I just made a huge mistake and read the WSJ article. Here are some great nuggets I pulled out:
1. "Added Kit Darby, a consultant on pilot-hiring trends: "We are about four years from a solution, but we are only about six months away from a problem.""
Then the airlines should have started looking for a solution FIVE YEARS ago when the retirement age was increased to 65! You had FIVE YEARS to find a solution. None of this should be a surprise, but LO! no one looks more than tomorrow's stock dividend.
2. "I'm stuck being a flight instructor for another year," said John Adkins, a 27-year-old pilot at California Flight Academy. He achieved the current minimum for being a co-pilot, but the new rule has delayed his dream to join an airline. "You don't make a lot of money as an instructor," he said.
Waaah Waaah! Ever here of 9-11? How about being a flight instructor for 2 years, getting hired, and then BOOM out on the streets with no job for 4 YEARS or MORE working 6 days a week with no sick time, vacation time, or health insurance while you wait for the airlines to recover? You are not going to make much more as an FO either, maybe even less. (I made 4k less my first year as an FO)
3. The 1,500-hour mandate "has only discouraged a future generation of prospective pilots to pursue this career," said Mr. Cohen, from the regional airline group. Those who persevere "will try to get the 1,500 hours the fastest and cheapest way possible," he said. "Flying around in empty airspace or towing banners doesn't give you the training you need to fly a complex airplane."
That's funny, because that's pretty much what everyone did before the 1500hr rule, except they could get jobs at 250hrs instead. Hows does this logic work? Confusing holy smoke and mirrors.
Remember the 80's and 90's when you needed 2,000hrs-3,000hrs or more to just get a job at a regional?