|
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
(Post 3427105)
Exactly. Just like they did last time. ALPA is like an angry chihuahua. They make a lot of noise but run when it gets bad for them.
The current situation is quite different with ICAO remaining at 65. The FAA can at least go into the courtroom with a straight face and claim it’s a safety issue which is a allowed reason to discriminate on the basis of age. It would also be very difficult for many if not most airlines to schedule pilots between 65 and 67 to fly domestic only. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3428086)
They make smart decisions when needed. Age 65 came about because ICAO raised their age to 65 and the FAA agreed it was safe for those pilots to fly in the US system. At that point it was game, set, match for the age to go up in the US. There was zero probability of winning in court to maintain age 60 against any of the discrimination lawsuits. Letting a judge rule would have been a disaster so ALPA did the best they could do by supporting legislation that mitigated age 65 to the maximum possible.
The current situation is quite different with ICAO remaining at 65. The FAA can at least go into the courtroom with a straight face and claim it’s a safety issue which is a allowed reason to discriminate on the basis of age. It would also be very difficult for many if not most airlines to schedule pilots between 65 and 67 to fly domestic only. |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3428050)
that crazy government and *checks notes* wanting AIRLINE pilots to have an AIRLINE transport pilot’s license.
|
If a younger person asks me about becoming an airline pilot, I generally steer them clear of the career and advise to do other work. From lousy pay through years of "dues paying", a sensitive industry to economic conditions, and too much time away from loved ones, the career is just not worth it.
It may be a good fit for some, but I find the majority of young people I have spoken too would last in the industry. It's just not worth it even if you like flying. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3428145)
It worked for decades just fine that way.
But them the RJ's came and they started putting wet commercial noobs into regional jets, with CA's who were often on the very young side as well. The ATP rule was an adaption to the new paradigm. Yes, there were a few points in time when the majors hired wet commercials in the very distant past, but they had flight engineers and airline safety was a quite different landscape 50-60 years ago. Not apples to oranges. Today we are in a hopefully sustainable era of exceptionally low fatal accident rates. I wouldn't use a 1965 classic car as a daily driver with my kids either. |
Originally Posted by sonicflyer
(Post 3426622)
alpa has officially adopted a resolution opposing any attempts to increase the retirement age for professional airline pilots.
Source: https://aerocrewnews.com/aviation-ne...irline-pilots/ |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3427303)
Obviously increased CBA compensation is good for us. That would be my choice if it were up to me. Duh.
But while that might attract the interest of more noobs, there's not a big difference between $200K- 300K from the perspective of a teenager or college grad... anything in that range is pretty good. Problem is they still have to bridge the 1500 hour valley. A lot of time and money invested, with some uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome. There are a lot of people out there who don't have aviation friends or family, and thus have no idea how to go about it. With an airline owned or sponsored training program, the airlines could get ab initio pilots to the regionals for about $150K each... so the cost of a junior legacy FO for one year. Remember regionals are already throwing around cumulative bonuses in that range anyway (and mainline is ultimately footing the bill). If you do sponsored ab initio, the student is obligated to serve X number of years at your regional and/or mainline as payback. The current regional bonuses are just fighting for qualified pilots. Ab initio would attract new pilots. Especially since they don't have to take a lot of responsibility on themselves, other than complete training. But this is just discussion, the ship has already sailed and it would probably take the majors several years to get something like this set up. They might even have to get the mfgs to increase production of ASEL trainers to have enough capacity. They assumed the GA industry would step up on their own, and of course they could not. COVID-induced industry uncertainty probably spooked a few potential students as well (mu cousin's husband bailed on his flight training in early 2020). |
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
(Post 3426938)
Is rather have a national seniority list, and ALPA and every other Union take care of the furloughed.
|
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?
It’s not about just pay and QOL. It’s a vision of a stable career for those looking to join. The fact that airlines whipsaw and furlough so easily causes many to avoid this industry. |
Originally Posted by BlueScholar
(Post 3426731)
There are more ATP holders than commercial pilot jobs. How is that a shortage?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands