Low paid pilots from UK [Archive]

ex-expat

5th May 2001, 15:35

Sorry,
But we to have our share of those same beancounters here in the US of A, but with a bit of solidarity, groups manage to obtain enough power to get more than just the crumbs. Even Continental pilots, after Frank Lorenzo, 2 visits to the bankruptcy court, and almost a third visit, finally said to management, "go pound sand!" "You are going to pay us more." UAl, DAL, and soon AMR, and Atlas have shown that pattern bargining is back to stay; in good times and bad. My airline bargins with Boeing for planes, with airports for gates, with lawyers for political access, etc. I can just imagine the laughter if our CEO asked BP for a break on the jet fuel prices because he thought it was going to be a bad year and wanted to protect his share holders earnings. Good luck.

I always tell my union comrades, "You don't get paid what your worth, you get paid what you bargin for." That goes for Shell Oil, Airbus and most especially pilots. Of course I tell management, "You don't pay me all this money for what I do, you pay me for what I can do."

While I don't mean to be contentions, I am sorry but I have to put most of the blame on the pilots that just won't fight for more. Be the more: respect, money, time off, etc. Even the Atlas pilots finally said that they don't work on some Paki rice farmer's plantation, and you will pay more, a lot more. It's too bad he didn't live to see the way labor in his adopted country has the ability to grab a place at the table and bargin, but rest assure his sucessors will. (And I do not work for Atlas.) At any rate it seems that many brits have that surf mentality, (actually a lot of the europeans seem to have it), and I don't know if it is a hold over from the socialism days, the welfare state, or what. For god sakes don't you remember what the empire used to be?

With luck the Germans will show the EU pilots the way out. Support them for your own sake.

The Guvnor

5th May 2001, 15:41

Actually, I'd see UK salary levels as being about right for the skill levels and personal input by crews. Expat salaries for airlines in developing nations are generally much higher due to the poor conditions there.

Frankly, I'd say that the problem is on the part of the US majors such as Delta and American that allow themselves to be blackmailed by their pilots into paying suicidally high salaries.

We all know that we're now into a global recession - even though Gordon Brown claims that the UK will avoid the worst of the fallout - and what happens? You have the DL guys demanding (and getting) pay increases that will add US$2.4 billion in costs over the next four years; LH guys are 96% in favour of striking; AA pilots want even higher increases than those awarded to DL crews ... it's completely insane!! :rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes:

The best solution - which is the one that I personally advocate - is that everyone should be on a decent basic salary and then have both profit share and a compulsory ESOP. That way, everyone wins when the company does well; and when things are tight they just have to tighten their belts as well. This should apply to everyone from the CEO to the tea-lady.

Economics 101 - when you're entering a recession, you cut costs, not increase them!!

Not a lot of point being the richest person in the unemployment office...

SunSeaSandfly

5th May 2001, 16:00

Guv
Your idea is great in theory, however, what seems to happen in practice is that the bean counters can distort the profit/loss picture by financial engineering, and management can mismanage, so that the employees work their butts off, but management manage to seize an astounding loss out of the very jaws a goldmine situation.
Given the less than brilliant history of airline managements, and the likes of Lorenzo and Icahn in financial engineering, it is hardly surprising that not many want to risk their financial future on the competence and integrity of many airline managers.
:) :)

[This message has been edited by SunSeaSandfly (edited 05 May 2001).]

ex-expat

5th May 2001, 16:06

Dear Guv,
Yep, there goes that surf mentality, mixed with that healthly, or would that be unhealthy, dose of socialism. I hope you're type isn't too common.

Is BP going to lower fuel cost because the airlines need relief? Is the government going to lower taxes because business needs relief. Are the CEO's going to give back big chunks of their stock, salary & perks, because there is a recession?

You bargin for yourself, and I'll bargin for myself. We'll see who ends up with some form of financial independence, freedom and security. Let me let you in on a secret, because I bet you don't have a clue; if you are planing on that government/company controlled pension for your independence...well, it isn't independence, it's a mirage. Like the US social security program, you better be able to do without it.) Good luck surf.

P.S. I've survived more than one bankrupt company and I can still turn down SIA and the Kuwaities when they want to pay me less then $150K to fly one of their B-747's. It comes down to guts and management of your working life. No guts, poor management, and you make youself a slave. If the shoe fits...

The Guvnor

5th May 2001, 16:29

SeaSunSandFly - I agree; that's why it's essential that the employees are also shareholders. Shareholders as owners of a company are entitled by law to information that is otherwise not (necessarily) available - and of course they also have the ability to dismiss directors of a company if they are making a mess of things.

Employee board representation is also a must.

ex-expat - that 'unhealthy dose of socialism' you refer to is a heartfelt concern for employees. Is this a bad thing? Rather strange, considering your own posts/views! ;) :P

Nope, BP won't reduce their fuel prices (though if demand goes down, so do prices). However, if you knew the first thing about economics, you'd know that in a recession people cut back on unnecessary expenses (and often necessary ones as well): and that includes air travel in particular. Companies no longer allow their staff to use premium cabins; this means that overall yield levels fall significantly, putting the company into a loss situation. To add costs - such as significantly higher wage bills - at such a time is suicidal. Ever heard of companies such as TWA, Pan Am, Eastern, Air Florida, Braniff, etc - all of whom have now disappeared to the great airport in the sky because their costs were greater than their income?

If, for argument's sake, one of the US majors were to either go into Chapter 11 or even Chapter 7, you'd have a massive glut of skilled pilots on the market - again. In that scenario, salaries would nosedive as supply once again outstrips demand; and people like you who want the earth will remain grounded.

tilii

5th May 2001, 16:31

Oh,yes! Well said ex-expat.

As for the likes of our chum The Guvnor, sadly his type is almost the norm in airline management here. They like to think they're tough, ruthless, and successful. All they are is ruthless. Sooner or later it will catch up with them, but not before aircrew wake up to themselves in precisely the manner you advocate.

Again, very well said indeed.

Guv

"a heartfelt concern for employees"??? Come off the bloody grass. You crease me up!

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 05 May 2001).]

ex-expat

5th May 2001, 17:23

Well Guv,
Don't worry you want to work for less, and I am sure you will. That is at least one thing I know about economics.

