House committee votes to raise pilot retirement age to 67

Or, you know, just wait a few years and the high pay + end of COVID doom and gloom will result in a constant stream of new pilots. But then the airlines would have to set realistic schedules and not sell what they can fill vs what they can actually operate, and not being a greedy POS is hard, if not impossible, for most airline execs it seems. Especially seeing as the airlines created this vacuum themselves with the kneejerk retirement pleas.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Or, you know, just wait a few years and the high pay + end of COVID doom and gloom will result in a constant stream of new pilots. But then the airlines would have to set realistic schedules and not sell what they can fill vs what they can actually operate, and not being a greedy POS is hard, if not impossible, for most airline execs it seems. Especially seeing as the airlines created this vacuum themselves with the kneejerk retirement pleas.
Click to expand...
I’d submit that the airlines created the shortage with PFT schemes, food stamp wages at commuters, untenable schedules, and boom/bust cycles of hire till you furlough then furlough till you hire. They made being a pilot a much less appealing career for MY generation, which meant that fewer of us tried to get our kids into aviation. Then kids figured out they could make similar money and be home every night taste testing microwave pizza on TicToc or whatever kids do today…
 
ChasenSFO said:
Or, you know, just wait a few years and the high pay + end of COVID doom and gloom will result in a constant stream of new pilots. But then the airlines would have to set realistic schedules and not sell what they can fill vs what they can actually operate, and not being a greedy POS is hard, if not impossible, for most airline execs it seems. Especially seeing as the airlines created this vacuum themselves with the kneejerk retirement pleas.
Click to expand...

Kneejerk retirement pleas?

Um, the entire industry wrote off business flying for 5 yrs and leisure for at least 18 mos to 2 yrs.

I can't stand how smug Americans come off about the pandemic. Do you people realize the government PRINTED your way out of trouble? The airlines WOULD have furloughed thousands and thousands if it wasn't for the PSP and airline bailout money guarantee. In fact, the rest of the world DID exactly that. Bye Felicia to their crews during the down turn of Covid.
 
I'll go against the grain - mainly because I did "that" route.


The problem is self-inflicted. No other country is doing 1,500hr and ATP to sit in a B737/A320. They are ab initios in those planes with 250 hrs. And barring 3rd world country crapholes, the first world countires have managed it just fine AND safely. (Lufthansa, British as an example).


Ditch the ATP rule and you fix the "shortage." Airline hires a guy with 0 experience, chosen strictly based on his/her education, work experience, competence in fields related to aviation (math, science), and their personality. Throw them through 0 to 250 hr Pvt/Inst/Comm/Multi, bring them for 100-200 hrs in a Level D sim, and off to the line you go.


...of course, you do that, and you can say good bye to these pilot salaries you see today.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I’d submit that the airlines created the shortage with PFT schemes, food stamp wages at commuters, untenable schedules, and boom/bust cycles of hire till you furlough then furlough till you hire. They made being a pilot a much less appealing career for MY generation, which meant that fewer of us tried to get our kids into aviation. Then kids figured out they could make similar money and be home every night taste testing microwave pizza on TicToc or whatever kids do today…
Click to expand...

This. This.

A million times this.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I’d submit that the airlines created the shortage with PFT schemes, food stamp wages at commuters, untenable schedules, and boom/bust cycles of hire till you furlough then furlough till you hire. They made being a pilot a much less appealing career for MY generation, which meant that fewer of us tried to get our kids into aviation. Then kids figured out they could make similar money and be home every night taste testing microwave pizza on TicToc or whatever kids do today…
Click to expand...

I was an engineer making 55k at age 22. Today as a 12th yr airline CA, I won't say my salary but suffice to say nothing that a masters or PHD in engineering could come even close to.


Granted, I didn't enter this job for the money. It was a lifelong dream as a young kid. I wouldn't want my kids to become pilots - for an entirely different reason: AI coming and we'll go single pilot first and then pilotless airliners.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I was an engineer making 55k at age 22. Today as a 12th yr airline CA, I won't say my salary but suffice to say nothing that a masters or PHD in engineering could come even close to.
Click to expand...

You’ve discussed your salary here before.

I know quite a few folks in my field with master’s in engineering with 15-20yrs in the industry who easily make as much as you do—and this isn’t “software engineering in the Bay Area” either.

