Do Some Pilots Earn Too Much?

[The Guvnor]

This is going to be a controversial one! :) :)

I've followed with much interest the pay claims of pilots at United, American and Delta - and as can be seen from the thread on take home pay, their monthly after-tax pay is, in many cases, more than the annual pay of some crews flying identical aircraft.

From a corporate standpoint, this is a fast-track to bankruptcy, especially in a recession which it is widely acknowledged we're entering at the moment. Salaries are part of overhead - and high overhead kills off companies when revenues are down.

Not only this, but their agreements limit the number of hours they have to work to ridiculously low levels - the equivalent of just over a working week for an average person per month.

They expect to be paid for training time - regardless of the fact that most professions require training/seminars/conferences for which there is no additional pay.

Benefits - such as concessionary travel - are worth many thousands of dollars (especially for a family travelling first class several times a year); yet this is apparently not taken into consideration.

The pay gap between US crews (and these three carriers in particular) and crews in the rest of the world is vast and seemingly growing out of control. It's very much to ALPA's benefit if other US majors (such as Continental, US Airways, TWA, Northwest, Southwest etc) join them - and ensures for those carriers that are paying their crews high salaries that come the recession, their competitors are in the same boat.

But can these pay levels be justified? I think not. Sure, there are some very high salaries paid to a few - very few - entrepreneurs and senior executives; but by and large almost all of the senior executives at AA, DL and UA are on lower salaries than their captains.

Is there any justification for retaining the old system of paying higher salaries for larger aircraft? An evaluation of the Delta payscales shows that a captain on the B737-200 can currently expect to be paid US$208.30 per hour; yet his colleague on a B737NG can expect US$232.59/hr. If he's on B727s he'll get US$221.83 - yet if he's on B757s he'll get US$239.41. A B767 captain has has six possible pay rates - US$243.92 for a B767-200; US$245.48 on a B767-300; US$248.27 on a B767-300ER flying domestically and US$260.27 flying the same aircraft internationally. If s/he's on the new B767-400, s/he can expect US$269.74 when flying domestically and US$281.74 when flying internationally.

Even the venerable L1011 has four rates - US$262.28 for the longbody on domestic and US$275.28 for the same aircraft internationally; and US$269.33 and US$281.33 for domestic and international operations on the -500.

Highest pay rates are for the B777 - US$285.34 per hour for domestic sectors and US$297.34 for international.

Delta pilots get a US$12 per hour override for international vs domestic operations.

Not only are these rates high; but DALPA wants them to go much higher - with increases averaging over 40%.

Insanity - pure insanity.

Surely a far better way of doing things would be to have a 'normal' level of base pay - and then profit share (perhaps in conjunction with an ESOP) so that if the company's doing well - then the employees do likewise. If it isn't - then they don't get any extra. The benefit to the company is that they can control their overhead by keeping pay at a reasonable level - and employees share in the good times.

Comments?

[wysiwyg]

Do some pilots get paid too little - YES!

During a discussion on a turnaround with my last employer I discovered that the people who were cleaning the cabin were earning rather more than I was. No wonder I left!

[AeroBoero]

You should go to South America , and ask around some salaries... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif...the other way (too little) seems to be the rule.... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif (and I am not even thinking of Africa...Russia...China...)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Do some pilots get paid too much? Yes!

[fly4fud]

Surely no pilot is earning too much, come on ;) (just some other pilots not earning enough...)

A few points though:
- pilot market salaries are dictated by the pilots themselves, and not the market! (e.g. if you feel you don't earn enough, join the union NOW)
- if the companies cannot afford the salaries, how come they invite people to fly for peanuts (like in my company, I think we will soon have to pay the pax to come along :mad: )
- why always moan about the high wages of pilots if companies are not even able to increase fares due to Jet A1 and US$ increase. The related increase in fares should be regulation amongst all airlines
- the positive side of the high earning folks is to have somethin' to aim for :)

Have a successful new Millennium you all!

------------------
* cut my wings and I'll die *

[This message has been edited by fly4fud (edited 30 December 2000).]

[dallas dude]

Guvnor

Your summary of pay rates and comment makes no consideration for the time/money/effort/sacrifice that the men and women lucky enough to fly for a major US airline exert. (In fact 99% of prospective flight crews around the World suffer likewise.)

Even you should understand that we don't just "find" our licences in lucky boxes of Crackerjack (or Jamboree bags!).

It took me TEN YEARS to make it. During those TEN YEARS my friends earned real salaries, bought nice houses, drove nice cars (and didn't have to constantly troll the car park seeking a friendly soul for a jump start).
Add to this, the CAA and it's various "friends" took pretty much all the money I had.

In reality we're just playing "catch up".

Do you have ANY IDEA how many folks have to drop out of aviation because they simply can no longer afford to participate?

Talk about pushing a pea uphill with your nose!

Roy Keane can make $70,000 (rough conversion) a WEEK. Who am I to tell him he's overpaid?

Profit sharing is all well and good but you go ahead and name the top airline execs that you'd gamble YOUR life on. Short list isn't it? My airline has 11,500 of them (pilots) and you can count on EVERY ONE!

All markets support the expenses of the best providers in their industry, whether that's for surgery, financial advice, advertising, whatever.

Sorry you have your reasons NOT to be a crew member for the US majors. That's your choice, though.

Cheers,dd.

[JJflyer]

I don´t that I earn enough anymore...

JJ

[aviator]

Here is a different view on pilot salaries from a Miami Herald article a couple of weeks ago:


"Very few people in the United States, in any given field, have $150 million in company assets and 400 lives in their hands,'' said Frederick "Rick'' Dubinsky, chairman of the United pilots council within ALPA. "So I don't think we're paid too much. They should double or triple it. I'm not apologizing."


I think he makes a lot of sense!

[AeroBoero]

dallas dude;

That was something I think most of us have in mind. Our time/money/effort/risk to be in the cockpit.
Time - You can be "lucky" , and do a fast track...that is on the house of 1,5 to 2 years from nothing to "Frozen" ATPL.(I mean really working for an airliner or a decent biz outfit.) But that if you are lucky.And aside from EU and some countries in Asia ,there isn't the "sponsor" program in the rest of the world (that I know of anyway - someone correct-me if I am wrong , please). So it can be 2 to 10 years..who knows.

Money - No need to be explaining much here.Most fo us know how aviation likes our money...and I mean really likes money.And its getting more and more expensive.Again , some are lucky to be accepeted in sponsor schemes and have some "certainty" in the future , others do not and get real problems with that. And there is the difference in training methods(how to suck our money out).I was a little surprised that here in the EU (at least here in Holland) you need to pay landing fee (and that includes Touch&Go's) and sometimes a lot of others hidden fees. To use Brazil for comparsion (I know the US too), there the plane from a school don't pay landing fees and radio/nav fees , to stimulate low prices and therefore atracting people in to flying(and make an already expensive career a little more affordable). I think I have no need to speak about the US as there is widely known to each one how it works there.

Effort - It's the sum of all.Your effort is great , and so it remains during your "hunt" for the ultimate goal - a "real" job (read an Airline- or a good biz outfit to others).You know what you have been trough till now and what maybe you still have to go.

Risk - Life is risks ,but then we are being constantly reminded how our careers can end without even getting started sometimes. You start with the Medicals. Each year (and after twice a year) you go to the AME to see if they let you go another round. I have seen people been kicked out rightfully (and sometimes not) , and bam...from one day to another bye flying.And if you are in your mid-forty's (i.e.), you have a problem ,what will you do/learn at this stage of life?Not to speak how your body will be suffering with non-routine , changing day-by-night and vice-versa(I know that that was in the profession when I started - but you can't not feel it - is there so we need to cope with it) and jet-lags for some others crews.
After that , are those wonderful check-rides (exams here). Fail there , and get in trouble too. Always hoping not to get an instructor/examiner that hasn't had a good night so you're the guilty one...and therefore you should pay the price....with your career if necessary.
And to sum to all that , an Airline is nothing more than business , pure and simple.So the "boss" always thinks you're gaining too much and he is profiting too less...so you should pay the price to get the company (and the dozens of executives) more wealthy.Or worse , they can decide that you won't be necessary and show you the way to the street.(If the the company don't go to bottom too - then is even worser).
And I did not even talk about the loss of life ,as I think this can happen when we are flying or having dinner at home.

So Guv , nothing personal , but I think that we think execs are paid too much as execs think pilots gain too much.There will always be this discussion.

