United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said 100 planes are grounded because of a pilot shortage.
Kirby said in a Senate hearing that United can't fly to all the small communities it wants to due to the shortage.
Kirby and other airline executives said they're working on training more pilots.
United Airlines CEO, Scott Kirby, told legislators on Wednesday that 100 of its planes are grounded due to a shortage of pilots.

"There has been a looming pilot shortage for the last decade in the United States, and going through COVID it became an actual pilot shortage," Kirby said during a Senate hearing with other airline executives.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/u ... d=msedgntp

Let's be clear about this....
There is not a pilot shortage.
There is, however, a shortage of pilots willing to fly regionals for what United wants to pay them, when so many other opportunities are available. It is not 2008, anymore.

But he just stated he's going to start a new pipeline of pilots flying his electrical 19 seaters! Seriously - he did.

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

stl07 wrote:

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

Skywest won't even fly the CRJ-550's that they OWN for what United wants to pay for them....

Add to that we saw OO/Skywest just drop a bunch of non-EAS, pro-rate / at-risk markets on the DL side that they have flown for decades like SLC-GJT, COD because they claim to not have enough pilots to cover the CPA flying.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

But he just stated he's going to start a new pipeline of pilots flying his electrical 19 seaters! Seriously - he did.

Presumably, their career progression will be onto the Boom Overtures?

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Let's be clear about this....
There is not a pilot shortage.
There is, however, a shortage of pilots willing to fly regionals for what United wants to pay them, when so many other opportunities are available. It is not 2008, anymore.

Bingo. He should go talk to his yield management team about how supply and demand works, and then apply that to regionals and crew pay. The airlines are reaping what they've sown for the last decade and change....

FlyingElvii wrote:

Let's be clear about this....
There is not a pilot shortage.

I disagree. Sure, they’d be slightly better off if wages were better at regionals pre-Covid. But early retirements, recent mainline hiring, the 1500 rule, and a pandemic pause in folks starting a pilot career have created a situation where I think all the regionals could offer a million dollars and there still wouldn’t be enough qualified applicants in the short-term to meet historic CPA block hour levels. It’s going to take money and time to get the pipeline flowing again.

LH707330 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Let's be clear about this....
There is not a pilot shortage.
There is, however, a shortage of pilots willing to fly regionals for what United wants to pay them, when so many other opportunities are available. It is not 2008, anymore.

Bingo. He should go talk to his yield management team about how supply and demand works, and then apply that to regionals and crew pay. The airlines are reaping what they've sown for the last decade and change....

What about his argument is against "how supply and demand works"? There is not enough supply relative to demand in order to pull wages down enough to make regional jets economical. That is his argument in a nutshell and it makes perfect sense. If you are a pilot this isn't a problem at all. If you are an airline that relied on cheap labor to make up for the poor economics of regional jets.. well.. that isn't going to fly anymore.

This isn't really a bad thing for anyone unless you live in a small town without enough demand to make a 70+ seater work. Congressional representatives for such small towns are the ones upset here. We'll probably see an increase in EAS flying in the next decade to make up for some of this.

stl07 wrote:

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

SkyWest has not pulled out or dropped any EAS City on the United side of their own doing.

The cities United dropped were not EAS except for two, Pierre and Watertown. SkyWest LOST the Contract and had to pull out.

SkyWest was fighting to keep flying to Pierre and Watertown.

There is a reason that the cities UA dropped were not EAS, while SkyWest is keeping service to the EAS cities that they currently hold a contract for..it's making them money.

SkyWest is also dropping COD on the Delta side, COD is an EAS City for United, but it is at risk for Delta.

Unsure what the UIN situation has to do with pilot shortage, it happened as you said..UIN voted SkyWest, did not like the results, and went back to Cape Air and so far sounds like Cape Air is successful! SkyWest didn't drop UIN because of their own doing or Pilot Shortage, they lost the Contract.

Alex

If this was a looming shortage for the last decade, what steps have the US3 made in the last decade?.

FlyingElvii wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

Skywest won't even fly the CRJ-550's that they OWN for what United wants to pay for them....

