For a "business" publication, Businessweek seems to have dropped the ball on basic economics here: there's fewer pilots available to work at the wages regionals want to pay, but that's not a "shortage", that's the market expressing a preference for higher pay.
See also the yoyos whining about a "skilled-worker shortage" when then actually mean "we can't hire experienced machinists for $10/hr!".
Maybe I'm missing something -- isn't this the point of the the article? Even the title seems to explicitly tie the shortage to the low pay.
Maybe you're just arguing against the term "shortage" and saying there's never a shortage of labor supply in any field, just a shortage of people willing to do the work at what's considered the going rate? Can't we just stipulate that this is what a shortage of <profession-here> means?
The problem is that a lot of the young workforce has been disillusioned and waning since 08/09. Most of these people were already aware that being a commercial pilot isn't as glamorous of a job as people think; add in shit pay and job instability and you'd have to be crazy to stick with it.
My friend graduated from LA Tech in 08 with a degree in professional aviation with the goal of working for ATC or a commercial airline. He initially got a job as a flight instructor making ~$25/hour and was lucky to get more than 20 hours per week. Then the bottom fell out with the economy, massive job cuts across the board at airlines, and he looked for a better job because nobody would be hiring for a long time, everything is seniority based, and he wasn't going to pay out of pocket to keep his flight hours up for a few years. Now he's an accountant.
It's not economics its rational pilots being rational. The FAA has raised the hours a flight officer needs to operate a commerical plane. This has created a double hump in the D/S curve. Low hour pilots are worthless and high hour pilots cost too much. So you raise salaries right? High hour pilots don't want to leave their nice, stable job (with benefits!) to work for perpetually bankrupt regional carrier. They might be able to get the occasional burnout or fired with cause pilot but not in any good quantity.
That is appallingly true in the manufacturing field, (and finally something on HN that I've researched to death).
I now work in education, part of which is career and technical education. We are approached by two very large businesses constantly complaining about the shortage of skilled workers. "We can't fill these jobs fast enough" is the theme, and students bite constantly. These jobs range from machine operators, to skilled machinists to engineers.
One look at the job postings reveal a couple of themes:
Machine operator listed at $10.00; 28 hours a week, so they don't have to provide benefits. That's an unskilled position, so I don't disagree with the wage. BUT, for the last 40 years, these positions were full-time with benefits. In the last 5 to 10 years they've been downsized to whatever the number is that keeps it just under full-time so the business doesn't have to worry about benefits.
Skilled Machinist: the last post was for a master machinist (20 years exp? I'm not sure how long that takes) with various CAD, MAZAK and other various certifications depending on the job - one even required that the applicant be a Bridge certified welder in addition to master machinist (price those people out sometime). They listed at a ‘competitive’ $15-$25 an hour. That's a joke for the time, energy and ability that it takes to do that job. If you ever want to see what the definition of good at everything is – talk to a master machinist those men and women can quite literally use any piece of machinery that exists. These wages are almost identical to what this position made in the 1970's. That is over 40 years later, and they expect to pay the same wage. I'm not certain what they post for a journeyman machinist, but I have to assume that it's low as well.
Engineer: They can't hire these, because 'your institution isn't turning out quality applicants'. We were spooked by this, so we did a careful inventory of current student prospects, and past graduate employment. Turns out that they can't hire our graduates because they're offering 30,XXX-45,XXX lower per year than John Deer, Caterpillar and other heavy machinery organizations that are within 4 hours of our town. Granted, these businesses aren't as large as JD or Cat, but they are still multi-billion dollar international companies.
My prediction is the following: In 10-15 years we will have an overabundance of ‘skilled workers’ in the manufacturing field, much as we have a surplus of college graduates right now. The message to kids used to be ‘go to college,’ now it’s ‘be an engineer or work in the manufacturing industry’. It’s just a matter of time before the software gets to the point that the monkey entering numbers doesn’t have to actually understand the numbers to turn out a product. When that happens, look out kiddos, the bottom will drop out of that market as well. My proof? Five years ago our first-time, first-year students were 75% liberal arts/soft sciences, 25% hard sciences and engineering. Our enrollment figures for Fall 2014 show more of a 50/50 split, with the number of new engineering students growing faster than any other category. This shift is nearly unprecedented.
The train is headed down the tracks full speed, and no one is manning the brakes.
Here's a great summary of what's involved by askcaptainscott on YouTube: Can I be an airline pilot if I start training in my 30s? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJk9Skxyi84
I'm far from an expert on air travel, but my understanding is that the regional airlines have become the backbone of budget US travel, and have a huge role in this salary gap (between regionals and non-regionals).
From my understanding.... if you go back 20+ years, pilots used to be paid a lot more. Which lead to a lot of people going for their commercial pilots license and flooding the market. This let the major airlines drop the salary of starting pilots. Looks like the salary games drove away enough people and now the problem has swung the other way.
civil aviation pilot: about 200,000 - 300,000 russian rubles monthly (5700 - 8500 $ / monthly). Aeroflot pays even more. (http://otvet.mail.ru/question/89104947/). 68000-102000$ yearly. And that's after taxes.
Is it possible for a 22-year old kid to be a pilot without going to the military in the US? I would imagine Delta doesn't train people off the streets.
In that case, wouldn't it be worth just sticking around in the armed forces, making more than $21k/yr and getting all the benefits that go along with it?
Most commercial pilots are hired from flight schools. Officers have a 5 year commission, minimum. More than likely flight officers are in for 10-15 years because no way is the AF, Army, Marines, or Navy investing millions in training and not getting their moneys worth. And you can't simply quit the military for a better job. Commissions are in 3-5 year blocks (your re-up occurs during a recession? you're probably staying) and they can stop-loss you, or reactivate you, at anytime.
Simply put, there are not enough flight officers discharging to meet civilian demand. They aren't getting $21K offers either. FAA changed the rules so that 1500hrs are required to be copilot. So new pilots are really glorified interns.
Edit: Also, military flight training is highly competitive. You can get a commission and never log a single flight. Your career is at the behest of the military's needs. If they have a shortage of supply depot officers guess where you're headed.
You can certainly decide to go to flight school yourself. As mentioned in the article though, it's not cheap. The armed forces may or may not be worth it--having to kill people is a deal breaker for a lot of people.
Wow, between you & Trufa, one would think that joining the military necessarily means killing people. Yes, it happens. But let's not pretend that's the only thing that happens. Maybe air-dropping food to refugees & people in distress[1]. Airlifting people out of bad situations[2]. There are plenty of examples.
Most of the people I've known and worked with in the military never had to kill anyone.
You may never kill anyone, but you have to sign up swearing that you will kill someone if asked to. It's the entire point of the armed forces. That is a deal breaker for many people (myself included). Similarly, I would never work for a military contractor or on a weapons project. My work product isn't going to kill or injure anyone.
Your friends may never have killed anyone directly, but they have certainly assisted in it. For every supply trip to Haiti, there are thousands of supply trips moving weapons and soldiers around the world.
Your first point is true, and that's a fair criticism. If that is a 100% deal-breaker, then it's probably best not to join the military.
But if you don't want to contribute to anything that could be used to kill people, you are severely limited. Anything from open-source code (Linux comes to mind) to chip design can be used to kill people. Remote control airplane hobbyist? If you have a breakthrough on your hobby, it can presumably be used in drone technology.
"For every supply trip to Haiti, there are thousands of supply trips moving weapons and soldiers around the world."
What's wrong with that? We have soldiers on the ground in lots of places. In a lot of ways, that's probably a good thing. The 2011 involvement in Libya, for instance, is generally viewed as a responsible intervention of US military.
I don't think we're arguing "good" vs "bad", but if you're have no interest in supporting military operations, then you have no interest in supporting military operations. I don't want my work being used by active duty military and their contractors, and that includes supplying them with food, weapons, water, more people, etc. Me saying "OK, I'm against this war but as long as you hold the gun I'm ethically fine with giving you all the housing, healthcare, food, logistics, weapons, and entertainment you need" is somewhat hypocritical.
