dera

Yes they are. They are just very selective at the moment.
13 FOs in the latest new hire class (7 DECs). Interviews weekly, and no training backlog. Interview->class date is less than a month - 2 weeks of that is to get back your background check results.

Excargodog

You can be a condescending @$$ if you want to be, but it doesn't change the FACTS. There IS NO shortage of 65 year-old pilots, there is at least arguably a shortage of entry level pilots. That shortage can readily be resolved - as the regional's have proven - by upping regional FO first year pay to $45/hr (Republc, Skywest) or providing modest one time signing or even more modest retention bonuses. That is demonstrably more cost effective than extending the career of a 65 year old AA senior captain getting $332 an hour (plus 15% 401k) for another five years. Heck, you can hire a new regional FO for about the cost of the 65 year old's 401 K alone.

Anyone believing that the cost-effective method of dealing with a pilot shortage long term is to extend the age to seventy is delusional, or perhaps senile would be more apropos.

FollowMe

Perhaps factual data sounds condescending to someone who believes themselves an authority on a topic which they clearly have little understanding of.

There are currently ~85,000 active ATP flying. In the next 20 years ~57,000 of them will reach age 65. As the bow wave of retirements accelerates (2020-2026) pilot demand will greatly outpace supply with ~30,000 age 65 retirements by 2026. One way to expand supply is to encourage more entrants, which the industry has been working on however there is a lag as it takes more than a few months to go from zero to ATP, or even R-ATP. Another option for expanding the supply is decreasing the exits by increasing the max age. To state emphatically that the airlines would be against this since those individual pilots in a vacuum will cost more in their seat is narrowly focused on one cost factor, and in no way is a supportable argument. Again, if you have done some supportable math to demonstrate that revenue lost due to lack of pilots for regional lift will be less than the increase in labor cost for this narrow group of pilots that would make for some interesting conversation.

I’m certain that the airlines are putting more thought into this than your soapbox speeches.

4V14T0R

Where do you find ~85,000 active ATPs? The data I see, FAA data from 2017, says ~160,000 active ATPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FollowMe

Good catch, my “flying” was a little vague, it would have been more clear to have stated active airline pilots at major, mid-major, LCC and regional carriers.

Some good points to consider in the total active number as well. The 165,000 total active number includes ~21k which are over 65. It also shows a decline in entry level supply, with roughly 44k ATPs among pilots born in the fifties, 47k among pilots born in the 60s, 34k among pilots born in the 70s, and 17k among pilots born in the 80s. Whether the increase in regional pay will be enough to stimulate that entry level to replace 30,000 pilots in the next 7 years is yet to be seen.

If it is not, alternative methods to increase supply or decrease demand will have to be considered. Among them, increasing the max age to 70 which would push the bow wave further and allow more time to stimulate entry level supply.

Excargodog

As the above postings demonstrate, your so-called "factual data" was off by damn near 100%.

Nor does any of what you say negate the correctness of the assessment that I made. Regional airlines stopped having difficulties filling their entry level slots once they raised their wages and started providing hiring bonuses. And currently most have pools of waiting applicants and while I will grant that some of that is due to problems of sim availability and instructor shortages due to the majors disproportionately poaching their instructors and LCAs, there does not appear to be any shortage of personnel desiring to enter the career field once you start paying noobies more than the $22K or so they were making a few years ago.

So the issue really isn't CAN WE increase the number of pilots, it's WHAT IS THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY to increase the number of pilots. The senior pilots at all of the majors are among the most highly paid pilots in the system and have the most desirable schedules. Were you able to retain one such pilot for one more year you would gain one pilot year of service at a cost north of $350K, likely $400K with 401k and benefits.

For the same amount of money you could EASILY incentivize the hiring of a half dozen regional FOs who will not only provide you six pilot years service for that money, but who will then embark upon lifetime (well, until age 65 anyway) airline careers.

Which is most cost effective? Incentivizing a guy who will provide you with - at most - a thousand hours of flying at a fully loaded (401K and benefits) cost per hour of $400 or getting six new ATPs for the same money?

But yeah, you are being a condescending butthole, so you obviously aren't even going to answer that question. Or will you pull out some other "factual data" that has little connection with reality from some other handy orifice?

