|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3426785)
Nearly impossible to get to 1500 in less than two years, and for most it costs well over $100k. The hill between wet commercial and 1500 is too steep to climb for most, especially given the training costs. That's really the crux of the issue. And as such, it does indeed create a high barrier to entry.
Where were you learning to fly and build time? My next push will be to advocate for 2500tt to sit at a regional. |
You’re welcome swapa
|
Originally Posted by sonicflyer
(Post 3426701)
so the unions don't want to allow an extension of retirement age, and they don't want to lower the artificially high entry barrier, so what solutions are they actually coming up with to help solve at least the current short term acute pilot shortage?
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3426785)
That doesn't solve anything in the short term. Maybe not even the mid-term.
False cause and effect. Neither lowering the entry requirements or extending the retirement age at the current point in time will have any effect on wages. Nearly impossible to get to 1500 in less than two years, and for most it costs well over $100k. The hill between wet commercial and 1500 is too steep to climb for most, especially given the training costs. That's really the crux of the issue. And as such, it does indeed create a high barrier to entry. |
Originally Posted by Skeet20
(Post 3426895)
They will cave. ALPA like SWAPA has screwed the pilots more than once. Just ask the TWA or AirTran guys.
|
Originally Posted by fadec
(Post 3426879)
It's a training shortage, not a pilot shortage. There are still plenty of 1500+ hour qualified guys on the street but the airlines can't train them fast enough. So a flight cancels and they cry "pilot shortage" when they actually should be saying "demand is back and we downsized for covid and now we can't train fast enough, plz help".
|
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
(Post 3427104)
You run a flight school and a crappy 135. You're management. This is your problem to solve. Not labor. Bye now.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3426785)
That doesn't solve anything in the short term. Maybe not even the mid-term.
False cause and effect. Neither lowering the entry requirements or extending the retirement age at the current point in time will have any effect on wages. Nearly impossible to get to 1500 in less than two years, and for most it costs well over $100k. The hill between wet commercial and 1500 is too steep to climb for most, especially given the training costs. That's really the crux of the issue. And as such, it does indeed create a high barrier to entry. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3426785)
That doesn't solve anything in the short term. Maybe not even the mid-term.
False cause and effect. Neither lowering the entry requirements or extending the retirement age at the current point in time will have any effect on wages. Nearly impossible to get to 1500 in less than two years, and for most it costs well over $100k. The hill between wet commercial and 1500 is too steep to climb for most, especially given the training costs. That's really the crux of the issue. And as such, it does indeed create a high barrier to entry. Both log it, safety pilot, or just get the FAA to authorize SIC for the training evolution... that's 1250/2 = 625 hours each, or about $90K per student at market rental rates. You could get that cost lower by running your own large fleet. Obligated service at that legacy's regionals to pay it back. Maybe get the FAA to authorize R-ATP at 1000 hours for those that complete the program. |
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:56 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands