Posted elsewhere but I'll post it again...
To the LCC MUST = LOW PAY crowd...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am genuinely intrigued. How is it that some pilots can be cautious with weather forecasts, meticulous with the facts of an MEL and its application, sticklers for SOPs & procedures and yet buy management spin as if it's gospel every time?
In efforts to contain or lower costs an airline can:
- shorten the seat pitch to fit more passengers in,
- minimise the services offered (lounges, bag transfers, meals etc),
- make passengers pay for what they actually use,
- employ staff numbers commensurate with the reduced services it offers, and
- always keep pounding the line that it'll all be unviable if it pays pilots more.
What an airline can't escape is:
- fees charges associated with flying and infrastructure,
- fuel costs,
- maintenance costs(one hopes anyway!), and
- the need for pilots (among some other indispensible skill-sets).
How is it then, that;
- J*'s AJ, SW et al command world-leading packages for their job-descriptions and company size but their pilots accept the low-water-mark as 'necessary' for company viability?
- despite doing the same job as any others in RPT (ie on the pointy side of the flight-deck door) LCC pilots in Oz seem to accept the low-water-mark as 'necessary' for company viability?
- many pilots seem unable to seperate seat pitch, services and pay-for-extras in LCCs from the pivotal and unchanging obligations of the pilots (& engineers for that matter) whether LCC or 'full-service'.
I live in hope that improved situational awareness of pilot shortages, and the fact that NO airline can make money without pilots, will help the "we can't afford to be paid more or life won't be worth living" crowd wake up and more astutely value their services.
All the best to the sensible J* pilots who don't believe the offer.