FAA may reduce required flight time for commercial co-pilots.
Looks like they're still talking:
"The Air Force has already discussed with major airlines ways to alleviate the pilot shortage, and more discussions are scheduled for May, according to reports."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...eats-u-434908/
"The Air Force has already discussed with major airlines ways to alleviate the pilot shortage, and more discussions are scheduled for May, according to reports."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...eats-u-434908/
Not enough detail to know just what they're talking about but the first question that pops into my mind is whether the airlines want "part time" pilots.
"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."
Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article
"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."
Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article
Not enough detail to know just what they're talking about but the first question that pops into my mind is whether the airlines want "part time" pilots.
"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."
Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article
"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."
Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article
https://www.classaction.org/blog/uni...porate-culture
I haven't seen any statement regarding what conclusions, if any, were reached in this May 18th meeting between the USAF and airline reps re pilot supply:
"On May 18, senior officers met with representatives from major and regional airlines to discuss ways to help each other keep the flow of new pilots healthy."
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229100-1.html
This hot off the presses. I'll guess this isn't going to solve the issue of USAF pilot attrition. There must've been more to the USAF-airlines meeting than this because the statement doesn't appear to involve any airline input:
"Air Force leadership met with airline industry executives in May to discuss ways to make it easier for pilots to serve as reservist military pilots and work for commercial airlines. Subsequently, the service announced nonfinancial initiatives, such as reducing the number of administrative tasks pilots were required to do."
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-for...tiers-1.472089
"On May 18, senior officers met with representatives from major and regional airlines to discuss ways to help each other keep the flow of new pilots healthy."
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229100-1.html
This hot off the presses. I'll guess this isn't going to solve the issue of USAF pilot attrition. There must've been more to the USAF-airlines meeting than this because the statement doesn't appear to involve any airline input:
"Air Force leadership met with airline industry executives in May to discuss ways to make it easier for pilots to serve as reservist military pilots and work for commercial airlines. Subsequently, the service announced nonfinancial initiatives, such as reducing the number of administrative tasks pilots were required to do."
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-for...tiers-1.472089
The latest statement on the USAF/airline pilot supply issue, appearing yesterday. All the articles I've found on this matter contain statements from the USAF without anything from the airline side of the table. As mentioned in the post above, the USAF brass were meeting with reps of the airlines back on May 18th. Have I missed comments from the airlines involved in these chats with the USAF ?:
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229228-1.html
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229228-1.html
RAND Corp. put out a report apparently related to the USAF/airline meetings on pilot supply but doesn't specifically tie it to the May 18th meeting mentioned in the press. The report is just dated 2016.
The airline reps are not quoted directly but the report says they aren't interested in most of the stuff the USAF thought was a good idea (for the USAF). Heck, I could've told them that !
Short report:
Can the Air Force and Airlines Collaborate for Mutual Benefit? An Exploration of Pilot and Maintenance Workforce Options | RAND
44 pages to explain the above report:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_RR1412.pdf
The airline reps are not quoted directly but the report says they aren't interested in most of the stuff the USAF thought was a good idea (for the USAF). Heck, I could've told them that !
Short report:
Can the Air Force and Airlines Collaborate for Mutual Benefit? An Exploration of Pilot and Maintenance Workforce Options | RAND
44 pages to explain the above report:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_RR1412.pdf
The USAF wishful thinking continues:
"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions."
"To mitigate a very real risk to our national security, we're going to have to modernize our fleet, work with the civilian aviation industry to seek the best way forward on the pilot shortage without decimating our ranks and utilize technology and maintenance practices existing in the airlines to position the force for the future."
"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions. It's imperative that we find a way forward. In the next four years, 1,600 mobility pilots will be eligible to separate from the service."
Air Mobility Sees Rising Demand Despite Budget Uncertainty | Military.com
"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions."
"To mitigate a very real risk to our national security, we're going to have to modernize our fleet, work with the civilian aviation industry to seek the best way forward on the pilot shortage without decimating our ranks and utilize technology and maintenance practices existing in the airlines to position the force for the future."
"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions. It's imperative that we find a way forward. In the next four years, 1,600 mobility pilots will be eligible to separate from the service."
Air Mobility Sees Rising Demand Despite Budget Uncertainty | Military.com
Latest installment in the story. USAF decides that letting their pilots mainly FLY might make them more inclined to stay in vs dashing off to the airlines. More meetings with the airlines set for September...stay tuned !
