Last year this time Airlines were hiring or calling back their fourloghed pilots in a very good rate. suddenly, everything changed in a very short period, because of the bad economy, and high fuel prices. But, we have to remember this not 9/11, when there were lots of people who didn't want to fly, I personally no a great number of people, who stopped traveling by air, and some of them still don't fly. If a new president, can get us out of this bad economy, thing will shift much more quicly, than 9/11. Now, people want to fly, they just don't have the money, and hopefully, the fuel prices will fall, and everyone could be able to buy an airline ticket, and industry will shift quickly.

 

Huh?? Is that even the english language you're using? I sure hope you're an ESL student with those skills.
There will likely be no quick recovery from our current predicament. Too many dominoes are lined up to make this recession a bad one; the worst is the declining dollar value which is pulling foreign investments away from the U.S. Not to mention failing banks, high oil prices, and a collapsing housing market.
The only pilot shortage that currently exists is overseas. Asia is desperate for qualified pilots and almost anyone can score an interview with the likes of CX or EK. On the domestic side, I think we're going to see airline growth stagnate (or decline as of this fall) for the next few years.

 

I don't know about Cathay, but as far as EK is concerned, everyone who had interviews scheduled for the next two months received cancellation notices this past week. Fuel prices and weak economy were cited as the reason. For the moment, it is one less option.

 

Squanto? Is that you?

 

The only reason a person keeps looking for a flying job at any skill level is because that person doesn't want to do anything else for a career. I personally will not be caught dead in computer class or real estate class because I am thinking about leaving the industry. If my company starts furloughing then I have done enough studies in alcohol research to be an outstanding bartender. I will be a bartender until I am able to get back on my feet with a full time flying job. I still have a few other plan B's and C's, but my point is still made. I love this industry and will stick with it through thick and thin.

As to what the future has to offer. The next few years will be tough no doubt. You must make your decision to stick with the career like you choose a real estate purchase or buying stocks. You must look long term picture to your planned retirement age. If you keep looking at the short sighted picture you will drive yourself mad with all the ups and downs.

The facts are 4,000+ pilots will be hitting the street in the near future maybe some more at a later time if the economy keeps it's nose down attitude. An unknown percentage of pilots will choose to retire between the ages of 60 and 65. That creates a surplus of pilots for 5-10 years. You will probably need to be qualified and current on the Space Shuttle to get a job slinging gear in twin turbo prop. After that Baby Boomers will mostly be retired, most pilot prospects will be turned off by the return on their investment on the cost of flight training in the mean time (why a lot of foreigners come to the states to train). An unknown percentage of furloughed pilots will choose not to return to the industry because they don't like big roller coasters or have found something else that suits there needs. The question of the day is "where do YOU want to be at that point in time?" The next few years are going to be tough on the industry (especially with 500TT), but it won't be impossible to wake up and smile everyday.

Just my take on the situation. SE

 

I apologize in advance for the thread drift.

blueridger,

Is there any evidence that you can provide that shows that 'anyone' can get into CX and EK? It seems to me that they are two of the most sought after and (in return) selective companies out there. If you follow the threads in the international forum, posters have indicated that they have had to prepare for in the region of six months just to interview succesfully at these carriers.

Also, I'm not sure if you meant what you said about foreign investments. The lower dollar actually makes buying us out a more attractive proposition- we just sold Budweiser to a European company. I never thought I'd ever see that day. If maybe you meant that the weak dollar makes us less attaractive as the standard countries use to base their currencies on, then I have no argument.

I can easier make sense of an 'ESOL' student who is rational and logical over spurious native english speakers.

 

A good read about the WIA Program to all out on the street...Just like me.

Get a type on the government!!!

B. TRADE PROGRAM





Q. B-1. Is there a “work-around” to allow an employer to pay for a laid-off individual’s tuition without endangering his eligibility for allowances?



A. B-1. Answer: Yes, there is a process that has worked.



Explanation: Currently, the regulations prohibit the approval of any training program if the worker would be requested or required, at any time or under any circumstances, to pay any of the costs of a training program. Employers can pay for the full costs of training but a problem arises if this reimbursement becomes contingent (e.g., a passing grade). A “work around” that has been utilized involves obtaining a dual-enrollment NEG to supplement the employment-related assistance for these workers. As such, the state and the company can enter into an agreement where the employer tuition program will be used to pay the costs of training, but in cases where the participant is in TAA-approved training, and does not meet the employer’s requirements for reimbursement, the NEG funds are used to cover the costs of the training rather than requiring the individual to repay the employer. This arrangement allows trade-certified workers to benefit from the company’s training funds, while assuring that the individual’s costs are paid under the TAA program.



Q. B-2. What is the interpretation of the standard language which prohibits using Trade Act funds for training “if other funding is available?”



A. B-2. Answer: TAA regulations specifically allow for the mixing of fund sources for payment of TAA-approved training; however, mixing must be done under a cost-sharing agreement with specific commitments from each program to pay the costs agreed to. Current TAA regulations governing restrictions on funding may be found at 20 CFR 617.25(b) (please see Question A2).



Explanation: The prohibition being referred to is actually a prohibition against duplication of payment. It says that if the costs of training are paid with TAA funds, no other payment for such costs of training may be made under any other federal law, and if the costs of training are paid with other federal funds, no other payment for such costs of training may be made with TAA funds. This does not mean that there is a prohibition on using TAA funds for training if, for example, WIA formula funds are available for the general eligible dislocated worker population. TAA funds should be used for training trade-eligible workers if there are TAA funds available since such funds are not available for dislocated workers who were not impacted by trade. The general population of eligible dislocated workers under WIA generally exceeds the number of trade-certified workers, and many local areas report limited funds budgeted to training. However, these are decisions made by workforce investment boards.



