Pilot shortage, Fact or Fiction?

In the last few years there has been a lot of media buzz about a “pilot shortage”. This is completely misleading and definitely not exactly true. It may seem like a pilot shortage at first glance but if you dig a little deeper you’ll see that this is simply not the case and fictional.

Yes it’s true that lots or airline pilots are reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 in the recent years past and upcoming years (McCartney, 2009). However there are plenty of pilots to replace them in our pilot population but due to the recent knee jerk reaction regulations after the 2009 Colgan accident many of these pilots are not qualified to get hired by the airlines yet. Instead of 250 hours new prospective airline pilots need 1500 hours to get hired by the regional airlines (Shlangenstien and Sasso 2016). The only case in which they can get hired with fewer hours is if they are trained in a Part 141 aviation flight training program. These programs are growing in number and becoming more common but are also very expensive and time consuming to complete. The reason for this is because they are almost always associated with a university and a bachelor’s degree as well as your flight training and ratings. This is basically like going to two schools at once which as you can imagine is very demanding and expensive. I personally am currently attending one of these part 141 programs and I absolutely love the opportunity it will give me when I graduate. But when I’m done I’ll have over a hundred thousand dollars and four years of my life invested.

The bottom line is that it’s harder to get the qualifications and training to be hired as an airline pilot then it has ever been in the past. This is for many reasons but the main one is the extended amount of time that it takes to log a thousand to 1500 hours and the increased monetary expense of that averaging anywhere from$70,000 on the low end up to over $100,000 (Croft, 2016). Another factor that adds to the false perception of a pilot shortage is the decreased number of military trained pilots due to the reduction in manned aircraft flying done by our military in the recent years. The American military trains less pilots then it did it did fifty years ago and because of this more and more percentages of the pilot population are coming from civilian flight training and flying.  Civilian flight training is payed for out of pocket by the student instead of by the government which makes it much less obtainable and appetizing to most people. On top of increased flight training costs and tuition fees up until very recent years first year first officers at regional airline could make as low as $20,000 a year. How would you like to spend over 4 years of your life and a hundred thousand dollars to then make twenty thousand a year? Up until recently this was the case and this is the reason regional airlines are finally paying more to their pilots. They need to entice the pilot population that already exists to get the training and qualifications needed be an applicant for the airlines.  Also most major airlines require a bachelor’s degree which just makes the road that much longer and more expensive to becoming a professional pilot at the highest level then it has been in the past.

So what does this all mean? To put it simply it means that we have a shortage of qualified pilots in the pilot pool that the airlines hire from, but definitely not a raw pilot shortage. The main thing that caused this shortage of qualified pilots is the new 1500 hour rule imposed on aspiring ATP certificate holders.  I’m not arguing whether or not this is a good regulation or not that’s an entirely different conversation. I’m just trying to show that we don’t necessarily have a pilot shortage as we always hear about in the news. Instead we have a situation where it is essentially harder to become qualified to be legally eligible to be an airline pilot due to the increased amount of time and money needed to obtain an ATP certificate.

References

John Croft, US Carriers face shrinking pool of pilots, retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/us-carriers-face-shrinking-pool-pilots, on 9-30-16

 Mary Shlangenstien and Michael Sasso, Shrinking pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge, retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge, on 9-30-16

McCartney, S. (2009, June 19). Pilot Pay: Want To Know How Much Your Captain Earns? Retrieved  from http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-  your-captain-earns/

My job plans at the beginning of the course are pretty much the same as they are now. I have learned a lot about the job field out there in aviation as a pilot but nothing that has changed my future plans. My plans are still to get to 1000 hours as soon as possible so that I can apply to Endeavor. I really want to be an airline pilot as soon as I can with a Detroit base. The regional airlines are paying more then ever to incoming pilots and I really want to be on that train.

My action plan upon graduation is to build my hours as fast as possible so I can reach 1000 to get my restricted ATP. My plan is to get these hours by flight instructing at EMU as well as possibly flying for Air America towing banners or Sky Dive Tecumseh dropping skydivers. I have connections to both places but am not sure if I will want to to both or even one yet if I am still working toward my CFII and MEI. I'll have to wait and see what the future holds but right now I'm leaning towards getting those two additional certificates to boost my resume even if it means i may not build hours quite as fast.