> Your friends may never have killed anyone directly, but they have certainly assisted in it.
I personally don't see joining the military as fundamentally more supportive of its actions (conceptually) than being a normal (US?) citizen who isn't politically involved in reduced military action. Sitting back and just working in our economy also indirectly supports the military, and doesn't make you any more moral (or less culpable in our military's actions) than someone who joins the marines. Likewise, what if you do join the military but vote against (and otherwise support) any and all people involved in reducing foreign military action?
I appreciate how this sounds, but think its a point worth discussing given the moral implications (blame) of your statements.
The point though, is that if you are vehemently opposed to taking the life of another human being, there is absolutely zero way that any branch of the military could ensure that would never happen as a part of service.
Yes, a lot, maybe even most people that enroll in the military eventually leave without ever having seen combat, action, or any situation in which they were asked to kill another person, but there is no way to enroll in the military with the assurance that you'll never be asked to perform that duty.
Agreed. There's a somewhat tangible concern these days with the militarization of the Coast Guard, and their restructuring to exist under DHS, that they're specifically being positioned as the 'go-to' agency should Posse Comitatus need to be enforced.
Coast Guard, at this point, is not only not guaranteeable to avoid action, but should they see action, it's not unforeseeable that it would be against American citizens.
lets not pretend the military is not about killing people now, dont even try to sugar coat it with air dropping food for children in distress because lets get real here if that was the case they'd be developing drones to shoot dinners on tables not missiles on villages.
If you do go into the military to learn to fly, you'll have to take a plane that is compatible to what Delta has. If you're a fighter pilot, you're not as needed by Delta. You need to be cargo. They are two totally different beasts even being fixed wing.
But in general, military service needs to be more than just pragmatic. You are going to be called into areas to either kill or help people being killed. Either way that's a lot more psychologically speaking than going to pilot school.
Please don't join the military because you want to learn to fly. Only join the military if you fully agree with the political and human action that joining the US military government is.
I don't want to say that you shouldn't, we could discuss all night about it, just don't do it for the wrong reasons.
Flying will be only a part of what you do in the military, consider if you are REALLY OK with all the other aspects of military life before joining.
It's possible, but it's not a fun lifestyle. You live like a stereotypical broke college kid. You have to pay for your initial training, and then you spend several years instructing to build hours. Instructing pays around $15 an hour or so, but only while the prop is spinning and you're not guaranteed any hours.
Once you get 1500 hours you can make the jump to that $21k/yr regional airline job. Getting from your first lesson to this point could be done in 2 years, but that would be pretty quick. Realistically it's going to take 3 or 4.
Then you need 1000 hours as pilot in command of a jet to get hired by one of the big airlines. It will probably take 4 to 6 years at a regional airline to get those hours.
So all told you've got a large initial investment (not sure on the exact amount, a rough guess would be $75k for all the certs) and 10 years of horrible pay to get a $65k/year job. Eventually you make good money, but it takes a while to get there and if your health or eyesight takes a hit along the way it was all for nothing.
About 10 years ago, I was looking to switch careers and wanted to jump to my 2nd love - flying. So, I went and interviewed flight schools. I was talking to the owner of one school and the topic of military pilots came up.
It was mentioned that in the current model the only military pilot that will be hired by commercial carriers are the cargo pilots - the guy who can fly heavy. Helicopter pilots make an easy transition but that is not a "commercial" job like we normally think but it is well paying and almost impossible to get into. Fighter pilots are a different breed and do not transition well into commercial piloting.
But, to answer your real question - YES! Absolutely you can. It is hard work. You can go different routes. Ignoring the military option, you can go directly to your commercial license or go to a university that has a flight school. The benefit of the university option is that you have a real degree that goes along with your commercial certification. Both options cost a ton of money. Planes are expensive. Fuel is expensive. There are loans.
Going direct for your cert can also take different routes. You don't have to go to a big-name school. There are a lot of schools that offer a fast track. You'll get your private in 6 weeks the commercial some months after that and the entire time you're building the hours you need. Some will help find you a job after. If you have the option of living at home, you can get a commercial license yourself. Find a local flight school and just go at your own pace. Get your private license first and see how you like it.
For me, I had to stop midway through my private license. I loved it but becoming a commercial pilot is a choice for the young. The union/seniority/salary structure of the airlines doesn't lend itself to older guys switching over. I had a family to take care of the the benefits and money wouldn't really kick in until 5-8 years down the road. Plus, my wife was freaking out big time about me plummeting to my death.
I have nothing against service in the armed forces, but I doubt it would be more lucrative. You may sign up to be a pilot and wind up doing something completely different (if you don't make it through the training). Also, if consider time on base as time on the job, it may equate to less than minimum wage overall. At least, that's the way it is with mandatory service in Israel. Not sure how it works in the US though.
It can be quite a bit different in Europe. In the US, you get to be an airline pilot either via a) military or b) years of hard graft and low-pay regional carriers.
They need pilots, and even help fund a guaranteed loan for applicants that don't have the direct cash for the training fees. And from what I understand the salaries aren't that bad once you're flying for them.
Junior pilot salaries are not the problem. Senior pilot salaries are.
Basically unions are running a ponzi scheme, where they get juniors to buy in to this crazy scheme under promise that they will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars salary ten or twenty years down the road.
I think that at this time the relationship between senior and junior pilots is pretty representative of how boomers are shafting the younger generations.
> Junior pilot salaries are not the problem. Senior pilot salaries are.
Are they though? Senior pilots fly much larger aircraft on much longer routes. The $21k pilot mentioned in the article is flying a 50-seat commuter on low-profit routes. A senior pilot for an international airline (the type that do make $200k) is flying a wide body that seats 350-500 people and flies over oceans. They're making 10x, but also flying equipment that costs 10x, carrying 10x the people and making the airline a lot more money.
Also, senior pilots by definition have a limited amount of time left in their career (thanks to mandatory retirement age), the big paychecks don't last too many years.
$21k works out to $10 per hour assuming the pilot works 2100 hours a year. Right now I am hiring commercial pilots at $25 per hour though not for 8 hours a day, like commuter pilots.
An A380 burns 4000 gallons of jet fuel per hour which converts to roughly $24000 per hour. Even if you paid the pilots $100 each and had four of them, (main plus relief), the pilots represent a tiny sliver of the op cost.
The smallest commuter planes cost about $2k per hour total. so paying $20 out of that for the two pilots is a ripoff. I would gladly pay 1% more on my ticket and have all of that go to the better quality pilots and crew.
Airlines should be required to show what portion of their revenue goes where.
The equipment is better for making the airline money, but doesn't sound especially more difficult to operate, certainly not 10x as difficult. Does working on a product that produces 10x the revenue justify paying ten times as much?
Union seniority rules (where pay increases with time of employment, and the cushiest jobs go to the most "senior") are one of the worse parts of unions IMHO, and discredit what should be a positive force for more reasonable, equitable workplaces.
> Also, senior pilots by definition have a limited amount of time left in their career (thanks to mandatory retirement age), the big paychecks don't last too many years.
I'm guessing large pensions for retired senior pilots are also part of the problem.
> Union seniority rules (where pay increases with time of employment, and the cushiest jobs go to the most "senior") are one of the worse parts of unions IMHO, and discredit what should be a positive force for more reasonable, equitable workplaces.
Opposed to non-union workplaces where the inexperienced workers make the most money? Experience always pays more. I understand what you're getting at where it's not fair that a young superstar makes less than an old know-nothing, but in general more years of experience does equal more value.
I'd want the heart surgeon who has 25+ years of experience more than I'd want the kid just off the residency. I'm sure the younger surgeon has the chops, but if the one in a million thing happens during my surgery I want the experienced surgeon. Pilots are very similar.