And I bet it won't be long for someone to come in here and say that pilots complain too much and work too little , that we should look at another professions and be grateful etc.etc... Sorry , but as much as we (most of us anyway) love flying, everybody needs to have a life too...eat/drink have a house..those sort of things (and pay the training back!). I wonder what would be the argument ,let's say , from a football(soccer) player when someone said he earn too much (millions for some "blokes")?? :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 31 December 2000).]

[The Guvnor]

Some excellent responses there!

Aeroboero is right. Why should he in Brazil, earn less than his counterparts in North America or Western Europe? He's presumably gone through similar training and hour building as people here - yet a Brazilian pilot probably earns less in a year than a DL captain earns in a month, flying the same aircraft.

Whilst, as Fly4fud says, at certain companies the pilots have tried to dictate to the market (rather than the other way round) this is a short term plan that generally ends up in tears. It wasn't that long ago that AA stood up to their pilots - and they backed down.

The reason that fares are so low is because of competition. There are a lot of seats chasing not all that many bums - and the only way the market can be stimulated to create higher demand (and thus more bums) is to reduce fares. This can only be done effectively if costs are also low - we've seen what happened when high cost carriers attempted to create low cost operations. The moment an airline increases its fares, demand falls away - this is basic economics.

High overhead + low yields = bankrupcy.

dallas dude - there are an awful lot of other professions where people have to go through similar amounts of training and low pay. A doctor/surgeon would be one such example - and the pay rates in the UK for NHS surgeons are certainly nothing to write home about! Accountants, lawyers, dentists, vets, scientists, professors ... really all the true 'professions' involve long periods of training/indenture and much sacrifice. What makes pilots any different?

As for your analogy of putting your life in other people's hands - what about train or bus drivers? Ships captains? Taxi drivers? A cruise liner captain has responsibility for considerably more people - and a much more valuable asset - than an A380 pilot ever will! On the ALPA formula of bigger + more pax = more pay, the captains of the new cruise leviathans should be earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a month!

As you say, the top of the crop in any profession can expect to earn more than their less able colleagues. Does this mean that you're saying that AA, DL, UA etc employ the best of the best - and that there are no second rate pilots in there? If so, that's incredibly naive - and arrogant. I have no doubt that there are many pilots around the world who are at least as good as the best at the US majors - in many cases, probably better; yet they get paid a lot less.

Of course, at the other end of the scale one has the sports players, actors and pop stars earning millions. And you've got merchant bankers (investment bankers for our US friends) and attorneys earning truly staggering sums of money - the value that they are putting into society and the economy can well be debated! :) :)

[rocketeer]

Very well said guvnor! Can`t agree more to what you`ve written. It really anoys me everytime I hear that crab from someone in a major, about how he deserves the high salary because he put such effort in getting the job. I also spent several tough years to get the good job(in a major) I have now. It is always a big matter of luck where you end in and everyone on the bright side should be a bit more grateful for what he achieved.
It is not(only) a matter of talent!

[dallas dude]

Guvnor

Let's both understand something from the get-go. I get paid well not because of what I "do". I make good money because years ago union folks fought for decent pay and working conditions. I have the good fortune to have inherited the spoils from their hard won battles. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not about to return part of my check beacause of guilt pains. I'm no Red Robbo but it's my (and the other 11,500+) union affiliation that will leave this place better for my successors than even I found it! My company is making near record profits (and I hope they kick everyone elses' butt doing it!) but pilot salary's are small potatoes to other expenses in this industry. I have figures available and know exactly how much it costs my airline to get a pax from A to B.
They are not a charity and you and I wouldn't expect them to be.

I think you make a mistake comparing Europe to the US regards air travel or even general transportation for that matter. You "claim" that more bums on seats equals more money. Not necessarily true, otherwise why would American REMOVE rows of seats?

Here in the US there is such a huge market for the flying public that niche carriers (and I mean no offense) like Southwest or Spirit Airlines etc will always find plane loads of folks who don't mind paying for their type of service. Conversely, there are folks who want/expect a little bit more and they have their airlines of choice. (Please note as far as I'm concerned what we do up front is equitable no matter what symbol is painted on the tail !)

I appreciate your twisting the point of my previous post regarding "making it after 10 years". If you or anyone thought that after 6 or 7 years of crappy paying flying jobs I suddenly became Jesus in flying boots when I joined AA you're going to be disappointed.

The best flying I ever did was in ragged out freighters with multiple MEL items, VERY questionable weather radar and a couple of owners who'd lie to your face if they could screw you out of a dollar. Oh and if you got hurt in the process no problem - the POS aeroplane's insured ! Like all owners who are happy to take advantage of the fact that folks like me are/were building a career and use these experiences as stepping stones you don't see people, you see dollar or pound signs. The salary you offer HAS NOTHING to do with ability. You do it because you can get away with it!

All those who've been there/done that (and those that still are) - nod your heads.

In closing, you mention American and ALPA in the same breath. American has not been part of ALPA since 1963.

You also mentioned that "American got tough with its pilot group". Please explain this comment. I'll be happy to share the facts with you.

Cheers,dd.

[The Guvnor]

dallas dude - I have the DOT figures as published for each airline in the States. As a proportion of overall costs, salaries make up by far the greatest amount - anywhere between 30% and 50% of overall costs. If, as DALPA wants, those costs are increased by a further 40%, you'll have up to 70% of all costs attributable to employment.

And that's just (plane) crazy!

If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I'd see hard times ahead for UAL and any carrier (such as DL and AA) that emulates their insane pay scales. I see major layoffs - and probably industrial action - which will devastate once fine carriers.

We've seen it this past summer at UA - and a couple of years back at your own employer, AA - where the damage caused by such action is both severe and long term. I'd hate to think how many tens of thousands of once loyal customers United has lost over the actions of its pilots (and intransigence of management, to be fair).

You're quite right about more bums on seats not necessarily making more money - I was responding to Fly4fud's posting when I said that.

AA, and its OneWorld partner BA, have (in my view correctly) opted to concentrate on the high yield market rather than simply playing a numbers game. This means that they will fly fewer pax - and have got themselves smaller aircraft as a result - but will charge higher fares to pax for a quality service.

That's fine as long as the pax are prepared to pay - but as we saw in the last recession, corporate travel budgets are one of the first areas to be cut. This leaves carriers - such as AA, UA and DL - with very high overheads (new aircraft, high salaries)in a very precarious situation.

Live it up for now, dd - but at the same time, think of the hundreds of (formerly highly paid) pilots who have never returned to the air after the bankruptcies of carriers such as EA and PA.

[aviator]

Guvnor - I am a little puzzled at excactly what you think is proper compensation in any given profession.

Do we use third world countries as a base line? Do we use rate of inflation -
that is what United got (3.8% per year from 1993) and that is after taking a 23,8% CUT for 6 years?

If being competitive means getting paid less than your competitors we all will be looking at African/Russian/South-American salaries before long.

As for PanAm and Eastern - I think you know that their demise was caused by a multitude of factors - the least of which was pilot wages.

Look at TWA - they are among the lowest paid pilots of any sizable carrier.

I am continually astonished at how airline managers look to their employees to subsidize their poor management skills. And yes - those skills do matter. While the USA is being poo-poo'd for paying the pilots too much, the US ticket prices are on average much lower than, say, in Europe.....

[dallas dude]

Guvnor

Your point about passengers being treated as pawns is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, over the years the pilot group has done such a good job of telling the travelling public how great aviation is and projecting the image that pilots are on a par with Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers etc., that few members of the public have (and fair enough) ANY sympathy for us "poor" hourly paid employees.

What you fail to take in to consideration is the fact that in UAL's case, UAL sold tickets on flights that it KNEW it could not operate because the pilot group had been telling management for EIGHTEEN months that they weren't hiring enough pilots to work these flights. UAL management, in its arrogance, ignored these warnings and as a result the pax lost out and once again it's the greedy pilots' fault ( I don't write a letter of this for sympathy, I write it because it's the TRUTH). How could you expect to run an airline (or any business)properly if your published schedule is totally reliant on employees working mandatory overtime? As usual incompetent management runs to their friends in the press
and the Government ( they make HUGE political contibutions-wonder why ?) and make everyone but themselves out to be responsible for the debacle! If I ran a business like this I'd be accused of fraud!

Ok that's got me warmed up. Would you like the lesson on EAL now?
Ever heard of a guy named Francisco Lorenzo ?
This piece of work ran rings around the labor laws (with considerable skill I might add) and picked off the carcass of EAL to add to his considerable fortune. The pilots at EAL could have worked for $2.50 an hour and Lorenzo would have tried to reduce that to $2.49 etc. The staff at EAL ,many of whom saw their life's work ruined, were left with nothing except the prospect of starting over.