The most useful topic that we discussed in class was the current job market and I know that it's not really a specific topic but this was the best information for me personally and here's why. I really enjoyed listening to all of the guest speakers this was very influential for me. Coming into class I hadn't had the opportunity to talk to people already in the industry and now I feel  have a good handle on the current job market. I really appreciate you going above and beyond your normal role as a professor to stay in touch with guest speakers and set up times for them to come speak to your classes. This was by far my favorite and most beneficial part of this class.

It's hard to name a topic that was least useful because I honestly thought that they were all very valid and up to date topics for the aviation industry. However I think the Chinese are a long way from competing with Boeing and Airbus so this was possibly he least useful topic for me personally as a perspective airline pilot.

When I achieve my goal of becoming an airline pilot I will definitely become a member of ALPA which is the Air Line Pilots Association. I'm already a member of the AOPA and EAA and I plan on staying with them as time goes on however I believe that the AOPA is a little more valuable. I have this opinion because as we discussed in class for $70 a year if you ever have an aircraft accident or incident they will provide a lawyer for you. The EAA or Experimental Aircraft Association is also very beneficial in that it provides many ways to give back to the aviation world through donation volunteer flights but for the purposes of this blog I'll be talking about the AOPA and ALPA.

The main purpose of the AOPA as stated in their website is to promote general  aviation and " to make it possible for everyone that wants to take to the skies a reality". The AOPA fights to protect pilots rights and general aviation privileges.  They offer many services ranging from updates on AOPA funded safety seminars to lawyer services. ALPA functions as the biggest airline pilot union in the world and claims they represent and advocate for over 54000 pilots at 31 different airlines on their website. Their main goal is to ensure and promote airline safety. ALPA basically fights for the protection of airline pilots much like the AOPA fights for the protection of general aviation pilots. The AOPA really fights to protect all pilots but specializes and focuses more on general aviation and leaves the airline pilot coverage to ALPA. When I say "fight" I mean that these organizations lobby to shoot down regulations that hinder or take away pilot rights. For example the AOPA has been trying to get the 3rd class medical done away with so that more private pilots will have access to the skies even if their health may be of concern.

 It's important for me to stay involved in these organizations because they indirectly represent me and fight for my safety and rights as a pilot. They provide services that would be very hard to find elsewhere especially for such a low price.                                                                                                
References
http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do
https://www.aopa.org/about                                  

When you compare aviation emissions to other means of human transportation its footprint is significantly less then other means of transportation such as road transportation (ATAG, 2016). One word explains why this is the case and that word is efficiency. Aviation is much more efficient compared to road transportation especially with the newest wide bodied jets such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380. Contrary to public perception large jets are not the biggest polluter into our atmosphere. The public is confused because when you compare a jet to a semi it's obvious the jet has a bigger footprint. However this is only one of the many parts of the equation. To fully understand you need to also look at how many trucks it would take to haul whatever the jet can the same distance. We also have to consider how many jets there are and how many semis there are in operation to fully understand the big picture. According to the Air Transportation Action Group global aviation only accounts for 2% of the worlds C02 emissions and 12% of transportation emissions.

As we discussed in class the United Nations recently came up with a plan to try and reduce carbon emissions from Airliners. The basic plan they have proposed is the idea of limiting companies' pollution by giving everyone in the international airline industry a cap or a maximum amount of carbon they are legally allowed to emit. If a company goes over the legal limit they will have to purchase carbon credits from other companies that have emitted less and have some left over to sell. I think this is a good idea on paper but I honestly do not think it will ever work in reality for many reasons. For starters how will we accurately track how much a certain company emits? Also I have a very hard time believing airlines will pony up the cash to actually buy carbon credits. Just the idea of marketing pollution monetarily doesn't seem like a feasible plan however the intentions are all very good.

President elect Donald Trump has publicly stated that he would try cancel the United States involvement in the Paris agreement if he was elected president (Fox News, 2016). He has stated he thinks that the Paris Agreement is "bad for business". Whether he's right or wrong isn't really what we need to debate. The question is whether or not he'll actually follow through now that he has been elected. There are lots of things President elect Donald Trump has said he will do and chances are he wont follow through with all of them. We'll just have to wait and see what his priorities are but getting us out of the Paris Agreement will be a lot easier said then done and I don't think he will actually do it.

I believe that the new laws and regulations are for a good cause but will not ever actually work the way they're proposed to. We should also be making laws and regulations in the other parts of the transportation industry that are less efficient such as trucking. Maybe we already are but I honestly haven't done the research. The bottom line is that the airlines will always want to burn less fuel so do we really need to implement the carbon credit system?

