Projected retirements at AA

[BEEF SUPREME]

Isn't that with the airlines oposing the regulations though? What happens if they out their money and power behind a regulation, how quickly do you think it could get through? Honest question.

Trust me if enough money or fear tactics are involved you can accomplish anything in a very short time.

Example:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...uld-seize-back-control-from-hijackers-210923/

Single pilot airliner page 8 (yeah it's a bit of a leap but imagine your a bean counter not a pilot):

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/aviation_week_april2011.pdf

Rockwell-Collins web site mission statement :

As a leader in aviation electronics and communication, we've been at the forefront of some of the most revolutionary changes in the industry. Today, we're exploring solutions that will enable the next generation of flight including the convergence of manned and unmanned airspace and single pilot operations.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Isn't that with the airlines oposing the regulations though? What happens if they out their money and power behind a regulation, how quickly do you think it could get through? Honest question.

If it's not the airlines fighting it tooth and nail, then it's the unions, universities, and flight schools. One way or another, a big group of people with a lot of lobbying power is always fighting. That brings things to a crawl.

But, in this case, I think everyone (companies, unions, and schools) would all be on the same page about not favoring this. This is a PR problem for airlines. For at least the next 50 years, there will be enough people who won't get on a single-pilot airplane that it would hurt their business enough to not do it. People will have to become far more comfortable with technology before they'll do it, and we aren't even close to being there, for good reason. Airlines would watch their yields plummet. The only CEO who I could see favoring such a thing would be Fred Smith at FedEx.

 

[Firebird2XC]

This is a pretty good example of generational turnover. What you take away from it depends on how you look at it.. Impugning it as a tool of people or groups with an agenda doesn't really do much- it's just data.

You can see opportunity in a labor group scenario, perhaps, but maybe you just see advertising. Either way, it highlights generational turnover.

This will mean a lot of organizational knowledge and experience going away, too. That's something we should pay attention to regardless of how it affects our hiring prospects. We're going to be the old hands in this business all too soon.

 

[derg]

The numbers are real, and I disagree with Doug that shrinkage is going to temper the effect of the retirements. In the past, mainline shrinkage was the result of 50-seat RJs being cost effective as an outsourcing tool. That's no longer true. You need 78+ seats to be cost effective, and even that's on the edge. I don't see mainline pilot groups giving up scope for more than 78 seats, and I doubt a bankruptcy judge will do it, either, since 70-78 seats is the industry standard. So, those numbers mean something. Passenger growth over the next decade is a certainty, barring another 9/11, so without increased outsourcing, hiring numbers are going to be incredible. Make sure you're in a position to take advantage of it.

*giggle*

Ok, ATN! Like Shakira's "hips don't lie", neither does the reality of my airline parking jets and zero growth (at best).

What's going on, in all reality at my airline, is domestic and international codeshare is stemming any pain from retirement losses. Alaska Air more or less absorbed our former Western Airlines route structure and since LAX and SEA weren't considered "hubs", it was a nice way of getting around our domestic codeshare language in our contract. Compare the route structure in 2012 on the west coat, to our route structure in 2000 and before -- those used to be Delta pilots flying Delta jets.

Now on the international side, we're trending toward the former Northwest model, but instead of the "Feed from points in the US to Amsterdam and then KLM-beyond", where we flew point-to-point at Delta, the trend is coming "feed AMS and CDG". The international codeshare allows the company to sell a ticket from darned near anywhere to anywhere, never really touch true company metal, the company sees revenue as if it actually flew the equipment themselves, but who is left out of the mix? The pilots and flight attendants.

For example. We're still serving Edinburgh. But, at absolute best, it'll be JFK-AMS, then KLM AMS-EDI.

The facts are that we're parking widebody jets as AF/KLM are taking new deliveries. The company can still sell tickets, which is great, however average Joes like myself and Richman have stagnant seniority, at best, or have been moving backwards as the company took that big stock pot of pilots, planes and routes post-merger and is boiling it down and reducing it to a thick stew of closed bases, parked jets and surplus pilots.

Three years ago, I was within a stones-throw of 767ER captain.

Today? I'd be lucky to be awarded MD-88 captain for a few months before mandatory displacement and I'm barely holding a pure international line of time with 15 years seniority in our most junior formerly all-international category.

Glad things are sunny and bright where you are.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You can't compare how things are right now to how things will be in 5 years when retirements are going like crazy. Delta isn't growing, but it isn't shrinking, either. A stagnant fleet leads to rapid seniority advancement when retirements are as high as they're going to be.

As far as things being "sunny and bright" where I am, hardly. You complain about barely being able to hold Mad Dog captain after 15 years, but I'll still be a few years away from upgrade at 20 years. Trust me, things could be a lot worse.

 

[derg]

You didn't listen or have seen the orders versus retirements or have seen the seniority projections, but I appreciate your optimism.

Five years we can come under alien attack, cabotage law erosion or whatever, but even the "best case" scenarios, based on seniority progression are tepid, at best until the mid '20's when I'm what, mid-50's with 25 years of seniority?

25 years of seniority, when I was a new hire in 1998, meant that I was eligible for a full multi-million dollar company-funded retirement after some wonderful years as a widebody captain and all I was going to do was smoke pot, grow out some dreads and count money all day.

Today, 25 years of seniority it means that I might be able to hold a line as a domestic captain, or be a somewhat senior line-holding SEA A330 FO.

How awesome is that!

Just be careful not to blow TOO much sunshine up the next generation's arses and give them entitlement complexes as to what to expect. Been there, got that and well, here I am!

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm ultimately positive about the profession, but cheerleading is very dangerous career guidance. Trust me, my sponsors love it.

Here's something I'm willing to be quoted on:

"What was it like then"? Great!

"What is it like now?" Still good, but not as great as it was.

"What will it be like in the future"? Things look good, if we fast-foward what we have now, ahead 5 to 10 years. But in between now and then, we will face new and potentially unforeseen challenges on a number of fronts which may affect how rosy (or not) the future will be. Cabotage, consolidation, energy costs and availability, the global economy, terrorism, the Robot Apocalypse, etc are all items that can devastate the future of professional aviation and allay any staffing pressures from pilots reaching Age 65

LIke a cop stopping someone for a simple taillight being out. It may be an old lady and a "milk run" of a traffic stop, but make sure you have your pistol in your holster because that old lady might be about to bust a cap in yo' ass!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Single pilot in what airframe? IMO, we will never see single pilot airframes in my lifetime for the simple fact that these kinds of operations require a serious level of skill when things go real wrong. It's not the kind of flying that lends itself to a good outcome with "it" hits the fan. We have all seems what happens already when there are two "qualified" pilots at the controls, the weather is nasty and mistakes get made.

Embraer actually proposed single pilot RJs not that long ago, I think they had a writeup in Flight International or something like that. HOWEVER, I don't think it's very likely to happen soon.

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

A couple of things here.

1. The number of upcoming retirements is not a large number and it not the item that is going to drive hiring in this industry. This is what I have been saying for years.

2. Passenger traffic is up and will continue to increase. It's not going to shrink.

3. I have not seen anything, from American, that shows how they are going to stay in business. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, this company has to make money. Even if they were able to get all of the pilots to work for free, this company still would not make money. American is losing passenger traffic (while other airlines are growing) and the cost of fuel is killing them. Those are their two major problems that must be solved in order to remain in business.

Joe

 

[Autothrust Blue]

This will mean a lot of organizational knowledge and experience going away, too. That's something we should pay attention to regardless of how it affects our hiring prospects. We're going to be the old hands in this business all too soon.

3. I have not seen anything, from American, that shows how they are going to stay in business. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, this company has to make money. Even if they were able to get all of the pilots to work for free, this company still would not make money. American is losing passenger traffic (while other airlines are growing) and the cost of fuel is killing them. Those are their two major problems that must be solved in order to remain in business.

tl;dr: American needs to re-invent itself and its business to survive.

