Originally Posted by
boofhead
Increasing the pay, which is reasonable for the job, does not help.
Saying it's "reasonable for the job" doesn't make it so, the evidence (which you've presented yourself) is overwhelmingly indicating that in today's market, what you're offering is *not* reasonable for the job, otherwise all your pilots wouldn't be leaving. You see, it's not what *you* consider "reasonable for the job", it's what your pilots (and prospective pilots) think is reasonable for the job. And according to you, their actions are speaking pretty clearly about whether *they* think what you're offering is "reasonable for the job".
I have more than your minimum hour requirements and plenty of Alaska time, maybe I'd be tempted to hire on there if it was reasonable for the job. Why don't you post what you're offering and we can see how reasonable it is.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
If I increase the pay even 25 percent it will bankrupt the company. That is not an opinion, it is fact.
That may be, I certainly wouldn't presume to argue the point. If true, it simply means that you have a business model established in a pilot market when you could hire and retain pilots for low wages. Now you can't. I've seen far too many part 135 operators ruthlessly exploit an oversupply of pilots to feet too much sympathy for them now that there isn't an oversupply. Figure out a way to make your job attractive to pilots given today's conditions.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
It is my opinion that the FAA has set out to destroy aviation.
That's an absurd statement. I certainly don't intend to defend the FAA but the notion that they are intentionally and consciously choosing to do things which are detrimental to aviation is just silly.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
I will admit that most of them do not know what they are doing but the decision to accept the knee-jerk decision by Congress without argument had to have been seen as being something the industry just cannot accept without severe financial damage and a high risk of reducing the number of smaller carriers. So obvious that it had to be part of the plan.
I don't think that you have a very clear understanding of how the US government works. Not to argue the merits of the mandates in the act passed by Congress, but when Congress passes a law which says "The FAA WILL do : X,Y and Z " , The FAA doesn't really have the option of saying "Nah, I don't think that we will do X,Y or Z " .