I've worked for two of those companies you sited; the employees didn't fail in their jobs, managment did. If the pilots had worked for free we would still be out of business. I (and a good many others) took my valauble skills and abilities and sold them somewhere else. Took the proceeds and purchased assets, not liabilities. Some years the assets made more than I did flying. I would fly for some desperate operator for three months at $15,000. Brits were willing to do the same job for $5,000 and a pat on the head. Now those same people are in the desert, doing the same job still, years later for $5,000! They will always be surfs, much like I suspect you are.

In the book "Winning Through Intimidation," the art of the deal is always being able to walk away. If you can't do that you can't deal, you're a slave. You can't be helped, but I hope some of your country men will not be jealous of the salaries of the few, but be inspired. It's out there, but they don't give it away for free. Warmest regards Guv, and good luck in your old age, you're going to need it.

wonderbusdriver

5th May 2001, 17:40

GUV:

"All is for the best in the best of all worlds." (Candide)
Yeah, right!

You´re talking supply and demand - That´s exactly what´s happening right now.

Pilots are just another cost-factor.
That is how most managements deal with them anyway.
The price for this means of production varies according to the "supply" and the "demand" - it´s just something "strategists" have to deal with - just like the price of fuel etc..
It´s got NOTHING to do with responsibility for people.

It´s about return on investment.
In this case they have to invest in people/pilots - They will get a decent return if they wait long enough and, like any good investor, are in it for the long-run.

The real problem is "TRUST" - it´s just not there and won´t be for a long time, if ever - as long as these people are not held personally responsible (instead they get a severence package) for their decisions (like us pilots who might end up in jail for making "poor" decisions).

(BTW ex-expat: That´s "serfs" - finally figured it out)

[This message has been edited by wonderbusdriver (edited 05 May 2001).]

Roadtrip

5th May 2001, 18:06

Guv -
I get a US major airline wages AND profit sharing. In fact, I should get another profit sharing check from the management pirates at Atlas Air Cargo too -- the one they stole from me last year. The pilots finally won their lawsuit for Atlas withdrawing profit sharing just because the pilots unionized - illegal under US labor law.

ex-expat is right. Brit pilots taken as a whole are push-overs, when it comes to dealing with management -- especially BA. If they let management wet-lease 2 400's, they might as well contract out the whole lot. Guess they've never heard of a scope clause.

BTW, pilot salaries don't kill airlines, management buffoonery and fuel costs kills airlines.

Did you pick-up those DAL L-1011's yet? Still looking for your startup airline, to . . . well . . . "startup."

SunSeaSandfly

5th May 2001, 18:22

Guv
Employee shareholding is another myth that has not worked well in the real world.
First of all, there are usually disclosure clauses that prevent employee board members disclosing vital information. Secondly, there are usually cliques at board level that have agendas not widely visible to the rest of the board.
So in real life, employee board members are a neat way of getting heat off the board on many issues.
I have heard rumours that NWA employees are not thrilled with the results of their shareholding, anybody got any feedback on this or other instances?
Are there any instances that can be used to illustrate the resounding success employee shareholding?

Cuban_8

5th May 2001, 19:10

ex-expat,

I think that at the root of this argument lies a totally different culture between US citizens and those that live in the UK. You have to remember that the US has a freemarket economy with a much more right wing approach to economics. The difference I have found is that life revolves around money in the US - something that is not so much the case in the UK. We are, of course, from a more socialist background than yourselves.

Although aircrew here are paid a lot less in general than yourselves, the money is still good. As you will appreciate, wages in the long run are set by supply and demand. I believe that, if it were not for a pilot shortage at the moment, the likelyhood that aircrew would be paid the amounts that they are at present with US majors is slim. In my opinion, although the job is a responsible one, pilots are not worth $300,000 a year - after all, there are LOTS of people who could do the job - we are not that special!!!

Although you may well think that this is an irrational approach, you have to ask the question "why do British pilots not pressure airlines & management for higher salaries?" I certainly do not think its because were a nation of pushovers, and I doubt we are seen as this around the world!! My personal view is that the longterm outlook for you guys is not rosey.

Anyway, as they say, 'each to their own', and who the f@ck am I?!

Regards,

Cuban_8

Beaver Driver

5th May 2001, 20:47

Guv,
Would the profit sharing come after the multi-million dollar salaries of the executives, or before they pay themselves. I think your pay should be directly tied to profits, with no minimum, maybe then you guys will quit squandering money that should go to your employees paychecks. Pilots are the backbone of an airline, not management. A lots of you guys are con artists who are so out of your depth when it comes to true management that it should be criminal (look in the mirror). That is what has caused the predatory self preserving demand for high slaries. Pilots have seen many airlines go bankrupt due to poor management, while the company executives gently waft into another job with a platinum parachute. We want to insure our future if the airline tanks. At least a 6 figure salary will get us thru the re-hiring process. Most of you guys are in this business for one thing and one thing only, personal gain. Pilots are just a tool for you to make a personal fortune. You all should take a look at the management style of South West and Malden Mills.

Employee loyalty comes from much more than a few pennies of profit sharing after you have bilked the company for your mansion, 1.4 million dollar (mostly endeserved and unearned) salary, your company limo, your staff of dozens to do the job you should be doing etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Do you CEOs and managers think we can't see what you are spending money on. A couple of seats on the board with some say so over how you spend the companies dollars (including your salary)is a start as is profit sharing, but these should be only a couple of facets of proper employee relations. It will take a lot more than this to repair the damage caused by the Lorenzos, the Ichans, the Bergts of this world.

[This message has been edited by Beaver Driver (edited 05 May 2001).]

RRAAMJET

5th May 2001, 20:56

Guv: "...seat on the board.."
"...sharing of info..."

that's exactly what the Delta guys wanted over the last decade, but DL management would do anything to avoid it. Just didn't want to share any info in their "club", I suppose.

Everybody keeps mentioning the $300k pilots, but they make up a small % of the total at the Majors. It's really quite wrong to use that figure - you should use average pay for the carrier or salary cost/seat mile ( not total cost/asm ), for comparisons.

Funny, the % of management earning $300k-plus stock options is never mentioned, Guv; why is that???

As a Brit, I think a lot of the attitude comes from the Military ethics of "come on chaps, just put up with it and stop whingeing". It's why the RAF has such pi$$-poor managers and we make-do with sub-standard equipment. "Didn't happen during the Blitz, old chap" - good mentality at the right time, this is not it....