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Granted, I didn't enter this job for the money. It was a lifelong dream as a young kid. I wouldn't want my kids to become pilots - for an entirely different reason: AI coming and we'll go single pilot first and then pilotless airliners.
Click to expand...

If you weren’t in the job for the money, why do you do everything possible to bypass the normal process of learning to aviate as quickly as possible?
 
zmiller4 said:
You’ve discussed your salary here before.

I know quite a few folks in my field with master’s in engineering with 15-20yrs in the industry who easily make as much as you do—and this isn’t “software engineering in the Bay Area” either.



If you weren’t in the job for the money, why do you do everything possible to bypass the normal process of learning to aviate as quickly as possible?
Click to expand...

That’s an outdated figure. It’s more now, I still can’t believe what I grossed last year. But it’s CA so I’m just doing okay. Not many engineers out there making new contract major Capt salaries.




As for last part, because it was an option available to anyone in 2007. And because seniority is everything in this industry. To quote Mel Gibson’s character Stonebanks “those are the rules, I don’t make ‘em up”

“Seniority is everything! Get there first!”


-JC advertisement, I believe Comair Academy



Looks like that stuff is still floating around today…

How Airline Seniority Works / ATP Flight School

What is airline seniority, how it works, and why it's an important factor in your career success as an airline pilot.
atpflightschool.com
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I was an engineer making 55k at age 22. Today as a 12th yr airline CA, I won't say my salary but suffice to say nothing it's a work/pay ratio that a masters or PHD in engineering could not come even close to.
Click to expand...

It's great money, but FTFY. IMO, QOL (and fun because I learned I can't live the office life) is what this gig is all about. Or phrased differently, least work for most pay.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I’d submit that the airlines created the shortage with PFT schemes, food stamp wages at commuters, untenable schedules, and boom/bust cycles of hire till you furlough then furlough till you hire. They made being a pilot a much less appealing career for MY generation, which meant that fewer of us tried to get our kids into aviation. Then kids figured out they could make similar money and be home every night taste testing microwave pizza on TicToc or whatever kids do today…
Click to expand...
You could taste test paint on the Tikker AND be an airline pilot... don't be jelly Zap :)
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Kneejerk retirement pleas?

Um, the entire industry wrote off business flying for 5 yrs and leisure for at least 18 mos to 2 yrs.

I can't stand how smug Americans come off about the pandemic. Do you people realize the government PRINTED your way out of trouble? The airlines WOULD have furloughed thousands and thousands if it wasn't for the PSP and airline bailout money guarantee. In fact, the rest of the world DID exactly that. Bye Felicia to their crews during the down turn of Covid.
Click to expand...
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I'll go against the grain - mainly because I did "that" route.


The problem is self-inflicted. No other country is doing 1,500hr and ATP to sit in a B737/A320. They are ab initios in those planes with 250 hrs. And barring 3rd world country crapholes, the first world countires have managed it just fine AND safely. (Lufthansa, British as an example).


Ditch the ATP rule and you fix the "shortage." Airline hires a guy with 0 experience, chosen strictly based on his/her education, work experience, competence in fields related to aviation (math, science), and their personality. Throw them through 0 to 250 hr Pvt/Inst/Comm/Multi, bring them for 100-200 hrs in a Level D sim, and off to the line you go.


...of course, you do that, and you can say good bye to these pilot salaries you see today.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t with attracting FOs right now, it’s with retaining CAs and Checkairmen. The system is working fine, and for once the market is swinging in the pilots’ direction.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
welll just dandy the same generation (mine) will take it in the shorts again.
Click to expand...

Not for us... (personally) in the next 2 years (saying that this roughly takes effect in Aug....) ~140 dudes out of the whole group get an extra 2 years. A hair less than 3% of the total list. With the impending Y+B=G and how that's gonna affect our list it's almost a rounding error.

(*The caveat is that language that supposedly allows a tortious interference of our collective bargaining agreement where those pilots who have already retired are allowed to come back.)

I have no desire to work from 65 to 67 and my whole financial plan has been designed to be able to punch out on my 65th birthday, but I disagree that this is a "safety" issue. The correlation between (to quote Ambrosi's letter...) "According to numerous studies, including a 2017 study by EASA, there is an increased risk of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and cognitive decline with increasing age" and safely operating an aircraft completely ignores the medical standards already in place. (And ignores all the medically qualified 135/91 pilots flying in the airspace right now.)

