Actually it does not need to pay more, from a recruiting/pipeline perspective... it already pays plenty compared to most white and blue collar careers, with more days off and less stress to boot (even regionals now). Not many (in this climate) quit once they get here... it's getting folks to climb the barriers to entry that's problematic.

They can fix the problem pretty quickly by offering wholesale paid ab initio training, with a modest salary and benefits. Further advantage there is that it does NOT fall under union/CBA jurisdiction so they can throttle that up and down at will.

 

I think wider access to financing is maybe more effective, but that's my hunch. You don't have any access to federally back loans unless you go through a university (I think). I'm a little out of my depth here, obviously. But my point remains, the pay has been so low at the entry to mid levels for so long- I think we can all agree on that. We've come a long way since pay-for-training, but the indentured servitude is alive and well through the details of signing bonuses (*cough* financially coerced retention programs)..

How bout people get access to fed loans and everyone comes into solid 6 figure salaries no matter where you land. We're getting there, but the implications for the higher tiers means pay has to come up for everyone.

I think we can and should do better for the liabilities and responsibilities we bear. But supply will drive wages, not liability. We have a supply problem- finally.

 

Let me ask, do you have a thorough and deep understanding of how the concept of Barriers to Entry applies to wage levels in our Profession?

And how this applies to nearly all highly compensated Professions

 

It's a wake up call to contact your union and elected officials and tell them what you think. For me it's a HELL NO! You can't save enough by 65 to retire, too bad so sad. Airline safety shouldn't be further compromised due to the past destruction of the profession and poor planning of senior pilots. It's been proven that cognition starts going downhill after 40. Experience will compensate for some of this, but once you start getting to 60 and beyond things aren't pretty. The effects of age are compounded by our deteriorating QOL and fatiguing schedules.

 

This is correct. There is no federal financing available for non-collegiate aviation programs. And let me tell you. The private loans are punishing even with a wealthy co-signer. And that was before 2021.

​​​​​​

 

Sounds like a good reason to keep at least 2 of us up there (more on long flights).

 

Sure. But our profession is more complicated than medicine, lots of unpredictability and uncertainty... if you go down the medical road, you're going to end up in a good place one way or another. But if a young person (or potential career changer) talks to career airline pilots, they'll get mixed reviews at best, largely due to past instability.

Law is more like airlines, lower barriers to entry but also hard to make it to the top tier. For every major firm partner, there are 1000 junior associates putting in 80 hour weeks, and public defenders and strip mall ambulance chasers who qualify for food stamps.

When I was mentioning ab initio as a solution, I was speaking from the POV of the people who have the problem: airlines.

I'm not advocating that pilot groups/unions should be facilitating or encouraging paid training pipelines (it's out of our hands regardless, since union jurisdiction only extends back to day one of indoc). Although at some point if growth (or negative growth) gets bad enough due to pilot shortage, we might actually have an incentive to help generate new pilots.

 

Fed support can be considered as two categories:

Higher Education: This includes aviation colleges, and is politically easier to support.

Vocational: Pilots have one foot in this camp, but gov funding for vocational training is not as expansive as for "higher education". Politics IMO. I've observed that mostly in the context of re-training for laid-off workers. I'd grant there's a legit concern with funding vocational training, in that it could be a slippery slope where .gov (taxpayers) could end up paying for training which really should be provided by employers. There's a grey area there, but could be categorized by jobs which require professional certificates/licenses. But there are many trades which have industry-established certification, should they be excluded, even though the industries in question are doing good by setting and enforcing standards?

I think Mike Rowe has it nailed, I'd be in favor of more government support for vocational training and careers in general. That might even extend to pilot training.

 

Then GI bill is backwards with this. You only get $15k per year in benefits for vocational flight training. It should take a veteran 6 years to use the GI Bill to complete flight training

 

There's another reason to keep 2 of us up there and no one is addressing the Elephant in the room, and it's not because of age 67 etc.