Air Force Gets Creative to Tackle Pilot Shortage | Military.com
Air Force Gets Creative to Tackle Pilot Shortage | Military.com
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest installment in the story. USAF decides that letting their pilots mainly FLY might make them more inclined to stay in vs dashing off to the airlines. More meetings with the airlines set for September...stay tuned !
Was it not the case, a few decades ago when governments owned both the national airline and the airforce, that there used to be a career path? Training in the airforce was a bit cheaper, agreed, but the airlines had a ready source of airmen. I was thinking about the airforce leaving university. When I went in there was an 8 year contract option; when I came out that had gone up to 16 years due to training costs and perceived return on investment. However, the expected amount of flying years was about the same. I didn't want to fly a desk for 8 years and didn't want to an un-employed at 38 years old with the then airline seniority system in place. So the airforce was binned. The seniority game, a bit like buying a house, is get your foot on the ladder asap. If there had been a career path via military into an airline I'd have made a different choice. By the 80's, with airlines all in private ownership, and idea of career path was a non-starter; and then the large airlines and their own cadet schools. Now the game is MPA pilots with a nice profit for the airlines employing (or not) cadets. Experience is a penalty; witness SFO's trying to find a job from a defunct airline, and some DEC's.
Was it not the case, a few decades ago when governments owned both the national airline and the airforce, that there used to be a career path? Training in the airforce was a bit cheaper, agreed, but the airlines had a ready source of airmen. I was thinking about the airforce leaving university. When I went in there was an 8 year contract option; when I came out that had gone up to 16 years due to training costs and perceived return on investment. However, the expected amount of flying years was about the same. I didn't want to fly a desk for 8 years and didn't want to an un-employed at 38 years old with the then airline seniority system in place. So the airforce was binned. The seniority game, a bit like buying a house, is get your foot on the ladder asap. If there had been a career path via military into an airline I'd have made a different choice. By the 80's, with airlines all in private ownership, and idea of career path was a non-starter; and then the large airlines and their own cadet schools. Now the game is MPA pilots with a nice profit for the airlines employing (or not) cadets. Experience is a penalty; witness SFO's trying to find a job from a defunct airline, and some DEC's.
RAT 5,
If I understand your point, what you describe is not what exists per se in the USA. The government has not "owned" the airlines.
But, the military-to-airline track has existed here in a functional way as long as anyone can remember. With the very large age-out numbers now facing the legacy level, the drain on the military group is accentuated and getting more publicity and attention.
I'm a bit amused to read about the USAF (not seen any comment from the USN or USMC) meeting with airline reps to talk about the USAF's pilot supply issues. The airlines don't give a rat's secondary orifice about the USAF's problems.
And the airlines don't want just some or many of the military's pilots...they want every frikkin' one of 'em and if one airline won't hire them, the next one will. Heck, even the military RW pilots are making inroads at the regional level and being groomed for what will likely be a move to the legacy/LCC level for many of them. My sources tell me these folks do quite well with all that.
It's most likely delusional thinking on the military's part to believe the airlines will entertain some part-time or sharing arrangement (they've already got that to a degree with the guard and reserves) with the airlines. While I've yet to see a definitive statement coming from the airlines themselves on these airline-military chats, the RAND study I posted somewhere on here makes it pretty clear the airlines aren't too keen on the ideas coming from the military.
Letting USAF pilots fly more/"desk" less might help a bit but it's not a magic solution.
I guess we'll have to stay tuned. ;-)
If I understand your point, what you describe is not what exists per se in the USA. The government has not "owned" the airlines.
But, the military-to-airline track has existed here in a functional way as long as anyone can remember. With the very large age-out numbers now facing the legacy level, the drain on the military group is accentuated and getting more publicity and attention.
I'm a bit amused to read about the USAF (not seen any comment from the USN or USMC) meeting with airline reps to talk about the USAF's pilot supply issues. The airlines don't give a rat's secondary orifice about the USAF's problems.
And the airlines don't want just some or many of the military's pilots...they want every frikkin' one of 'em and if one airline won't hire them, the next one will. Heck, even the military RW pilots are making inroads at the regional level and being groomed for what will likely be a move to the legacy/LCC level for many of them. My sources tell me these folks do quite well with all that.
It's most likely delusional thinking on the military's part to believe the airlines will entertain some part-time or sharing arrangement (they've already got that to a degree with the guard and reserves) with the airlines. While I've yet to see a definitive statement coming from the airlines themselves on these airline-military chats, the RAND study I posted somewhere on here makes it pretty clear the airlines aren't too keen on the ideas coming from the military.
Letting USAF pilots fly more/"desk" less might help a bit but it's not a magic solution.