Bash

6th May 2001, 02:43

Over the last five years experienced pilots have been in short supply in the UK. There has been a lot of movement between companies, which according to economic theory should lead to rising salaries(demand greater than supply in a highly mobile work force). Judging by the accents in the air the tight market has sucked in experienced pilots from other countries. That doesn't quite fit with the idea of UK pilots being the only ones prepared to work for lower salaries. I think the situation is much more complex. The USA has a culture of devil take the hindmost. I have brought this up before but we need to look at the total pilot market. There is a huge gap between what pilots with the majors and those with the regionals earn. What is the average income of a professional pilot in the US and in Europe. Even that will nopt tell us if the Americans really are better negotiators or if those with the clout thrive at the expense of those on the way up. You also have to compare salary levels with comparable professions in the two markets. Remember the airlines compete for people not just with each other bit with many other industries who need technical professionals. This will have a large effect on salaries required to attract the right people. You have to compare like with like.

ex-expat

6th May 2001, 04:09

Sorry Folks,
I guess I am a product of the American school system. Squandered my adolescence drinking alcohol and dealing with a testosterone bathed cortex, i.e. girls. Usefull memories for late married life however.

Surf, you ride on it with a board, at least in California = Serf, somebody rides you like a board, like Normans. Without doubt there are multiple spelling errors, and I'm not going to get away with the excuse that, "It's the Americian spelling. You know, like tire vs tyre."

Yours,
Forever embarrassed,
The ex-expat.

PS Please save us, put a spell checker in the mail program!!

Bash

6th May 2001, 12:50

The above post is the last I am ever going to read on this forum. I am ashamed to have spent any time on the same website as someone who can stoop so low. I'm also stunned that it has not been removed yet. Now, how do I remove my name from the records of this sewer.

Just in case you have come back to read this forum you might like to know that the post above yours was deleted as soon as it was spotted by a moderator. Unfortunately it wasn't spotted until now because the few of us who do try to keep an eye on things were either asleep or doing our day (or noght) job.

[This message has been edited by Capt PPRuNe (edited 06 May 2001).]

Basil

6th May 2001, 13:17

OGF,
As a union member since 1957 I can safely say that the unions had it coming to them. Their leaders tried to use their power to manipulate the UK economy in the hope of destroying the post war recovery and introducing a left-wing socialist/communist government in the aftermath. They, together with Labour Party members and others who returned from visits to the Soviet Union with tales of "how good it was over there" were traitors and treasonists.

Don't forget that Margaret Thatcher, in her trade union reforms, denied employers the right to re-employ strike breakers during the first three months of a dispute.

Finally, a union is its members - if they will not stand together and take concerted action then nothing the union officers and national executive do will achieve victory in a salary & conditions dispute.

ogseminole, may I suggest deletion?

[This message has been edited by Basil (edited 06 May 2001).]

tarjet fixated

6th May 2001, 14:12

The Guv is still around???
Everytime he writes anything i have to laugh!
I support my german colleagues as well as i support the US majors system and luckily enough pilot shortage is here and the companies and all those like the Guv will have to talk to pilots sooner or later...that is if the Guv had an airline of course.

BrakeSnake

6th May 2001, 15:16

Just out of interest people, over the years has anyone noticed the slight difference between the average employee/voter in the UK as compared to the equivalent in ... lets say... France??

Where, historically and idealistically, does our (UK pilots) lack of motivation to stand together and take action originate from. How many times do we fly to another country, or hear on our televeisions and learn about the willingness of other unions and workforces to strike/take action TOGETHER, AND achieve results.... just think about it.

ragspanner

6th May 2001, 15:51

Basil,
I must say i object 'very ' strongly to the tone of your posting. Speaking as a current union & labour member & past member of Her Majestys Armed Forces .
I would just like to say i am neither a traitor or a treasonist.Just because any individual has a diametrically opposed view to your own, it does not make them the devil incarnate !!!.
"when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail".

Basil

6th May 2001, 19:17

ragspanner, I think you may have misunderstood my posting.
With the exception of time spent in the RAF, I have been a union member since 1957 and firmly believe in union representation, collective bargaining and members supporting their national executive.
I disaproved of the subversive political activities of union officials and members of the Labour Party in the forties, fifties and sixties and the activities, particularly within education, of their liberal cohorts.

Needless to say, the vitriol was not aimed at ALL TU leaders and members of the Labour Party just those Ole Bas considered to be particularly naughty ;)

Edited for last para.

[This message has been edited by Basil (edited 06 May 2001).]

Mowgli

6th May 2001, 22:29

It's a matter of supply and demand, we all know that! Listening to the stories of some self improvers, they have been happy just to have a flying job that pays. Eventually they, like everyone else in the industry should expect a reasonable reward for their responsibility.

A reasonable salary should take into account the skill level needed, the degree of responsibility, the qualifications required, the "X factor" (unsociable hours, working over bank holidays, time away from home, personal risk etc), and the amount of personal financial investment involved in gaining the licence and experience.

Add to those considerations the cost of living in UK, and the salaries of equivalent professions, I would conclude that we have fallen behind. On an average trip of say a 12 hour report to chocks span, the allowances just pay for my petrol: ok I live 100 miles from work, but properties near work in the SE are V expensive.

I enjoy my work, that's why I do it, and I don't expect to get rich from it, but with the cost of living (with all the hidden taxes) in UK, I feel I could stand up in my local and easily justify a salary higher than it is at the moment.

But I'm not holding my breath....

metrodriver

6th May 2001, 22:39

Top end salary in the US at the majors is high, however the first year salaries are extremely low and if you happen to be working for a commuter at least the first two years you can look up to the burgerflipper at Mc D's, he will bring more money home then you will

Silver Thunder

7th May 2001, 00:28

An American perspective.

I have been in this business 25 years, all civilian. I have been through two bankrupt airlines, and one that slowly had all its assets sucked away by greedy managers. I have been divorced once, gave her half of what I had. I have less now than I had 20 years ago. If my health holds out I hope to fly another 15 years.

Do I think experienced, professional pilots are worth $300k. YOU BET!

I stole the article below, it is worth reading.

