These kinds of distinctions between what job descriptions are "professional", "vocational" or "labor" are always capable of stirring up a lively debate. The problem lies within the question of what attributes should be used to determine which jobs to place in which category. Here are a few possibilities:
First, what I believe to be the more objective distinctions.
1) Level of training and/or education strictly required to fill this position to the expected standard of performance. Includes required certifications. May or may not be indicative of the level of mental acuity required. Today"s schools are very effective at training students to pass tests.
2) Level of experience or record of demonstrated ability required to perform this job function. More difficult to define since it varies widely among individuals and job functions. But is often an indicator of one's position along the progression from enty-level trainee to professional or journeyman practitioner. Usually involves the long-term development of job-specific skills and knowledge.
3) Level of responsibility, or more to the point, the possible consequences of failure to live up to it. Is this a position in which the individual will be called upon to make important decisions? Is leadership a part of the job description? Supervision or management of human and capital resources will require additional skills beyond those required at the entry level.
Any number of factors might affect the public perception of a job or career field's position in the social hierarchy. Among them:
1) How much does it pay?
2) How much responsibility does it entail?
3) How smart or skilled do they have to be?
4) Do they dress well, speak well and appear "professional" in manner? Don't laugh too hard at this one until you bring this up in social conversation a few times!
5) Finally, and most importantly, Do they have a proffessional organization which has consistently and effectively represented their interests to the public in a positive light? Effective
PR services cannot be understated in their long-term effects on the public perception.
So is the job/career of pilot blue collar or white collar? The answer is.... YES! Even though mine is often tinged with brown after a summer day's flying!
Using the above stated possibilities for classification, it is either or both. Getting the job should depend mostly on the upper set of criteria while your place in the social hierarchy as perceived by the general public depends largely on the lower. Pay and working rules are subject to the complex market forces of supply/demand and the balance of power between opposing management/labor forces. These competing forces also affect the nature of government regulation to a great degree. As does the public or political outcry after big crashes.
Being a career pilot is clearly (to me anyway) a profession that also requires many "blue collar" attributes while demanding a "white collar" sense of responsibility and accountability. Come to think of it, so did my old job of Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. Skilled tradesman with professional responsibilities. The distinctions between the responsibility of these jobs is much smaller than most people realize. The military concept of command seems to be the biggest difference in how they are viewed. Pilots as Officers and all others except management seen as enlisted personnel. Class distinction. Well, we pilots seem to be slipping down the social ladder these days, so don't get too comfortable! Or too proud to put on that blue shirt.
Best regards,
Westhawk