American Airllines pilots ask for a 53% pay rise.

[Mr. Hat]

An interesting thread has started up in Rumours and News.http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=297782
American pilots ask for pay increase of 53 percent
Fort Worth Star-Telegam, October 24, 2007
American Airlines' pilots have asked for a hefty boost in pay and benefits, a proposal that analysts said would likely lead to long and arduous contract negotiations at the world's largest airline.
The proposal, presented to the airline Tuesday, requests a one-time raise that would restore pilot salaries to 1992 levels, when adjusted for inflation. If approved by May 2008, that would mean a raise of about 53 percent.
The union also asked for future annual raises of 6 percent and annual cost-of-living increases, and a signing bonus that totals 15 percent of a pilot's earnings between July 21, 2006, when talks began, and the effective date of the new contract.
Labor leaders said the proposal restores purchasing power that pilots have lost since 1992 to pay cuts and inflation. They point out that American's executives have enjoyed a substantial increase in pay in recent years while pilot earnings have fallen.
"Inflation has killed our purchasing power," said Karl Schricker, an American pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents the 12,000 pilots at the Fort Worth-based airline. "Senior management, meanwhile, has seen theirs go up over 500 percent."
Airline officials said they were reviewing the proposal. But they stressed that any significant increase in pay would likely hurt the company's competitive position.
"At first glance, it appears the items they've proposed would dramatically increase our pilot costs, which would make us even less competitive," spokeswoman Tami McLallen said. "And some of the things they've asked for are unprecedented."
The contract talks are being closely watched by the industry. American is the first major hub carrier to negotiate a new deal with pilots since the wave of bankruptcies and restructuring after 9-11 that dramatically cut employee wages and benefits. Already struggling with the rapid rise in fuel prices, airlines are worried that steeper labor costs will jeopardize the industry's turnaround.
In 2003, when American was on the brink of bankruptcy, pilots approved concessions that slashed average pay by 23 percent, saving the airline about $660 million annually and allowing it to avoid a Chapter 11 filing. Since then, American has returned to profitability, with six straight profitable quarters.
So far this year, American has earned $573 million in profit. Union leaders argue that the financial turnaround means that it's time for the airline to restore pilots' pay. And they say that their proposal would not significantly boost the airline's costs.
According to the union, the deal would increase the total cost of transporting one seat one mile by about a half-cent. That would be about a 4 percent increase, and would still give the airline lower costs than Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and US Airways.
"American has been able to absorb the cost of fuel and still earn millions in profits," Schricker said. "They could certainly absorb this modest increase."
McLallen said it was too early for the airline to provide a detailed analysis of the proposal's impact on costs.
One analyst was skeptical. William Swelbar, a researcher for the International Center for Air Transport at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it would be "pretty hard for [American] to get their arms around this."
He said the proposed 6 percent raises, plus cost-of-living adjustments, are "unheard of" in the industry today.
"It's been an awful long time since we've seen raises like this for anyone," said Swelbar, who has worked in the airline industry for nearly 30 years, both for unions and management.
He predicted that the proposal signaled that pilots are ready to endure long and difficult bargaining over the new contract.
"It's seems to me that this is inviting a very long and arduous negotiation," he said. "And that might be their strategy."
Labor leaders, however, said the proposal is reasonable and are hopeful that talks will be swift.
"We understand the need to be competitive," Schricker said. "This allows us to keep a cost advantage, and we don't see why we can't move quickly on it."
In May, the union submitted a pay proposal that included a 30 percent raise as well as signing bonuses -- a plan that was rejected by the airline. Two months later, union members elected new leaders who promised to take a more aggressive negotiating stance. Talks, which had formally begun more than a year ago, essentially restarted with new pilot negotiators.
Schricker said the new pay plan reflects the desires of pilots, which were documented in a survey this summer.
"They just want to get back what they've lost," he said.
The proposal would also:
Give pilots holiday pay for work on 10 scheduled holidays, including Christmas, Labor Day and Super Bowl Sunday. The current contract doesn't provide holiday pay.
Increase vacation time and change sick time to "personal time" that can be used for any reason, including illness.
Implement an unspecified annual bonus plan for pilots based on the company's performance.
Eliminate a one-year probation period for new hires.
The deal, which would last until Jan. 4, 2011, would also greatly quicken the pace of negotiations for the next contract. It specifies that talks would begin 180 days before the contract opened for changes and that mediation could begin 120 prior to that days if the two sides couldn't reach an agreement.
It would allow the union to strike if a deal isn't reached by the contract's amendable date.
Currently, talks at American and other airlines are conducted under federal laws that allow for significant mediation and "cooling-off" time before unions can strike. That time often extends years beyond the contract's final date.
The pilots' proposal also asks the airline to pay all of the union's direct negotiating costs. Currently those expenses are shouldered by the union.
The pilot plan did not address scheduling or productivity. Airline executives have insisted that productivity gains must accompany any pay increases. Labor leaders said those issues will be addressed in future proposals.
The pilots are just one of three major contracts that American will be negotiating over the next few years. Next month, the airline will begin talks with the union that represents mechanics and other ground workers. And flight attendants will begin their negotiations in March.
Shares of AMR Corp., American's parent (ticker: AMR), closed at $24.65, up $1.34, in trading Tuesday.

