Originally Posted by Whacker77

It's not a good comparison to match the 1990's against today's airline industry. Things have changed drastically. Not the least of which is the widespread use of the regionals. Also, the industry is larger than it was in the 1990's.

The ATP rule does nothing for the airlines except hamstring them. I say that because the rule will affect their ability to grow and match the demand increased passenger loads will require. Growth, by the way, will come back sooner than you think.

This comes back to the point I have been trying to make since last August. Airlines are not going to want to remain artificially smaller if the demand for more routes and capacity is there. Yet, that is what I feel this measure could produce.

If, as many say, the rule would weed out those not willing to make it to 1500 hours, then from where do the extra pilots needed to fly the extra planes come? It's been noted many times that fewer and fewer are becoming commercial rated pilots already. Right there is cause for concern even if no growth takes place.

When growth does come again, are airlines going to say, "Well we would like to expand and capitalize on more people wanting to fly, but we can't do so because it has become cost prohibative for young people to become pilots?" I can't see airlines leaving money on the table like that because most are publicly traded and are duty bound to act in the best interest of shareholders.

Even if you assume airlines would forgo growth, there is no reason to believe the extra money resulting from fewer pilots would in turn be given to employed pilots as higher pay. It would be doled out as dividends to share holders, used to retire debt, or a whole host of other things. It's just a fact of life that low pay is a part of the regional airline business.