 

[derg]

tl;dr: American needs to re-invent itself and its business to survive.

What does than mean anyway?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

1. The number of upcoming retirements is not a large number

You must have a much different definition of "large number" than I do, then. I would certainly call a few thousand a year at the peak to be a "large number."

3. I have not seen anything, from American, that shows how they are going to stay in business. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, this company has to make money. Even if they were able to get all of the pilots to work for free, this company still would not make money. American is losing passenger traffic (while other airlines are growing) and the cost of fuel is killing them. Those are their two major problems that must be solved in order to remain in business.

Legacy airlines are "too big to fail." None of them are going anywhere. One way or another, AMR will be just fine. It may merge, it may shrink, but it's not going to disappear.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

What does than mean anyway?

I don't know. But it sounded good. Maybe I should go to business school?

 

[derg]

That was a great B-School statement! how does one recreate their business model? Is that in Legalzoom?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

That was a great B-School statement! how does one recreate their business model? Is that in Legalzoom?

PFM, dude.

And regional jets. Lots and lots of regional jets.

 

[O&M]

I was discussing this with one of our captains who is a retired airline pilot. He said that on the DC-8 he had four flight deck crew for a SFO-HNL run. This has already been reduced by 1/2. Do you really think it is safer? Nope it's cheaper.

But that doesn't mean it is LESS safe, either. Airliners used to operate with 4, sometimes 5, flight deck crewmembers. But advancing technologies made the radio operator, the navigator, and the flight engineer obsolete. Would anyone argue that the 757 is less safe than the 727?

 

[RDoug]

The precedent has already been set, and it works like this: Trash the retirement programs in bankruptcy court so that pilots cannot afford to retire, cut their pay, collude with Congress to raise the retirement age and then tell the pilots how fortunate they are that they no longer have to retire on that retirement pittance that remained after the bankruptcy filing.

Wash, rinse, repeat. You will see this play out again—age 68, age 70, age 72, etc. until the age-related accidents start occurring.

It's a blatant scam and it's a total abuse of the bankruptcy system. If personal bankruptcies were handled this way and people came out of bankruptcy court flush with enough cash (in this case stolen from retirement systems and negotiated pay contracts) that they could immediately turn around and afford to purchase another airline, the public outcry (especially from the right) would be nonstop outrage.

Welcome to the race to the bottom and the Walmartization of the U.S. workforce.

 

[Hootie]

Looks like only twelve more years till things really heat up! I hope with 20000 hours I will be qualified for when the pilot shortage hits! I can taste the good life already!

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

You must have a much different definition of "large number" than I do, then. I would certainly call a few thousand a year at the peak to be a "large number."

It's not a "few thousand a year" anytime in the near future from anything that I can find.

If you add the numbers up, it will be several years before the retirement number actually breaks 1000 a year.

Passenger growth will drive more pilot hiring than retirements in the short and long term.

Work rule changes will drive more pilot hiring than retirements in the short term.

Joe

 

[granlistillo]

The precedent has already been set, and it works like this: Trash the retirement programs in bankruptcy court so that pilots cannot afford to retire, cut their pay, collude with Congress to raise the retirement age and then tell the pilots how fortunate they are that they no longer have to retire on that retirement pittance that remained after the bankruptcy filing.

Wash, rinse, repeat. You will see this play out again—age 68, age 70, age 72, etc. until the age-related accidents start occurring.

I thought the age 65 thing was only possible because it was in line with ICAO and the Europeans pulled the trigger first? I'm not saying your wrong, but I hope so.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I thought the age 65 thing was only possible because it was in line with ICAO and the Europeans pulled the trigger first? I'm not saying your wrong, but I hope so.

No, you're correct. The geezers had been trying for years to increase the age, but they were getting nowhere. It wasn't until ICAO changed their rule that it gained any traction here.