References
Fox News, Bill O'reilly, November 2016
Facts and Figures, Air Transportation Action Group (ATAG). (May 2016) Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts and figures.html
  

Open skies agreements are simply agreements between two countries allowing each others air carriers to conduct international flights into the country without the significant government hassle and time consuming procedures they would have to go through normally without the agreement (State 2016). These carriers can be airlines or cargo companies. In class we talked about two middle eastern countries specifically that have long haul government subsidized airlines conducting international flights into the U.S. These countries are the  United Arab Emirates and Qatar; both of which have open skies agreements with the U.S.

The bottom line is that American carriers argue the UAE airlines are unfairly advantaged because they are government subsidized. They argue that our airlines receive no government funding and any foreign airline that does is not on an even and level playing field therefore making the open skies agreement unfair to companies such as Delta and American Airlines. The counter argument coming from the UAE and Qatar is that U.S. carriers such as Delta are in fact government subsidized because they have received bailout money from the government as early as 2002. What the argument is boiling down to is the definition of "government subsidizing" as it relates to airlines in specific countries. Its very simple: the big three in the U.S. say UAE and Qatar are unfairly advantaged due to their respective government funding and UAE and Qatar say the big three arent one to talk because they have received government funding also even if it has been through an indirect government bailout plan.

Another complaint of the big three U.S. airlines is that foreign carriers have yet another unfair advantage in that they can purchase American manufactured jets such as Boeing aircraft for reduced overall prices due to reduced interest rates. Foreign companies have the ability to do this because of the Export Import Bank.  Some domestic airlines with international flights such as Delta argue that if they can purchase planes for less they can lower ticket prices and be more "unfairly" competitive. Basically the  Export-Import Bank tries to make it easier for foreign companies to buy U.S. manufactured products in order to keep American company manufacturing jobs on our soil and help sustain our economy. In the example we're discussing the Export-Import Bank makes it easier for UAE airlines to buy Boeing Aircraft made on U.S. soil by giving loans with lower interest rates than airlines such as Delta could ever get.

I personally feel that the global playing field of long haul air carriers is very unfair. I also feel that absolutely everything else in life is unfair. The reality is that there will always be unfair advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. We can do our best to make it more "fair" but it will never be perfectly fair. I think the most unfair part of this topic is the Export-Import bank issue, but Boeing will tell you that this helps them sell a lot of jets which creates American job opportunities and helps sustain our economy (Crawford 2016). There are opportunity costs for every decision. However if I was Delta I'd be very upset that an American company like Boeing right next door sells their jets cheaper to foreign countries then they will to me. It's not that simple but with the Export-Import bank as the middle man that's basically what happens.  The whole situation is obviously unfair for competition among long haul air carriers foreign and domestic but I wouldn't say it's such a bad thing. I would just say it's more of the normal way that business in general works throughout the world.

References

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-losing-export-import-bank-means-loss-of-jobs/, Jan Crawford, 11-26-15, retrieved on 11-2-16

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/, U.S. Departemtn of State, Open Skies Agreemt, retrieved on 11-3-16

I do believe that the C919 will eventually receive FAA certification. I think it's only a matter of time before the COMAC learns how to be approved through the FAA,just like Boeing and Airbus have. It wont happen over night...or even in the next 10 years but it will eventually happen. The Chinese have a lot to learn when it comes to FAA approval in lots of categories such as preventative maintenance and production. However anything can be learned with enough determination and man power; both of which the Chinese government has lots of.

U.S. commercial 121 carriers will have some serious and significant choices to make if the C919 becomes approved by the FAA. Chances are this aircraft will be cheaper then the comparative Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 (Aboulafia, 2010). Carriers will have to decide whether or not to invest in this new cheaper aircraft as opposed to staying with their current providers such as Boeing and Airbus. Public perception is also something to consider. Personally I feel it's better to invest in the most American company when it comes to purchasing aircraft even if they're a little more expensive. Many people simply don't care or completely disagree and believe as a business the more affordable aircraft is more beneficial. When I look at pictures of the C919 it's very similar looking to the comparative competition. This means the average person wont even notice the difference even if they were flying on one. We're all more receptive to these subtle changes because we're going to school to get an aviation related job and most of us are pilots. We can name types of planes and notice the little things. The American public will not because less then 1% are like us. They won't care what kind of plane they're flying in if it's got a familiar logo on the tail and cheaper price on the ticket. As soon as one major airline starts to buy these planes and lower airfare prices others will be sure to follow. I don't think this will happen for at least 20 or so years but I do believe it is inevitable and unfortunately Boeing and Airbus may have a tough road ahead.