When contract time rolls around, you will begin hearing comments from our fellow employees, from management, and the news media about pilots’ excessive salaries and over-sized egos, etc. I cringe when I hear a pilot react defensively about our wages and lifestyle. Do you?

Does your doctor, your lawyer, your CPA, or your dentist apologize for his or her salary? Why should you?
The doctor to whom I entrust my health and my family’s health earns six figures a year. The specialist I entrusted an eye problem to several years ago earns several times my six-figure salary. Had she botched the job, my multimillion-dollar career would have come to a screeching halt. She didn’t, and because of her extensive training and experience as an eye specialist, I’m back in the cockpit pursuing my career as an airline pilot. She was worth every penny she was paid. Her 8–10 years of college, medical school, residency, and specialty training delayed her entry into the high-dollar workforce. She had no guarantees she’d earn the big bucks of an eye specialist. She felt the risk was worth taking, and it has paid off handsomely for her and her family. Not all of her colleagues were as successful. Sound familiar?

The CPA who prepares my tax returns earns six figures a year. She’s very good and knows her business. She doesn’t apologize for what she charges. I pay her for her knowledge and experience. She’s worth every penny. The lawyer I took my parents to for some estate planning was not cheap. Customers like my parents paid for his high-priced office and expensive car. They willingly paid for his knowledge and experience. He certainly made no excuses for his earnings. In both cases, the CPA and the lawyer spent years acquiring both the education and experience before they earned "the big bucks." Sound familiar?

I have a friend who is a dentist. Following college and dental school, she spent 4 years in the military to gain experience and to help pay off her dental school loans. Leaving the military, she took a pay cut in her first civilian job working for another dentist. It took her 3–4 years before she was earning more on the outside than she was paid in the military. She then took another risk--she started her own practice. Some savvy moves on her part have resulted in her having a successful practice 6–7 years later. She’s now earning more than a quarter of a million dollars per year at age 44. She offers no apologies for her income. Many of her classmates from dental school are earning half a million or more a year. None of them react defensively about their earnings. Why should we?

The professionals mentioned above share some very common traits. While not all people in their profession earn six-figure salaries, those at the top of their profession do earn six figures, sometimes seven.

Most of them delayed their entry into the normal workforce by several years to acquire the education, training, skills, and experience necessary to become eligible to enter their chosen career field. Most of those career fields have some form of licensing requirement in addition to continuing-education training on an annual or periodic basis.

As professional airline pilots, we are justifiably proud of our achievements. Those of us who have landed jobs at major airlines have overcome many hurdles. Many of us have worked for five or six airlines before getting to a major airline. Others spent 6-10 years in the military getting the requisite experience. Our annual checkrides, training, and FAA medical examinations are a constant intrusion into our lives. A large number of our fellow pilots will have their careers cut short because of a medical problem, resulting in a loss (temporarily or permanently) of their medical certificate.

Educating the flying public and our fellow employees is up to us.

The next time you’re in a social situation, think about what and how you communicate. Perhaps instead of bragging about your three-times-a-week golf game, talk about your last simulator check or your last upgrade school. Educate those around you about the amount of advance preparation (with no pay) you did to successfully complete that school or simulator check. Inform them about the last poor weather day during which you made a CAT II or CAT III landing, or handled an aircraft malfunction, bringing the airplane to a safe landing. You don’t need to boast. Just be factual and emphasize your training and experience in safely handling these situations.

Perhaps slowly, over time, we will add to the positive image pilots already enjoy with the traveling public. Then, when the next contract negotiations come around, people will be more inclined to say, "Those pilots are well worth what they’re paid." After all, the public doesn’t generally complain about what their doctor, their dentist, their CPA, or their lawyer earns. Why should they complain about what their pilot earns? Their lives are in our hands. l

Oldie Volvo

7th May 2001, 01:00

One of the problems in the UK is that too
many inexperienced pilots, regardless of age,
are so grateful for a flying position that
they will accept almost any terms and conditions offered to them. In a free market
economy, if you have a talent or skill, you
should be able to demand an adequate level
of return for that ability. It it fair that
a semi-literate footballer should earn £40k
a week - no. Is it fair that a member of the
clergy in a deprived inner city area should
earn less than half of that sum a year - no.
But then nobody ever said that life was fair.
The aviation industry is most peculiar in so
much that it involves expensive high-tec
equipment from aircraft through radar to a/c
tugs. Yet much of the industry pays its staff
peanuts - I'm not talking about flightdeck
now. Speak to the baggage handlers, the people on the check in desks, the cleaners,
most of whom seem to be on temporary contracts and trained for the new season with
about a week to go. I guess it all comes down
to supply and demand, if you run short of
cleaners you ring up the job centre and find
a few more. However, with more technically
centred jobs for engineeers, ATC controllers,
pilots and all the rest its a little more
difficult to find people at short notice.
When demand is high and supply is short it
should logically follow that rewards for
services should be increased to attract the
right quality of people. In the UK however,
we just seem to accept whats on offer and
certainly as far as flightdeck are concerned,
open our doors to the world. How many accents
have you noticed from the colonies in the
last few months in UK airspace operating UK
registered aircraft.

I do not suggest for one moment that massive
pay claims in the US mould are practical in
the UK - they would not succeed beacuse as a
group of individuals we tend to be somewhat
right-wing and unlikely to take industrial
action. Sadly, the bean counters are all too
aware of that fact and as a result they will
always offer the minimum they can get away with in any negotiations. Don't forget that
most of those who really affect our pay-cheques are only in our companies for a short
time and when they have made a good note for
their CV, they will be off leaving the front-
line troops from Chief Pilot downwards still
in their seats coping with day to day reality.

So why are our pay-levels so low in comparison to other major carriers - Nigels
apart obviously. Simply because we as a
profession are inclined to take the easy road
away from confrontation in the hope that by
keeping our heads down our companies will
survive. Now if BALPA actually ever really
flexed its apparent muscle.............

411A

7th May 2001, 08:08

Ex- BA pilots that showed up at SQ in the mid-1970's sure didn't help the payscale there. Most stayed only two years and moved on because they were not used to actually flying a reasonable number of hours per month. Many told me that they came to play golf for two weeks a month. When they found this impossible, they left, only to be replaced by more. Kept the salaries way DOWN and they still have not recovered. These guys should stay home after retirement.

The Guvnor

7th May 2001, 12:59

Let me clarify my position on this. My opposition here is solely to the ultra-high pay of pilots at some of the US majors - and in particular their excessive pay demands during an economic downturn, when all companies need to cut costs rather than increase them.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, these high visibility pay increases tend to spill over to other companies - the old "me too" syndrome.

I'd be the first to acknowledge that at the bottom of the pile, junior pilots are very poorly paid indeed. But then so are many other professions during that initial phase - doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists etc.

In all of those professions, the cream - a very few - rise to the top of the tree and they earn astronomical salaries; as do a few of the most successful entrepreneurs.

However, with the likes of DL, LH and AA crews, we're not talking about a few very special individuals being rewarded for their significant accomplishments - everyone gets it, no matter how good (or bad) they are.

This discussion is one that has been chewed over many, many times in the past and I'm sure will be in the future - but at the end of the day, what makes pilots (more) special that other members of their company team? Why shouldn't licenced engineers get $300,000 - their responsibility is surely much greater, as if they mess up it's going to cause rather interesting times for everyone else? What about the marketing staff, who if they don't do their jobs properly, you don't have any pax (or cargo) to fly? And what about cabin crew ... probably the worst paid of all, but who in the current 'air rage' environment, probably have the most stressful job of all?

If the argument of "we deserve lots of money because of the high asset value and responsibility for lots of lives" is to be valid, then the captain of a ULCC would be on US$100k+ per voyage; and I dread to think what the captains of the new luxury super cruise ships should be earning!

It's a team effort and an attitude of "I'm all right, Jack" doesn't do the rest of the profession any favours.

Sure, you need to protect yourselves against inept or corrupt management - but the best way of doing that is to ensure that you have a say in the company's affairs through board representation and employee share holdings. Unfortunately, in many cases where this has been tried the employees have lacked the business knowledge required to understand what's really going on and therefore have allowed themselves to be manipulated by unscrupulous managements. The key is therefore to ensure that the agreement is structured in such a way as to require full transparency and accountability, with the ability to disseminate information to all employee stakeholders.

As for the astronomical management salaries, Beaver Driver - I'm as opposed to them as I am to astronomical crew salaries. If they are so brilliant at sucessfully running the company, then again they should be on the same basis as I proposed earlier - decent basic plus profit share and equity. It focuses the mind wonderfully!

Of course, something that is constantly overlooked in this discussion is the people who really lose out when everyone is emptying the cookie jar ... the owners of the company; the stockholders. Too many senior executives treat their company as if it's their personal bank account; it's not.
As Chairman, CEO or whatever, you're directly responsible to the stockholders (including employee stockholders) for maximising their returns - and if you fail in that goal, then your ass should be out of there.

Finally, I'd like to finish off with an article I'm sure you've all seen before. It's guaranteed to bring tears to the hardest-hearted accountant as it is conclusive proof that pilots are overpaid ... unless of course it's danger pay for having to "chase away" all those hosties! :) :) :)

Why I Want to be a Pilot

I want to be a pilot when I grow up because it's a fun job and easy to do. That's why there are so many pilots flying around today.

Pilots don't need much school, they just have to learn to read numbers so they can read instruments. I guess they should be able to read road maps so they can find their way if they get lost.

Pilots should be brave so they won't be scared if it's foggy and they can't see, or if a wing or a motor falls off, they should stay calm. Pilots have to have good eyes so they can see through clouds, and they can't be afraid of lightening [sic] or thunder because they are closer to them than we are.

The salry [sic] pilots make is another thing I like. They make more money than they can spend. This is because most people think plane flying is dangerous, except pilots don't because they know how easy it is.

There isn't much I don't like, except that girls like pilots and all the stewardesses want to marry pilots so they always have to chase them away so they won't bother them.

I hope I don't get airsick because I get carsick and if I get airsick I couldn't be a pilot and then I'd have to go to work.

- essay by a ten year old boy

Flypuppy

7th May 2001, 13:36

Ah Guv,

How you manage to alienate so many with so few words.

I have just re-mortgaged my house and will be separating myself from my family for 9 months to take a risk with the future of myself, my wife and my baby daughter.
As Chairman, CEO or whatever, you're directly responsible to the stockholders (including employee stockholders) for maximising their returns - and if you fail in that goal, then your ass should be out of there. 

My family are the stockholders in my project to become a pilot. I will be investing somewhere in the region of GBP50,000 (including loss of earnings and fixed monthly outgoings that figure increases dramatically). So tell me Guv, why shouldn't I try and earn as a much as possible when the initial investment is so huge? I am simply trying to maximise the return on investment for my shareholders. Why should mangement try to reduce pilot salaries to the point of being borderline for Income Support?

You talk of the Captains of ships, but do you know what they earn? The Captain of a VLCC DOES earn as much as a Delta 747 captain (depending on shipping line sometimes more). Carnival Cruise liner captains earn as much if not more than BA 747-400 Captains. Captains on North Sea supply boats earn roughly the same as Turboprop fleet captains, depending on company. Maybe you should check your facts a bit more before you open your mouth.

Why shouldn't licenced engineers get $300,000 - their responsibility is surely much greater, as if they mess up it's going to cause rather interesting times for everyone else? What about the marketing staff, who if they don't do their jobs properly, you don't have any pax (or cargo) to fly? And what about cabin crew ... probably the worst paid of all, but who in the current 'air rage' environment, probably have the most stressful job of all?


Good point Guv, but if any of the above people f@ck up THEY DON'T DIE. If the flightdeck screw up they end up on the mortuary slab with the passengers, the company suffers poor publicity and business drops off, possibly enough to cause the death of the company (Pan Am, Value Jet for example). So now tell me as a businessman Guv, who do you give that sort of responsibility to? Highly motivated and trained personnel that are happy with their renumeration? Maybe you would like to see the companies assets flown by flight crews who dislike your company culture of "pilots are overpaid prima donnas"?

With this sort of attitude I don't think you will get many crews for Caledonian Wings from PPRuNe pilots. Assuming it ever appears, of course.

Notso Fantastic

7th May 2001, 13:43

Guvnor Warning Guvnor Warning! (and Bus429 or whatever he calls himself these days)! Some people are wind-up artists as well as holding bizarre views they like tickling professional pilots with. The best way is just to ignore them- just 'tune them out'.

ragspanner

7th May 2001, 14:05

Flypuppy,
regarding 'non' flying GE's - in many companies they (GE's)fly constantly on the a/c they maintain. The terms in which you express yourself seem to suggest that GE's somehow have a lower level of responsabilty ?.
Don't forget the old self preservation adage " if your the guy in the sh#t you work damn hard to get out of it". Perhaps those engs who maintain & don't fly have to have high ideals & levels of professionalism ?.
Remember whether the GE flys or stays at home if they "f@ck up " everyone still dies !!!!!.

------------------
A wise man thinks all that he says,a fool says all that he thinks.

ClearDirect

7th May 2001, 14:35

Guv
I am trying to follow the logic of your arguments.
You seem to be saying that it is all right for the "professions" to earn big bucks, but that if we do not fit your definition of professional, we should not expect too much, as we are in the same boat as F/As, cleaners, and engineers.
Piloting is not quite the same as the medical profession as there are not many opportunities to specialise, nevertheless there are many non-specialists in the medical and other professions who make pretty decent salaries.
If length of training time to qualify, and poor pay in the early years are the requirements, in your view, to be considered a "professional", then pilots fit the bill exactly.
I would say that it takes at least 6 years and over 3000 hrs to be considered for command in even the most rapidly expanding airlines.
In the real world, most airlines require more than 6000 " good" hours for commanders. Not many decent sized airlines have commanders with less than 10 years and 6000 hrs under their belts.
Right in line with the other "professions".

There is no short cut to real experience, which is what makes it invaluable.This applies to Doctors, Lawyers, etc,etc. There is more to a job than book learning and theoretical training. Cutting up cadavers is not the same as real bodies, useful practice though it may be(like simulators).

The other point you make that I do not accept, is that pilots should accept low basic salary and be rewarded for the positive performance of the company.
All too often the pilots perform to the best of their ability, only to be let down by management, marketing, or other forces beyond their control. Why should they be required to suffer as a result of someone elses failure to perform.
Do the company's lawyers or auditors accept less when the company has a bad year, do they get refunds on fuel costs, or insurance premiums, or landing fees?
I think that the pilot body has met all it's performance targets when it gets it's flights done in the safest, most cost effective way possible , whilst doing the most possible in the circumstances, to keep the passengers well informed, comfortable, and happy.

Most pilots do not have any desire to be earthbound office managers, they are quite happy to manage the operation of their flying multi-million dollar offices.

Think of it this way, on your $300 ticket, about $30 goes to the (2) pilots, hell, most executives tip their(1) waiter twice that much. When you sit nervously in the back one dark and stormy night, ponder on this whilst the lightning flashes, and the wind blows, and the rain pours down. :) :)

------------------
lost in hold.

The Guvnor

7th May 2001, 18:13

Flypuppy - sorry, mate, but you've obviously not read my posts properly. I'm not 'having a go' at all pilots in general - just the ones that are already overpaid and still want more. I seriously doubt that you'll be earning anywhere near US$300,000 as soon as you've qualified - do you? :)

Also, if you re-read my comparison between certain ship's captains and flight crew, you'll see that I said per voyage - in other words, I am extrapolating out the value of the ships and cargo/passengers when compared with flight crews.

As for an engineer still being around after one of his aircraft has gone down with all on board due to a f*ck up on his part: he's going to have to live with that responsibility for the rest of his life (as do management/ops types that force pilots to make incorrect decisions due to commercial reasons - the F28 at Dryden being a good example). Like I said, it's a team effort and if the flight deck people aren't team players when it comes to things like remuneration it quickly fosters a 'them and us' situation - as has happened at plenty of major carriers on both sides of the pond.

ClearDirect - no, what I'm saying is that there are a very few - the elite - in each profession that will rise to the top and make astronomical salaries. For every QC earning £500k a year, there are probably 1,000 lesser solicitors and barristers - most of whom don't take home a tenth of the pay of a top silk. The same should be true of pilots - but it isn't. Pay seems to be determined not by ability but who you work for - regardless of how good you are. You could be the world's best pilot, but if you're flying for Ouagadougou Airways, you'll be on peanuts. Equally, you might have just scraped in at American, but because of the APA's battle with DALPA to be the best paid in the air, you'll be very well off, thank you! :rolleyes: :)

As for performance related pay, the problem here is that DALPA, APA and now Lufthansa crews are demanding huge pay increases - just when the economic downturn is starting to bite. I'd be the first to agree that personnel - all personnel - should share in the fruits of their labours when things are going well; but equally when the company needs to cut costs then they must be willing to bite the bullet in return for that bonus participation. Hence the basic salary plus company performance related pay proposal.

As for the company's auditors and attorneys - yes, you'll find that in many cases they also form part of the cost cutting exercises when things are tight with much more use being made of in-house, rather than outsourced, resources.

I agree with you also that the pilots have lived up to their part of the contract when they have delivered their pax safely and on time in a cost effective manner.

But there's the crux of the issue.

When you join an airline, you're usually told how much you're going to be earning and what your other terms and conditions will be.

You then have a choice - accept the deal, or reject it and go elsewhere.

By demanding huge pay increases, these people are in effect rewriting the rules after the game has started - and that's just not cricket, I'm afraid! :)

This is an argument that's going to run and run....

BusyB

7th May 2001, 19:59

Guv, What you'vejust said is exactly what Cathay has done to us. My contract has been rewritten at least 3 times since '94 by our management, to our disadvantage of course.

wonderbusdriver

7th May 2001, 20:24

...By demanding huge pay increases, these people are in effect rewriting the rules after the game has started - and that's just not cricket, I'm afraid.

GUV:

The rules are being rewritten constantly - more often by management - for good or "bad" reasons - than by the employees.

If the situation and thus the "contract" weren´t constanly "changing", there would be less coflicts.

The argument - "You knew what you were getting into." just doesn´t hold - for ALL sides.
It´s a part of life.

Alien Shores

8th May 2001, 02:00

Guvnor, when I sign out my aircraft I sign acceptance per sector of an almost $1,000,000,000 US liability, for which I am solely responsible. You don't believe me...? Well, have a look in our documents folder, it's in there.

