Originally Posted by
FollowMe
So if pilot demand = X, and pilot supply at age 65 = 0.85X, your supposition is that they would rather not go to age 70 because those individual pilots are too expensive?
Please show your math accounting for lost revenue to cancelled regional lift. Please show your math for increasing pilot labor costs by apparently intentionally allowing demand to outpace supply, giving labor more leverage in every cycle.
You can be a condescending @$$ if you want to be, but it doesn't change the FACTS. There IS NO shortage of 65 year-old pilots, there is at least arguably a shortage of entry level pilots. That shortage can readily be resolved - as the regional's have proven - by upping regional FO first year pay to $45/hr (Republc, Skywest) or providing modest one time signing or even more modest retention bonuses. That is demonstrably more cost effective than extending the career of a 65 year old AA senior captain getting $332 an hour (plus 15% 401k) for another five years. Heck, you can hire a new regional FO for about the cost of the 65 year old's 401 K alone.
Anyone believing that the cost-effective method of dealing with a pilot shortage long term is to extend the age to seventy is delusional, or perhaps
senile would be more apropos.