Originally Posted by
Electra
The problem here is that everyone foaming at the mouth about pilot shortages actually believes the fairy tale that we live in a free market economy and that the supply/demand price curve from Econ 101 (which I'm guessing they don't bother to teach at Riddle and UND anyway) works anymore.
If you follow that basic macro-economic theory, as the number of qualified workers declines, a company will have to pay more to attract better candidates. However, in this Walmartized world, the real world, instead of incentivizing employees to (in this case) staff and improve productivity, the exact opposite is happening. Since profits happen to be shrinking at the same time, regional airline management is coming and demanding concessions, with the threat of complete job loss as the stick. No carrot. Plan B, already in motion, is to whine and lobby lawmakers to change the rules so they can go back to hiring wet commercial licenses and continue to pay poverty wages. Plan C will be the multi-crew licenses that the ICAO is already on board with, with maybe a little Age 70 thrown in for good measure with a hint of empty promises. Legacy/major carriers have no shortage of applicants, but the tipping point is coming at the regionals, why do you think EndeavorToDelta just reared it's ugly head. It isn't about getting people to Delta, it is entirely about getting people to the pilot ghetto at Endeavor. Otherwise, wouldn't they just pay more at Endeavor? There it is. There is no room in this playbook for paying pilots higher wages. The house of cards that is the regional model won't allow for it. The only worry that Legacy carriers have that while they have absolute disdain for their regional partners and their scummy pilots and keep trying to grind them into the carpet to work for free (or better yet, you pay us to fly for us!), they need their precious feed. Don't for a second believe that United is interested in buying 100 seaters to fly to MAF and MOT, they get more from regionals than the regionals get from them, or they wouldn't still be doing it, rhetoric about the 50 seater being an expensive and dying airframe notwithstanding.
You're not wrong, but...
The issue, for contract lift providers, is that mainline isn't going to pay them more than the contract requires to cover the increased labor costs that the supply-demand equilibrium now demands after the supply of "qualified" pilots willing to work for regional airline compensation was artificially reduced due to 121.436.
As such, management of CLPs are in a pickle - they can't increase revenue, so their only option is to control or reduce costs which is why there's such an emphasis on concessionary and cost-neutral CBAs right now. Pilots are largely rejecting this, creating yet another problem for managements - pilot recruitment and pilot retention. Regionals WANT their pilots with more longevity to leave since they are more expensive, but the issue is replacing that pilot due to all the above.
Lacking incentive, pilots are voting with their feet.
The contract lift providers that ultimately survive will be the ones that are more attractive for potential newhires due to compensation and quality of life, and they will eventually have more pricing power with their mainline partners as the options will be fewer.
As you said, RAA and their members probably have multiple 'contingencies' to fall back on, but ultimately, it boils down to increasing the supply of pilots willing to work for regional airline compensation.
/no, Econ isn't part of the Purdue AvTech curriculum
//really should be
///Ivy Tech and Ball State MBA FTW
////four slashies for four stripes