I guess we'll have to stay tuned. ;-)
Latest thoughts from the USAF on stopping the pilot loss:
https://www.aerotime.aero/en/militar...pilot-shortage
https://www.aerotime.aero/en/militar...pilot-shortage
Well, you have to give the USAF credit for hangin' in there. ;
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ntion-problem/
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ntion-problem/
They have a plan !:
"For more than a year, top Air Force leaders have been sounding the alarm about the service’s fighter pilot shortfall, and the service has had trouble convincing pilots to pass up lucrative offers from the commercial airline industry."
Yet:
"To qualify, those pilots or WSOs must either be lieutenant colonels or lieutenant colonel selects with at least 17 years Total Active Federal Military Service, or majors who have been passed over for promotion with at least 14 years of service."
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...nments-longer/
"For more than a year, top Air Force leaders have been sounding the alarm about the service’s fighter pilot shortfall, and the service has had trouble convincing pilots to pass up lucrative offers from the commercial airline industry."
Yet:
"To qualify, those pilots or WSOs must either be lieutenant colonels or lieutenant colonel selects with at least 17 years Total Active Federal Military Service, or majors who have been passed over for promotion with at least 14 years of service."
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...nments-longer/
Bless their hearts...they're really trying but:
uh...oooooooooooooh !
"With 1,600 mobility pilots eligible to separate from the service over the next four years, we need to address this issue and maintain the right number of Airmen in our Air Force cockpits."
What a novel concept ! Letting pilots fly ? Still won't stop the drain:
"We are pursuing an Aviator Track. I'm advocating for an aviator track, where the overwhelming majority of time spent is flying."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-shortage.html
uh...oooooooooooooh !
"With 1,600 mobility pilots eligible to separate from the service over the next four years, we need to address this issue and maintain the right number of Airmen in our Air Force cockpits."
What a novel concept ! Letting pilots fly ? Still won't stop the drain:
"We are pursuing an Aviator Track. I'm advocating for an aviator track, where the overwhelming majority of time spent is flying."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-shortage.html
Direct entry ANG or AF reserve pilots. They finish flight school and join their units with around 230 hours of flight time.
I recently chatted with the DO of a smallish Part 121 freight outfit (which must remain nameless). He'd just hired a one-tour regular USAF C17 pilot who, after ~12 years of active duty, separated with a total of 756 hours; the guy got a r-ATP via the training at the airline. Not sure how common that total flight time is for one-tour pilots.
Not to worry though...DL has their own in-house ATP-CTP program. Poised to hire the 750 hour USAF pilot. To my knowledge, they haven't done it yet but an outfit like DL doesn't spend time & money on something like that unless it's to their own benefit. The program at $5K/student doesn't offer enough money for DL to bother with otherwise.
Interesting times...
Not to worry though...DL has their own in-house ATP-CTP program. Poised to hire the 750 hour USAF pilot. To my knowledge, they haven't done it yet but an outfit like DL doesn't spend time & money on something like that unless it's to their own benefit. The program at $5K/student doesn't offer enough money for DL to bother with otherwise.
Interesting times...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask the simple question:
If in 80's (Britannia, Monarch, BA, B.Cal, Air 2000, etc.) 5000hrs/7 years was considered the norm for command threshold (4000 in exceptional circumstances if you had that total all with in the company) what has changed in our industry that by 2000 the threshold had dropped to 3000hrs? That is not a gentle readjustment, but a huge reduction and might be achieved within only 3.5 years. Add to that an F/O with less than 1 years aviation experience. In 80's a 5000hr new captain had a 2000hr+ F/O next door because the recruitment criteria was higher. Cadets were the rarity. It's not just a massive reduction in command upgrade experience, it is a large reduction in total flight deck experience.
If in 80's (Britannia, Monarch, BA, B.Cal, Air 2000, etc.) 5000hrs/7 years was considered the norm for command threshold (4000 in exceptional circumstances if you had that total all with in the company) what has changed in our industry that by 2000 the threshold had dropped to 3000hrs? That is not a gentle readjustment, but a huge reduction and might be achieved within only 3.5 years. Add to that an F/O with less than 1 years aviation experience. In 80's a 5000hr new captain had a 2000hr+ F/O next door because the recruitment criteria was higher. Cadets were the rarity. It's not just a massive reduction in command upgrade experience, it is a large reduction in total flight deck experience.
The other thing that changed is growth. Before EU deregulation in 1992, promotion in european legacy airlines was essentially "old man's shoes" and relatively slow. Large growth in LCC since then created a demand for many more crews, so faster promotions.