My salary (UK major Captain) makes a mockery of that. You do talk a good management position, but to throw your engineer argument back, if they leave the oil filter caps off, and you happen to be on the flight that gets airbourne with that particular fun scenario to deal with, how much would you pay the crew who put that aircraft back on the ground with your ass in one pice? I believe it was BMA in that case, no? And before you say "Well, their salary, of course," would you have rather have been in the hands of certain airline's pilots at that time, and not others? Well? Are they all the same?

Your arguments are rather dead in the water, but you are so good at that stuck-record method that they will never change, I can see that. Until that day when a pilot whom you consider overpaid puts that ass of yours back on the ground in a situation you couldn't have saved, or any of your accountants, managers, Feng-Shui specialists, analyists or whatever saved, I expect to hear nothing but the same from you. That is the bottom line that really counts.

Good luck, but you are, always have been, and always will be on the backfoot. Problem is, I think you know it, but have to argue otherwise.

AS

[This message has been edited by Alien Shores (edited 07 May 2001).]

Airbubba

8th May 2001, 02:46

>>Guvnor, when I sign out my aircraft I sign acceptance per sector of an almost $1,000,000,000 US liability, for which I am solely responsible.<<

You're solely responsible for a billion U.S. dollars of liability per sector? Maybe you share a little of that responsibility with someone perhaps, or do you fly single pilot aircraft? Or are there a few extra zeros in your claim?

I need to wipe my shoes off after reading this one <g>...

But I agree, you do deserve more money than you accept for flying in the U.K.

"A billion here, a couple of billion there -- first thing you know it adds up to be real money"

- Senator Everett M. Dirksen

ClearDirect

8th May 2001, 04:04

Guv
As you may have figured, I enjoy a lively debate. :)
Two points.
1.On your theory of a pilot meritocracy, just how do you define your average, above average, and superb airmen? Who decides what the criteria are?
Does this actually work in any other profession?
2."You then have a choice - accept the deal, or reject it and go elsewhere."
Actually, there is one more choice,-accept less than optimum in the expectation that you may be able to change things.(Any ATLAS bells ringing there?)
Everybody joins an organisation with the understanding that they expect it to grow and prosper, and they expect that they will do likewise.That involves change.

Finally, are you saying that Delta's and AA's negotiators are incompetent, and signed something they clearly know to be unsustainable?

Alien Shores

8th May 2001, 04:38

Sorry, Airbubba, of course the almost $1 Billion US Public Liability Insurance Limit is shared professionally with the FO, but under all the conventions we fly (Warsaw, Montreal et al) I only recall ever seeing the Commander as liable.

Anyone else is of course entitled to stake their claim. Only the Commander will be hauled up and held liable however.

All the best, enjoy wiping your feet, you may find yourself similarly liable if you peruse your companies insurance documents. Ours are held on the flight deck in a yellow folder, and everything I have written here is verifiable.

Alien

[This message has been edited by Alien Shores (edited 08 May 2001).]

The Guvnor

8th May 2001, 05:08

busybee and wonderbusdriver - as I said, it's a team effort. That includes management: and I agree with you that the contractual rules shouldn't be changed by them either; at least not without prior concensus as to how any negative change will be made up subsequently. That way, at least, everyone know's where they stand.

Alien Shores your third party liability insurance cover is simply there to cover your company in the event that you're flying the American Bar Association home to New York and you crash into Wall Street.

I think you have put your finger on a rather good point - it's when the chips are down that most pilots really earn their money. Some, of course, don't come up to scratch ...

seasunsandfly - nope, I just think that they know when they are between a rock and a hard place and they caved in to try and avert a strike. Unfortunately, in my opinion, with the current economic situation it was a bad move.

Alien Shores

8th May 2001, 05:20

.....ahh Guvnor, maybe we are singing from the same hymn sheet....

I think you have put your finger on a rather good point - it's when the chips are down that most pilots really earn their money. Some, of course, don't come up to scratch ... 

....and from a management point of view, compare and contrast the handling of British Airways under Mr Robert Ayling, where they have more non-essential personnel per-aircraft today than any other 1st World carrier in the (250 p/a I believe, at least.) To whom would you rather trust your most important investments?

We were guided by those who not only did not come up to scratch, but forgot to even check out a towel before they entered the swimming pool. I will not be held even partly liable for their faux-pas. You are, however, welcome to fly with me any day......

Alien

You choose. It would be interesting to see where your bottom line really lies.

Airbubba

8th May 2001, 06:24

>>Sorry, Airbubba, of course the almost $1 Billion US Public Liability Insurance Limit is shared professionally with the FO, but under all the conventions we fly (Warsaw, Montreal et al) I only recall ever seeing the Commander as liable.<<

>>Only the Commander will be hauled up and held liable however.<<

Think you may be a little confused on this one, the Warsaw Convention in most cases limits the liability of the carrier, not the Commander.

Anyway, crew concept is a little different over here in the States, there is probably more blame spread around in the event of a mishap.

All of these fancy conventions limit the liability of the air carrier to much less than a billion, e.g. the Warsaw Convention Montreal Agreement limit of $75,000 per pax. The Guatemala Protocol provides for an "unbreakable" limit of $100,000 (or 100,000 International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights in Montreal 3 and 4).

I certainly am not privy to my company's insurance documents, and they are not privy to mine <g>. Under the U.S. system you don't want a potential litigant to know how deep your pockets are. Knowing the British system you probably carry a copy of the insurance policy in the plane and page check it before every sector. I'm joking, I think.

We set the standards for awards to ambulance chasing lawyers, so far no crash has come anywhere near a billion in liability. I think perhaps the Public Liability Insurance Limit is a somewhat artificial number rooted in UK law, it struck me as being a little hyperbolic when figuring our worth as pilots. Here in America we don't know how much we're worth but we sure know how much we get paid <g>.

Our system of threatening job actions and down to the wire negotiation isn't always fun, but it has brought us tremendous gains in compensation and work rules compared to the stagnant conditions overseas. Of course, you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

You guys sure deserve more than you're getting from what I can see, and I've worked on both sides of the fence... I shouldn't sound sarcastic but a pilot union over here going after a 3% raise would be run out of town on a rail.

[This message has been edited by Airbubba (edited 08 May 2001).]

Alien Shores

8th May 2001, 11:58

Knowing the British system you probably carry a copy of the insurance policy in the plane and page check it before every sector. I'm joking, I think.