[faheel]

So why put it here ?

[Mr. Hat]

Currently a lot of dicussion on IR in the DG forum. This is just another perspective.

It's also been posted on Fragrant Harbour so i guess its relevant to those guys as well.

[grrowler]

Just got another 3% pay rise with offsets (ie no real payrise)
*pumps fist*
YESSSSS!

[Roost]

Thanks Mr. Hat

We need stories like this more...Give our current pilots that have been bought up in lean times some perspective of what we are really worth.

Pays are so low that is why we have a shortage, if the money was there of the last few years people would have kept training to get the reward.

53% pay rise for the pilot, 100% increase in moral, 1.5% climb in overall opperating cost offset by increased performance of a happy pilot made to feel like looking after his company.

Can you be bothered to ask for track shortening if you have just been shafted?

[Mr. Hat]

Noone really expects to achieve a 50% increase but people tend to want to keep ahead of the price of groceries and not end up in living in a cardboard box as a minimum. The old three percent (as ggrowler has just indicated :ugh:) doesn't really cut it anymore.

Just compare (1992-2007) the dollars for teacher, nurse, bricklayer, pilot and house. Some would say we loose ground every year.

There is a "shortage", a shortage of people that can afford to live on 40-50k.

[aircraft]

Roost said:
We need stories like this more...Give our current pilots that have been bought up in lean times some perspective of what we are really worth.
Err, correction. What this story actually shows is that US pilots are just as delusional as their Australian counterparts when it comes to understanding their own industry.

The notion that they should be earning the same as they were 15 years ago is just plain ludicrous. Nice try, and many will fall for it.

Should gold be the same price as it was 15 years ago? Should I be getting the same return today as I was 15 years ago on some particular investment?

[ScottyDoo]

Should I be getting the same return today as I was 15 years ago on some particular investment?

No you shouldn't because you're such a foolish twit you don't deserve to be living above the poverty line. You obviously enjoy being poor and moaning about your position. Are you from WA???

Have you ever had anything sensible to say?

Do you enjoy being a punching bag???

[Mr. Hat]

So Aircraft could you explain what is a fair deal in your book? 3%? Do you think that an airline pilot should be paid the same as a nurse teacher bricklayer? Do you think that given that houses are in some cases double and triple what they were 5-10 years that any correction to wages is required?

[indamiddle]

hi aircraft,
gold price is 40% below its historical high in the seventies
allowing for inflation
we invest in housing/shares whatever to make a return above inflation
after taxes etc, if u don't apply this principal when investing your labour
you may as well give up as it all becomes pointless.
go pilots....fog

[Angle of Attack]

Aircraft Said
Should I be getting the same return today as I was 15 years ago on some particular investment?

Should I call in sick and stop you from attending your idiot meeting? YES! And I do it every month mate! LOL Winge but we reign supreme as ever! haha oh the glory of controlling the pathetic managers lifes and we will push harder soon!

By the way yes I have gone on strike 4 times, 3 times a pay rise and once a bankrupt company! OH YES!!!

Oh life is sweet!

[777Contrail]

Reading posts in the North American-, D&G-, Fragrant Harbour-, African-, Middle Eastern- and Rumours & News forums, it is VERY clear that pilots around the globe are fed up.

And yes, it's not just the money isue.

The way pilots are treated - that's the real isue!

We are seen as the trash needed to take the aircraft from A to B.

And for trash there's no respect, and you do not want to pay it any real money either.

If only management can get rid of ALL pilots they will do so ASAP!

So, how will the pilots rectify this?

The only way they can.

By not selling their service, until such time as the pay and conditions of employment are fair.

Good luck to the pilots at AA!

[Chimbu chuckles]

So PAF/aircraft just how long do you think wages can go down in real terms for non management/pollies before something really bad happens?

If you truly believe it is completely reasonable for average workers purchasing power to drop year after year ad nauseum while a small segment of the population issues themselves payrises at multiples of real inflation you are completely delusional...if you think there won't be a backlash eventually you're morons.

Taken to the ultimate conclusion all prices for all goods and services, like houses, go into free fall....deflation...and watch the financial blood bath then.

Sooner or later contrived CPI rates with housing, energy and food removed have to bite somebody on the arse.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

It was only a matter of time before young aircraft reared his pimply little face on this thread :}:zzz:

[El Kabong]

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics!

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.

Statistician: A man who believes figures don't lie, but admits that under analysis some of them won't stand up either. :)

[Lodown]

There's a little more history in this topic than is being discussed. AA pilots were asked to work with the company to save it from bankruptcy. The union could have said, "Get stuffed!" but it didn't. Pilots sacrificed along with many other employees on the understanding that saving the company would be in their better interests in the long term. (I'm sure there is a lot more to it than is mentioned in the article.)

Lo and behold, the company returns to profitability and back into the light, thanks in part to the voluntary sacrifices of the pilot body. So now the pilots would like to share in that success. The company has returned to profit generation and the pilots think they are entitled to reap rewards and increased profits for their sacrifices too. If aircraft was CEO, we already know the answer would be a distinct, "Get stuffed!".

There's a message here for every pilot and potential pilot in Australia.

Aircraft:
What this story actually shows is that US pilots are just as delusional as their Australian counterparts when it comes to understanding their own industry.


No! US pilots were subject to the same scams and empty management promises that Australian pilots fell for. Fortunately, in Australia today, potential pilots are looking at the aviation industry now without the smoke and mirrors of the past, seeing the industry for what it is, looking past the empty promises and choosing other careers.

You say the industry cannot afford increases in terms and conditions. It's beyond that now. The industry cannot afford NOT to increase terms and conditions. Until company execs wake up to this realisation, they will only restrict their decision-making options and continue to transform the aviation industry from service and price competitiveness to a battle of employee attrition. (Rex's strategy is solely concentrated on trying to increase the flow of fresh pilots through the revolving door and not trying to slow down the door.)

It won't be long now before it will be a relatively easy matter to shut down a competitor. Simply blitz the competitor's critical employees with better T&C's and a sign-on bonus and they'll walk out overnight. A company won't need to lose many key people to cease or cripple operations. Job insecurity will just encourage the process as employees will be clambering to jump ship for fear of being left behind. Then waltz in and scoop up the customers left holding tickets in the terminals.

Previously, key people were considered to be the CEO's, COO's, etc., and they were well reimbursed to acknowledge the risk of the effect of them leaving. If a few people left from those positions, the company would stil continue to function and there was breathing time to get a replacement. Nowadays, the key people are becoming the captains and LAMEs. There's very little stopping them from leaving and very little acknowledgement from management of the risk to the company of them doing so. Unlike "C" level executives, when there is no fat in the pilot or LAME ranks, a large proportion of captains changing jobs overnight will have an immediate detrimental impact on company operations.

[Mr. Hat]

PAF do you have any statistics on wages vs house prices over the last 15 years. Just at a glance I'm tipping they aren't favourable figures. Both my and my partners parents owned houses before they got married (early 20's).

We're renting - the rent these days goes up every 6 months. Both professionals with all the bells and wistles meanwhile mum and dad never finished highschool.....As i said no need for 50% but tell you what the 6 monthly rent hikes are making us think twice about having a family....

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is that an adjustment is required. Things are getting a bit steep for those of us that spent their 20s in G.A whilst paying off university and flying loans.

Milk and bread have gone up - time for the plane tickets and pilots wages to go up to.

[Chimbu chuckles]

PAF I cannot put my finger on the number but I believe it is in the region of 75%(?) of peoples wages go in housing, energy and food...even if the figure was 51% only an inveterate economic rationalist could suggest excluding the items responsible for most of people's mthly expenditures from any calculation of inflation could end in a figure in any way related to reality...and keep a straight face.

When I see Costello/Howard or, just recently Keating, taking about 'core inflation' only being 2.5% I want to punch them in the face.

It is an artificially contrived concept used to BS the electorate....like tax reform.

[El Kabong]

Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.

An economist is a surgeon with an excellent scalpel and a rough-edged lancet, who operates beautifully on the dead and tortures the living. :yuk:

[lesgo]

Just out of interest.....

From: "The Daily Telegraph" 11/09/2007



QANTAS boss Geoff Dixon finished the financial year with a hefty 27 per cent rise in his total annual pay despite a failed takeover from Airline Partners Australia.
Mr Dixon accounted for the lion's share of the $13.26 million pocketed by Qantas directors as they took home $2.2 million more than the previous year.

His total package rose from $5.27 million to $6.7 million while short-term benefits soared more than 60 per cent as performance-based cash incentives almost tripled from $1.01 million to $2.91 million.

The Qantas (qan.ASX:Quote (http://markets.news.com.au/Newscorp/Entry.aspx?secid=qan),News (http://searchresults.news.com.au/servlet/Search?site=news&searchoption=yes&queryterm=qantas)) annual report for 2006-07, released yesterday, revealed Mr Dixon also received $2.18 million in fixed annual remuneration, up from $2.01 million, while non-cash benefits dropped by about $30,000 to $259,217.

Mr Dixon's long-term benefits included post-employment benefits, other long-term bonuses of just over $98,000 and share-based payments of $1.15 million.

Non-cash benefits include salary sacrifice components such as cars, association memberships and travel entitlements.

Jetstar boss scores big rise

Hefty rises were the order of the day across the top ranks of Qantas (qan.ASX:Quote (http://markets.news.com.au/Newscorp/Entry.aspx?secid=qan),News (http://searchresults.news.com.au/servlet/Search?site=news&searchoption=yes&queryterm=qantas)) executives, with Jetstar boss Alan Joyce topping the increases in percentage terms with his total package jumping 87 per cent to $2.66 million.

Other increases included a 26 per cent rise to $4.08 million for Qantas executive general manager John Borghetti and a 13.5 per cent rise to $4.147 million for chief financial officer Peter Gregg.

Outgoing Qantas chairwoman Margaret Jackson, who will be replaced in November by former Rio Tinto CEO Leigh Clifford, saw her overall package increase from $534,747 to $592,685.

This included an 86 per cent rise in non-cash benefits to $110,911.

Directors rewarded well

PBL boss and Qantas non-executive director James Packer was rewarded with $136,350, while fellow non-executive director, retired general Peter Cosgrove, received $239,435.

Mr Packer, who joined the board in March 2004, will resign effective from the airline's annual general meeting later this year.

Other director packages included $163,838 to Paul Anderson, $219,088 to former Qantas CEO James Strong and $316,915 to Garry Hounsell, who also received a $50,000 bonus for chairing the target statement committee during the failed APA takeover.

Qantas delivered a record net profit in 2006-07 of $719.4 million with pre-tax profit up more than 50 per cent to $1 billion and revenues up 11 per cent to $15.2 billion.

The annual report's joint review of the year by Mr Dixon and Ms Jackson noted that the airline's share price had traded in the $4.92 to $5.85 range in the wake of the failed APA bid.

It warned that aviation remained a highly competitive industry with a positive global environment likely to encourage current players and new entrants to increase capacity.

Fuel costs also remained a challenge after a 45.6 increase in 2005-06 and a further 19 per cent rise in 2006-07.

Virgin Blue was targeting business travellers and would grow capacity on trunk and regional routes while Qantas faced new competition from Singapore-backed domestic carrier Tiger Airways.

International challenges included competition from government-backed airlines, Virgin's plans to start up a long-haul interantional carrier and the arrival of Malaysian long-haul, low-cost carrier AirAsiaX


So why exactly can't WE get pay rises????:mad:

[WynSock]

:)

QF management assumes WE are a resource. Like fuel, electricity, spare parts etc.
WE have have almost no effect on the profit of the company and WE are a dime a dozen. Keeping aircraft safe, flying and on schedule is only a small part of running an airline whereas...