The low cost/low paid carriers Lorenzo started (helped I might add by fools who did not see the big picture) only made a select few VERY WEALTHY. Clue, it wasn't the "greedy" pilots.

Pan Am ,sadly, were victims of US de-regulation rather than any "greedy" group of pilots. In effect,for years Pan Am was happy to have the domestic carriers provide feed to their international operation. When the 'cuffs came off in 1978 and the Delta's, United's, American's etc were able to compete for routes with Pan Am as well, the passengers' were ALREADY on their aeroplanes so why hand them over to Pan Am ? Very weak domestic feed = bye,bye Pan Am.

You claim WHEN Delta (go boys and girls!) attain their new pay-rates that 70 % of the expenses will go to labor costs. Nonsense.

Simple math here, let's use a two hour (600 mile to be conservative) domestic flight for example. We'll say the aeroplane seats 89 passengers. The Captain makes $ 200/hr, I make $100/hr = $600 (We don't, these rates are inflated for the purpose of this example). Three flight attendants (highly underpaid!) add $150 for a crew total of $750. The aeroplane we fly costs $6400/hr to operate. This allows for every other employee who is "touched" by the flight and the gas, amortization, etc so right now our 2 hour flight has expenses of $12,800, plus $750 for the crew. NOTE, $600 for us is not even close to the percentages you claim.

The aeroplane has an average load factor of 70% so we'll say there are 6 folks in first class (@ $550 per seat) and 57 folks in coach (@ $350 per seat). First class contributes $3300, coach adds another $19950 for a total revenue of $23250. Just to be fair let's say there are 10 non-revs aboard filling up 10 more seats. The cost per seat mile to the airline is 9 cents/mile. So, as we said the 2 hour distance is 600 miles, these seats "cost" the company $540. $23250 less $540 is $22710.

I believe the above figures I've used for seats are reasonable averages at AA. I've used the F100 at AA.

As anyone can see, these are MONEY MAKING MACHINES ! This trip generated over $9000 profit. Now imagine that multiplied by over TWO THOUSAND departures per day! Then explain me why the company can't afford its pilots?

I suppose Bob Ayling is worth the money he was paid, eh? Now that MAY be worth complaining about!

Cheers,dd.

[JJflyer]

Correcto Dallas dude...

When I travel domestic US Coach, I prefer AA as they have more legroom than most domestic narrowbody 1st classes have.

JJ

[AeroBoero]

dallas dude;

I agree with all that you've said.
On my above post, I mentioned about getting the "real" job. I use an airline as example , as from where I came from , this was viewed like a "real" job. You got more "security" and other benefits. But I know very well that being in a airline doesn't necessarily mean a dream job.
Also it is difficult when the Union don't work that well.In the US and EU is more "easy" to have Union taking care of the matters. That's not so simple out that axis (aviation side).And some people up here don't understand that too. Let me give an example ; last year the then second or third major in Brazil , to avoid trouble, fired all the crew that were in the head of the pilots union. A "simple" way to get a message through.

And just to add to your example in the above post. I think you should have included paying cargo.


Guv;

Normally if the crew isn't the cheapiest part of the flight , they are very close to it. And as I said before , is easy to say pilot's "gain" too much. But is that really the case?







[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 01 January 2001).]

[turbosheep]

Guvnor,
Are you trying to get into the management's good book ?
Or are you in management ?
We all know that for every share option that the pilot gets, the managements will get many times more, so ESOP is just window dressing for all I care.
I prefer the cold hard cash anyday.

[Roadtrip]

Well said Dallas Dude.

Guv - Crew costs don't kill airlines. Incompetent managment, bad leadership, and fuel costs do. Do the math and don't rely on some bogus opinions. The idea that captains are making more than senior execs is laughable.

You're worth what you negotiate. Do you think the senior managers at the major airlines don't negotiate for their salaries and working conditions???? Maybe some people have some sort of socialist idea compensation, but it usually only applies to other people, not themselves. By the way Guv, are you going to publish your real compensation level to your employees when your airline starts up??

[dallas dude]

Guvnor

You've had 24 hours to respond to the FACTS.

Your silence is deafening.

Cheers,dd.

[Roc]

I live in the New york metro area, Alot of my friends, who barely graduated high school, got jobs on Wall street and easily bring in $200,000 to $300,000 a year, and I ask "for what!" selling and trading stocks!!! my brother-in law makes way more than a 747 Captain, as a lawyer. I ask, when he screws up a case how many people die!! and respectfully Guv, I don't know a single doctor who makes a less than stellar salary. Look at it this way, if you owned a company, and bought a piece of equipment that cost $100 million dollars, how much would you pay a person who has spent 10 years mastering its operation? $50,000 a year? I dont think so! now add the potential loss of life if said operator makes a mistake etc etc. I often say that a typical airline pilot will earn his entire yearly salary on one or two nights per year, what would an airline pay to safely land afew hundred people, versus a catastrophic accident? a pilots salary is a small price to pay

[Airworthiness Directive]

A little brevity required I think

[Airworthiness Directive]

A little brevity required.

Dear, The Governor for someone who supposedly is an owner of an airline; you display a breathtaking lack of understanding for the fundamentals of market forces, supply and demand and the theory of Parato optimality.

I suspect its because you spend to much time reading and writing trivial nonsense on this forum.

Long live the free market!

A. D

[dallas dude]

AeroBoero

Thanks for your comments, here.

I must admit for 20 minutes the G-man had me fooled in to thinking he knew what he was talking about but after scanning through several of his other posts I declare his efforts to be on a par with Sisyphus.

Anyone wishing to turn a large fortune in to a small one should consider investing in his "Fantasy Airline".

As for my money, I guess he'll have to be happy with just being able to impress the odd drunk in his local Pub.

Cheers,dd.

[Stuka]

Gentlemen:
As an underpaid widebody southamerican captain I don't see what's the point in questioning high salaries in the US, first the big airlines management are extremely able people in their fields, so I can assume that they agree to pay those salaries because they CAN, otherwise they'd go into some other line of bussiness. Second they get paid more in the US for the same reason that a doctor or a lawyer gets more than their couterparts elsewhere. Third, I must add that I have a very healthy envy for my US colleages, someone has to keep top wages high so the people earning less for the same Job can aspire to better standards. As pilots we ought not to critizise our colleages for earning too much, but to endeavor to improve our wages based in what they make.

[The Guvnor]

DD et at ... I have been travelling, so have been unable to respond as rapidly as I would ordinarily do.

Turbosheep - a properly constituted ESOP works on an equitable basis - you are eligible/required to purchase x% of your base salary worth of shares at a preferred rate. Too often, though, schemes which are as you pointed out designed to benefit management rather than all stakeholders are mislabelled "ESOPs" - and this devalues the genuine ones, making employees suspicious about management's motives for doing them.

dallas dude - as I said, I was using DOT figures - but, hey, what do they know anyway? I enjoyed your attempt to downplay the argument by selecting one of the smallest aircraft - let's use one of the 'hot' aircraft, shall we?

You like figures - well, here's some for you. These are the median operating costs for the B767-400, sourced from Delta, Continental and Boeing for a 2,000 nm trip, assuming US$0.80/USG:

Fuel: US$6,024
Landing fees: US$2,041
Nav charges: US$4,485
Crew Salaries: US$2,232
Maintenance: US$3,281
Ownership: US$13,309
Hull Insurance: US$693
DOC per trip: US$32,065

Sensitivity Analysis:
Fuel: 18.8%
Landing fees: 6.4%
Nav charges: 14%
Crew Salaries: 7%
Maintenance: 10.2%
Ownership: 41.5%
Hull Insurance: 2.2%

Now, lets see what happens with the sensitivity analysis when we increase the pay rates by the percentage sought by DALPA (31.15%). It has the effect of increasing salary cost per hour to US$2,927 per hour and total DOCs to US$32,760

Sensitivity Analysis:
Fuel: 18.4%
Landing fees: 6.2%
Nav charges: 13.7%
Crew Salaries: 8.9%
Maintenance: 10.0%
Ownership: 40.6%
Hull Insurance: 2.1%

I agree that the incremental increase in overall costs is minimal, percentage-wise - but let's look at the impact on the bottom line. The average gross profitability of a major US carrier (again according to the
DOT) is just 18.9%, with an average net profitability of less than 3%. The astronomical turnovers give some very large profit dollar numbers - but as we all know, you're better off putting your money in the post office than putting it in an airline!

