<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on U.S. airlines are running out of pilots ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T04:57:22-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Job Losses = Efficiency and Cheaper Prices]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83829]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[While job losses are painful in the short term, they are essential in the long term for an increasing standard of living.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83829]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Day Dreamer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:09:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pilots]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83507]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[John McGrew is absolutely right.  One other thing I would add is the pilot turnover runs around every 10 years.  With the new regs, fuel prices and the economy, you won't be seeing very many pilots qualified to go to the big leagues.  As it is now, the pilots of small puddle-jumpers are making minimum wage and have other jobs to supplement their income, all in the hopes of getting enough hours built up to fly the big rigs.  With the new regs increasing the hours needed, I think you'll see most pilots giving up their dreams of flying with the big boys, and the only ones with enough hours will be ex-military pilots.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83507]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tinman57]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:14:30 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think you are absolutely right...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83514]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...that it is only a matter of time until automation totally takes over.  I'm not saying that I am comfortable with it; just that it's inevitable.Even with today's capability of automation, the argument for pilots on board remains as it always has been for the last 20+ years; to be a backup for when the automation fails.  But in recent years, we've had a spate of major accidents where pilots flew otherwise flyable airplanes into the ground because they lacked basic stick-and-rudder skills.  Air France 447 and Colgan Air 3407 good examples.  The Colgan Air 3407 crash was the primary impetus for the new 1500 hour and fatigue rules.  (IMHO, the fatigue rule change was long overdue)The question is:  If the purpose of having pilots aboard is to save the day when the automation fails, but poor stick-and-rudder skills preclude them from saving the day, then what is the point of having them there?Conceptually, getting rid of pilots altogether would be very appealing for the airlines.  The two most expensive employees on each flight are eliminated.  The space traditionally occupied by the cockpit becomes available for more seats.  And with no cockpit to storm, it makes taking over a plane less possible for terrorists.Of course, the current generation of air traveler can't and won't conceive of or accept the idea of being a passenger on a &quot;pilotless&quot; plane.  But that will change over time.  Automated military drones are now accepted my many without a second thought.  Soon, we're going to have automated automobiles sharing our highways.  And within 20 years or so, they will no doubt have an accident rate that is far below what conventional cars have.  The next generation beyond us will not question automation the same way we do.  They'll accept it.  And when statistics show that more accidents are due to pilot rather than mechanical error, they'll be comfortable with it.I've been telling my commercial pilot friends for some time now that their profession had better improve the skills problem, otherwise, within a generation there will be no reason for their existence.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83514]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:29:03 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is it a better system?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83512]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Union and the seniority system completely prohibits the lateral move by pilots, and ironically, makes them slaves to both the union and the carrier they currently work for.  If a pilot decides that he/she is unhappy at a particular job, or figures that there is little future at that carrier, their only options are to either stay, or quit and start over again at the bottom at another carrier.  They are literally forced to stay aboard the sinking ship.  After a certain point, it's called the &quot;golden handcuffs&quot;;  It's less risky to stay where they are and take what benefits they are already getting than to start over.Unions never figured out how to deal with deregulation because unions are about monopoly power; over both the industry and the workers they are supposed to be serving the best interests of.  These goals are mutually exclusive.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83512]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:08:19 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[technology]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83505]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Current technology has limited the pilot's responsibilities to entering and validating the route, taxiing to the runway, monitoring the flight path, and being &quot;available&quot; to assist on take off and landing. The majority of new aircraft can handle all these tasks with no human intervention. &quot;I assume that you read this somewhere and have never flown an airplane.  I have flown them all - fighters, trainers, cargo, passenger, domestic, international, land and sea, modern and old.  Informed decisions have to be made on every flight.Pilot error accidents do occur, but it is the principal cause, not the only cause.  Any accident expert will tell you that accidents have no single reason; they are the end of a chain of events.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83505]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mojak66]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:48:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Unions and Seniority]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83459]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's a better system than any alternative.  I've worked (flown) under both.  The subjective (political) system breeds favoritism which has nothing to do with competence.If you think the seniority system is unfair and you're qualified - look for a flying job elsewhere.Unions have never figured out how to deal with de-regulation.   They have done a superb job with technical aspects of aviation, but union leaders, by and large are politicians, not pilots and serve themselves, not their craft.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83459]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mojak66]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:40:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[One major reason that we won't get &quot;self-driving&quot; cars in the near future,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83493]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[is that, if they do prove to be safe and practical for delivering people and goods to destinations, there will be major losses of jobs, and some industries will either be downsized or disappear altogether.If a car can drive itself, then the police and highway patrol personnel will have one less job to perform, and that could mean hundreds of thousand of jobs lost across the nation, and millions more around the world.  Then there is the insurance industry, which, if a self-driven car proves to be safer than a car-with-human-driver, then, the insurance for that vehicle will have to be cut tremendously or cut altogether, which again means that, there will be many thousands of jobs around the country, and millions around the world, that will have been lost in the auto insurance industry.  Also, looking even further into the future, self-driving cars will replace the need to purchase one's own automobile, since, all that needs to be done is to make a request for transportation from point-A to point-B, and a self-driving car will be automatically dispatched to your front door.  Car sales and even car production, would be cut, tremendously, since, there would no longer be a need for people to have their own personal vehicle sitting in their garage ready for deployment when one needs it.  You will just be able to dial for a vehicle ahead of time, and, voila!, you have transportation waiting for you.  It will be like personal limousine service, with no limousine driver.Then, there is the many other millions of jobs lost because the taxi and limousine services around the world wouldn't be needed anymore.  Think of all those middle-eastern folks in NYC who won't be needed anymore to drive people around NY City anymore.   Oh, the humanity!All of those positives would be major negatives to those who would, inevitably, complain about the automation of transportation.   The remaining jobs in the transportation sector will be, those manufacturing the self-driving vehicles, and those that will own and maintain those vehicles.  But, even there, the manufacturers and owners could be one and the same. Even further into the future, when people become more comfortable with &quot;self-piloting&quot; airplanes, there won't we pilots or pilots' unions or concerns about training.  It could be a much better world, but, government will step in to regulate and legislate that kind of future from becoming reality.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83493]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:46:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're too quick to blame republicans, instead of looking at the real]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83501]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[problems, which, as mentioned by McGrew above, stems from regulations which have consequences.  Legislators and government agencies like to pass regulations, without considering the repercussions down the line.  The main objectives, in many cases, are agendas and feel-good ideas which become implemented to satisfy &quot;certain sectors&quot; which lobby for those regulations and legislation.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83501]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:19:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The tough questions are being asked.  Is anyone listening?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83455]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Are pilots bored?  The incentive to fly is no more.http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-computer-vs-the-captain-will-increasing-automation-make-jets-less-safe-a-639298.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83455]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:56:41 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Too early...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83468]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...but I think this will happen in time.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83468]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dmm99]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:44:40 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Very informative]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83473]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thanks for the insider view.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83473]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dmm99]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:42:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Isn't it time?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83463]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You know, none of the new models, regardless of manufacturer, require the presence of a pilot in the cockpit. Now before I get threats and death wishes, and trash, let me explain:Current technology has limited the pilot's responsibilities to entering and validating the route, taxiing to the runway, monitoring the flight path, and being &quot;available&quot; to assist on take off and landing. The majority of new aircraft can handle all these tasks with no human intervention. I admit that there are several incidents where human intervention was required to save the flight. There are also many &quot;pilot error&quot; incidents where it may actually have been better not to have the pilot in charge.I think it's time to follow the air force's lead and ground our pilots: First make them remote to the cockpit. Then, loose the need for pilots on standard routes.Too much hand ringing about something that will happen anyway. Why not be proactive?And that brings me to your family car. Do we really want to continue to license idiots and drunks? Can't we just let the cars drive themselves?  