Indeed, if something goes wrong I want the same level of skill as the guys who landed the plane in the Hudson or saved a 747 after a volcano stopped all 4 engines:
The famous announcement from the latter emergency:
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
There's usually other ways to demonstrate experience than just years on the job, but in union shops that is the primary indicator. At least, that's how I remember it (worked in a union shop for a total of... 8 weeks?) In many jobs, there's not much more experience you need to get the job done, so 'time on job' is really all there is. Flying... certainly more experience should equate to better ability (dealing with weather, etc). Cutting meat in a butcher shop? 10 days or 10 years is going to be pretty much the same.
It's about responsibility. The captain of an airplane is responsible for the lives of everyone aboard, and for the equipment itself. It is a criminal offense to disobey an order given by the captain.
"carrying 10x the people and making the airline a lot more money"
Are they? I remember reading that the Qantas international routes were unprofitable for the company, and I've been on long haul Singapore Airlines flights where everyone had an entire row to themselves. (Of course, some routes are vastly more profitable than others.)
For BA the international and cargo flights subsidize everything else in the company. European flights are losing out to LCCs, rail, and bus. If Qantas is losing money on their international fleet someone is embezzling a shitload of money. Qantas rules Australian airports. Qantas is in half a dozen codeshare agreements (typically an airline is in one, Oneworld, Skyteam, etc.) because they can do whatever they want.
And Qantas was losing $262 Million per year on international, which they've apparently narrowed to a $91 Million annual loss by dropping half of their international routes. For Qantas it was the domestic routes that were subsidizing international:
Obviously it depends on the route (ideally one that has no competition and a lot of passengers), but you definitely have more room for profit when carrying 500 people. I've been on a fair share of empty commuter flights as well, you know they're losing money even just counting fuel costs.
>> buy in to this crazy scheme under promise that they will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars salary ten or twenty years down the road.
FWIW, that's how most careers work: juniors make small money, seniors make much more. Tech is an outlier in that new grads often make a substantial fraction of the terminal salary for the field. (Which makes some sense given the rampant ageism in hiring.)
But if you study now, you are going to have $150k of debt just for your full license and maybe one larger type rating. Any jet time and that number will rise very quickly.
I hear from my US pilot friends, that they also must have a college education too.
Compare that to the UK, where training costs more, but is often paid by the company in exchange for 5 years, the wages are a lot higher.
In the US, my instructor was charging pretty much minimum wage, he needed the hours, he was a very good instructor. In the UK I've had terrible instructors who are still demanding $80 per hour. (And some great retired old timers who do it for free, the love of the antique planes!)
The US is very lucky, there is a massive military that pumps out trained pilots, some even with ATP, I think this is one of the reasons why they have been able to pay so little.
I think this is pretty common for any industry. Experience gains salary. The fact that it is a flying machine doesn't really change that much. It seems that the regionals are serving as a training pool for the larger carriers to draw from. I wouldnt call that a ponzi scheme, but unions can create unnatural salary gaps. Is the problem that people feel they are putting their life in the hands of someone paid 21k? That happens with any form mass transit.
No wonder I don't feel safe flying those airlines. Not only are many of their jets 20+ years old, but I also wouldn't feel safe flying with someone willing to work for 21K in a job that literally has the lives of people in their hands.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Life of a regional airline pilot is hard and not glamourous. We're not talking flying an A380 to Hong Kong for a fun shopping trip over the weekend here. We're talking flying a 50 seater up to 10 trips a day between small towns and a hub, which is so shitty paid that you can't afford an apartment for yourself to sleep in.
To be fair, the same can be said about many degrees these days.
With the £9,000 a year tuition fees, it's easy to rack up £50k in student debt (£9k fees + £5-7k a year in living expenses) to get a three-year UK degree.
See also the yoyos whining about a "skilled-worker shortage" when then actually mean "we can't hire experienced machinists for $10/hr!".