Let's say there are 18,000 at regionals looking to move on, and 50,000 pilots needed over 20 years. If we were to presume even distribution that is 2,500 pilots per year.

At 2,500 pilots per year it would take just over 7 years to deplete the regionals. But if you look at it another way, if regionals hired 2,500 pilots per year into their ranks the average time at a regional would end up being around 7 years.

If you use 90,000, we get to 4,500 pilots per year.

At 4,500 pilots per year the turnover of 18,000 pilots would be 4 years. So if regionals could actually hire 4,500 pilots per year, they could still hold a pilot on average for 4 years before they would go to a major and meet the numbers. Realistically you'd still have military pilots skipping the regionals so the actual number for them would be a bit lower.

With those numbers, the bottleneck isn't pilots going to regionals and building more time to go to majors, it's pilots getting their initial training and then the minimum hours to go to the regionals in the first place. If the initial training capacity was there, the timeline for pilots at regionals would seem fairly reasonable.

However, with that bottleneck, I still feel like the regionals will no longer be effective or sustainable in their current form. Rather than multiple certificates and pilot groups flying the same equipment, a single certificate is a more efficient use of pilots to move airplanes. Upgauging routes and reducing frequency is another method to do that. You need twice as many pilots to move 100 people from CMH - ATL with a 50 seat RJ than a C series 100. The scale applies going up including the 76 seaters as well. I think a lot of these communities that see 4-6 RJ flights a day have a big potential to see 2-3 larger mainline a/c partly just to reduce the crew demands.

 

Baradium, well thought out. I agree.

On another thread awhile back I pulled out my crystal ball. I predicted in the next 5 - 10 years the number of pilots flying regionals will be half of what they are today and they will fly on one fourth the number of regional certificates. A real consolidation in the regionals.

A lot of 50 seaters will be parked, replaced by 76 seaters. Either PAX will increase or there will be fewer flights a day. (There will some small communities that can only support 50s a couple of times a day, they will stay like that.)

A number of the communities with 76 seaters will move up to the new 100 - 120 seat planes. I believe pilots with the majors will hold fast on scope, and these will be flown by the majors.

Once pay gets to something like 60 - 75% of the 737/320 group, some of the 76 seaters will move up and be flown by the majors, with this as a new pay group.

Check in middle of next decade to see how much of my crystal ball comes to pass.

 

Major airlines don't hire you for your superior "stick and rudder" skills. They presume you already have those. Instead, they hire a career employee based largely on that candidate's personality and demeanor. In other words, personality and character matter.

If what you post on social media is incompatible with the company's stated values, then you may not be a good fit for that company. In many ways, that online profile is "who you are."

On the other hand, if what you display about yourself in your interview is completely different than the persona post on social media, then you are a deceptive person, a liar, who is not giving the prospective employer a clear indication of who you really are.

If you want to avoid having a potential employer find out that you actually aren't a good fit with their corporate values, then, by all means, keep your social media posts as private as possible. (It still means that you'll have to behave like a chameleon, probably by lying, in your interview, but at least you didn't give them easy info.)

Likewise, if you want to have a career with an employer who is a good fit with your own values, then be honest about your values and only apply to employers who are a good fit. Ask yourself why you view the world in a way that is different from your prospective employer. Would you really want to work there? Do they really want you working there? Ask yourself why you would feel compelled to mask your worldview from an airline that doesn't value the same things that you do.

It's like creating an online dating profile that is completely antithetical to your real life, all just to date someone who is completely incompatible with you. Why?

FWIW, I doubt that airlines are actually checking social media posts, unless there is something about an applicant that indicates a possible "red flag."

 

Because of the amount of people who get offended at EVERYTHING with hurt feelings these days, I recommend you make a second social media account, the real you and the "other" you that can't be traced back to you. Notice the number of people who lost their jobs all around the country because they wanted to speak their mind. Whether it was good or bad they still got in trouble over it. So keep your real profile clean and nice and use your other one as a ghost you. Many don't want to deal with it but in light to super sensitive people it has shifted to a 2 or more profile world.

 

Were those comments on here or on your personal FB page?

 

On the other popular aviation forum.

 

If you have to make a 2nd account just to broadcast your ignorant views then the problem is you not anyone else.

What's there to hide? Can you not stand up for your own beliefs?

Acutally, I don't even know why I asked that question. Of course you can't!

 

There is no such thing as a 2nd account anonymity when it comes to online forums. Everything can be traced back to you. Like the guy said above, if what you have to say requires you to create a separate account then the problem is you. Stand up and own what you write.

 

Most of these people are cowards. They love making fun of millennials and minorities when the truth is they're the biggest babies of all.

 

There is a double standard when it comes to how liberals can behave on social media compared to conservatives. If that weren't the case, conservatives wouldn't need sock puppet accounts.