Originally Posted by
Slick111
Notice what the airlines are NOT trying to get from congress: Increasing/abolishing the mandatory retirement age, (age 65).
And before I get started, I'm not advocating an increase in the retirement age. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in their argument.
If airlines were really panicked over a shortage of pilots, in ADDITION to getting new blood in the door at the regionals they would be trying to keep ALL of the pilots that they currently have, including those who are approaching mandatory retirement. And by keeping more "gray hairs", they would slow their regional pilots progession to the majors, thus allowing them to more easily staff their regional feeders.
But it costs an airline a lot less money to hire a CFI into the right seat of an RJ at $30/hour which then "trickle-up" replaces a 30 year Airbus Captain who earns $250/hour.
The fact that the airlines are not actively attacking the "pilot shortage" at BOTH ENDS tells you all that you need to know about their current push to lower the requirements for newbies. It's not about solving a "pilot shortage". It's about maximizing PROFITS!
This is a good point. But it will come. When retirements outpace SIM capacity and they can't staff their VERY lucrative widebodies, they'll be screaming for age 67. Remember, a disproportionate percentage of retirees come out of widebodies. It's not like they can seat lock those folks when they turn 65.