Imagine trying to be both in a growth/retirement mode during that time frame. Seeing as we hire 600+ in growth years, imagine that number if we were to try to grow and cover retirements? I don't see how they could do it. Training is maxed out now. Can't imagine what it would be like then. The company will need to be planning for those scenarios in a few years. To be caught with their pants down would be fatal.

I've heard there is upwards of 1000 NWA guys that will hit certain triggers that might make it more advantageous for them to retire next year. Not sure how many would actually do it but the numbers that are floated are for much larger retirement rates potentially.

Don't worry, there will be about 1 million Indian, Chinese, and Philippino MPL guys who would gladly fill those seats at half our costs.

Random AE thought... Seems to be alot of 737s in DTW today. Any rumors of rebasing them here?

I dunno. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the public already seems to hate the low time pilots we already have at the regional level. And they really seem to hate outsourcing. At least our low time regional pilots are Americans (mostly).

The MPL is the ATA's #1 priority. When they look at the retirement numbers and the money they are going to have to spend to replace all those guys you can bet there will be some very heavy duty lobbying done to allow it. All they have to do is say they will have to raise fares to cover the costs of a "pilot shortage".

We don't control who becomes a pilot or who is qualified to fly 121. The government does.

I flew with two fNWA guys last month that are planning on pulling the cord next year. Both former military with military retirements. They said it is about breakeven on narrowbody pay to stay past 62.5 if you have a military retirement with healthcare options.

I've only flown with one guy who wished he could work until he was 70 (serious :confused:) other than that most guys really want out and as soon as it makes financial sense to them, I think they'll be gone before 65.

Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm in your post but.. Seriously???

The public doesn't care one bit about the low time pilots at the regional level. Most of them don't even know the difference. And as much as the average American says he "hates outsourcing", he would much rather have (fill in the blank) call center in Bangalore than shell out more cash for a service provided.

The public is not interested in the decline of the piloting profession... period. ALPA certainly didn't help matters by refusing to bring the low time issue front and center after the Colgan accident.

It's going to be interesting to see how it unfolds over the next 15 years. My limited economics knowledge tells me we should actually benefit from less supply if played correctly by ALPA.

I think we can deal with the MPL and low time guys getting hired at Delta, the biggest threat IMO is how these JV's are structured and what protections we have in who operates what flights. If Delta can't find pilots then we may see no growth while Air France grows by 20%. If we think it's bad seeing domestic flying going to DCI, wait until we see widebody flying going to a JV partner. Not sure how well ALPA is going to do in this arena given their track record over the last decade with DCI. In fact with ALPA/IFALPA representing pilot groups of airlines involved in JV's aren't they setting themselves up for another RJCD type scenario where they represent Delta and AirFrance/KLM. How do you represent both and protect jobs for both when they are involved in a JV with the potential of one group to gain more jobs than the other?

In 20 years we might all be wishing that foreign ownership rules in the U.S. were lifted and SkyTeam could be one big airline with one pilot seniority list and bases around the world.

Out of those 194, 109 of them were PRIPs.

That my friend is the end game, never forget it.