This reply is long so do ignore if you wish but I am trying to clarify my points and this is an interesting discussion.
wiggy
PAXboy What aspect of the contracts do you think is out of kilter?
1. Being able to afford to commute?
2. Having time to commute?
Time. If I could afford to give up one or two or even three days to commute to work, then I must count those as, basically, work days. True, I might see friends along the way but flying and airports and one night crash pads are not that restful. So, I must be paid a lot of money to offset not having those days to be fully for myself and my family.
We're not talking about people ditching work or leaving work early on a Friday PM in order to be able to commute.
Sure, I did not think that and I have seen countless office workers sloping off early to get home or on a Friday for a long weekend. I appreciate that CC cannot do that and they have to work full hours - that is the nature of the job and is clear at the time of application.
Personally over the years I've commuted both by road from within the UK and by air (shorthaul, Europe). I've only ever been late, once, when driving, due to traffic on the M4, I've always done standby at the airport when required, and I'm often as not up near the CAA legal limits for hours flown/days worked, and I'm not the only one. I certainly know of several pilots who commute to/from Long Haul destinations. They "block" their work together, commute maybe once a month, and work very close to the legal flying hours limit.
In which case, they are being very well paid so that they can afford to give more time to commuting and jolly good luck to them. My point is that - if I were an employer and could see that many of my staff could afford that amount of time to commute, I would think I was paying them too much. If I was being paid that much, I would consider myself very lucky indeed and be looking around to see when it would come to an end.
Being self-employed, if I am asked to work 100 miles away, I have to ask more money to do the job. If they will not pay that, I have to decide if I am going to work for less money or not take the work. If I was taking a permanent job 100 miles away, exactly the same decision has to be made.
L337
You are mixing financial reward with lifestyle choices.
I don't think so as they are inextricably linked. My financial reward defines many of my lifestyle choices. If I earn enough money to commute to an office 250 miles away (irrespective of the method) then I am sacrificing some money to gain lifestyle at home and enduring a reduced quality of life during the commute, to offset the increased quality of time at home with family (or whatever the case may be).
Long distance commuting is almost always about family, and secondly lifestyle. Finance is at the bottom. For these people if you halved the salary, they would still do the commute.
Some would, some would not. For some, halving the money would then swing the balance too far and they would move closer to work, or find work closer to home. Whilst there are some that can receive more money and not change their lifestyle, mostly, people more or less money does change people. Cutting someone's income by 50%
would affect their lifestyle and their choice of where to work.
To quote another source, in the USA this time where it is a far greater problem.
[snip]
These people commute because they are so poorly paid, not because they are so well paid. Low cost sometimes does mean low standards.
I can see that for pilots in the USA this is a real issue and the causes are complex. I have no doubt that the deregulations of the 1980s brought benefits and problems for all. Once enough people have died and the finger can be pointed firmly at this issue - then the rules will be changed. Then fares will go up but, hopefully, safety will improve again. I have no doubt that it is a real problem and that low cost can mean low standards. However, that is pilots in the US and I was making observations about CC, specifically in BA.
I accept that commuting (domestically, regionally, internationally) is an accepted part of life as airline crew (FC or CC) and that it has been supported by high fares to enable carriers to pay high salaries. BUT - I am suggesting that in the worst financial period for 80 years, it may not be possible for carriers to charge those fees to make their airline profitable and to pay the salary levels enjoyed in the past 30 years. In seeking to reduce costs, every single item will be up for grabs.
For what its worth: I have worked in major international corporations and am now self-employed. I have enjoyed a company car and supported mortgage yet, I have also been paid by the hour for working in a kitchen and as a labourer. When I was first married, I worked two jobs at the same time, which meant working three nights (Friday/Saturday/Sunday), finishing at 07:00 on Monday and starting again at the main job at 09:00. I have belonged to a trade union and on one occasion befitted from being a member and on another lost because I was. I have been made redundant and had a company dismiss me illegally. So I do understand something about working hours.
I am now responsible for every penny I earn and spend. If my costs increase, my profit goes down - just like it did when I worked in the City of London and had a department budget of £1.7m. Across my career in telecommunications, I worked for over 140 companies in various capacities from telephonist when I started to consultant when I stopped, these companies ranged across every aspect of commerce and government. I have seen something of employment and the changing fortunes of time since I first worked behind the counter of a department store aged 16 in the school holidays in 1972 (I am 53).