Mainline management really hasn't done anything yet to really combat this issue. There are many steps that still have yet to be taken before there is a true shortage.

1. offer bonuses
2. permanently increase pay
3. offer flow
4. ab initio
5. offer seniority numbers
6. fly regional jets at the mainline at regional rates(it's still permitted flying at lower rates even if flown by mainline pilots)
7. full blown section one scope recapture, and mainline pay rates for RJ flying.

Management hasn't even been through step one yet. Although, certain synergies saw management operate larger mainline aircraft in certain markets.

What do you mean by this? You don't think the company can put a 76 seater at the mainline at whatever fantasy payscale they want do you? DL has rates for it already, although they are too low.

Those rates are for jets flown above the permitted flying number. Your PWA allows a certain number of jets to be flown at non Delta pilot rates. It has nothing to do with what list people are on. If Delta wanted, they could operate the planes with Delta seniority list pilots at the permitted flying rates. You need scope recapture in section 1 before the company must pay those Delta PWA rates.

ANOTHER article written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. $ will solve any pilot 'shortage'. Period.

His recommendation of again raising the retirement age is completely incorrect. Quote:
"Another helpful action would be to increase the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. Japan has already raised its maximum age to 67. In 2009, after several comprehensive studies, the FAA raised the U.S. age limit to 65 from 60. As a research psychologist in the FAA’s Office of Aviation Medicine, I reviewed much of the data used to modify this regulation.
There appears to have been little if any impact on airline safety since that change was implemented. Raising this age to 70, perhaps in increments, should now be considered."

He states that Japan has raised the age to 67. Well, sort of. You can fly there until you reach age 68. In other words, you can fly the entire year that you're 67. IF he's accepting that as a maximum age, then he needs to change his sentence stating the US limit changed to 65 from 60.
Either state 68 for Japan or state US limit as 64/59 to use same terminology.

Secondly, the change to age 65 violates the 1% rule (aviation medicine), which would result in an airline pilot being denied a medical certificate if their risk of a medical incapacitation (e.g. heart attack, convulsion, stroke, faint etc) was determined as being greater than 1% during the year.
That threshold (1% rule) is already crossed with age 65; mortality (which is lower than incapacitation) rate for a 64 year old US male is 1.46%. At age 69. mortality rate is 2.22%; my guess is that incapacitation rate is around 4% for a 69 year old.
Translation: if your captain is over 60, there's a greater chance of him stroking out or having an epileptic seizure (epileptic seizure risk rises above age 50). If he's over 65, the odds are around double of a 60 year old.

After they raise the retirement age this time, I'm expecting sim checks to include incapacitation scenarios. Because incapacitations have risen with the change to 65 and the frequency will climb again with another age change.



The MCP license is just a way to circumvent the requirement for every part 121 pilot to have an ATP. While I don't have a problem with going back to simply requiring a commercial pilot license, I expect this MCP concept to be less safe at the regional level if there's an acute pilot shortage. Why? Because if there are so few qualified pilots, the best regional pilots will not stick around past 3000 hours. So the new pilots will be flying with regional captains who can't move on to a major due to their checkered past.
If they were to implement this type of program, they would need to restrict the captains to more stringent requirements than merely logging 3000 hours.

Unfortunately nothing in that opinion fixes the problem of pilots not willing to work for an unattractive 'regional" airline at fastfood payrates.

That is what I was thinking, too!

I know that everyone seems happy about this pilot shortage, and I can see why. Supply and demand would dictate that this would result in heavy competition and increased wages for skilled pilots. However, this could be a double edged sword. Be on guard for the development of single pilot aircraft or remote unmanned aircraft. UAV technology is already here. It's just a matter of time before it hits our industry. Look at automobile manufacturing. Did those assembly line workers in the 50's ever think that robots would be taking their jobs? It's coming, not right away, but in the next 15-20 years, get ready.

I don't know the timeframe, but I suppose it's inevitable. Just like driverless cars. ... how have driverless cars been doing? Driverless cars are getting into accidents, but the police reports are not being made public - The Washington Post

Oh god look out!!! 11 accidents in 6 years.

How big is the fleet of autonomous cars? A handful; the best I can find is it's a bit more than 10 cars. Let's call it 11 for simplicity.

Are you going to be a passenger on an airplane that is likely to have an accident once every 6 years?

I wonder how well an unmanned aircraft or single pilot would've been able to handle the wheels up landing that occurred yesterday at LAX. I am sure those 41 people in the back appreciated having 2 qualified pilots up front. Those pilots did an outstanding job.