SkyWest owns 550’s? In any case there is always a lower bidder out there somewhere and Skywest and contractor may find themselves replaced. It’s happened many times before with ComaAir, ACA etc. skywest most likely can’t get pilots to join their airline with all the other carriers having pipelines to a major going to skywest is a dead end unless you want to live in the hopes of contract renewal with the major and get the leftovers from the main table.

ExpressJet still has over 800 pilots on furlough ready to fly to small communities for UAX. All we need are the E175LL's back or the E145s back to operate. Sad to hear CommutAir and SkyWest are unable to meet the expectations United set.

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

It is wages AND quality of life. There are a lot more options now than there were in even 2012.

Kid I know recently got his hours, and took a job flying FO for a locally-based Citation XLS for slightly more than he was offered flying a 145, even with "flow" in 8-10 years.
Plus, he isn't commuting to New York 2 days a week to fly four, with a wife and young child at home. And this is far from the only story like this from pilots I know.

mcdu wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

Skywest won't even fly the CRJ-550's that they OWN for what United wants to pay for them....

SkyWest owns 550’s? In any case there is always a lower bidder out there somewhere and Skywest and contractor may find themselves replaced. It’s happened many times before with ComaAir, ACA etc. skywest most likely can’t get pilots to join their airline with all the other carriers having pipelines to a major going to skywest is a dead end unless you want to live in the hopes of contract renewal with the major and get the leftovers from the main table.

United approached OO to convert some of its owned CR7s to CR5s at rates comparable to what G7 agreed to. SkyWest declined, partly because AA has been contracting for more 65-seat CR7s. Many of the OO CR7s that came off the United contract in favor of E75 (including 70-seat LLs) are now flying in AA colors.

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

Go back to the way United was in the 737-200 days and start flying 5 and 6 leg 737-700 and 800 flights like Southwest does and route one leg of the route through a hub.

During NCAA football season when United was deadheading jets to hubs as extra flights in addition to the normal 50 seaters that normally flew the route they were putting 80-90 passengers on these 737-800 and 737-900 reposition flights. This proves that they could operate Tag on flights to hubs in these normally RJ cities. They even operated a 737-900 into SBN from ORD with 80+ passengers on board on a Sunday to repositio for a full flight to LAX after the USC game and a few hours later flew an additional 737-800 into SBN from ORD with another 80+ load to take the straggler USC fans back to ORD for connections and that flight went out full.

Thanksgiving weekend and the Standford game was no different but of course it is a busy time and the normal United RJ passengers travelling into SBN from Chicago welcomed the 737-900 in place of an RJ. On the Sunday after Thanksgiving it flew back to SBN from SFO with a full load and flew to Chicago with 158 passengers including a full First Class Section.

I'm sure these examples happened in every NCAA City that United flew these 737 Fan flights to.

The only reason I can see for United to continue with these 50-seaters at cities like SBN and FWA is the closeness to ORD and the OO maintenance bases at each citiy. Otherwise both cities can support a mix of Mainline (Tag Flights) and RJ's to ORD and some of these jets could be freed up for other cities.

mcdu wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So let me get this straight, UA /OO bid on a bunch of EAS flights and caused well run airlines like Cape and air choice one to loose out on all their cities they had served for years, and now UA/OO can't fly them. Already we saw UIN transition back to turboprops on Cape Air from UA/OO after community backlash, I wonder what more is to come

Skywest won't even fly the CRJ-550's that they OWN for what United wants to pay for them....

SkyWest owns 550’s?

Most of the G7 550s are leased from OO.

oosnowrat wrote:

mcdu wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Skywest won't even fly the CRJ-550's that they OWN for what United wants to pay for them....

SkyWest owns 550’s?

Most of the G7 550s are leased from OO.

Though most of the frames leased from SkyWest (their leasing arm) never actually flew for OO... most were flown by G7 dating to the legacy United days, plus some Comair and ASA/XJT scraps.

So how will he make 19 seaters work if paid for 50 seaters aren't? I don't get it.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

So how will he make 19 seaters work if paid for 50 seaters aren't? I don't get it.

flown under FAR 135 rules, thus much less pilot time required vs. FAR 121 rules.
less pilot time required = entry level job = entry level wages

There is no way 100 jets are parked. Considering the 76-seaters are maxed out on scope, these would all have to be 50-seaters. They don't count as "grounded" when you kill off an entire regional (ExpressJet).

Is it me or is Kirby trying to convince the elected officials to relax federal laws so that one pilot cockpits become a thing of the future and thus more planes can fly instead of being parked?

KCaviator wrote:

There is no way 100 jets are parked. Considering the 76-seaters are maxed out on scope, these would all have to be 50-seaters. They don't count as "grounded" when you kill off an entire regional (ExpressJet).

I think there probably should be an asterisk next to his comment. It is probably some combination of actual jets parked that have yet to return plus added flying hours they would like to add to their current fleet utilization but they are unable to fly.

He really gets a bad reputation on this site. He is probably a member here. He is probably the most aviation enthusiast CEO the airlines have had since Howard Hughes. He loves airplanes more than most on this website, he unfortunately has the reality of running a balance sheet also. He does a good job of running the airline IMHO.

bennett123 wrote:

If this was a looming shortage for the last decade, what steps have the US3 made in the last decade?.

Upgauging to larger jets. More seats = more pilot hour labor productivity, and that has allowed pilot wages to rise shile still (generally) keeping regional economics favorable.

Relying less on regionals and more on mainline.

Anybody have the fraction of U.S. regional flying that is done by owned regionals vs. contracted flying? I don't believe UA sets the wage rates for SkyWest pilots.

This is largely 50-seat flying that will go away. Congresspersons with podunk airports in their districts will not be pleased.

Generally speaking, the smaller the airliner, the more it costs to operate per seat. For years - decades really - the majors whipsawed one regional airline against another with low wages as part of the result.

To incentivize more pilots, they'll need to pay them more. But will the customer, who's conditioned to lower fares, be willing to pay more in order to have that service?

From my perspective, a big part of this problem is of the major carriers own making. Competition for the passenger, via lower fares than Brand X or Y, is part of it, too.

Been seeing a shortage in several airline departments up here in Canada too, not just pilots but also mechanics, rampies, etc. too. From my experience probably 3 out of 4 times it is not a shortage of people willing to work, but instead a shortage of people willing to work the schedule proposed for the wage offered. Sounds like this might be another example of the people in the offices failing to mention that key difference?

United wants government support to dig out of the hole United has dug. Maybe it would have been better to use some of the pre COVID record profits to support new pilots instead of stock buybacks.

I hope the senators tell him to pound sand.

There's plenty of skilled pilots who aren't willing to fly those jobs and plenty of unskilled pilots who would be willing to fly those jobs but stuck unable to find a job or get their CFI (yet or ever) like myself.

Improve the quality of life or get in contact with pilots early on in their career and help them get their experience. Difference being that level of experience is way more here for the ATP (1500 hours) than in Europe with those cadet programs (ain't it technically 250 or 500 over there?).

Then again, not sure if it's economical to fly to certain cities in the first place. A bus service would be adequate to at least get people into the system quick. Generic idea.

Many regionals, if not most, do not offer a good long term quality of life. We see how United tossed aside ExpressJet and the crews that had served it for years, farming out flying to another small, cheap regional it could rapidly grow to start the cycle over. United’s regionals are among the lowest paid in the industry. They’re reaping exactly what they’ve sewn.

I recently left Endeavor for a low cost carrier - even with the flow to Delta, we’ve had huge attrition because for many people it doesn’t make any sense to bet on something years away from now and continue the regional whipsaw. Just during my time at Endeavor, Delta dumped ExpressJet, GoJet and Compass, and now two of those have ceased to exist. They rearranged SkyWest’s flying, closing the ATL base and pushing 200 pilots out of DTW - and now they’re adding flying back there again.

It’s no surprise people don’t want to stay in the regional hamster wheel… with the mainline carrier constantly telling you how good your operation is doing and someday you’ll be good enough to be a part of them (while flying their customers and brand day and night)

There is no shortage as the original poster stated. This is 100% self inflicted and I wish the Senate would boot him and invite him to keep his thoughts to himself. The solution is simple. Pay a wage that makes pilots want to fly regional jets. If you cannot afford it then shut down that branch of your business. I want a servant and a gardner but I cannot get ones full time for $5k a year. Must mean there is a shortage.

Indy wrote:

There is no shortage as the original poster stated. This is 100% self inflicted and I wish the Senate would boot him and invite him to keep his thoughts to himself. The solution is simple. Pay a wage that makes pilots want to fly regional jets. If you cannot afford it then shut down that branch of your business. I want a servant and a gardner but I cannot get ones full time for $5k a year. Must mean there is a shortage.

You can’t just raise pay and instantly fill classes.

There is a 2-5 year lead time from someone deciding to become a pilot and being eligible to hire at a regional airline. You could raise regional wages to mainline rates and it would not change things *now* or anytime soon.

Pilots with experience are already working for the majors or nestled into a nice corporate gig. Pilots without experience are still island hopping and hauling checks for minimum wage. They are dedicated and they are coming. But they are still only getting a few hours per day and are a year or two away from getting an interview. People who want to become a pilot may not even be interested yet. But even if they were, they are still years away from being eligible.

You can’t change the output of a pipeline without changing the input. That is where Kirby’s argument lies - the input needs to be changed. All carriers even regionals are offering insane, never before see. Hiring bonuses. But they still can’t fill classes. For every 20 class openings only 15 pilots are even eligible for an interview. You could change the starting wage to $250 an hour and still only 15 pilots are eligible.

This is a long term problem. And United is being proactive by having an internal hiring mechanism to get otherwise non-pilots interested and able to feed into the existing pipeline.

This does not come across to me as United and the industry begging for help but providing info on why Middleofnowhere USA, to whom these congressmen are representing, may be out of twice daily
jet service sooner rather than later.

The shortage exists because airlines greatly underpaid for many years. This is completely their problem. Nothing else really matters. Their mess. Their problem. They should get zero support of any kind because of their poor management. I cannot believe this guy got a minute before a single Senator. It is time airline leadership is held accountable.

MIflyer12 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If this was a looming shortage for the last decade, what steps have the US3 made in the last decade?.

Upgauging to larger jets. More seats = more pilot hour labor productivity, and that has allowed pilot wages to rise shile still (generally) keeping regional economics favorable.

Relying less on regionals and more on mainline.

Anybody have the fraction of U.S. regional flying that is done by owned regionals vs. contracted flying? I don't believe UA sets the wage rates for SkyWest pilots.

This is largely 50-seat flying that will go away. Congresspersons with podunk airports in their districts will not be pleased.

Bedford stated a few years back that the regional that can attract, and KEEP, the most pilots wins in the future.

Hence the single fleet, regionalization, Lift Academy, changes to quality of life work rules, etc. But most importantly, those that can afford to pay.
Both Republic and Skywest (Especially Skywest) have developed a pretty solid corps of lifers.

“Flow” at the wholly owneds has become more of a retention tool to keep the flying staffed, a “Carrot on a string” if you will, while reality shows that most have a better chance of being hired sooner off the street, than waiting however many years for a flow that may never come.

FlyingElvii wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If this was a looming shortage for the last decade, what steps have the US3 made in the last decade?.

Upgauging to larger jets. More seats = more pilot hour labor productivity, and that has allowed pilot wages to rise shile still (generally) keeping regional economics favorable.

Relying less on regionals and more on mainline.

Anybody have the fraction of U.S. regional flying that is done by owned regionals vs. contracted flying? I don't believe UA sets the wage rates for SkyWest pilots.

This is largely 50-seat flying that will go away. Congresspersons with podunk airports in their districts will not be pleased.

Bedford stated a few years back that the regional that can attract, and KEEP, the most pilots wins in the future.

Hence the single fleet, regionalization, Lift Academy, changes to quality of life work rules, etc. But most importantly, those that can afford to pay.
Both Republic and Skywest (Especially Skywest) have developed a pretty solid corps of lifers.

“Flow” at the wholly owneds has become more of a retention tool to keep the flying staffed, a “Carrot on a string” if you will, while reality shows that most have a better chance of being hired sooner off the street, than waiting however many years for a flow that may never come.

As ExpressJet and Comair discovered, being a lifer at a regional is never a sure bet. Of course there comes a point in your career when you’ve been there long enough that starting over at the bottom of someone else’s seniority list and pay scale is not worth it, and with practically zero hiring at the legacies for almost a decade a lot of people stayed at the regionals who probably expected to move up in the mid/late 00s, but unfortunately your job is only as secure as the CPA contract expiry date. Both ExpressJet and Comair had senior workforces, who unfortunately found themselves on the street after 20 or more years of service.

Indy wrote:

The shortage exists because airlines greatly underpaid for many years. This is completely their problem. Nothing else really matters. Their mess. Their problem. They should get zero support of any kind because of their poor management. I cannot believe this guy got a minute before a single Senator. It is time airline leadership is held accountable.

The cost of training and building hours is a HUGE deterrent…..

Which is why subsidized programs like Lift for Republic, and Skywest’s Bountiful/FLT Academy were started. Eventually, the US majors are going to have to do this as well.

At the Big-Name University or flight programs, the average kid is going to come out with a debt load equal to a brain surgeon, or even worse. After that, unless they are being funded by The Bank of Daddy, they are going to have to beg for a declining number of CFI jobs somewhere paying $15-20 a flight hour, (NOT actual hours) to build time and experience, while paying the student loan back. All that while begging a local for some expensive multi-engine time to meet the airline hiring requirements.

The cost is not just a function of the school alone, though. Training aircraft become fewer every day. The fact of life is that students bend airplanes while learning, and not enough new ones are being built to replace them. Most of today’s civilian aviation fleet is pushing 50 years old. The ones that are being built, that are suitable, are INSANELY expensive, while the cost of used aircraft has soared due to demand.

In 1976, a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cherokee was priced at twice the average yearly salary in America. Today, they are 8-10 times the yearly average salary. Some schools fly Cirrii (Cirrus, for those not familiar) and they cost TWICE that. The cost of maintenance runs roughly the same pattern, as Mechanics become scarcer, as well. Now add in liability, regulation, Insurance that has skyrocketed, high fuel prices for Avgas that only one company in America now makes, and the bill adds up.

The Venerable and dirt cheap workhorse Cessna 150’s that trained so many in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s are now 45-55 years old, and becoming fewer. The similar replacements of today are regulated under the “Light Sport” category, and most aviation insurance companies won’t cover them in a training environment. Look into the Cessna Skycatcher story at Textron if you want to know how that works.

There is a lot more to it, than just finding kids that want to fly…

I would say Kirby is getting the 100 frames across all the carriers in the US. YX has about 35 parked across the US3, OO has a good number of the UA side and about 7 each on AA and DL, OH has 10-12, YV has 5 CR9s and 4 E175s parked and is cancelling flights every day for crew. Not very hard to get to 100 frames.

The GJT market exit was a big shocker on the DL side for SkyWest. That’s a city served 3x daily and been on the schedule for 37 years.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Indy wrote:

The shortage exists because airlines greatly underpaid for many years. This is completely their problem. Nothing else really matters. Their mess. Their problem. They should get zero support of any kind because of their poor management. I cannot believe this guy got a minute before a single Senator. It is time airline leadership is held accountable.

The cost of training and building hours is a HUGE deterrent…..

Which is why subsidized programs like Lift for Republic, and Skywest’s Bountiful/FLT Academy were started. Eventually, the US majors are going to have to do this as well.

At the Big-Name University or flight programs, the average kid is going to come out with a debt load equal to a brain surgeon, or even worse. After that, unless they are being funded by The Bank of Daddy, they are going to have to beg for a declining number of CFI jobs somewhere paying $15-20 a flight hour, (NOT actual hours) to build time and experience, while paying the student loan back. All that while begging a local for some expensive multi-engine time to meet the airline hiring requirements.

The cost is not just a function of the school alone, though. Training aircraft become fewer every day. The fact of life is that students bend airplanes while learning, and not enough new ones are being built to replace them. Most of today’s civilian aviation fleet is pushing 50 years old. The ones that are being built, that are suitable, are INSANELY expensive, while the cost of used aircraft has soared due to demand.

In 1976, a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cherokee was priced at twice the average yearly salary in America. Today, they are 8-10 times the yearly average salary. Some schools fly Cirrii (Cirrus, for those not familiar) and they cost TWICE that. The cost of maintenance runs roughly the same pattern, as Mechanics become scarcer, as well. Now add in liability, regulation, Insurance that has skyrocketed, high fuel prices for Avgas that only one company in America now makes, and the bill adds up.

The Venerable and dirt cheap workhorse Cessna 150’s that trained so many in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s are now 45-55 years old, and becoming fewer. The similar replacements of today are regulated under the “Light Sport” category, and most aviation insurance companies won’t cover them in a training environment. Look into the Cessna Skycatcher story at Textron if you want to know how that works.

There is a lot more to it, than just finding kids that want to fly…

Informative and relevant post. Also relevant was that last big regional crash, in upstate New York, as I remember. A gal living in Washington state was in the right seat, there were questions about the ability of the guy in the left seat. She had travelled untold hours, or so it seemed to me, to do the flight, and as others have said lousy pay. Fatigue and poorer standards seem to have been involved. Another person and I have considered how training for regionals might be rationalized. I need to pm him and start a thread in 'technical'.

mercure1 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

So how will he make 19 seaters work if paid for 50 seaters aren't? I don't get it.

flown under FAR 135 rules, thus much less pilot time required vs. FAR 121 rules.
less pilot time required = entry level job = entry level wages

I believe no ATP is required for a 19 seater (hence, less flying time required). As pilots are a bit "hungry" to get to the ATP and a better paying pilot job, it should not be competing for the same pilots. It is also a pool of pilots that can be expanded much faster.

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

This is the problem. With ATPs worth something, pilots will go for the jobs that are better for them. It will mean some small markets lose service. I personally think more markets will receive less frequency with small mainline narrowbody aircraft.

Lightsaber

I thought the lower hours only applied to 9 seaters. Can anyone post the FAR wording on that? Also the economics of 19 seaters even if the pilot requirements are less, don't work now in a paid for Beech 1990. Would it in the future with a brand new and expensive airplane?

lightsaber wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

This is the problem. With ATPs worth something, pilots will go for the jobs that are better for them. It will mean some small markets lose service. I personally think more markets will receive less frequency with small mainline narrowbody aircraft.

Lightsaber

The market will clear, if politicians let it. Small-airport passengers will show that they value convenience by paying for it, allowing regionals to pay better wages. Or carriers will recognize that the PRASM isn't there and cut 50-seat flying. (And that 2nd option is my bet.) It won't be quick, and it will be messy for the airports and networks. There is no good alternative: never-ending subsidy isn't good, and pilots with weaker qualifications wouldn't be good.

heretothere wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Let's be clear about this....
There is not a pilot shortage.

I disagree. Sure, they’d be slightly better off if wages were better at regionals pre-Covid. But early retirements, recent mainline hiring, the 1500 rule, and a pandemic pause in folks starting a pilot career have created a situation where I think all the regionals could offer a million dollars and there still wouldn’t be enough qualified applicants in the short-term to meet historic CPA block hour levels. It’s going to take money and time to get the pipeline flowing again.

I made as an aircraft cleaner at US Airways than what regional jet pilots were making.

You lay crap wages you won’t get employees, plus QOL as a regional pilot sucks.

kabble wrote:

ExpressJet still has over 800 pilots on furlough ready to fly to small communities for UAX. All we need are the E175LL's back or the E145s back to operate. Sad to hear CommutAir and SkyWest are unable to meet the expectations United set.

Do you seriously think 800 furloughed pilots who were laid off a few years ago aren’t working as a pilot somewhere else?

People do need to earn money to pay their bills.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I thought the lower hours only applied to 9 seaters. Can anyone post the FAR wording on that? Also the economics of 19 seaters even if the pilot requirements are less, don't work now in a paid for Beech 1990. Would it in the future with a brand new and expensive airplane?

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificat ... eral_info/
I think its Part 135 on-demand and for Part 135 ops I believe you only require a commercial license vs. ATP. IIRC commercial is like 250 flying hrs, someone can correct me on that.

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

It is the reality. But the effects are still tough to take. I have many family members that live in Appalachia... the Virginia Pan Handle surrounded by Kentucky, W-VA, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Historically, they've flow out of Tric-City Airport (Briston-Kingsport-JohnsCity TN), which means a good 1 1/2hr drive door to door. Sometimes, tt was necessary to fly out of Roanoak, which means a good 2 hr drive door to door. However, lately, the last two years, Charlotte NC has been the only real option, and that requires a 2 3/4 hr drive door to door. So, effectively, when I fly my mom from my home in AZ to my siblings home in VA, my siblings must take nearly an entire day off of work to make the round trip to get her... and then repeat the process to drop her back off. So loss of flights is presenting a problem across the USA. It has a real impact on those living in less populated, remote towns and villages.

Always easy to say, kill the 19 pax props... then kill the 50 seat regionals.... it a route can take an E2-190, A221, or 737-7 or A319.... scrap it... We need something done for 50-85 pax ops in the USA. Something has to be done to address the chaning demographics of our society.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

There is a shortage of pilots willing to fly 50-seat regional jets at the wages that make flying a 50-seat regional jet economical to fly.

The answer is to park the 50-seat regional jets which is what everyone is and has been doing. That will inevitably mean that some markets lose service because they can't support a bigger bird. This shouldn't really be news to anyone here.

It is the reality. But the effects are still tough to take. I have many family members that live in Appalachia... the Virginia Pan Handle surrounded by Kentucky, W-VA, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Historically, they've flow out of Tric-City Airport (Briston-Kingsport-JohnsCity TN), which means a good 1 1/2hr drive door to door. Sometimes, tt was necessary to fly out of Roanoak, which means a good 2 hr drive door to door. However, lately, the last two years, Charlotte NC has been the only real option, and that requires a 2 3/4 hr drive door to door. So, effectively, when I fly my mom from my home in AZ to my siblings home in VA, my siblings must take nearly an entire day off of work to make the round trip to get her... and then repeat the process to drop her back off. So loss of flights is presenting a problem across the USA. It has a real impact on those living in less populated, remote towns and villages.

Always easy to say, kill the 19 pax props... then kill the 50 seat regionals.... it a route can take an E2-190, A221, or 737-7 or A319.... scrap it... We need something done for 50-85 pax ops in the USA. Something has to be done to address the chaning demographics of our society.

Routes like TRI can support mainline with fewer frequencies and maybe less options of multiple cities.

mercure1 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I thought the lower hours only applied to 9 seaters. Can anyone post the FAR wording on that? Also the economics of 19 seaters even if the pilot requirements are less, don't work now in a paid for Beech 1990. Would it in the future with a brand new and expensive airplane?

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificat ... eral_info/
I think its Part 135 on-demand and for Part 135 ops I believe you only require a commercial license vs. ATP. IIRC commercial is like 250 flying hrs, someone can correct me on that.

Here is a excerpt from the link -
Aircraft are limited to those type certificated with 9 passenger seats or less,

Am I missing something?

Maybe UA needs to buy a 100 hybrid Techam's

135 Commuter is 9 or fewer passengers, PIC must essentially meet ATP mins and SIC have CP and 250 hours. No turbojets.

Can we get some factual data to backup these bogus claims? Let's see the tail numbers of these "grounded" planes (again, excluding ExpressJet, which they only have themselves to blame).