Airline Pilot Central Forums - Bethune on pilot shortage

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - Bethune on pilot shortage (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/113792-bethune-pilot-shortage.html)

After 9/11 the regionals grew rapidly at the expense of mainline flying. Now things are hopefully going the other way. To what extent will taking back the flying provide some short term or long term relief to the shortage? Staffing an additional 150 seat jet while parking 3 small rj’s has some impact on the need for crews. Also mainline growth provides light at the end of the tunnel in higher wages to attract people to enter the market. It makes it harder for the guys on the regionals wanting to get out. For every mainline jet that we need to staff we eliminate the need to staff a multiple number of theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 2596811)

Fast forward to 2018... 9/11 happened... Pan/Am and TWA went under... Age 65... Oil Crisis... Scope farming of mainline flying to Regional flying... The regional job used to be one of many stepping stones to a major back in the day. With the expansion of regional airline flying post 9/11, regionals were doing more domestic flying than their mainline counterparts, or close to it. This is partly why Pan Am/TWA ceased to exist. They were unable to control their own domestic product and when international traffic took a dive, they were done.

Right now, one thing needs to happen to reduce the pilot shortage...Shrink the regionals. That's it. If the regionals become a small subset of mainline again instead of the behemoth they have become, they will once again become a stepping stone to more jobs at the majors instead of what equates to more than half the time it takes to accrue a full retirement in the military.

Only about 2-5% of regional guys "want" to stay at the regionals. The paradigm is to gain experience, then move on. Right now we're missing the ability to "move on".

So when little Lucy or little Johnny asks their uncle/aunt how long they were at the regionals before they got hired at SWA/AA/United, when they hear 10-15 years, most kids would rather go to Med School, Law School, start a business, etc.

At least if you put 10-15 years in the military, you can still get a pension from the reserves or guard, and feel patriotic for doing so.

Make the regional stop-over a 3-5 year gig (about the time to get an advanced degree) and you will have no more threat of a pilot shortage. A 2nd option would be to have the pay/benefits at the regionals so that you wouldn't have to "Stomach" working there or be sacrificing your family's future for a "chance" at a better job. Of course the 2nd options defeats the purpose of having "regionals", which is a nicer way to say B-scale/C-Scale labor.

I agree with your main idea. However, the Pan Am/TWA Part doesn’t hold water. Pan Am was shut down in 1991, when the regionals were called “commuter” airlines and flew brasilias and banderantes. Regional flying had nothing to do with the shutdown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcondrivr (Post 2596872)

......” airlines and flew brasilias and banderantes.

Pigs, Death Darts, 99's, Sewer-tubes.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmako (Post 2596908)

Pigs, Death Darts, 99's, Sewer-tubes.....

Saw a 99 on the ramp last night at BFI and said to my FO: “They used to fly pax in those. I tried to get a $13,000 a year job in one as a 3000 hr ATP in 1990 and was grossly under qualified.”

I always get a kick out of someone arguing that some given number is just an arbitrary number. That individual usually is making that argument so that they can substitute in some other arbitrary number which they prefer!

Quote:

Originally Posted by UAL seasoned (Post 2596979)

What, like 65?

1500 is the start, there are ways to get more from less and they are codified in the regs already. Want to put in another exemption, fine but dont change the baseline

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmako (Post 2596908)

Pigs, Death Darts, 99's, Sewer-tubes.....

Quad-otter for me :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airway (Post 2596990)

What, like 65?

Exactly! 65 is just an arbitrary number...let's substitute in 67, that's the arbitrary number I prefer! (example only, I'm very happy with 65!)

But to the original discussion, is there any evidence that shows that 750 hours (or whatever lower number) is as good as or better than 1500 hours. If we're going to pick a number, I'd rather error on the conservative side. If you're arguing that there shouldn't be a number at all, I think you've staked out a losing position!

I saw a chart once that plotted accidents in incidents by age in some aviation publication. It showed accidents/incidents increasing rapidly between 60-65. I remember thinking that must be how they came up with the age 60 rule. Interesting there still needs to be someone under 60 with someone over 60 in the cockpit. The chart also showed the least accidents/incidents around age 35.