Originally Posted by
Dash8widget
I understand where you are coming from, your arguments just don't match what has happened in reality. That last big hiring cycle is a good example. After 9/11 the airlines were hit hard; lots of furloughs at the majors, big cuts in pay, etc. As a result, fewer people started perusing airline careers and enrollment in flight schools took a hit. Then things started to turn around. The airlines started hiring again and the regionals were growing and loosing pilots at the same time. So, the regionals had to start hiring in large numbers. But they found that the supply of well qualified pilots was much less than in years past. So what happened? The regionals began lowering their hiring requiments significantly.
Notice that they did not start parking rj's for lack of pilots - they just lowered the bar.
RJ's (at the regional level) are not the result of there being too many pilots out there - they are the result of agreements made by short sighted major airline pilot unions giving up scope for better pay. Job security and better pay will come from scope protection, NOT from cutting the number of commercial pilots coming from part 61 programs!
Right because the airlines had room to lower the bar! If the bar is set higher the supply would dry up quicker and the airlines would be forced to:
1. Raise productivity- Not Safe and they are almost at that limit too,
2. Park smaller airplanes and replace them with larger ones so seat capacity would not be lowered- Safe and this would result in more mainline jobs,
3. Cut seat capacity- Definitely an option now, but not for future revenue, or
4. Raise pilot wages to attract canidites away from other carriers- I'm down with that.
Like it or not part 61 training is a target when there is a massive lack of oversight. If we are serious about lobbying for training standards I'm sure this would be on the table.