Pilot shortage article
 

I read articles like this all the time..........they make me want to shout THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE!!!!

The article touts Age 65 as an aid to cure the pilot shortage, citing the change adding "3800 pilots" to the pool; even if true, that simply delays the "shortage" 5 years, since those same 3800 pilots would have to retire at 65.

No, the reality is that for the first time in a few years, pilots are in a position to demand higher pay and better working conditions, and corporations do not like that. They much prefer having pilots under their thumbs---the corporations have gotten used to dipping their hand in the pilots well and putting what they get into their own pockets.

Actually, the article has at least 1 accurate proffer---

"Many prospective civilian pilots have been discouraged by the pay cuts and reduced benefit packages in the industry."

That is the most valuable quote in the article. We run on the laws of supply and demand. For the first time in the last 6 years or so, the laws of supply and demand are in the pilots favor. Supply WILL EQUAL demand at the right price---Adam Smith and the invisible hand...

Supply and demand, people.....supply and demand.

This may be the start of good times again for pilots---I am excited---It's our turn.

Another reason why mainlines SHOULDN'T push for user fees. Did wonders in europe and would put a nice silver bullet in the heart of GA here too.

The ironic twist is I can see the need for the airlines to actually sponser training, to get those whom obviously the financial burden of not only training, but meager pay in the early years of flying. I'm just saying I'm willing to bet it will happen, with the lack of overall new aviators, and a lack of a mass pilot potential being swayed into other more lucrative career choices.

I suspect that the regionals will start funding pilot training BEFORE they raise payscales.

If they raise a payscale, they will likely be stuck with it when the downturn arrives.

If they sponsor pilot training to get through the hard times, they can terminate such a program instantly the moment supply exceeds demand.

It's basic economics. I am not sure they could simply "terminate" the program right after they have sufficient pilots though. They could reduce the amount of funding they put into it over time.

Basically what they would do is offer scholarships or funding assistance for those who commit to working for them. They would not want to open their own flight schools or incur other long-term obligations.

If they suddenly didn't need the pilots, they would not be able to get their funding back, but they would not offer any additional funding.

This would also have the advantage of giving airlines the opportunity to screen people for non-pilot attributes (HR stuff like education, grades, people skills, etc) and getting the best potential candidates "on the hook" early on.

There are all sorts of ways they could financially entice student pilots while still keeping them at arms length and ready for quick disposal if necessary. The LAST thing they would want to do is put an ab initio pilot on their seniority list or raise pilot payscales...those are much more permanent obligations.

Right now the problem is attracting new-hires...if it gets bad enough that can't retain enough experienced pilots to serve as CA's then they will HAVE to raise payscales. But for now it's cheaper to give an entry-level candidate a $10, 20, or 30K one-time scholarship than it is to give CA's a $20K raise...that will recurr every year.

Gotcha, it sounds like a good idea. Being a starting student myself I wouldn't mind a little incentive when I try to get a job with the Majors. :p

The regionals may have to subsidize some training. But you will never, ever get your training paid for by the majors...they have a lifetime supply of qualified applicants at the regionals. Even UAL, which is arguably the worst major for a variet of reasons, got ten applicants for every job opening when they started hiring recently.

Whoops, wrong term. :o Makes sense though, once you get a job with the majors you probably already have enough experience where basically all you would need is to train for the new planes. Am I right?

Eagle's already exploring an ab initio program...

I would have to concur with Rick's opinion and this generally true across the board. The major corporation I work for does this as a matter of routine- they won't give anyone a decent cost of living increase, maybe 2%; nor a raise if they can help it, despite record profits. But you can count on one or more performance bonuses every year at raise time. It's all about not having to commit to anything. There are hard working folks at my office who have not received a raise for years despite having been there for decades. It's disgusting but it shows you what the game is about. It also tells you the only way to get ahead is to renegotiate your salary by hopping to another company every so often.

Funny, I tried that and ended up at the bottom of the scale again.:D

Well, most every other industry will award you for your experience though, including in aviation.

It's tricky, since aviation is always seniority based and you don't want to lose your position on the list. In corporate jobs it's normal to carry your experience level from position to position and use that to negotiate the salary. In aviation, if you are not very high in seniority then there would be more potential advantage to hopping to higher paying companies than at some point later on when you get high on the list. I have heard of pilots doing it, though.

Correct. Type-specific training is almost universally provided by all airlines (except SWA and GIA). At most places you get paid (a little) while doing new-hire training.