http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...cle1151133.ece

 

its pretty awesome how they talk about the eagle pilot who is still on the street...yet I hear they are/will be hiring like mad and have recalled all furloughs. My guess is that this was written on some dated information...

 

In Print: Sunday, February 13, 2011

"In 2007, the FAA raised the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. The oldest pilots will reach 65 in December."

This guy is one year off. The oldest pilots do not reach 65 until December of 2012, not December of this year. 65-60=5 years. December 2007+5 years=December 2012. Perhaps basic math calculations are not his best skill?

 

Interesting reading in the comments section on this .

 

-There never has been a pilot shortage and there never will be a pilot shortage.

-The flight schools have been touting this pilot shortage since 1903 and there never has been one.

-The only shortage will be of qualified pilots willing to work at or below minimum wage.

There! I think that just about sums up the usual APC replies to the taboo "Pilot Shortage." Otherwise nothing really new in that article: Mandatory retirement at age 65 in December (2012!), fewer pilots in training due to lack of financing, fewer military pilots going commercial, etc. Also as I understood it, all eagle pilots have been recalled and they have been hiring non-stop for almost a year now. Maybe aged information?

 

You have obviously not seen the numbers my friend.

 

I'm a big cynic as well...but you can't argue the numbers...it is coming, and raising Age 65 again won't change it as guys will simply start "kicking the bucket." Old predictions of a "shortage" were based on massive growth. This time, guys will really start retiring in droves and/or croak.

The cynic in me is more concerned about the FAA's response...Multi-crew license, foreign work visa's etc...

 

Fortunately, there are already not enough foreign pilots so I doubt the work visa idea would pan out. Unless US airlines establish paid training programs in third-world countries to generate low-cost seat-meat. But there too many political, security, and public perception issues for something like that to work.

If it really gets bad, airlines will have to start paying for ab-initio training. That might not be all bad...

1. A paid ab-initio program would attract better applicants, who will have more options in life than some mediocre kid with $150K debt and an ERAU flight ops degree. This will help keep compensation reasonable, or they won't be able to retain those people.

2. The airlines would probably want the ab-initio folks to start in the feeders, but regionals can't afford to pay for ab-initio. Majors would have to pay for, and the pilots would then flow through the regionals and eventually up to mainline. This would get effectively integrate feeder/major seniority lists. Might but the regionals out of business in the long term but maybe not.

The 1500 hour rule will not hold up under a serious shortage, I'm certain an exception would be made for a 121 ab-initio program. The students could get some post-CPL experience working as CFI's in the ab-initio program, teaching those who come behind them.

 

Everything would have to be done right for that best-case scenario to work out. Lowering barriers to entry while raising the quality of entrants would be tricky to pull-off. If things do go Ab-Intio I hope you're right.

 

Dang... I put the quintessential "APC" responses to "Pilot Shortage" in this thread and none of them are used. another pilot shortage thread comes up, and all three are used.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ha...e-article.html