I think this is spot on. 2 years is definitely an outlier, but so is 2 decades. Historically I think upgrade times seems to be longer for a few reasons
1) more people seemed willing to take first upgrade due to things like credit caps.
2) pilots hired tended to be younger.
3) at least some aircraft had 3 cockpit crew positions
4) some majors had mandatory upgrades

all of these factors combined to historically keep upgrades at a distance for new hires. I’ve been told historically it took somewhere around 60% systemwide to upgrade at most majors. Recently that number seems to be closer to 80%.

I think the first 2 I listed are making a big difference. If everyone hired is under 32, a big hiring wave in front of you can have a huge group roughly your age senior to you for most of your career. It seems like for the past 10 years we have been hiring pilots well into their 50s with an average age almost 40. That translates to decent movement even if you are hired towards the end of a wave. Junior CA being a less desirable position relatively speaking obviously helps those who want an early upgrade.

 

I think generational demographics play into it some as well. Millennial and newer generations skew more towards QOL over chasing huge pay checks. Plus you've got a lot higher percentage of dual income households these days than 20+ years ago. So not only does a pilot not need to upgrade to have a large total household income, but having a working spouse means more schedule flexibility is needed which a junior CA postion wouldn't afford. And once an FO hits up past year 3 pay they can make a really good living without having to hump it very hard. So the drive/need to upgrade to CA at first opportunity isn't nearly as appealing to lots of people nowadays.

 

Someone explain it to me…..there are versions of the Max approved and flying. Beyond different fuselage lengths are there differences in the bleeds/cowl ice/HUD ? I don’t understand why there is a huge delay in approving the Max 10.

 

The 8 & 9 are basically re-engined 737 8/9.

The MAX 7 is different than the 73-7, so treated as a "new" airframe. The MAX 10 is the Uber stretched 73 and is considered a "new" airframe. Thus both the 7&10 require certification.

That's the 2 minute or less explanation. It's a bit more involved than this but that's about all one needs to now without getting really wonky.

 

Doesn't the Max 10 have some really complex landing gear as well? I can understand that for the 10 beyond the other variants.

 

in addition to this, the -8 and -9 were already certified when the max debacle unfolded in 2019. My understanding is the engine cowl issue holding up certification of the -7 and -10 was allowed to go unresolved for the -8 and -9 because when they were certified the FAA was not seriously regulating Boeing. Now that they are actually overseeing Boeing, they won’t certify the other 2 with the same issue.

 

yes, it is telescopes down after extension.

 

Based on historical norms.

 



 

Not really. It pogos just like the mains in the 777-300. It's a good design been around awhile.