains its same level, correct? What happens when people in 30 years would rather get on a "transcon" remotely operated flight for $59 one-way versus pay ten times as much to take the same flight with a full compliment of crews? Is the level of risk reduced? Probably not, but is the perceived/actual risk mitigated by the flying public, who then affect insurance rates the same as a "clean driver discount" from Allstate? I agree with your assessment of the "looming pilot shortage" and the fact there probably will never be one, but what about companies willing to pay the profession what it really deserves. As has been talked about in another thread, there will one day be a "cap" on pilot wages. It's inconceivable to think that at each contract negotiation pilots can continue to make COLA, plus inflation, in addition to percentage increases to base pay. With that idea, a first year airline guy could be making $150/hr, in the future. (Rate slightly exaggerated for example purposes.) With the "technology available", (read: not for many years) management now has a bargaining tool to continue to "keep costs low".
Thanks for the discussion,
GJ
02-18-2011, 05:21 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
What happens when people in 30 years would rather get on a "transcon" remotely operated flight for $59 one-way versus pay ten times as much to take the same flight with a full compliment of crews?
GJ
GJ
I also don't think we'll see a day where the bad guys can crash into the "ABC Airlines Remote Control UAV station" and have a couple dozen airliners at their control.
02-18-2011, 05:29 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Boomer
I also don't think we'll see a day where the bad guys can crash into the "ABC Airlines Remote Control UAV station" and have a couple dozen airliners at their control.
It doesn't work that way now, (crashing into a "control station" to assume control) and wouldn't in the future either. Not saying "remote operations" will EVER happen, just offering "the other side of the coin".
Thanks,
GJ
02-18-2011, 05:54 PM
#110
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Tiller Twisting; Yoke Strangling; Button Smashing - Switch Monkey
Posts: 82
Seems easy to me ... would I buy a ticket for my wife, babies and myself on a robot? No. Not now and not anytime soon. What would the robot do in Al Haynes shoes? Or Sully's shoes? Guarantee it would not freekin' pull something out of it's "aft CPU-fan exhaust port" to save the day. It would just be stuck in some loop while we were in the back wondering what the hell is going on.
I've been in orbits with these freeking robots in the middle of the night over the sand box ... yes they loose link and fly themselves around ... RIGHT AT ME (!!!) and I have to dodge them! Me, the flawless bio-system that I am dodging those stupid "amazing" robots!
So for me ... never going to happen. I don't care if they move that way ... I'm not getting on one.
I've been in orbits with these freeking robots in the middle of the night over the sand box ... yes they loose link and fly themselves around ... RIGHT AT ME (!!!) and I have to dodge them! Me, the flawless bio-system that I am dodging those stupid "amazing" robots!
So for me ... never going to happen. I don't care if they move that way ... I'm not getting on one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