THEY are irreplaceable, THEY actually generate all the profit, THEY keep the money flowing. THEY have to be paid that much to attract the TALENT, to be competitive with all the other companies who pay their execs those amounts, because they work hard and THEY deserve it, because without them and "without the shareholders, we would be all out of a job."



Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, :E

But hey, it's only $128,846.15 per fortnight in the hand,
that bloke from Macq Bank gets heaps more...

:hmm:

[WynSock]

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has some interesting reading in their defence of stratospheric salaries...

including this crock of ****e...


Executive wage outcomes also reflect a range of considerations for executives and their employers (particularly in Australia’s largest companies) which effectively distinguish them from the employment experiences of most Australians, and from award wage earners in particular. These include:

Executives assuming a level of risk in their employment which is considerably higher than for most other employees, including award covered employees.
The market for executive expertise is becoming increasingly internationalised, with Australia’s major companies increasingly needing to search overseas for executives.
Executives making a very high level of personal investment in their education, skills and experience, which is often recouped only on promotion to the highest strata of executive employment.
Sound familiar? :hmm:

[neville_nobody]

Yep nice one!:D

The QF crew always compare their salaries to the top CEO's in multi nationals and say how they are not overpaid and that they are on average for the position. Meanwhile they compare their staff's salaries to china and say they are way overpaid.

If my memory serves me correctly United airlines pulled the same stunt and once things got slightly better all the execs jacked up their salaries while asking their employees for voluntary pay cuts.

Aircraft what is your take on the above post?? Replace the word executive with pilot and see what you get.

If people want to get mega rich they should do it through ownership, not through salaries. That was actually the original free market principles that western economies were built on!! The owners risk was higher and therefore was rewarded through profit (aka Bill Gates, Buffet, Branson etc etc)
CEO's these days can screw up completely and still get massive payouts.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is not an individual employee, and that is all Dixon et al are, on the planet that is worth more than $1 mill/annum.

Different deal if you own a business and it is highly successfull...more power to your arm because you actually have risked something.

CEOs are paid very well to use their talents and best endeavour to run a business...why on earth do they feel they are worth bonus' of the type they pocket just for doing their job? If they don't do their job well they should simply be sacked...that should be all the incentive they need.

In virtually every level of employee below management level there are VERY good, good, average and below average employees, as in life.

Usually the good, average and below average are recompensed equally while often the VERY good are indentified as being a threat, marginalised by politically adept but below average former employee/now lower management and eventually leave in disgust and frustration.

What a good system:ugh:

[aircraft]

Mr. Hat said:
So Aircraft could you explain what is a fair deal in your book? 3%?If the airline could afford to give pay rises then this would be a meaningful question.

Do you think that an airline pilot should be paid the same as a nurse teacher bricklayer??This is a purely philosophical question. In this world, workers are remunerated strictly according to economic factors, so you will, from time to time, see apparently gross disparities in salary between occupations.

It is not beyond the realms of the possible, for example, to see bus drivers on a salary of $100K with pilots of similarly sized aircraft on $50K. There won't be too many pilots that believe bus drivers should be paid more than them, but at the end of the day, those are just opinions.

Do you think that given that houses are in some cases double and triple what they were 5-10 years that any correction to wages is required?We would all like our salary increases to keep pace with such things but regrettably, the aviation industry would rather see our salaries going in the opposite direction - and the aviation industry is very good at getting what it wants!

777Contrail said:
And yes, it's not just the money isue.
The way pilots are treated - that's the real isue!
We are seen as the trash needed to take the aircraft from A to B.
And for trash there's no respect, and you do not want to pay it any real money either. If only management can get rid of ALL pilots they will do so ASAP!
Aviation is not what it used to be! So, do you keep banging your head against the wall in frustration that you are not held in the same regard as your counterpart of several decades ago, or do you make a little adjustment to your perceptions of aviation?

Of course management would like to see the back of all pilots. They would like nothing more than a level of automation that would see no pilots at all on the flight deck. It is part of their job to look for ways to cut costs!

Chimbu chuckles said:
So PAF/aircraft just how long do you think wages can go down in real terms for non management/pollies before something really bad happens?I don't believe that "something bad" will happen. I do believe there will be the odd "correction" that occurs from time to time, but overall, I believe commercial aviation will continue to follow the trend it has been on for more than 50 years now.

That trend, of course, is for ever more cheaper air travel for the world's people, and over the last decade particularly, a large slice of the reduction to air fares has come directly from reductions to pilot T&Cs.

Lodown said:
Lo and behold, the company returns to profitability and back into the light, thanks in part to the voluntary sacrifices of the pilot body. So now the pilots would like to share in that success.Problem is though, that the company is only profitable because the pilots are on the reduced T&Cs. Return the pilot's T&Cs to the 1992 levels and the company will be back at square one and looking bankruptcy in the face. Actually, just try to begin returning the T&Cs and the airline will go bankrupt!

I would doubt that the management, in making that deal with the pilots to stave off bankruptcy, were intentionally trying to stitch the pilots up. It could be said to have turned out that way, yes, but the deal was struck 15 years ago, with no consultation of the crystal ball and no doubt featured liberal doses of wishful thinking.

lesgo said:
So why exactly can't WE get pay rises????Executive remuneration follows a very different arrangement to your package. A large component of the increases in that article would have been based on performance bonuses. It is only a matter of time before those airlines have a bad year, at which time those executives will be looking at reductions of the same magnitude.

I don't think you will be crying "me too!" then. In fact, with the media being what it is, I very much doubt that the corresponding article would make it into print - big drops to executive remuneration just don't get the public fired up like the big rises.

[carbon]

Not to mention the fact that year to year Pilot's don't have shareholders voting on their pay or whether they should keep their job.

Ohh the stress they must go through! You forget to mention that most execs could retire of a few years earnings. Can the same be said for a pilot?

The CEO can make decisions that effect profit (positively) to the tune of tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm yet to see a situation where we pilot's can do the same
The almighty CEO, can also (and do) f*ck a company in terms of long term security, profits and sustainability, all in the name of pleasing the shareholders in the immediate future, in the process garnering their next fat bonus.:yuk:

Bloody fantastic system for all concerned:ugh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

The CEO can make decisions that effect profit (positively or negatively) to the tune of tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm yet to see a situation where we pilot's can do the same .

Highlighting mine.

I dunno...you seen what a crashed jet full of pax costs lately?

J* have had what can only be described as, at least one, VERY close call just recently...that close call can be laid directly at the feet of innexperience and reduced/poor training.

The reason we are seeing such innexperience in jet cockpits is because growth has outstripped the availability of experienced pilots. Poor or reduced training is a result of innappropriate cost cutting.

Lack of availability of experienced pilots is partly to do with the perceived and real degadation in T&Cs and the status of the profession which is a flow on from the dumbing down that advanced technology has been perceived by beancounters to allow.

Unfortunately an A320/330/787 is not quite like other plant and equipment when it comes to 'dumb as a box of rocks'.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think that is a simplistic view...it doesn't take long for the actuaries to adjust rates for a company with a bad risk profile.

How long would CASA sit by without suspending an AOC for a company that was having accidents along the lines of what so nearly happened in ML and a litany of other less serious incidents that were attributable to a combination training standards and innexperience?

You can't get insurance for a CEO running a company into financial peril.

Then perhaps CEOs of airlines wanna be a bit more circumspect...if you don't call spiralling insurance premiums and Law suites from victim's families and regulatory restrictions on a companies ability to function 'financial peril' what is it called?

I don't want to sound alarmist but Australia's aviation industry can only be 'lucky' for so long....it was a safe as it was for many years not from luck but from high standards....now it is, in some segments, relying on luck. Because the industry is so small even 1 major hull loss with 150-200 fatalities will have a relatively enormous effect on any statistic the insurance industry, for starters, relies on for calculating risk worthiness.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am not attacking pilots in Australia in any way shape or form..I think if you reread my post I said 'Industry'...an industry can't keep cost cutting without, eventually, the possibility of a result that wasn't intended. I am suggesting the trend is not positive.

[Chimbu chuckles]

If you think I am gonna answer THAT question you're NUTS:hmm:

I am simply suggesting that airline growth in Australia cannot continue without experienced pilots (edit: and engineers) to ensure that growth is a safe as reasonably possible.

Companies are shouting from the roof tops that we are in a pilot shortage crisis...the experience IS available but they, demonstably, don't want to pay for it.

Companies like Rex are the first being impacted, and so far the most vocal, but it WILL flow uphill.

