Oicur 12,
You've flown for three airlines in ten years?! (It must be nearly time to dust off that resume again!)
Alright, I'll grant you some of the arguments that you've outlined regarding pay versus accident statisitics, but much has changed in training, weather forecasting, crew pairing and cockpit technologies over the timespan you referred to. One of my last airline roles was as a B-757/767 systems instructor where I taught procedural training and did company oral evaluations. Much changed in the training department alone with the advances made by NASA/AMES/Safety Foundation work and lets not forget the NTSB and ALPA. What we are talking about here was not about dumbing anything down, which was so popular in the '80s rote learning, but concentrating on correlative learning. The course had to be totally revamped but the results were measurably better.
Given that training and cockpit technologies are all better the only other variable is the quality of "the nut behind the wheel". To say that all pilots are created equal in this part is to say that Australian school teachers should only be allowed to hand out only As. The better quality candidates will shine in the pre-evaluation checkrides in the simulator, in their written and verbal skill-based testing and even with their interaction with your human resources staff. They are your A's. Having identified your higher level candidates, what does an employer do to entice the subject from going elsewhere...yep! Pay 'em more.
Anyway, you've got the right to demonstrate higher than average skill levels for below industry standard wages, but I don't see any reason why you should.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 28th Feb 2006 at 11:53.