Exactly.
Option A: increase the age.
Option B: lower entry requirements.

Pilots: I like option ___ because...

No, GFY!

The ONLY option we should be considering is C, pay more $$$ to attract more pilots.

They will (may) finally ruin the flight instructing Ponzi scheme at their own detriment. It was nearly broken over a decade ago before the collapse, but wages did go up for instructors for a brief period. Companies may negotiate themselves higher pilot acquisition costs if they play this AND continue down the training subsidy path. This would good for people who want to instruct, live and fly locally.

Both of these statements are asinine. Neither of these points would fix the current problem. The tired old worn out talking point of "it's a pay shortage" just doesn't hold any intellectual weight anymore. Maybe 30 years ago it made sense, but it doesn't make sense now.

If they lower the hour requirements and raise the retirement age then there will start to be some relief immediately, but that too doesn't even fix the long term problem, it does help though. Not only are training costs too high, but the gap between 250 hrs and 1500 hours is too great (and it doesn't pay enough).

AND??? Hahahaha! Now that's asinine!

You contradict yourself.

Before lowering the 1500 requirement for 121s, why not lower the requirements for 135s!

With 1200 total with 500XC being the requirement for 135s, most instructors don't want to join 135s/aren't eligible and instead they spend 6 more months teaching. Similarly, most 135 carriers can't get PICs for their operations because people bail for the regionals at 1500 and the 135s can't afford training. Lowering mins for 135s is a good way of getting captains for the regionals too. Flight school - instructing for 200-500 hours - 135s - regionals - majors works well for a lot of people.

Imo the journey from 250 to 1500 is very difficult - the pay and QOL during that period is REALLY bad especially when you factor in the 6 figure debt most people have fresh out of flight school. This can easily scare a lot of people away.

Only increasing the pay at the majors/regionals is not going to solve the problem. There is a general consensus here that it is a pay shortage at the top which may or may not be true but that idea very conveniently benefits the people who work for the majors/regionals. There is no debate about increasing pay where it is actually stupid low - lower than minimum wage at times.

With air fare up 30% and rising due to hyperinflation, will there still be a shortage of pilots when bookings drop and airlines start to consider furloughs? Just trying to figure out where this one will go. Gawd I can't wait to retire. The 2020s were "supposed" to be the next golden age for our careers.

You seem to be suggesting that it’s OUR job to “fix the current problem”. We didn’t cause the pilot shortage. We shouldn’t be trying to help management fix the problem that they created.

Generally speaking, the pilot shortage has worked tremendously to our advantage,….. for a change. I hope they NEVER fix it.

That's very short sighted because that means a quicker move for cabotage, single pilot automation, and of course stunted sector growth.
Actually I didn't. Go back and reread what I wrote and pay close attention it.

You ridiculed the argument that "it's a pay shortage" and then claimed that "it doesn't pay enough". It makes no difference that you're talking about pilots in the "gap between 250 hrs and 1500 hours" when you said "it doesn't pay enough". A pay shortage anywhere in the career of a pilot is going to discourage people from starting or continuing the career.

If there's a pay shortage in the "gap between 250 hrs and 1500 hours" then the problem can be solved by either increasing pay for pilots in that gap or after 1500 hours, or both.

You indeed did contradict yourself.