The only thing holding us back is the threat that a computerized car is going to run over someone and some lawyer will have a field day. In both cases, air and ground, a little protection for new technology, or at least limits on awards, would boost the momentum and allow us to reap the rewards.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83463]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dar1p]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:27:02 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83450]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...I'd argue that the unions crushed the airlines.  But it's a bit more complex than all of that.The unions are a large part of the problem.  As they typically do, when the stuff hit the fan, they sold out the future of young pilots to protect the jobs and benefits of the older ones.  So today, a young co-pilot sits next to a senior captain who get a much better deal that the younger pilot will never see.And since everything with unions is about seniority, there is no lateral job mobility.  Everyone fights to maintain the status-quo, because if anything tumbles you get sent to the bottom.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83450]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:02:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[pilots]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83442]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This sounds like a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.  Government regulations and requirements that the politicians claim will improve airline safety and comfort result in poorer performance.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83442]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pauc1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:58:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pilots]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83441]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Mr. McGrew is spot on.  Some co-pilots on regional airlines are paid so little they qualify for food stamps.  The industry has some gaul to bellyache about a lack of pilots.  Supply and demand - duh.  Let's see, crush the union, crush the wages, bellyache about a lack of pilots and cry to the government to help out.  I guess republicans are running the airlines. When they replace the human pilot with a machine - I will get reacquainted with trains.  signed - a 2 million miler on Delta.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83441]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[agfinva]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:55:57 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[This has been coming for quite some time.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83390]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Even before the 1500-hour rule, unless you were trained by the military it was already insanely expensive to train to be a commercial pilot.  And even then, most entry-level commercial pilot openings (usually with charter or regional carriers) barely pay poverty-level wages.  Most pilots chose to do this anyway because it was the primary track to the ultimate goal; working at the majors, which in an earlier era paid 6-figure salaries and offered lavish benefits, job security and pensions.The problem now is that the lavish wages, job security and benefits that pilots could assume would be waiting further up the food chain disappeared over a decade ago.  On the other end, cost of training (largely driven by fuel costs) has more than doubled.  And today there are relatively few pilots coming out of the military to fill the gap.The economic case for becoming a pilot has been rather sketchy for decades now.  Especially with the new rule, it can now cost hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to get adequately trained and build the hours needed to get hired.  It's not unlike becoming a doctor; but except that in all likelihood, your income potential, even 10 years out isn't even 6-figures, and may never be.Ironically, the reasoning for the 1500-hour rule is to increase pilot skill and experience.  The way that most non-military pilots build up flight hours is by becoming flight instructors themselves.  This allows them to log hours while someone else (the student) pays the fuel bill.  And they'll work for practically nothing, since their real goal isn't wages, but building the flight hours.  The cheaper they work, the more hours they can teach, and the faster they can arrive at the next step in their career.The problem here is that the cost of flight instruction is depressed, keeping out most high-time, high-quality professional instructors who can't make a decent living by instruction alone.  (Most older instructors I know have done it as a hobby, and not as a primary source of income)  This means that much of the flight instruction taking place today is done by people who are low-time, lesser-skilled, and who unfortunately have little interest in instructing at all.  They are only there because it's a means to an end.  And as soon as they've got the hours they need to be hired on somewhere, they're gone.  The irony is that the quality of primary flight instruction suffers because of this, and it's lead to the kind of disasters that have prompted implementation of the 1500-hour rule.  Just because now these low-time pilots will have to spend twice the time before getting hired won't necessarily make them, or the next generation, better pilots.Of course, that's assuming there will be a next generation of pilots willing to go to such expense for a career that is so unstable, has become miserable to work for, and pays a fraction of what it did a generation ago.  Much of those 1500 hours will have to be in multi-engine and turbine aircraft that cost hundreds of dollars per hour to operate.  (Think &gt;$6/gallon fuel in an airplane that consumes at least 10-15 gallons per hour per engine)  Unless they're starting out with deep pockets, go into absurd and unjustified levels of student loan debt, or are lucky enough to build time on someone else's dime, it's not likely to happen in the numbers needed by the industry to survive.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12508-83390]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:46:56 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

