Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   The pilot shortage is over: (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/146554-pilot-shortage-over.html)

Sliceback 03-05-2024 05:13 AM


Originally Posted by PipeMan (Post 3777270)
Retirements help of course. But are there enough retirements to offset potential furloughs coming?

Typical furlough math (everything in life has exceptions) - not furloughs unless it's 5%. Bad furloughs are 15%. 9/11 was up to 20% but a couple of ALPA carriers hit 25%.

Will a bigger airline have larger numbers? Of course. 100 pilots and 10 get furloughed? People yawn...but it's 10% of the airline. Airline with 10,000 pilots furloughs 500? National news...but it's only 5%.

Used to be, due to training costs associated with retraining across fleets, that furloughs less than a year typically didn't happen and 2 years was a more common cutoff. Rebound expected in 12, 18, or 24 months? The company wouldn't furlough.

Retirements are part of the math. AA as an example - 14,500 (?) line pilots. 800 (?) in the next 2 years? That's 5.5% a year. Stop hiring and it's the same as furloughing 5.5%. Two years of retirements is 11% reduction in the pilot corps. So if you get 5-10% below you and add in the up coming retirements you're probably safe from a furlough.

Rule of thumb (ignoring the impact of retirements) - 5% is the first furlough risk mitigation number. 15% is furlough protection absent a Black Swan event, Nothing can protect you from furlough if you went to a weak airline in the first place.

I'd focus on the percentages of any announced furloughs. It's the same with 'large' aircraft orders - what's the percentage? Large hiring numbers? What's the percentage?

This is mostly related to economic cycles. The Max delivery delay or the PW engines issues are a whole different issue.

BlueScholar 03-05-2024 07:48 AM

I just like the idea that a single airline, offering flights only in Alaska, Reno, Nashville and Ontario, with a fleet of 10 prop planes and 4 757's, with 2 fatal crashes in the past 8 years on their record is supposed to be representative of the entire industry.

JulesWinfield 03-05-2024 08:04 AM


Originally Posted by Sliceback (Post 3777318)
Typical furlough math (everything in life has exceptions) - not furloughs unless it's 5%. Bad furloughs are 15%. 9/11 was up to 20% but a couple of ALPA carriers hit 25%.

Will a bigger airline have larger numbers? Of course. 100 pilots and 10 get furloughed? People yawn...but it's 10% of the airline. Airline with 10,000 pilots furloughs 500? National news...but it's only 5%.

Used to be, due to training costs associated with retraining across fleets, that furloughs less than a year typically didn't happen and 2 years was a more common cutoff. Rebound expected in 12, 18, or 24 months? The company wouldn't furlough.

Retirements are part of the math. AA as an example - 14,500 (?) line pilots. 800 (?) in the next 2 years? That's 5.5% a year. Stop hiring and it's the same as furloughing 5.5%. Two years of retirements is 11% reduction in the pilot corps. So if you get 5-10% below you and add in the up coming retirements you're probably safe from a furlough.

Rule of thumb (ignoring the impact of retirements) - 5% is the first furlough risk mitigation number. 15% is furlough protection absent a Black Swan event, Nothing can protect you from furlough if you went to a weak airline in the first place.

I'd focus on the percentages of any announced furloughs. It's the same with 'large' aircraft orders - what's the percentage? Large hiring numbers? What's the percentage?

This is mostly related to economic cycles. The Max delivery delay or the PW engines issues are a whole different issue.

To give some perspective to this, I was hired a little more than a year ago at AA and am 86% company wide.

rickair7777 03-05-2024 08:05 AM


Originally Posted by Meme In Command (Post 3777272)
I don't know the numbers or how it affected the airline's bottom line but I'd be inclined to think they'd consider offering another chance for early retirements and bids for zero credit lines.

Likely. It worked well with the rapid rebound after covid, and is a less severe committment for management than shifting the entire training pipeline into reverse, especially at multi-fleet airlines.

Sliceback 03-05-2024 10:13 AM


Originally Posted by JulesWinfield (Post 3777405)
To give some perspective to this, I was hired a little more than a year ago at AA and am 86% company wide.

Getting hired right before a large influx of bodies behind you is a huge protective buffer!

From the seniority list -

March 2020 newhire at AA - 71%
March 2021 ....none
March 2022 - 78%
March 2023 - 89%

March 2024 newhire projections in a year? 89% . Assumes 1,800 newhires and 800 retirements.

The previous newhire projections in March 2025?
March 2020 newhire? 63%
March 2022 newhire? 69%
March 2023 newhire? 78%

Retirements AND hiring is greating crazy advancements AND protection.

WHACKMASTER 03-05-2024 11:09 AM


Originally Posted by Sliceback (Post 3777494)
Getting hired right before a large influx of bodies behind you is a huge protective buffer!

From the seniority list -

March 2020 newhire at AA - 71%
March 2021 ....none
March 2022 - 78%
March 2023 - 89%

March 2024 newhire projections in a year? 89% . Assumes 1,800 newhires and 800 retirements.

The previous newhire projections in March 2025?
March 2020 newhire? 63%
March 2022 newhire? 69%
March 2023 newhire? 78%

Retirements AND hiring is greating crazy advancements AND protection.

But, but, but, should I go to SWA or AA? 🙄

SonicFlyer 03-05-2024 12:54 PM


Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER (Post 3777304)
Typical anti-union post by the OP (who’s not even a Part 121 pilot, btw).

I didn't write the article, nor did I make any comments on it. I am just passing it along for discussion. The gist of it is that industry wide hiring seems to be slowing down signifigantly. If the only thing you pull out of it are a couple of statements you consider "anti-union" then maybe you should reflect and ask yourself why you think everything you see is "anti-union" and if you are being myopic?

myrkridia 03-05-2024 01:04 PM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3777610)
I didn't write the article, nor did I make any comments on it. I am just passing it along for discussion. The gist of it is that industry wide hiring seems to be slowing down signifigantly. If the only thing you pull out of it are a couple of statements you consider "anti-union" then maybe you should reflect and ask yourself why you think everything you see is "anti-union" and if you are being myopic?

The claim is you are anti-union. Not everything anyone posts.

hoover 03-05-2024 02:35 PM

I have a feeling it's just going to be a pause in hiring. Once the max and P&W issues get worked out itll be on like donkey Kong again.

fcoolaiddrinker 03-05-2024 02:38 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3777406)
Likely. It worked well with the rapid rebound after covid, and is a less severe committment for management than shifting the entire training pipeline into reverse, especially at multi-fleet airlines.

The cost of furlough also went up as most agreements now include longevity for street time. I believe only delta had this 911?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands