tom911

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...airlines.html/

Republic flys for AA, US, UA and DL. There's some stats at the bottom of the article covering the type of aircraft they fly for each carrier. No specifics yet about what flights will be cut.

pitz

On one level, its bad that smaller communities are going to be marginalized and lose service because the economics just don't add up to have pilots fly small aircraft.

On the other hand, pilots, often in their 30s, and 40s, making $25k/year flying for regionals isn't exactly acceptable either. And the system where seniority rules everything is flawed in so many ways imaginable.

Airlines have allowed this problem to brew for years, by negotiating 2-tier contracts with unions that have different pay scales for 'regionals' versus 'mainline'. By effectively relying upon the generosity of government in training pilots in the air force. And by using a compensation scheme that doesn't differentiate between more desirable and less desirable assignments.

tom911

Also being discussed on the UA forum now:
Republic Airlines in trouble?

Worcester

How much does it cost to train to become a pilot. In the UK I heard a cost of £80k (around $125k). On a salary of $25k how can you even pay the cost of training?

FN-GM

I got accepted to train, I needed a bond of £65 - £70k. As a young person I couldn't raise that sort of money.

MSPeconomist

Was that to guarantee that you would work for some time for the airline that trained you or paid for your training?

Were you aware of the bond requirement when you applied?

Steve M

Obviously, you can't. And, the $25k salary doesn't kick in until after you complete the training. If you're going to go this route, you more or less have to work other jobs while going through pilot school in order to pay for it. In order to get the necessary number of "hours," many commercial pilots-to-be will become flight instructors for brand-new private pilots so they can get paid to accumulate hours.

This system is not uncommon outside the US: the airline hires pilots-to-be with zero flight experience, and pays for their training in return for a commitment of working for X years for the airline. If you complete the X year requirement, then you got your training for free, in addition to your pay while flying. However, if you don't complete training, or don't fly for the required X years for that carrier, then you have to pay back the money they spent on your training. In some cases, they require a bond to be posted to ensure that they can get their money back.

AFAIK, this system doesn't exist in the US, as there has traditionally been enough pilots coming out of the military or paying their own way through pilot school. As that situation changes, there will be more pressure on US carriers to sponsor pilot training. I'm sure that no carrier wants to be the first one to have to address this by fronting money for student pilots. I'm also not sure that it would be allowable under US employment law to make a student pilot financially liable for the costs of training if he/she chose not to complete training or to work for X years, absent wrongdoing of some sort (such as putting false information on the application).

Sheikh Yerbooty

Most major airlines have, with a few notable exceptions (KL and LH springs to mind), been utterly neglecting the need to train pilots from the ground up. They have traditionally been relying on the prospects of generous packages, once the pilot has been hired. The 100K+ USD it costs to get there, has been the sole responsibility of the budding pilot. However, once hired there'll be another 20-40K bond for the type rating, usually set at between 3 and 5 years.

What this all means, is that a young wannabe airline pilot is looking at an outlay of 100K + an obligation for another 30K and be locked into a job for 4 years. For a job which, in all honesty, is only yours so long as you don't flunk the annual medical or the bi-annual checks. Do either of that, and you're out on your posterior with a massive debt.

It comes as a no surprise to anybody with a couple of functioning brain cells, that sooner or later this was going to end; there simply aren't enough 'trust-fund babies' around who can afford taking such a huge risk.

On top of that comes the fact that terms and conditions for flying jobs have been eroded for years, with ever more hours in an ever more packed schedule and fewer days off being the result. Very, very few pilots these days will have 14 days off a month, when was pretty much the norm for a long-haul pilot as little as 10 years ago. The layovers are also getting shorter, usually 24-hours after a long-haul, and the hotels ain't glitzy downtown palaces anymore; it's Hilton, Marriott or the likes at the airport now.

In short: It's an extremely costly and risky prospect becoming a pilot; the T&C is not commensurate with the risk, neither is the QoL.

And what has been the reaction of the airline industry? Ostrich tactics!