And... how many of those things are a direct result of the crap schedules, road food, and sedentary lifestyle that I and all my brothers, sisters, and siblings are guilty of because of the squeeze of a PBS "optimizer" and loose scheduling language. If you want safety... then actually "follow the science" of sleep and fatigue and fix the trips. (In the 117 world I can STILL do a 16 hr day, have a min rest period, and follow it up with another... 16 hr day. Legally.)

The one correlation that I find very interesting is that if you look at the history of scabbery in our industry this push for the retirement age change is lining up very closely with the retirement dates of pilots from the 2 major strikes of the 80's... UAL85 and EAL89.

Anyhoo, I don't know why I'm seemingly arguing for the change. I'm just feeling contrarian about this issue. Maybe I just don't like age-ism. Maybe it's something I ate.

I mean, you gotta take out the part where people can 'come back' - that ship has sailed. Working agreements all have the same boilerplate... you are done and off the list. But going forward... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
alaskadrifter said:
The problem isn’t with attracting FOs right now, it’s with retaining CAs and Checkairmen. The system is working fine, and for once the market is swinging in the pilots’ direction.
Click to expand...

Yes, at the regionals.


The ab-initio route I mentioned would be like Lufthansa. Hire a zero time pilot, the airline trains them, and then direct to a 737/320 at about 300-500 hrs.
 
ClearedForOption said:
Not for us... (personally) in the next 2 years (saying that this roughly takes effect in Aug....) ~140 dudes out of the whole group get an extra 2 years. A hair less than 3% of the total list. With the impending Y+B=G and how that's gonna affect our list it's almost a rounding error.

(*The caveat is that language that supposedly allows a tortious interference of our collective bargaining agreement where those pilots who have already retired are allowed to come back.)

I have no desire to work from 65 to 67 and my whole financial plan has been designed to be able to punch out on my 65th birthday, but I disagree that this is a "safety" issue. The correlation between (to quote Ambrosi's letter...) "According to numerous studies, including a 2017 study by EASA, there is an increased risk of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and cognitive decline with increasing age" and safely operating an aircraft completely ignores the medical standards already in place. (And ignores all the medically qualified 135/91 pilots flying in the airspace right now.)

And... how many of those things are a direct result of the crap schedules, road food, and sedentary lifestyle that I and all my brothers, sisters, and siblings are guilty of because of the squeeze of a PBS "optimizer" and loose scheduling language. If you want safety... then actually "follow the science" of sleep and fatigue and fix the trips.

The one correlation that I find very interesting is that if you look at the history of scabbery in our industry this push for the retirement age change is lining up very closely with the retirement dates of pilots from the 2 major strikes of the 80's... UAL85 and EAL89.

Anyhoo, I don't know why I'm seemingly arguing for the change. I'm just feeling contrarian about this issue. Maybe I just don't like age-ism. I mean, you gotta take out the part where people can 'come back' - that ship has sailed. Working agreements all have the same boilerplate... you are done and off the list.
Click to expand...




What are the rumors you guys are hearing? I’m not the one to believe conspiracy theories but now more than ever, I’ve had 2 FOs consecutively talk about the merger not going through with Yellow and how Eskimo and the Blue are ripe to be next. I just write it off, but in the back of my mind I’ve always thought it made sense.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What are the rumors you guys are hearing? I’m not the one to believe conspiracy theories but now more than ever, I’ve had 2 FOs consecutively talk about the merger not going through with Yellow and how Eskimo and the Blue are ripe to be next. I just write it off, but in the back of my mind I’ve always thought it made sense.
Click to expand...

From everything that I am hearing internally and in the media, there 100% commitment towards a Yellow+Blue and everyone is acting accordingly. IMHO all of posturing is making sure that everyone gets their pound of flesh (politically) to grease the wheels in the District of Columbia. (Because, seriously... it doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to cypher out that combining two small carriers isn't going to so called "harm
the consumer" when the two combined still won't even come close to touching the market share of the big three and their fortress hubs.)

And, check out the other thread about livery... that's a normal step when combining carriers. Look at the whole 'new and improved' etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top