That overall increase in operating costs - a mere 2.17%, if applied to all the majors - would have the effect of wiping out their average profitability. That's a sobering thought, surely.

Roadtrip - Under UK companies law, directors are required to reveal in their annual accounts their total remuneration package value, including all shares and options held. I'm not sure what US law is, but if that isn't the case there then I certainly feel it should be.

I agree with you that bad management decisions are a major contributing factor to the survival of an airline - but what I'm specifically talking about here is overall costs.

How many senior managers are there in say American Airlines earning the same as, or more than, say a 767 captain? Then how many 767 (or larger) captains are there in American? Sure, you'll find that at the very top of the food chain there are one or two individuals earning telephone number salaries. As was pointed out earlier, the cream of any profession can - and do - earn substantial amounts. That said, I certainly do not think that it is right that these people should be awarding themselves huge salary increases and/or bonuses and at the same time telling the employees that they have to tighten their belts - I believe the term for that is BOHICA, right, dd? :)

Roc - high salaries may be the norm for the US but I can assure you that 18-24 hour shifts and pay below the minimum wage is the norm for many interns over here who still hold people's lives in their hands. It would be interesting to compare UK pilots pay with that of their medical counterparts; and do the same exercise with US pilots and doctors.

[This message has been edited by The Guvnor (edited 03 January 2001).]

[iomode]

Hi Guv
I think you just supported dd's point...crew costs are a minimal part of the total operating cost of a new aircraft.
What surprises me is the nav. charges, twice that of crew cost. What hides behind that 14% ?

------------------
keep it up until the mission is complete.

[This message has been edited by iomode (edited 03 January 2001).]

[aviator]

Looking at the same things...

Why is it that crew cost is the only subject to adjustment (read paycut) and all other expenses appearently not questionable?

Travel agent commisions - have heard stories for years of 25-30% commisions paid out in Asia for the agencies to sell your ticket. It seems to make crew cost dirt cheap.

Landing fees - surely this already tax payer paid piece of property is negotiable.

Same with nav fees.

Lastly, assuming all figures make sense, shouldn't world's (non US) airlines be making heaps of money since they already have a pay structure (read low pay) that management wishes for the US pilots?

Do you get the feeling that the employees are the easiest ones to jump on?

[This message has been edited by aviator (edited 03 January 2001).]

[Roc]

Guv,

First your comparing a medical intern with a regular surgeon, of course interns make "squat" they make next to nothing here in the US as well. Then you compare Englands form of socialized medicine with the US's free market system, so again its apples and oranges. Bottom line Pilots should be one of the highest paid professions in any country based on the high levels of skills, abilities, and intelligence. If you guys think US pilots are overpaid, its more likely you are underpaid!! and if you want equitable pay scales for all professions, ask the Cubans and North Koreans, they have a very equitable system, and see how far thats got them.....

[dallas dude]

Here's my last effort on this subject, I think I've made my point.....

Guvnor.....Your original claim was to the effect that "if D-ALPA was allowed the pay raise they're asking for pilot salaries would account for 70% of Delta's costs and that's plane crazy".

Magnificently, you then provided figures that show the real initial labour cost (read investment) to be around 7% and AFTER the raise a WHOPPING 9% !

So you were only off by a factor of nearly EIGHT.

You then added that "of course, although the airlines gross 18% the poor folks only get to "keep" around 3%".

You don't think that's anything to do with smart accounting, do you ? Even I can manipulate a set of figures to show only what I want and "hide" the difference.
I'm not suggesting for one second I have the mental capacity to run an airline. I can fly an aeroplane , that's it. But I do know that while the people that run my airline may have been born at night, it wasn't last night!

So, in light of the previous discussions, will you be looking into your crystal ball for the phrase " maybe they aren't overpaid" or will you be busy preparing to open your first Post Office?

Cheers,dd.

[flufdriver]

Folks,....

There really can only be one point to this whole topic and that is the fact that many, if not most commercial Pilots are grossly underpaid.

I'm sure that it was the Guv's intent (in his own way) to draw this fact to the attention of the non-Pilot readership of this Forum. Since Pilots know this already.

Otherwise, I think, it would be very counterproductive for an entrepreneur who intends to start up an airline, to publicly pose a question and then answer it himself in the way in which he has, since he would then be recognized as a person who would seek to exploit the Pilots of his (future)airline and thus prevent top quality aircrew from considering employment with him.

The best safety device on any aircraft is a well trained and well paid Pilot!

Or am I missing something?

[The Guvnor]

Flufdriver - actually, you're quite right. As you can see from our website, our proposed pay rates are indeed somewhat higher than the norm - but bearing in mind that the primary focus of the company will be ACMI leases, I believe that the increased pay compensates for the flexibility required from our crews.

We will be implementing some of the things discussed here - including an ESOP and executive pay increases capped at the percentage increase in overall corporate profitability; and profit share/bonus for all.

Even so, our base packages for our L1011 captains come in at just under half that proposed by DALPA assuming 75 hours duty per month. That's what I'm getting at when I posed the question: Do Some Pilots Earn Too Much?

[The Guvnor]

Delta Air Lines Says 4Q Results Will Be Sharply Below Estimates


(1/5/01 2:53:23 PM PT)
ATLANTA -- Delta Air Lines Inc. warned its fourth-quarter earnings will miss analysts' expectations,
citing significant flight cancellations due to crew shortages and severe weather.

The nation's third-largest carrier said Friday it expects earnings for the quarter to come in between 55
cents and 65 cents a share, excluding noncash accounting adjustments.

The mean estimate of analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial called for earnings of 97
cents a share in the latest quarter. Delta (DAL) reported earnings of $175 million, or $1.24 a diluted
share, excluding items, on revenue of $3.71 billion in the year-earlier period.

For the latest fourth quarter, the airline said it expects to report revenue some $65 million to $75
million lower than previously anticipated. The company canceled approximately 7,500 flights during
December.

Earlier this week, Delta said it will cut its available seat miles by about 1% in January, 4% in February
and 3.5% in March. It cited an anticipated pilot shortage. Seat miles are calculated by multiplying the
number of seats available times the number of miles flown.

The carrier canceled more than 500 flights a day Sunday and Monday because of a crew shortage,
compared with normal levels of one or two such cancellations a day, according to spokesman Russ
Williams.

Delta took the Air Line Pilots Association and individual pilots to court in November, complaining that
they were coordinating a no-overtime campaign to pressure the company in current labor contract
negotiations. While acknowledging the sharp rise in the number of pilots refusing to fly overtime,
ALPA spokesman Gregg Holm said the union isn't promoting any concerted job action. The union
represents Delta's 9,400 pilots.

Under their labor agreement, Delta pilots are free to decline to fly overtime. But Delta, as well as other
major carriers, relies on overtime flying to complete part of its schedule.

Final results for the fourth quarter will be released on Jan. 18, the company said. Delta recently
switched its accounting from a fiscal year, ended June 30, to a calendar year, ending Dec. 31.

Separately, Delta said its December traffic rose 1.5% to 8.39 billion revenue passenger miles from
8.27 billion last year.

A revenue passenger mile is one paying passenger flown one mile. Load factor, or percentage of seats
filled, was 68.1%, compared with 65.5% in December 1999.

For the calendar year, Delta flew 113 billion revenue passenger miles, an increase of 3.9% over last
year's 108.7 billion. Load factor for the year was 72.9%, compared with 71.9% in 1999. Delta said
system capacity fell 2.3% because of the bad weather and reduced flying time by some pilots.

Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

[RRAAMJET]

Guv:

you should make your comparisons between professors, lawyers, Doctors, who have been with the same firm for 15-plus years, IN THE US ONLY. I think you'd find that the 15 year Capt is not way over the top, rather about the same.

Your mistake is to compare the US with the UK, where the average pay is ludicrously low for the 4th richest nation in the world, and the distribution of wealth is centuries out-of-date ( I'm a Brit BTW ). The middle -income bracket in the US is much wealthier than in the UK, and far more "professional" positions are held by working moms, with the result that in my neighbourhood ( not many pilots ), my pay is not remarked upon. The other professionals around me with the same company experience get as much or more, but we are "middle income". I think I represent a much larger % of the major airline pilots ( middle seniority ) than the the top 1000 or so that get your "too much" award.