How long do you reckon that is sustainable?

Take a look at all the threads on this type of topic and then sit back and take a holistic overview of where our industry is likely heading. There is a LOT of smoke out there...you betting there are no flames?

Because I am in the industry I hear more than you likely do in the RAAF...and WAAAYYY more than makes it on these pages..like I said, if you think I am going to post specifics on a public forum you're nuts.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well I think you should answer who or not make the claim!

And just how long do you think this forum would last in that reality?:ok:

And I agree with your last post completely...in fact taking a world view it is happening already...Australia is, as usual, dragging along behind the rest of the world...witness 85% payrises for ATCOs in the middle east and then view the AsA threads...bits and bobs of payrises happening for pilots here and there throughout the expat world as airlines compete for an apparently, constrained resource...and that will flow on in Australia when Australian airlines realise that they will have to compete with airlines in Asia and the ME..even EU, for the services of pilots and engineers.

CEOs suggest they are a world resource and must be remunerated accrdingly...well now so to are many other segments of Labour...notably in our industry pilots and engineers.

Going by the (admitedly extreme) example of CEOs I'd say that is a bloody excellent turn of events.

[Chimbu chuckles]

By 'that reality' I meant that if people had to name names on this site or not post at all the site would implode....stop putting words in my mouth.

Nope....I'll never pipe in a say "I knew it"....that would be crass:ok:

[ScottyDoo]

You guys arguing over this is pointless.

Market forces will determine if there is a pilot shortage and market forces will determine if pay and conditions improve or airlines go out of business.

Pilot availability is an example of a market force.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Potentiallyyes...depends on the experience of the fella in the LHS.

We have had in Australia fellas getting commands with 500 TT on type...on complex aircraft like A320s..after only small turboprop experience...do you think that individual matched with a 300 TT on type (or TT period) FO is an optimal situation?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Potentially yes....remember we are not talking RAAF training here where cost is a secondary issue and the range of standards fall in a narrow band.

[Chimbu chuckles]

No it does not mean that...airforce train for a different result...war fighting.

Expecting a military trained pilot, or any military trained individual, to drop seamlessly into civvy street after decades in the mil is not a realistic expectation....if it was there would not be shrinks making a good living out of de milling ex mill people....ok mostly that is for army:ok:

The RAAF trains a very small number of people to a defined and designed, for their purpose, standard...the result is a relatively narrow band...especially in peace time...I am sure you would admit the mil standards get a bit more latitude in times of war such as the Vietnam experience. People fail pilot course in the airforce.

In the civvy world VERY few people fail to get a licence....civvy flying schools just don't operate that way...an individual keeps paying and they keep training until he/she passes...even if only due luck on the day.

Very few pilots fail type rating courses when they are paying for them compared to airline funded in house type rating courses...simple fact of human nature...they figure an airline will sort them out or fail them later so don't want to feel guilty for inhibiting a paying customers career...a customer is viewed VERY differently to an employee.

The weeding out process that happens in pilot course in the RAAF happens in industry outside the RAAF...and in times of shortage that weeding out process is not as efficient as in times of plenty.

The standards band is not as narrow in civvy aviation...and in times of pilot shortage people can be promoted beyond there current skill level...doesn't mean they would never be suitable but most pilots benefit greatly for 3 or 4 years in the RHS watching how various scenarios are coped with...both well and not so well...by the captains they fly with.

Several years in a Kingair, 1 in the rhs of a complex jet and then command is a potential problem.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am saying there is a wider band of standards in civvy street than you're used to in the airforce.

Too you get people who's abilities vary just like the airforce...not everyone can be a fast jet pilot even though the airforce probably starts out with that as a criteria at initial selection. I bet you know pilots who made fast jet and then decided, or had it decided for them, that they were just not up to the very specific demands of that type of flying.

Perfectly capable in a transport but not a fighter.

And there are probably a few fast jet pilots who shouldn't be fast jet pilots...just like there are going to be a few airline captains who possibly have been promoted beyond there competency.

It's human nature.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am not going to speak to specifics...if you cannot peruse these boards and work out potential problem areas yourself you're not as intelligent as you seem...there are only about 8 threads on this page alone that display the concerns of various and sundry industry disciplines...plus it is past my bedtime.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Here is something you don't read often.