FollowMe

I must have missed your math somewhere again, spouting off “I’m correct” without any data to back it up only proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

How are you going to replace the 30,000 departing pilots? The recent increase in wages had nothing to do with attracting new supply to the market, and everything to do with competition among the regionals for supply that already existed. The last group of pilots (born in the 80s) produced less than half the ATPs of previous groups, and the next group would need to double their mark just to replace 1 for 1, not accounting for any market growth.

So again, if that supply doesn’t match demand, which you have provided no evidence that it will other than “I say it so it’s correct”, how are you going to protect that revenue? You are looking at the industry in this moment of time and extrapolating that the shortage is over while giving no evidence to support that. There will be ebbs and flows, but the supply problem must be fixed on one end or the other.

If it is not fixed on the supply end, it will most certainly be discussed on the demand end, and that calculation will be factual and consider all factors, not simply “ZOMG Old Pilots R Xpensuv”. Not to mention a 69 year old pilot will be at the same rate as a 64 year old pilot, and delaying entry to mainline scales has an associated cost savings over the life of those pilots.

It’s truly ludicrous how you can boil down a calculation with dozens of complex variables to one specific cost factor and declare you have found the only solution using that one factor in isolation.

Excargodog

Seeing as your "factual data" was in fact off by nearly 100% (see above) that seems a very hypocritical statement.

No, what is ludicrous is your assertion I have done that. That is a ridiculous strawman.

What I HAVE DONE and what you have NEVER refuted is to make the assertion that extending the careers of the most senior pilots is far more expensive per flying hour retained than attracting additional pilots into the field at the regional level and that the money that would be required to extend even one senior pilot for one year could easily attract a half dozen new pilots.

Moreover, we MUST attract more at the entry level, whereas the effects of aging and the grim reaper will limit how long the careers of the senior pilots can be extended.

Now if you want to address what I have actually said - not some ridiculous strawman of your own invention - I'll be glad to have that conversation, assuming you don't keep tossing out false "factual data."

If the best you can come up with, however, is refuting strawman issues that I've never claimed, or sarcastically demanding mathematical analyses of your strawman issues, I have no interest in continuing a discussion with you.

If you feel the need to have the last word in a future posting to defend your manhood, go right ahead. It won't fool anyone.

FollowMe

It’s a good attempt at revisionist history. What I stated was fact, you and the other poster wanted further clarity on what pilots I was referring to in “active flying”. Said clarification was provided. Have you provided any math, or anything beyond Excargodog’s own brilliant intuition to backup your claim? I’ll keep waiting.


This was your original statement which I responded to, from which you have not receded, and for which you have provided no factual data to back up except “Old pilots cost more” and “I SAID OLD PILOTS COST MORE”.

Yes, you certainly have been thumping that one specific cost variable over and over and over. What you haven’t done is address any of the other cost variables the total calculation is reliant upon. What level of lost revenue in the form of less regional ASM breaks even for the investment in extended pilots? What are the cost savings associated with keeping current regional pilots off mainline scales for an additional 5 years? What are the cost savings in reducing training churn by keeping already qualified pilots in position?

Incorrect, again you like to latch on to one variable of an equation and focus on it in exclusivity. What we MUST do is solve the supply problem. There are many ways to solve a supply problem, each with their own associated cost and savings variables. In solving the problem all of them, and all of their variables must be analyzed. Fortunately the people actually doing this work understand that, and they don’t isolate on individual variables while ignoring the totality of the problem.

Cool story bro.

4V14T0R

His data wasn’t off per se, it was just refined to those that could realistically fly for an airline. 20,000 of those 160,000 are over 65. 40,000 of those 160,000 are within 10 years of 65. An additional 25,000 within 15 years. That leaves about 73,000 with more than 15 years until retirement, but the numbers are sloped heavily in the direction that does not help ease a shortage. Of course not all those want or can work for an airline. It’s hard to gauge truly accurate data of those willing and able to move on from where they currently are. I do tend to think it is more of a pay shortage given the trend at the regionals mentioned. I don’t think it is an instructor issue at all (at least not at Republic), with respect to the backlog.

I tend to think the active applications as a snap shot might be the best predictor. Each Legacy consistently quotes about 10,000 applicants of which I think are the same 10,000 (roughly speaking).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk