First off I'm impressed with your dedication and research but unless you're just playing devil's advocate I'm going to assume you have a personal tie to this agenda. Are you management?
Originally Posted by
scottm
I don't see in GAO-14-232 where there are tens of thousands of American pilots overseas, waiting to come back to fly in the U.S.. I do see where it mentions around 8,000 pilots with FAA ATP certificates, and around 16,000 pilots with FAA commercial tickets, have a residence overseas. Did you know that Embry-Riddle and Flight Safety International train far more foreign pilots than American pilots? And those foreign pilots get FAA certificates? Those foreign pilots go fly for the foreign airlines that sponsored them, and have addresses overseas.
The flight schools in the US that train foreign pilots issue those pilots an FAA commercial certificate. They then return to their home country where they obtain a local certificate on the basis of their FAA certificate. Those foreign pilots do not obtain an ATP. This is why the distinction of those pilots who have an ATP living overseas is important. The majority of those pilots with ATPs that are living overseas are either working for a foreign airline as an American Expat or are working in a different career but are qualified to work as a pilot. As I said before, a pilot working overseas is not required to maintain an FAA medical so those pilots would be excluded from the list of current ATPs with a medical. If they are holding a foreign equivalent medical it can be assumed they are able to hold a FAA medical.
They aren't waiting for pilot jobs in the U.S., so that premise is false. There may be American pilots overseas who would come back, I've talked to some, but I've seen nothing to indicate many thousands of them.
Again, just because you personally can't observe something doesn't mean it's not true. There are in fact many thousands of US pilots working overseas and my opinion (since you presented your opinion) is that most of them would be willing to work in the US if the pay was competitve. Currently a pilot who is current PIC in a regional jet can make about 12 times more money starting work for an overseas carrier than for a US carrier and that's not even considering the massive tax credits. Even the best paid ten year captains at a US regional airline can make about twice as much money in their first year at a foreign airline while in the US if they switch jobs, even to a major, they are looking at a massive pay cut earning as little as 1/5th their current pay.
Therefore, if your opinion is that they aren't interested in returning to work in the US it's pretty easy to conclude that it's because the pay sucks. The fact that there are qualified people who choose not to work for you doesn't mean you have a labor shortage, it means you aren't competitive in the market.
Several sources in this report look at how many students are moving through U.S. flight schools, without regard to how many are actually U.S. citizens....
This isn't really true, it wasn't addressed in this manner and in fact the study reports a significant decline in the number of students enrolled in US flight schools. It also reports that flight schools show a shortage of the availability of qualified instructors while the number of available CFIs is more than sufficient to meet demand. The problem again is pay.
One of the big sources cited in this study is Audries Aircraft Analysis. When that study came out I contacted the author with questions about citizenship, on the supply end, and about non-airline demand for pilots, which is actually huge and ignored by every study out there. This is a very tough subject to get real numbers for, and Brant did a better job than most, but still left out some huge numbers.
I don't think this is a significant issue regarding the validity of the report. When you are set on finding certain results, as you are, you will nitpick and look for errors for the sake of it. As was stated there are margins for error and the GAO study addressed this.
Don't forget the reason this study was performed was because the Regional Airlines complained new safety regulations would exacerbate an already existing shortage of qualified pilots. The fact that an airline refuses to compete with corporate flight departments and non aviation jobs is not the Government's problem. After all, it's not the responsibility of the Government to staff private jets so if the airlines paid pilots competitively the problem wouldn't exist. This is the point of the study and it's perfectly valid.
Nobody has any data on Americans with ATPs waiting to return to the profession. It is possible, but seems unlikely, and there are no numbers.
You don't need to call every single ATP and ask what their motivations are. A small random sample can be used. Most pilots know a small sample of fellow ATPs who are not working as airline pilots for various reasons. Some of them have no intentions of flying again...stay at home moms...successful entrepreneur who now owns his own jet...etc. Most of those people are just working in a different career and many will say they gave up the airline career because of money or the unwillingness to start at the bottom after a layoff.
Just because you don't have exact numbers is not reason to discount those pilots as available supply.
For the past 15+ years, the major airlines and the financial press have been clearly stating that the low-cost carriers are responsible for keeping ticket prices low.
You are deliberately attempting to confuse the issue (are you a politician?) except you forget the company you're in. As pilots we understand Low cost carriers and regional carriers are not the same thing. Regional carrier ticket prices are set by the mainline who handles all their marketing. "Low cost carriers" such as Southwest, Frontier, JetBlue, Spirit, Virgin etc. are not the same thing and don't have difficulty hiring pilots that regionals do because they pay much better.
You are trying to confuse the issue of ticket prices and marketing with pilot supply. These are two completely separate issues and with record profits across the board it's a tough sell to tie them together now.
DARPA. ALIAS. Read about it. I've worked in industrial automation for 30 years, and I'm stunned at the automation that is coming out of research labs and into production. The technology exists, DARPA is just looking at how to integrate it into EXISTING cockpits and culture. They aren't talking ten years from now. It will happen slowly, and I think I'll be safe as a captain at a major. But a large drop in demand for pilots will effect every pilot in the industry, and most of us will still be here. Pilots who are new today, will be in trouble. This industry loves to shed pilots.
Fascinating but it has little to do with this discussion and in fact you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you cry there is a pilot shortage and echo the regional airline managers' sob story and on the other you're saying there won't be a shortage anyway because we'll all be replaced by robots.