I think that you speak from the position of one who is trying to start an airline, but in todays hiring market, with all the heavy-jet-timers with no "history" being snatched up, you are worried about where you are going to get your L-1011 experienced crews from. You can't compete with the package at the top 10 carriers, so you critique it. (NWA/UsAirways/ ALA/ UPS/ FedEx gets pretty much the same as me for similar equipment. You should do some basic research before you hammer just 3 airlines - continuously ).

Interesting post, though. The only thing is, we get told precisely who much we are of the cost ON EACH FLIGHT PLAN.

[The Guvnor]

RRAAMJET - as I said, by UK terms our proposed salary package isn't too bad - even more so for the guys working offshore and therefore being paid gross. In any case, I don't think we'd be employing too many Americans - we require UK/JAA licences for a start.

My interest in this is therefore largely academic: I am very concerned at the underlying pressure that will be placed on other carriers by both ALPA and the three majors that have or are considering paying their people these remarkably high salaries.

As with merchant bankers earning seven figure packages (including bonuses); and many US doctors, attorneys etc earning similarly excessive sums, I'm just wondering where it will all end? The gulf between the 'ordinary working man' and the 'upper middle classes' is widening - and from a social viewpoint, that has to be bad news.

I'm not advocating a communist system where everyone gets paid the same - but social unrest is caused, in large part, through situations such as this.

[Bird Strike]

Gov,

I may be thick here, but does 'Crew Cost' in your figure include the costs for cabin crew, or is it just for flight crew? Just curious.

[MachOverspeed]

Hey Guv,

OK, let me get this right, your assertion is that some major airline pilots are overpaid.

Well, I figure that you may, in a very few limited instances be correct. To be fair, one could claim, with a reasonable level of accuracy, that there are some individuals in ANY type of work who are over paid. (example: Deon Sanders when he was with the Cowboys) In my view an example of a CLASS which could be considered over paid would be politicians...but most assuredly NOT airline pilots.

Your view reminds me of Ted Kennedy, et al, who shriek of the "rich" not paying their "fair share" and how we don't need a tax cut etc... I wonder if old Ted has ever felt guilty about being so rich, and then decided to add a couple of thousand extra dollars to his tax payment on April 15th?

I don't fly for a major, not yet. But I have certainly darn near starved to death struggling to get there. Among other things. Along the way I have been on fire three times, had several engines quit, blown one engine to pieces, flown when sick and when the ducks were grounded, flown in the ice with no boots and lost a prop COMPLETELY OFF a Queen Air. I have suffered duty days over thirty hours and have been lied to by EVERY aviation manager/aircraft owner I have ever worked for (not to mention the FAA). I have been yelled at, screamed at, had my job threatened for questioning safety or regulations and have been called every name in the book except for "white man" by simple minded managers who suffered from extreme tunnel vision. I could go on and on...

I have, and so have a great many other professional aviators, suffered through all this (and more) because we needed the experience. We needed the experience to "move up the food chain", hopefully all the way to the top, God willing. And SOMEDAY, by God, when and if I do make it to a major, there will have been others there before me. Others who perhaps suffered more than I. Who realize the value of determination, and the true cost of "success", and who have fought for pay and work rules so that others would strive to join them in the cockpit of a major. If and when I get there, I aim to be well paid. I've earned it! And for those who may come after me, I want them to do even better.

You see, GUV, if young people are not drawn to the airlines to fly "your" airplane, then who you do think it will be that will fly "your" pax/cargo that in turn pays "your" salary? What about the minor carriers and the FAR 135 night freighters? Does ANYONE believe that a young person would just volunteer for that abuse without first having determined that it was, temporarily at least, necessary for the furtherance of his/her career? I guarantee you that if the majors were to cut their salaries, you would see general aviation (in the USA at least) and the commuter airlines shrivel up and die on the vine. NO YOUNG PILOTS. The death of an entire industry.

Any rational person knows that a company exists to make a profit. But no company can make a profit for long if it does not share its wealth with its employees.

I guess your choice is simple. You can make a lot of money all at once, or you can make even more money for a long time.

Seems simple enough to me.

[The Guvnor]

MachOverSpeed - I think you've misconstrued things a bit. My position is that the majority of pilots should be paid more (but still within reason); and that the recent salary awards by UAL, AA and (upcoming) DL are insanely high.

[Petergozinya]

Fine. Thats your opinion. Now go away.

[The Guvnor]

Petergozinya - dear boy, can one assume you currently work for a US major? Such as TWA? :) :) :)

Recalling your postings on the Atlas thread - where you felt it was perfectly all right to steal the bread from UK/EU crewmember's families' mouths, I'd say there will be a great lack of sympathy to you - and those that think like you - on this side of the pond.

Perhaps you might get lucky and someone might sponsor you... :) :) :)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Help Feed Delta Pilots
---- ---- ----- ------

It's just not right. Thousands of pilots in our very own country are living at or just below the six figure salary line. And if that wasn't bad enough, many of them may go several weeks or months without a paycheck if they are forced by Delta Airlines management to strike.

But now you can help. For about three hundred dollars a day (that's less than the price of a 25" television set) you can help keep a pilot economically viable during their time of need.

Three hundred dollars a day may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to a pilot, it could mean the difference between a vacation fishing in Florida or a Mediteranean cruise.

For you, three hundred dollars is nothing more than half a month's rent or mortgage payment. But to a pilot, three hundred dollars a day will almost replace his or her salary.

Three hundred dollars a day will enable a pilot to upgrade his or her home computer, buy that new 100" television set, trade in the 6 month old Lexus for a Ferrari, or enjoy a dinner (with champagne) at The Mansion.

"HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING?"

Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the crew member you sponsor. Detailed information about his or her stocks, bonds, 401K, and real-estate holdings will be mailed to your home. You will be able to watch your pilot's net worth grow. You'll also get information on how they chose to invest their 1.2 million dollar lump sum they get upon their retirement.

"HOW WILL THEY KNOW I'M HELPING?"

Your pilot will be told that he or she has a SPECIAL FRIEND that just wants to help. Although the pilot won't know your name, he or she will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator in case they need more funds.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I want to help!! In the event of a strike by the Delta Pilots, I would like to sponsor the crew member listed below. I would like to sponsor (circle your selection/s):

___CAPTAIN MEMBER
___AN ENTIRE FLIGHT CREW MEMBER
___FIRST OFFICER MEMBER
___NAVIGATOR
___727 CREW MEMBER
___737 CREW MEMBER
___767 CREW MEMBER
___MD-11 CREW MEMBER
___L-1011 CREW MEMBER

___Please apply my donation to the crew member most in need.

Please charge the account listed below $326.25 per day (or $350.29 for MD-11 crew members) for the duration of the strike. Please send me a picture of the crew member I have sponsored, along with a set of "wings" and my very own "new" red S.C.O.P.E. badge (while supplies last)

&lt;&gt; Mastercard &lt;&gt; Visa &lt;&gt; American Express &lt;&gt; Diner's Club &lt;&gt; Delta Card &lt;&gt; Discover Card Account

Number:________________________________

Exp.
Date:_____________________________________
Signature:_____________________________________

Send Completed Forms to the Delta Pilots Assoc.

Or, Enroll By Phone: (97X)-988-3188

Note: Sponsors agree not to contact the crew member sponsored or their families in person or by other means including, but not limited to, phone calls, letters, email, or third parties. Contributions made are not tax deductible. In the event of no strike action taken, sponsors agree to a one time administration charge of $500.00 to cover administration costs of this program. </font>

[MachOverspeed]

GUV,

Re: Steal bread from the mouths of UK/EU crewmembers...

Look Bub,

Atlas is a US Certificated Flag Air Carrier. As such the FAA has rules about who can fly the aircraft, where the aircraft must be registered, etc, etc.

The attempt by Chowdry to open a UK base, and to hire non-US certificated flight crews is nothing more than an effort to stop the US crews from LEGALLY ORGANIZING so as to better their pay and benefits and what not. From OUR perspective it is the "European scabs" who are trying to steal bread from OUR mouths...

Now then, how many US crewmembers are invited to join an EU/UK operation? Every ad that I see for an EU/UK operator requires that one have "right of abode" in the UK/EU.
Back when I was a "low timer", we used to have to compete for a very limited number of jobs with "Europeans" who came over here to learn to fly, and then who saw fit to over-stay their visas ( in direct contravention of the law) and work ILLEGALLY in the US as pilots. These folks were "sponsored" and could afford to work for FREE. My wages were artificially held down by the influence of these illegal workers, as were the wages of many of my friends. Now there would be NO FRIGGIN WAY that a reciprocal arrangement could happen because of the PROTECTIONIST policies of the UK/EU "socialist" states. Add to that the fact that the policies of the UK/EU serve to stifle the aviation industry and therefore limit the number of available jobs even further. You guys should revolt. We would never tolerate that kind of BS over here. (oh, I forgot, you can't revolt. Your government doesn't trust you to keep and bear arms)

I don't blame a kid from Norway or wherever from taking advantage of the non-enforcement of US law. But to hear you deride US crew members because they don't want "scabs" in their organization, driving their wages down (again) is just too damn much, especially considering that a UK/EU flight crew member has NO ENUMERATED RIGHT to employment with a US Certificated Air Carrier. (neither has a US pilot any enumerated right to employment with an EU/UK air carrier, but you conveniently fail to point that out).

Move to the US dude. We'd love to have you. Become a citizen. Pay taxes. Bitch all you want. Hang out and drink beer. Teach us darts and soccer and such. Fly for Atlas.

It is apparant to even the most casual of observers that you have never earned a living as a pilot. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that you even held a Private Pilot's License.

One other thing. I have a very good friend who flys for American. He's a Brit. Super guy. He came here LEGALLY. He stayed here LEGALLY. He flew here LEGALLY. He paid the taxes with the rest of us. He worked hard. He flew junk like the rest of us. He flew in the heat and the cold and when hungry and all the rest. Now he has the golden ring. He is an inspiration.

You should just shut up. You're an idiot.

[Petergozinya]

Wrong again Guv, please do dig up the thread. Never thought of taking bread from anyones mouth. Just making demands of an employer to be a responsible employer, ermm, something you have yet to do. http://www.truklagoon.homestead.com/files/clk5.jpg

Happiness is a warm L10-11. Unless the final destination is the melting pot. Up in smoke they go!!!

Nope, not TWA either, they hit the jackpot if you ask me.

[Petergozinya]

One more thing.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I'd say there will be a great lack of sympathy to you - and those that think like you - on this side of the pond.</font>Perhaps you've been missing the twice weekly "How do I get a green card?" threads started on this forum. Land of the free, home of the brave buddy. Not the land of the fee's and the home of some guy named dave... Ain't nuttin like it!!!! :) :) :) :) ;)Oh please! BWahahahahahahahahahahaa, oh I can't breath, snort. chortle cough, gag, bwahaaaahahaha, oh you're killing me, stop,hahaha ha

[The Guvnor]

MachOverSpeed - The rules this side of the pond are simple - UK airlines can lease in foreign registered aircraft for six months then they are supposed to go onto the UK register (unless there is some overwhelming reason not to do so). There is also a very strict limit on the proportion of foreign to UK registered aircraft that can be operated.

Atlas therefore had/has to set up a UK operation - which is then required to obey the various regulations (employment, licencing, etc) in force - which means that UK/EU nationals get employed in preference to non UK/EU nationals - same as you have in the States.

Getting an aircraft on the UK register is not an easy thing - it's very expensive and time consuming. If the Atlas crew member's paranoid fantasies were in any way true, then Atlas would not only have to reregister all their aircraft in the UK; but they would also have to have sufficient crews here to operate them as I'd assume you guys would all be on strike, wouldn't you?

So, unless AACS has say 100 fully typed and current crews just hanging around twiddling their thumbs, it isn't going to happen. This deal is strictly for BA - and to suggest anything else is laughable!!

Moving on - if the pilots to which you allude were 'sponsored' then they weren't illegal, then, were they? :rolleyes:

Petergozinya - why on earth would I want a green card if I had to deal with people like you on a regular basis? :) :rolleyes: :) - it's bad enough that you Yanks think that Paris is in Texas; Reading is in Pennsylvania and Newark is in New Jersey!

At least when we have an election it's free, fair, equitable and we know who wins....

[loaded1]

Yo Guv! How's the fantasy airline coming along? Got the backers yet? Found any crew? What's the livery look like?

Hang on, I can hear a siren! Is that an ambulance? Yup, here come the men in the white coats!

Bye bye.

[MachOverspeed]

GUV,

Where have YOU been and what have you been smoking?

Atlas has been flying into/out of the UK for years. It was only AFTER the Atlas guys tried to start a union that Chowdry filed for a UK Operating Certificate and began hiring for the Stanstead base. Strictly a "union busting" move. I have several friends working there....all have advised me NOT to accept employment for the Stanstead base (can I even DO that, legally I mean). It really doesn't matter. I'm NEVER going to take a job where I would be considered a SCAB by the other pilots anyway.

As for the so-called "sponsored" pilots. Who was sponsoring them? Certainly not a US FAR 135 air carrier. I KNOW, I WAS THERE. They were sponsored by their home governments in many cases. Several I know of were receiving stipends from their home governments. They told me so. In fact, I saw the US Immigration Service arrest three of them one dark and stormy night in LBB. No "green cards" and no visas. The Immigration Service had come to the airport to meet the sheriff who had several Mexican detainees. By pure accident of timing these French guys came in and, their being FRENCH (sic), the Border Patrol asked to see their work permits and visas. Off to jail they go. Good riddance!

Oh yeah, we've been having ELECTIONS here for a long time. Since you guys had a king. We get the BBC here and we are all very aware of the superior moral/ethical/fair standards of UK government and it's practices and policies. Not to mention the THOUGHTFUL electoral habits of the UK populace. NON SEQUITUR. Question: are there any folks in Britain who make a living by blowing things out of proportion and making scandalous accusations? FLOOD STREET? I will admit that, being fair, we most likely both get a fair laugh out of the machinations of the others press and government (and our own). Fair enough. Assholes are a universal condition. We suffer them. Bummer!

Oh well, enough of this. I'm going to the RIFLE RANGE tomorrow morning to practice my marksmanship. Need to get a good nights sleep. Blurry eyes don't hit the X ring.

[Deeko01]

Hello Guvnor,

Are you the man who is starting up caledoninan wings with the ex-delta L1011's?

If so can you shed any light on this because I have been reading in my local scottish newspaper that you indeed do not have the financial backing to start up such a company.

I would appreciate if you are this person to dispel any rumours regarding your financial situation so that the public and indeed the people who will look for jobs with you do not get hidden promises which seems to me to be the way of the aviation world these days.

And if you are for real......give us a job!!!!!!!

Cheers'n'Happy Landings

_____________________________
PIK Handling is no good
Execair Handling is far better
______________________________

[The Guvnor]

Deeko01 - can I take it you read the Sunday Mail - a rag that along with its stablemate the Daily Record requires its readers to (a) believe Elvis is still alive; (bb) have an IQ lower than that of foom temperature; and (c) complete belief in whatever they tell their readers? That particular sorry tale was written by a journo with no investigative abilities who was fed the story by Freeboot (aka Who?, Whoring Around, Freenum etc etc).

When the CalWings operations start next year then obviously we will have the requisite financing in place - as is required in every case by the CAA. Nice shiny refurbished L1011s are not exactly something we can get with a few Kellogs Cornflakes box tops, so I think you'll be able to discount tales of no money.

Just think - you'll be able to fly scheduled services from Scotland on a Scots owned airline with aircraft that originate from a company founded by Scots and which operates from an airport which is owned by Scots!

See you, Jimmy! :) :) :)

MachOverspeed - there's a great deal of difference between Atlas flying into and out of the UK on behalf of non-UK carriers and doing it for BA. The unions here (BALPA, and to a much greater extent, the IPA) have long had campaigns against 'flagging out'.

As for the 'sponsored' pilots, I was going on what you wrote there - the INS definition of 'sponsored' means that they have had sureties issued by US companies who guarantee their behaviour, their financial condition and that they will leave the country on the termination of their work/visa validity.

I envy you the rifle range - had to leave my Sig P226, Sites Spectre, HK MP5 and G3 back in Africa.

[MachOverspeed]

GUV,

Thats the WHOLE POINT. They DIDN'T go home when they were supposed to. They came to the US on a "student" visa (no work permit). Then, after finishing flight school, they would "pad" their log book about a thousand hours and go out and fly FAR 135 night freight in Barons or 401's or Aztecs or whatever FOR FREE. Meanwhile, we were TRYING TO EARN A LIVING. Even the most dim witted of persons can see that when a job market is flooded by FREE LABOR that the wages of those who ACTUALLY GET PAID will be driven down.