Funnily enough, we do, but don't check it every sector. However when we do check it we find.... guess what? Yep. $1B or near enough. Sad but true....

Yeah, I know the Warsaw limits the carrier to £2.50 per-incident or some such low figure , but all references in all the conventions to the guy up front go one way, Airbubba, with the specific term commander used to differentiate those countries or operators where the captain may not be an operating pilot.

However, we are on the same team, so thanks for your support! Send some of your union boys over to BALPA, we really need their advice.

aluminum ovcst

9th May 2001, 02:13

Dear Guvnor,

Once again you've managed to lead a post into an unending discussion which you shouldn't even be a part of. You are obviously not a pilot (or maybe you've greased your way into a Chief Pilot's seat). In any case, maybe you haven't realized that this is the Pro "PILOT´S" Rumour Network and you should leave the discussing to us pilots. I for one am no longer interested in reading your ridiculous posts. Maybe you could have spent your 2000+ posts on a different forum; you're sure not convincing any of us.

Notso Fantastic

9th May 2001, 12:43

Guys, For goodness sake, stop letting him tick you off! He is only some failed airline startup type, full of empty promises, who likes to tease people- in this case prefessional pilots. YOOU HAVE BEEN WARNED what he, and a couple of others are up to! Just ignore the teasing- he and the others do not belong in this discussion area.

scroggs

9th May 2001, 17:45

I'm one of those odd Brits that, up to now, has been generally happy with the package I get. I get more than most people I know in other professional fields in UK, and the maximum achievable in the UK majors (around £120K or $180K) compares pretty well with the top of those other professions. Sure, few people achieve that level of pay, but that's equally true of a lawyer, doctor or whatever. Payscales of £200,000 ($300K) are not likely for anyone not in the company board business, or who is not a top-line professional sports or entertainment person.
However, I did have cause to blink a bit when I discovered that the Mears bus driver who drove us from MCO to the hotel was earning more from his military pension ($58K) than I get in basic salary from my airline! Add his Mears pay, and he was earning more than our skipper - and we're talking a 747 crew here! Now, I know that pay in general is better in the US than the UK, but that really shocked me. Yet the Comair guys in the strike line at MCO were probably on less than half this guy's earnings. It's a strange world!

The Guvnor

9th May 2001, 18:22

Notso Fantastic - considering your pfofile says that your interests are "money, money, money" could you be slightly biased here? :rolleyes: :P :rolleyes:

Beaver Driver

9th May 2001, 21:28

So Guv I guess you're just in it for the fame. You can quit now as I think you are famous enough....or is that infamous.

tilii

9th May 2001, 23:54

And of course The Guvnor is never (even slightly) biased, is he guys?

I am sick to death of his bombastic rantings and truly wish he would have the good grace to bog off and start a website for daydreamers and airline execs (failed).

Who?

9th May 2001, 23:55

Incredible that "The Guvnor" can still parade around this forum claiming to be some sort of aviation professional!

I see that your latest "defamation", or is it exposé, is still on the 'net, at http://flytristar.tripod.com/article/art06.html , even after you threatened the author with legal action!

CarltonBrowne the FO

10th May 2001, 03:34

Just because NotsoFantastic is interested in an ABBA song, it doesn't make him a bad person!

Beaver Driver

10th May 2001, 06:58

Guv
How can you even think to post on this forum with any kind of credibility after an arcticle like that! What a loser!!!

Spad

10th May 2001, 07:59

Haven't read the whole thread, but my main memory of pilots from the UK was the way so many of them fell over themselves to screw fellow pilots half a world away in Australia in 1989 for some perceived short-term gain for themselves. They weren't forced to do this, (as some will now attest) - many begged to be allowed to go, and when they got there, took great delight in rubbing 'it' in the faces of the men and women they put out of work.

And now, the same people complain about all the Australians coming to the UK to take their jobs, when, truth be told, if they'd stayed away in 89, few Australians would have needed to go overseas to find work, and many of those who did would have returned home.

You're your own worst enemies. Or at least there are enough of such people among you to drag the rest of you down and keep you there.

invertedspin

10th May 2001, 13:22

Pilots receive a scandalously low pay in Europe.
I recently learned that future boat officers (tankers, freighters...) in INDIA (YES !) receive 1500£/month DURING THEIR TRAINING (training which is financed by companies). Not bad for India. Some UK pilots dont make so much.
When you consider that pilots have to pay most of the time for their training with a low job garantee. In fact, i would not advise the profession to anyone, excepted maybe military pilots.

tilii

10th May 2001, 17:28

Spad

While I acknowledge your right to be bitter and twisted about ancient history that once (presumably) affected your own best interests, I wonder how you link the statements made in your post above to the title of this thread.

I most respectfully suggest you take your whinging elsewhere, dear chap, and less of the derogatory and racist remarks.

Ignition Override

11th May 2001, 08:22

When we arrived at Milwaukee (KMKE), Wisconsin this afternoon, a short flight north of Chicago's O'Hare Airport, a huge, very shiny green Irish airline A-330 (Shamrock?) was at the next gate, because of weather or a related traffic back-up just earlier at or near O'Hare (KORD).

When those two pilots were considering a divert from wherever they were holding or zigzaging via vectors, with maybe very limited fuel and requiring a fairly long runway(?), with few in the area (O'Hare, their planned destination, has the longest), who was up there in the cockpit to figure out for the crew the CRITICAL 1) safety vs 2)cost vs 3)passenger service vs 4)schedule delay options, often in contradiction with each other? The cockpit automation can't make command decisions for you. If it had been winter, any divert airport might have been near or at minimums with slippery runways, whether the aircraft's systems decide to behave or not.

Considering the sad results of a few wrong decisions or ommisions (easier to make with low experience), should not those A-330 pilots and any others, who are not working for a government dept, earn among the top salaries/benefit packages in the industry-unless their company is very deeply in debt, compared to its competitors?

Who can claim that a COCKPIT crew does NOT make corporate EXECUTIVE DECISIONS, flying top corporate revenue-producing assets onto windy, limited concrete at 140 miles per hour or more? I'm not necesaarily advocating salaries/benefits much above the main competition, but it should be at least equal to the higher-paying average (BA, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, SAS...?, with "typical" cost of living increases and salaries designed for the gigantic tax bite over there, built in to the contract. Just food for thought.

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 11 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 11 May 2001).]