 COMAC's relationship with the Chinese government is the same as all the major airlines in China. They are both COMPLETELY owned and controlled by the government.Basically the whole aviation industry in China is under government control and funding.There is also a smaller "business" class jet  being manufactured by COMAC that has already taken flight (Reuters 2015).

If the C919 receives FAA  certification it will have little effect on other companies trying to become competitors to Boeing and Airbus. You need to have unlimited funding and resources to start a company big enough to become competition to the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus in producing commercial airliners that are FAA certified. I think the only entity with unlimited money and resources is the Chinese government and even they are having a very tough time getting FAA certified. I don't see anyone else trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus in the near future.

I haven't seen any public direct responses from Boeing or Airbus about the roll out of the Comac C919. Honestly they have no reason to respond. They are in charge and control the industry and know the FAA like the back of their hand. Boeing and Airbus have a Phd. in airliner production and Comac just started kinder garden. It will be many years before they need to worry about Comac even possibly competing and it may never happen.




References
 "China's Comac rolls out C919 jet, ground tests to start soon" Reuters. 1 November 2015. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

"Airbus Group-media" airbusgroup. Retrieved 7 April 2015.

 Aboulafia, R. Comac C919 Program Briefing. World Military & Civil Aircraft Briefing. 2010.

The idea of space tourism has been an idea ever since we first started venturing into space. Only recently in the last ten years or so has it come into fruition. In the U.S. there are two major companies that are trying to make space tourism happen. Virgin Galactic was formed in 2004 and has always had the goal of putting civilians into space (Virgin Galactic 2016). Space X is based in southern California and has made huge progress in the engineering of unmanned reusable rockets that can land themselves on barges in the ocean (Space X 2016). Civilian space flight seems like a great idea but it comes with unlimited hurdles and logistical problems. The biggest issues to overcome are cost and safety. To this day only a handful of "civilians" have actually been able to pay to go to space and it cost them each over 20 million dollars. With a cost like this less then half a percent of our population can afford to go. Lives have been lost in experimental civilian spacecraft crashes and there will be more to come. As we try to find ways to get into space "cheaper" and more affordable it's inevitable that  safety will decrease in priority at some point.

Currently the FAA is not allowed to regulate standards for commercial spacecraft as they do for commercial aircraft such as airliners. I think that this is not only a good thing but is absolutely essential for commercial space travel to get off its feet. Civilian space travel would literally never get off the ground if the space travel industry was regulated as heavily as the airline world. On another note I really don't think that the FAA has enough knowledge or the correct personal to regulate an industry that isn't even transporting customers regularly yet. How can you regulate an industry that has never even been around before? It would be like having an FAA around when the Wright Brothers were developing their first aircraft. It's simply hard to regulate something that has never been before.

I honestly don't foresee space tourism headed anywhere fast. It's still too expensive for enough civilians to show a big enough interest in order to make it a financially stable business. There will always be lots of money to be made launching satellites for companies. In fact this is how Space X funds their research (Space X 2016). But money in human space flight for pleasure will be harder to come by. Technology and money are the limiting factors. There are a lot of people interested, however because space tourism is more of a bucket list adventure instead of a return customer business I don't think it will survive. I compare it to the skydiving industry where about eighty percent of an average drop zone's revenue is "one and done" tandem customers (Blue Skies 2014) The only way I think commercial space tourism will thrive is with return customers but they need to offer different kinds of adventures for that to happen. Maybe trips to the moon or even other planets could eventually be other trips offered. I would love to see this a reality but unfortunately I don't realistically see this happening in any of our life times. We simply don't have the technology to make these kinds of ventures economically feasible for civilians.

If I were to work at a company that is trying to get civilian space flight a reality like Virgin Galactic or Space X I would want to be a pilot. In order to be a civilian space flight test pilot you need to know someone already well affiliated with and inside such a company. Chances are you're not going to get hired off the street as the average healthy commercial pilot. Military jet experience helps as well as any bachelors degree in a technical field such as engineering or mathematics. Obviously if you're an ex shuttle pilot that has been laid off from NASA your application may be moved to the top of the list. The more education you have the better but the quality of your flight hours is just as important. Test pilot experience as well as thousands of hours of PIC jet time are highly desirable.



References
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
Blue Skies Magazine
http://www.spacex.com/about