The employers who utilized this free labor pool thought they were getting a deal. In reality though it cost them a ton of money. The morons flying their planes didn't actually have the experience, and their mis-handling and mis-operation of the aircraft caused HUGE maintenance bills.

I once saw a Baron at DAL power through standing water almost a foot and a half deep. The props threw water almost as high as the tail of a 727. I just sat there, picturing in my mind the crankshafts of those old IO-520's flexing as the props hit water while pulling 25 inches of manifold pressure...Sure enough, when I got to Dalfort there were two "foreigners" sitting in the "doghouse", chattering along in some strange language. Knowing that those two idiots would probably never say anything about what they had done, and in so doing endanger the next guy who would fly the plane, I called their Chief Pilot and told him what I had seen. He thanked me profusely.

On to Atlas... There is a great difference in a plane "passing through" an airport as it circumnavigates the globe, and in an aircraft "basing" at an airport. Now, why would Chowdry attempt to base an aircraft at a "foreign" base, with all the attendant costs of getting a new certificate, complying with all the new rules, dealing with the foreign labor standards, etc, etc? What's the point? Atlas is a US carrier. Based in the US, with a US certificate, operating US registered aircraft. What possible reason would there be to base at Stanstead? As an ACMI operator, Atlas has more charter work than they can possibly do servicing the US military alone. They have experienced huge growth, and must turn away work because they can't meet the demand. Why increase your costs and frustrations by going outside a proven business model? I'll tell you why. UNION BUSTING!!!

I wish we could meet face to face. I would bet you $100 cash that when the union finally does go through, Atlas will drop Stanstead like a hot potato. Hide and watch dude, hide and watch.

Hey, did you own those firearms? Just wondering. I've got an accurized AR15. Full length bull barrel. Chrome bore and chamber. AK74 muzzle brake. 1/4 MOA iron sights and a drop-compensated scope. Its a "tack driver", easily shooting 1/2 inch groups at a hundred yards from the bench. Maybe better with match-grade ammo. Not bad for a semi-auto rifle. Its an exact copy of the rifle that won Camp Perry two years running.

[mutt]

Guv,

When the CalWings operations start next year

Considering that this was written in 2001, I presume that you aren't starting on April 01 2001.

Mutt :)

[The Guvnor]

See the website: http://www.celticairways.com./

[Devils Advocate]

Guv, now I'll hold my hand up high as a bloke that regularly rips the piss out of your plans – however, on this we’re united.

These septics haven’t quite grasped the concept of globalisation, as in – duh, ever heard of Ford ? Yeah, well guess what ? They build loads of cars in Europe, and indeed all around the world, with no, repeat NO, crap from the USA unions (e.g. the Teamsters – a right bunch of thugs, by any other name !) – and I’m right when I say that it (i.e. Ford), along with some other HUGE USA based multinationals, participate on a vast scale (i.e. even bigger sometimes than their USA activities) in business offshore from the USA mainland.

Now certainly if Atlas were ‘my’ company I’d ship the whole thing lock-stock-and-two-smoking-barrels offshore from the USA – just to prove that I could do it – it’s called being the boss, and it never pays to forget that everybody is expendable – and especially jumped out of their pram prima donna Atlas mainline pilots.

So, want some free advice ? It’d be to wind in yer kneck lads, and give your boss no cause to move the bulk of the company overseas (don’t forget that he’s already started do it! ) ; and please renounce any ideas that the shareholders would be on your side, because they’d love him for it - it’d increase their profits. Why ? Because he'd have reduced the operating costs, and they'd no longer have the threat of having to cowtow down to the extortion that your union would / plans to inflict upon the company when they stamp their foot and start shouting about your ‘rights’.

Ok, time to go and look in the dictionary at the meanings of ‘protectionism’ in all it’s forms, and ‘union racketeering’.

Ps. I’ve got a lovely view of an Atlas B74 from my window here at Enterprise House, here at Stansted Airport, and oh, look, I can see the UK based crews walking out to it too – goodonya lads !

[MachOverspeed]

Okay!

Lets extend that logic...

Lets say some guy works as a fish head cutter-offer in nation X.

Nation X has regulations as to the certification of fish head cutting companies who base in their country.

The fish head cutter-offers try to unionize. The company counters by moving a SMALL part of their operation off shore. The currently employed fish head cutter-offers get pissed because the "offshore" workers are driving down their wages.

Let me ask this. If British Airways were to begin hiring Pakistani pilots (while excluding UK pilots) for a Pakistan base, and simultaneously had the Paks fly established BA routes (not basing out of Pakistan), how would YOU feel about it? Be honest.

Globalism is ok, until it starts costing YOU money.

As for Ford, et al. Ford, General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, Exxon, Texas Instruments, Intel, Motorola, Dassault, Airbus, Boeing, etc are all MANUFACTURING companies. Airlines are SERVICE companies. Apples and oranges...

Tell ya what, whatever job YOU are working at right now, I'll send a bunch of foreigners to your town to do your job at one half the salary, then we'll see what you think. Never forget, the shoe ALWAYS drops, and the situation ALWAYS reverses. Give it time, my brother, and YOU will get a taste of what the Atlas guys are now feeling. It is inevitable. Then you should remember your previous statements and make a great personal effort at not being upset.

Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.

[MachOverspeed]

One other thing....

If you are of the opinion that the Teamsters are a "right bunch of thugs", then if I were you, I don't think I would say anything like that when I was interviewing with UPS... who HAVE been known to hire foreign pilots from time to time.

Of course, we all know of the superior moral/ethical standards of UK unions and how they have NEVER circumvented the law or employed "strong arm" tactics. No, they are as pure as the driven snow...

Yeah, the US, and its people and institutions and multi-national corporations are the nexus of world evil. If it is bad, it MUST be American. Yadda, yadda, yadda....

What a joke.

Dude...WE ARE PILOTS (aren't we?) We will ALL continue to get screwed until we stand together, across international boundaries. We share something which is trans-international. A love for the industry. What is good for me, surely MUST be good for you, in the long term. WHY WORK FOR LESS THAN YOU ARE WORTH? Don't you have to pass the same check ride as I? Wouldn't you rather compete with another pilot for a job based on experience, skill, ability and qualification, or would you rather be hired because you are just cheap labor?

Do you really want to be the LOWEST common denominator?

I'll bet NOT, if you are a Pilot! If you're NOT a Pilot, then your opinion doesn't matter anyway...

[Slasher]

Do I get paid too much Guv? Sh!t yeh! My small Company pays me squillions! Tax-free too!

Funny isnt it. It causes me to:

1. Be loyal to the Company in realistic ways
2. Be willing to live in a craphole country and not complain to the Company about all the sh!t and lack of infrastructure I have to put up with trying to get Company things done
3. Be willing to go that extra mile when commonsense dictates
4. Sort out Crewings mess on the spot
5. Sort out the CPs mess on the spot
6. Sort out aircraft changes on the spot
7. Offer to work when everybody else cant be bothered
8. Do office crap like organise overflight clearances etc
9. Fly very eficiently, and consciousley operating as economicaly as humanley possible, safetey permiting
10. Ensure our pax are happy no matter how many Company feet I have to tread on to do it
11. Get on and efectively laiase with management types who are the biggest pr**ks born
12. Help out with the operational problems the same pr**ks find too tough to solve
13. Help to load bags in the 737 holds myself if we are running late and we are short of loaders
14. Assist our engineers in holding open engine cowls, holding open start valves etc if they are short of personel while doing maintanence on my aircraft (or other aircraft if they catch me in the crew room!)
15. Solve cabin crew rostering messes!
16. Be a general Flight Operations dogsbody when things turn to crap
17. Do Sim checking back of the clock
18. Be a backup Line trainer on my days off
19. Be a backup Line checker on my days off
20. Work on days off without complaint
21. Work up to 20 days straight on minimum rest, again without complaint (theres no CAP371 here, only a lose agreement between pilots and management.)
22. Give management full discretion as to when I take annual leave and how many days at each go.

Of course I dont do each and every one of these things every day. But they overpay me to buggery goddammit, and Im realy only oficialy paid to do 5 of the above items over and above normal pilot dutys.

But if they just went and paid peanuts like every other shyster outfit I wouldnt consciencousley have to do any of these bloodey things would I? ;)

[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 13 January 2001).]

[SunSeaSandfly]

Slasher,
Goodonya mate, our lot do all that for peanuts, only consolation is the Caribbean is a bit nicer than the Nam!