A bit of both. Hiring over here is fierce - it's a bit like it was in the '80s. Some regional airlines have hired in excess of 250 pilots in the last year, again partly due to expansion, partly due to folk moving on to bigger types. And that is REGIONAL airlines... I guess that is why I find NZ hiring figures somewhat underwhelming.

In our case, in order to attract new pilots, we are substantially increasing pay packages, which I am sure would be music to the ears of NJS pilots.

Our crews didn't ask for it - we just did it, because we recognise that we need to safeguard our workforce for the long term. In addition to that, we are also in the process of improving conditions - better hotels, friendlier rosters, more time off, better equipment in the aircraft, and so on. Again. we are doing this without being asked, for the same reasons. We take the view that we want to be known as a good employer, and we want our company to be a good place to work. Achieve that, and pilots will beat a path to your door... it is the part of the Southwest Airlines model that most low-cost operations conveniently forget. Our company ethos is to ensure that lifestyle is considered on an equal footing with profit.

Why, you might ask, would we do such a thing? Well, it comes down to the fact that for most pilots, once they have achieved a reasonable level of employment (say, their first jet), lifestyle issues start to dominate and the desire to fly the bigger jet starts to recede. Most pilots who have been in the airlines for more than five years are mostly concerned with lifestyle, once you get to ten years in the job, 90% of pilots are primarily concerned with lifestyle issues.

Throughout my career I have never failed to be surprised about how little it would take to make people happy and how often companies fail to make that little bit of effort.

I remember in Talair when a new manager started fecking with peoples accom how unhappy people became...and some long serving and experienced pilots walked feeling devastated at being treated in such a manner after, in one case, a decade + of loyal service. All of a sudden he wanted to move pilots out of their houses so he could rent out the 'better' housing to outsiders. Leave aside for the moment that the compound had been built to house staff...out came a decree that all staff would be moved into houses 1 through XX...for many this was a move from houses they had been in for MANY years into houses that were too small for families, 3 bedroom to 2, or for single guys from 2 bedrooms into bedsits. All said manager had to do was nothing...just leave people alone, in this case, and they'd have remained happy and good employees...when it almost backfired he went as far as renumbering the houses to achieve what he wanted....why?

On another occassion tax laws changed giving the troops a potential payrise at no cost to company...the first in years...the company was going to reduce our gross as a result and, I am reliably informed, Dennis Buchannan only blinked at the very last moment due to the depth of feeling from CP down...why?

[neville_nobody]

Adding to the Air Force Civvy street debate, is that the Air Force recruit a very very very small number of people compared to the civy market so they are able to pick and choose exactly who they want and train them to the standard, if they don't get that standard in the time required they are fired. I doubt you could apply the exact same standards to large volumes of intakes that is required right now.

If training in this country is going to be improved who is going to foot the bill? The airlines will argue they are not responsible; the pilots won't be able to afford it, and the government doesn't want to know.

[Mr. Hat]

An interesting clean debate.
Aircraft said:
If the airline could afford to give pay rises then this would be a meaningful question.
Maybe they can't afford not to.
The old supply and demand argument. Hell of a lot of jobs going these days. People naturally want to pay their mortgage off before they turn 60 and perhaps even go on a holiday. Experienced people will move and find places that will pay the money. So whats cheaper is the argument: low salary and constant turn over or higher salary and small turn over? I suppose right now though the issue is - what happens when you can't train as fast as they leave.

I suspect there are many hidden costs with high turnover (aside from the obvious recruiting and training). Then again I recall years ago an operator that wanted experienced crews to leave as new ones were "keener" and less likely to ask for more money. IMHO experienced happy crews are the way to go.

[neville_nobody]

Here is the Allied Pilot's Association background brief on the pay request. Some interesting data in there, the one that struck me the most was that in the past 15 years a AA MD80 captain's salary has gone down 1% while the CEO's salary has gone up 723% This is for a company that nearly went broke!

Another interesting statistic which also applys to the QF pilots is that as American Airlines pilots are only paid per flight hour they actually spend 260 hours a month at work for 75 hours pay!!! I wonder how many other industries can get away with that!!!

http://www.apanegotiations.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JRh7r3uVt80%3d&tabid=65&mid=448

Some more information:

http://www.apanegotiations.com/QuickFacts/tabid/56/Default.aspx