The root of the problem is with the regional airlines. They’ve figured out a way to game the employment market by offering next to nothing to pilots while still knowing that they’ll not only get applicants, but a glut of applicants. They can pay a pittance for pilots who are willing to do the job with hopes of getting on with a major airline down the road.
I have to respectfully disagree that the root of the problem is with the regional airlines. Not unlike any other aspect of the free market system, the reason for the low wages is
because airline managers can pay what they do and be successful at it.
With regards to low pay, I see two reasons for it in the above quoted statement.
First,
....a glut of applicants.
No shortage whatsoever of potential workers.
Second,
...pilots who are willing to do the job with hopes of getting on with a major airline down the road.
Willing and hope. Even though the wages are very low, workers are
willing to accept them. Why? Because of the
hope that it will lead to a more prosperous and fulfilling job one day. It's a gamble that has been as much a part of aviation history as has the law of physics.
What can be done?
Negotiate. When a pilot group's collective bargaining unit agrees with management
contractually as to what should appear on the paycheck, then and only then will wages come up.
That’s what we need to do for pilots by instituting a minimum annual salary of, say $50,000 a year, maybe a little more. The labor market would change overnight, as a lot of highly experienced, highly qualified pilots who can’t afford to take a job in the cockpit today would raise their hands immediately. Then the commuter airlines would hire them.
How does an airline manager keep costs down when salaries increase? Two choices:
1: Raise ticket prices.
2: Do more with less.
Is the traveling public willing to pay double or more to fly from A to B when cheap fares have more or less become the norm and not the exception? That would lead to a lessening of a demand for air travel and thus necessitate a lesser need for air transport. In other words, most airlines would shrink to meet the demands of the market.
Doing more with less is certainly an option too. To compensate for the increased salary expense, airlines would simply decrease the size of their labor force and/or the size of the airline. Most major airlines might just opt to do less business with their regional partners and more with their own assets. Would that lead to more opportunities at the majors? Maybe, maybe not.
as a lot of highly experienced, highly qualified pilots who can’t afford to take a job in the cockpit today would raise their hands immediately.
Same game, different location.
If more jobs opened up at the majors due to less business with their regional affiliates, this would not be job growth in the industry but rather a shift of where those positions are required. And my guess is that for every one job created at a mainline (under this particular scenario) would
probably equate to at least the loss of two jobs at the regional level. In other words, you create an even lesser demand while increasing the supply. And as mentioned in the above quote, there are "a lot of highly experienced, highly qualified pilots who can't afford to take a job in the [regional] cockpit today."