Q. B-3. What is ETA’s position on over-obligating TAA training funds?



A. B-3. Federal funds that a state or grantee expects but have not yet been awarded cannot be obligated. State obligations in excess of the amount of Federal funds available are made at its own risk. Should additional funds covering the period when the obligations were incurred not be provided, some other source of funds would be needed to pay bills as they are received.



Q. B-4. There is a 70% WIA expenditure requirement in order to apply for a NEG. Is there the same restriction/requirement for a TAA petition?



A. B-4. Answer: There is no requirement that a 70% WIA expenditure exist to access TAA reserve funds.



Explanation: As outlined in TEGL 6-03, 75% of annual TAA funds are allocated according to a formula that is currently based on past TAA expenditures and the number of eligible workers served. The remaining 25% of annual TAA funds are held in reserve in the national office. The reserve funds are available only to states that have accrued expenditures [actual cash payments plus the cost of services or goods that have been received or are being provided (e.g., the cost of a semester of tuition that has not been paid but participants are in training)] of at least 50% of TAA funds provided each year.



Q. B-5. RE: Dual enrollment – We need a “work-around” in order to capture program success in WIA reporting when a TAA participant does not exit within 104 weeks.



A. B-5. Answer: Under the OMB common measures (to be implemented in calendar year 2004) a participant will not be reported for any program (in which they are co-enrolled) until after they have received their last service from all programs.



Explanation: TEGL 15-03, issued December 10, 2003, provided a new definition of the exit date to be used in reporting on participants in all training and employment programs under the common measures. For a participant in any program, the date of exit is the date on which the last service funded by the program or a partner program is received by the participant. Therefore, under the common measures, participants will not be reported for any program until after they have received their last service from all programs. Also note that trade training funds can provide up to 130 weeks of training (not just 104) if remedial training is involved, whereas there are no limits under WIA.



In the meantime, with separate TAA and WIA reporting systems, the integrated comprehensive individual employment plan which should address services being received under different programs (including WIA, Trade and Pell, for example), should support the time of exit for both the WIA and Trade programs after collaborative arrangements and agreements are in place in the local workforce investment area—perhaps the partnership MOU between the local board and the Trade program.



Q. B-6. How can OJT be authorized under TAA?



A. B-6. Answer: OJT has been and continues to be an allowable activity under TAA.



Explanation: The Trade Reform Act of 2002 revised requirements for OJT to mirror the requirements under WIA, which includes NEGs. Therefore, under a co-enrollment, for example, both WIA and TAA could be used to fund OJT for a worker. In order to do this, the training must be pre-approved by both TAA and WIA, or conducted under an agreement between the two programs.



Q. B-7. Shouldn’t regional or local workforce investment boards be allowed to administer the Trade programs, to conform to WIA and other federal training programs?



A. B-7. Yes. A revised Secretary/Governor’s agreement is being distributed to states that will make clear the latitude that workforce systems have in the delivery of TAA services.



Q. B-8. States operate the Trade program under an Agreement between the Governor and the Secretary of Labor (i.e., it is a state-run program). WIA is operated through a five-year plan with annual grants. To what extent do these differences inhibit or enhance the ability of states to integrate these two programs?



A. B-8. Answer: The Department does not believe that the funding mechanisms either enhance or inhibit the integration of the Trade and WIA Dislocated Worker programs.



Explanation: Both the Trade and WIA formula programs operate under Governor-Secretary agreements. The state is the grantee for both the Trade and WIA formula allotments/grants, although under WIA the local workforce investment boards have clear policy and oversight responsibility over funds allocated by states to local workforce

 

With age 65 coming into effect in 5 + years, early retirements, people leaving the industry completely, Americans demanding better energy resources, car companies impacting fuel prices by mass producing cars like GMC plug in Volt starting 2010, and just the natural cyclic nature of the industry, I think that in the next 7-10 years, there should be more breathing room in this industry. You have to pick your choice of words carefully because nothing is ever guaranteed.

Now I have to add one more thing as far as flying 121 is concerned. If you ask me, I would say don’t do it. It’s not a matter of if you get laid off; it’s a matter of when you get laid off. It’s one thing to be blind-sided by life, it’s quite another to be taken by the hand, lead to the wall and shown the writings on it. Safer alternatives include cargo and fractional flying. With this horrible down turn that the industry is facing, some companies are actually making money and hiring! These are the companies one should be looking at both now and in the future no matter how great things get in the 121 world. No job in this industry is safe period, but some are very much safer than others. Past performance is a good prediction of future performance, not a guaranteed prediction of course but a pretty good one.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Hey, the weakening dollar makes foreign investments more attractive because things get cheaper here because the relative value of other currencies goes up... the weakening dollar is why Europeans love flying to the US on vacation because it is cheaper to come here now. Just like when the the "Peso" in Mexico goes down... We invest more there since it is cheaper to vacation there, buy products, property, build, etc... So foreigners love the low US dollar because they can come and buy (whatever little hasn't been bought already) cheap. Check your facts...

 

CX was my 5th interview and all previous had been unsuccessful. After studying straight for 4 weeks CX hired me. If have been at 2 regionals, and 2 747 cargo operators so I am not new to industry and firmly believe that success at getting hired is 75% luck. Its like picking chicks up at Sticky's, you'll hear a lot of "No" before you hear a "Yes" but the good thing is you only need 1 yes.