To those whose heads are buried in the sand
05-16-2012 | 02:15 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
From: the correct seat
That was always a misnomer. 2012 was (is) the year retirements at the legacies begin. It really doesn't pick up pace until 2013/2014 but 2012 is the beginning.
Many warped that into the idea of a pilot shortage beginning in 2012 which is not the case and was never proposed. But you know how rumors go...kind of like that children's game telephone.
The shortage depends on many factors coming together at once (see my original post). Yes, another crisis could happen that would change everything. Another 9/11 could happen...heck, an asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow making all of this moot.
Many warped that into the idea of a pilot shortage beginning in 2012 which is not the case and was never proposed. But you know how rumors go...kind of like that children's game telephone.
The shortage depends on many factors coming together at once (see my original post). Yes, another crisis could happen that would change everything. Another 9/11 could happen...heck, an asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow making all of this moot.
2. You're asking for a lot of factors to come together at once.
Just because we want a pilot shortage to happen doesn't mean it will happen.
05-16-2012 | 02:34 PM
#42
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Of course the dates were pushed back. Age 65.
05-16-2012 | 03:56 PM
#46
Day puke
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
I don't get your reverse rationalization...or your numbers. I suggest looking at them again.
There are not enough active regional pilots to staff all the majors. Not even at current passenger levels. Air travel increases every year and is projected to accelerate. Even if every regional pilot today were to flow to the majors it wouldn't be enough.
I also suggest learning about airline business models. Airlines don't base their business on flying as many people as possible in as few flights as possible. If that were the case all majors would be flying 747s and A380s.
Their model depends on frequency. They understand that people need/desire to travel at different times of day. The more hours of the day you cover between city pairs the more passengers you carry.
As opposed to how some of you think it goes: stick one 747 on a route and transport two loads of people per day and be done with it.
If that is how the airline business worked airlines would have moved in that direction in the 60s.
Bottom line is that airlines need frequencies. The more per hour the better, particularly between the busiest city pairs.
There are not enough active regional pilots to staff all the majors. Not even at current passenger levels. Air travel increases every year and is projected to accelerate. Even if every regional pilot today were to flow to the majors it wouldn't be enough.
I also suggest learning about airline business models. Airlines don't base their business on flying as many people as possible in as few flights as possible. If that were the case all majors would be flying 747s and A380s.
Their model depends on frequency. They understand that people need/desire to travel at different times of day. The more hours of the day you cover between city pairs the more passengers you carry.
As opposed to how some of you think it goes: stick one 747 on a route and transport two loads of people per day and be done with it.
If that is how the airline business worked airlines would have moved in that direction in the 60s.
Bottom line is that airlines need frequencies. The more per hour the better, particularly between the busiest city pairs.
If only 152s had air conditioning...
05-16-2012 | 04:31 PM
#47
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
I'll let you have your fun though. It makes to sense for me to break it down for you but here is a very quick stab:
Obviously if the demand between a city pair is 300 passengers per hour until 1700 and then 200 per hour until 2200 a 402 wouldn't make much sense. Neither would an outbound A380 at 0800 and an inbound 747 at 2100.
Throw in the cost of fuel per mile flown along with intangibles such as aircraft desirability ( AA's and Delta's MD-80s are recent examples of undesired aircraft by the flying public, anything with a prop has already been for a few years now) and you can see how it is no hyperbole, but reality.
05-16-2012 | 04:37 PM
#48
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Go back to my original post and look for anything that is opinion. None of it is. The only thing I don't know (or anybody knows) is what exactly will be the result. But the fact thal ALL those factors are converging for the first time is beyond denial at this point.
05-16-2012 | 04:37 PM
#49
Doing One Pilot's Job
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,889
Likes: 123
Originally Posted by embraer
Throw in the cost of fuel per mile flown along with intangibles such as aircraft desirability ( AA's and Delta's MD-80s are recent examples of undesired aircraft by the flying public, anything with a prop has already been for a few years now) and you can see how it is no hyperbole, but reality.
Airlines don't give a damn about "aircraft desirability" to the public, they care about economics - acquisition cost and operating cost. MD80s are going bye-bye not because they are "undesired aircraft by the flying public", but because they are getting old & expensive to maintain and burn more fuel than newer aircraft with similar capacity.
See: Delta adding MD90s while shedding 50-seat CRJs.
See also: UniCal maintaining and growing their Q400 feed
05-16-2012 | 04:42 PM
#50
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
You really can't be this naive.
Airlines don't give a damn about "aircraft desirability" to the public, they care about economics - acquisition cost and operating cost. MD80s are going bye-bye not because they are "undesired aircraft by the flying public", but because they are getting old & expensive to maintain and burn more fuel than newer aircraft with similar capacity.
See: Delta adding MD90s while shedding 50-seat CRJs.
See also: UniCal maintaining and growing their Q400 feed
Airlines don't give a damn about "aircraft desirability" to the public, they care about economics - acquisition cost and operating cost. MD80s are going bye-bye not because they are "undesired aircraft by the flying public", but because they are getting old & expensive to maintain and burn more fuel than newer aircraft with similar capacity.
See: Delta adding MD90s while shedding 50-seat CRJs.
See also: UniCal maintaining and growing their Q400 feed
The flying public is not as stupid as we think..in particular business travelers which are our key customers. They understand differences in aircraft and have a particular distaste for some of them (MD-80s, ATRs, etc..)
They WILL avoid flying on them whenever possible. If your airline is flying around in old MD-80s while your competition has newer, more comfortable A320s and 737s you will lose customers.
Just ask AA. They refused to accept this for years (among other things) and now it has all come back to bite them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
