Glamour? You gents bemoan the demise of extraordinarily lavish terms and conditions, tears well in your eyes at the thought that the flying boat era may have ended?
Then you laugh at the dreams of youngsters today who also dream of flying a shiny jet, telling them that they must earn the right to fly airliners and do not deserve even the 'meagre' pay on offer once they get there.
Is is not hypocritical to place value on something and then mock others for seeking it?
We would all love to be paid more; Don't get me wrong. But surely it is a far less demanding job these days, albeit just as responsible, when compared with the heavily subsidised, glamorous days represented by Virgin Atlantic or BA tv advertisements?
In a time when a Circuit Judge is paid £128,000 I don't think pilots at major airlines are under-paid for the amount or complexity of work they do. The situation at the regionals is different, probably because realistically smaller operations simply aren't economically viable.
I work for a loco and paid for my type rating. It was that or defaulting on a mortgage and eating grass. As it happens, my net pay as a 2 yr FO is greater than what I would earn as a 10 yr Solicitor for far, far less work or stress, and a helluva lot more fun and much more time with the family.
In the real world, many professions are now facing the bleak truth that the key to remuneration is 'value added'. Footballers are over paid because of TV money. Accountants and lawyers in the City make/save millions for their clients and are paid accordingly. Those in the public sector are over paid because they provide the Government with assured votes.
Unprofitable airlines cannot afford to lavish high wages on their staff, hence the fall. FR make a lot of money but they are the exception that proves the rule - one of the few airlines with the clout to obtain old fashioned operating subsidies from public authorities.
Just my views but I suspect nobody on this thread wants to hear it!