------------------
fly low, bite hard

[JBravo]

Not to offend you Guv, but where do you get all the time to write so much on this board? You should be working on that celticairways ;)

I'm not even going to start about pilot-salaries. I'm wishing I was flying. 22 years old and a debt of $100.000!!! Let me dream of my future salary http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

[The Guvnor]

Hmmmmm - and you wanted to go to Africa, Slasher? Thou'd be doing the same (and more) - but for half the pay! :) :) :)

[Slasher]

The point is Guv, pay only enough to do the job and thats all you get. Pay a high atractive salary well over and above whats "fair" and you get more than you bargained for! :)

BTW Africa is only after I give up flying shiney jets and can afford to live on low pay. Im certainley willing to work hard for crap money when that work is meaningful, and achieves a sense of doing something REAL. Who gets that from dragging bums around in a modern airliner?

[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 15 January 2001).]

[Slasher]

acidental double-up.

[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 15 January 2001).]

[Champagne Lover]

Sir, your point reminds me a bit of my high school PT teacher.
He was a rather well known field player, for many years too(rather enjoyable,no doubt).
Suddenly, he does a back-flip and is "saved"!
He then proceeds to try and instruct us as to the folly of our ways in wanting to be just a bit as desirable to the girls as what he was/practiced.After he had enjoyed so many years.......
Do certainly correct me if I'm out of line, but, please first read the gentelemans account of "getting there" first.

[Devils Advocate]

(slight digression) Champagne Lover surely everybody knows that "there's none so righteous as the newly converted" !?

[Champagne Lover]

. . . - - - . . .

[The Guvnor]

Icahn-omics

definition: Any party, individual or group, that uses a company to either rob, steal, cheat, lie, manipulate, or any other means determined deceitful to receive a profit or for their own personal gain at the corporations expense. Furthermore they have total disregard for all parties in their way and show no remorse even though they tell you they do.

example in a sentence:

To achieve a better standard of living, DALPA decided to employ a strategy of Icahn-omics to achieve their means.

Thanks to EVA744 on Airliners.net for this!

[Guido Hatzis]

Guvnor, your quote sums up every single manager (lower case purposely used) in nearly every Major Airline. The feathering of nests with total disregard for the workforce has reached epidemic proportions. managers use to be concerned with RPK's etc, they are now only interested in KPI's (Key Performance Indicators). For the uninitiated this is the formula used to calculate their bonuses.

[This message has been edited by Guido Hatzis (edited 18 January 2001).]

[Champagne Lover]

The Guvnor, I'm sure we are all, eagerly awaiting your defence to the point made by Guido about KPI's. Are KPI's present in your (total annual) income as a factor?
Would any other senior managers in airlines(non professional-pilots)care to elaborate on how their KPI's(or similar) affect their total incomes?

[JR/FO]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I'd see hard times ahead for UAL and any carrier (such as DL and AA) that emulates their insane pay scales. I see major layoffs - and probably industrial action - which will devastate once fine carriers</font>

Guvnor, this is known as "concessions" and gets all the airlines through the hard times.

My bet is UAL will be the first to ask for them next time around and everyone else will follow. It's management's way of "pattern bargaining". Come on, I know you're familiar with these tactics!!! If not, can I recommend you read the fine book entitled "Tactics of a Union buster"!

Cheers

Doctor Bob
AirlineRumor.com (http://www.airlinerumor.com)

[Squawk 8888]

Joining late, but as a libertarian who can't stand forced unionization I couldn't resist :)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">From a corporate standpoint, this is a fast-track to bankruptcy, especially in a recession which it is widely acknowledged we're entering at the moment. Salaries are part of overhead - and high overhead kills off companies when revenues are down.</font>
But what kills companies even faster are managers who nickel-and-dime to save costs when they really ought to look at ways to boost revenue. During the last recession many firms swung the axe wildly and left themselves worse off, while those that engaged in aggressive marketing, price-cutting and product/service improvements actually grew during that time. In the case of pilots, let's say we have a 767 captain making $200k and an FO making $100k (probably on the high side, but bear with me). That's $300,000 per year. Now suppose they make 10 round-trip flights per month. $300,000 a year for 120 flights works out to $2500 per flight. Now suppose we get 200 pax per flight- that means the captain and FO cost $12.50 of that return fare. Therefore even if the pilots work for free the airline is only going to save $12.50 per round-trip passenger, while the plane is flying with about 30 empty seats. Instead of trying to save a few pennies by cutting the crew's pay the airline would be far better off doing whatever it takes to fill those empty seats.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Not only this, but their agreements limit the number of hours they have to work to ridiculously low levels - the equivalent of just over a working week for an average person per month.</font>
Do you seriously believe hours flown equals hours worked? Personally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an airliner whose crew simply punched a clock, started the engines and flew away.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">They expect to be paid for training time - regardless of the fact that most professions require training/seminars/conferences for which there is no additional pay.</font>
Not my profession- maybe the local sweatshop or McD's expects employees to train for free but certainly not any employer that values its workforce. Most training happens on company time and any that doesn't is usually accompanied by some fairly generous perks.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The pay gap between US crews (and these three carriers in particular) and crews in the rest of the world is vast and seemingly growing out of control.</font>
Why is that a problem? There's a similar pay gap for every other profession as well; I could double my take-home tomorrow. Know why? Because America is richer. Period. The UK and Europe could be just as rich by cutting taxes and deregulating, but it's easier to whine about the other guy who's better off than it is to solve your own problems.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It's very much to ALPA's benefit if other US majors (such as Continental, US Airways, TWA, Northwest, Southwest etc) join them - and ensures for those carriers that are paying their crews high salaries that come the recession, their competitors are in the same boat.</font>
And how does this differ from the behaviour of other trade unions?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">But can these pay levels be justified?</font>
If you're asking whether they're being paid what they're worth, well they're worth exactly what somebody is willing to pay. The drivers carry enough fare-paying pax to cover their salaries many times over so obviously the airlines think they are.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Is there any justification for retaining the old system of paying higher salaries for larger aircraft?</font>
The obvious reasons are (1) bigger investment in training = higher pay to keep them around (AKA "golden handcuffs") and (2) bigger plane = more pax = higher revenue.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Surely a far better way of doing things would be to have a 'normal' level of base pay - and then profit share (perhaps in conjunction with an ESOP) so that if the company's doing well - then the employees do likewise. If it isn't - then they don't get any extra. The benefit to the company is that they can control their overhead by keeping pay at a reasonable level - and employees share in the good times.</font>
Flame away on this one, gang :) :) :)
The unions will never agree to such a scheme. Union dues are based on the employee's hourly pay, so any bonuses, company stock or profit sharing go directly to the worker. That's why unions have always opposed such schemes- becouse the bosses don't get any cash for it.

[Guido Hatzis]

Checkmate?

[LAVDUMPER]

Guvnor,

A friend of mine at Delta once said to me, "you're only worth what you negotiate."

He's right. He's also worth $385,000 last year as a senior 737-800 captain with some overtime flying... ALPA has negotiated very, very well for Delta pilots.

Cheers

[astrocyte]

Squawk 8
Read the virgin thread to answer part of your last point!

[BIG MISTER]

Hi everyone

Still throusands of airmiles away from even getting my atpl but just wondering whats at the end of the tunnel?

Could you please advise me what the average F/O (self sponsored) earns in the UK for the likes of Easyjet and co ????

Thanks from me and Jane my bank manager !

[ogseminole]

Guvnor,

All parties involved operate under the free enterprise system. You get what you can when you can get it.
Your communist attitudes died when the wall came down more than ten years ago.
Why do you begrudge these salaries so much?
Could it be that you were never invited to the dance?

[Peter Tomkinson]

It is totally meaningless to compare salaries as their are many more factors like hours conditions etc to bring into the whole picture. It is foolish. Why? Read on...

I dont care what the cleaner gets, its none of my business what the company chooses to pay a cleaner or tug driver or bagage handler, or for any other thing they pay for. Let the managers do the managing.

My salary and conditions are very important to me and my fellow pilots and we have every right in the open market to negotiate whatever the company and our reps can agree on. Putting pressure on the achieve it is normal business practice so dont scream about it. It is what the managers are doing and just what they should do. So why not the pilots too?

Guvnor, your figures are very wrong. Flight crews salaries are not 40 or 50% or even 30% of the total salary costs to the airline let alone total operating costs. Someone is pulling your leg I think. 5% of total operating would be nearer to the mark.

If Airbus or Boeing or Shell, BP or Exon can negotiate what they chanrge and get an increase when possible why cannot flight crew. Either we can use the market we are supposed to be subject to, or we cannot?