Highest earning occupations - Pilot not amongst them.

[Metro man]

Australia's highest earning occupations have been listed by the ATO with no mention of pilot there.

Australian Tax Office names Delungra as country's lowest-earning area, Sydney eastern suburbs identified as highest - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-29/australias-lowest-and-highest-earning-areas-unveiled-by-ato/6429006). Scroll to page 4 in the link.

Perhaps the low incomes of G/A pilots drag the whole group down, possibly a seperate category of Airline Pilots would have made the list as an A320/B737 Captain would make the bottom half around the mining engineer level.

[neville_nobody]

Maybe the ATO can explain how the 'average' salary of Bellevue hill is $143 000 yet the average house price is circa $3 600 000 and the average yearly rent is nearly $95 000.

So if you are renting your whole salary after tax is almost equivalent to your rent alone. And they are 'averages'?:hmm:

And yes I would suggest that the Regional and Charter Salaries would lower the
pilot average salaries.

The MD and CEO 'average' is a very low ball average.

[Ngineer]

Australia's highest earning occupations have been listed by the ATO with no mention of pilot there.



Time to get your red ties out again.

[Oakape]

mmmm, loss of parity. Now where have I heard that before?

[dragon man]

I'm still laughing at surgeons $350,000 odd. Try $2 million plus. Hang on they are not PAYE are they so they can use trusts and companies!!! Silly me.

[highflyer40]

The only "surgeon" you will see making 2 million plus are of the "cosmetic" type. Your average medical surgeon wouldn't even be half that.

[Metro man]

Surgeons and lawyers etc don't pay tax, they simply decide what they want to earn and set their fees so that they are left with that amount after passing on some of your money to the ATO.

Those on wages and salaries pay their tax for them.

[Horatio Leafblower]

he 'average' salary of Bellevue hill is $143 000 yet the average house price is circa $3 600 000 and the average yearly rent is nearly $95 000.

So if you are renting your whole salary after tax is almost equivalent to your rent alone. And they are 'averages'?


Someone on here once pointed out that the average human has one tit and one testicle.

Beware of averages. :=

[Obie]

I hope we're not complaining about jet RPT airline F/Os only getting $100K +a year and Captains only getting $200K + a year!?

Or are we?

[neville_nobody]

I hope we're not complaining about jet RPT airline F/Os only getting $100K +a year and Captains only getting $200K + a year!?

Plenty of Jet RPT Capt's and FO's getting less than that.

[Vis 10k Plus]

Mark Twain reckoned this came from Benjamin Disraeli although that is by no means certain: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[framer]

The average Australian has 1.99875263 legs .
True story.

[B772]

The ATO figures are taxable income not gross income.

I see the surgeons in Tasmania averaged a taxable income of $468,384. Looks like an opportunity for H R Block in Tasmania !

[Ultralights]

there is a good reaon my other half has given up on her flying career, and now investing our time and money in a medical degree.

[desmotronic]

Most surgeons spend a captains wage on public liability insurance premiums each year.

[Buttscratcher]

Ah, bless the Low Wage Generation (you brought this on yourselves....and thanks very much for that!)
I'm looking forward to the next gen of little prix who'll gladly fly a jet for free.

[OzSync]

Surely we can't be the entitlement generation and that too?

[Buttscratcher]

It would seem so........and don't call me Surely

[Alchemy101]

As a surgeon (in the Aussie public system) I assure you I don't earn $2,000,000.. or even close to it. In fact, I earned more (on a per hour basis) working as an unskilled office assistant in my university holidays, without even correcting for inflation, let alone my >10 years training. But I do work a lot.. (112 hours last week and this is currently my 34th straight day on) so it adds up. And I've personally paid >$25k this year in mandatory training, licencing and insurance costs this year :P

A senior colleague of mine (who is a fully qualified specialist) works five days a week and makes about $1200 a fortnight. We're not all rolling in it! Usually surgeons only rake it in when working private practice in their 40s/50s, and by then, they're playing catchup having effectively worked for peanuts for 20 years.

Not after sympathy. I think pilots (based on discussions here) are woefully underpaid (especially in GA), but it doesn't mean that others, like surgeons, are all swimming in cash. As always, there are those who roll in it, and those who are struggling. ;)

[Angle of Attack]

What are you people smoking? This is a list published by the ATO, as far as I am concerned pilots would be better off in the lowest 10 professions. Your only asking for trouble being high up, so enjoy it. This is a hit list of their next audit campaign, nothing more nothing less. Statistics mean nothing audits mean everything....enjoy it.

[framer]

A senior colleague of mine (who is a fully qualified specialist) works five days a week and makes about $1200 a fortnight
That doesn't sound believable to me. Can you elaborate/ explain ?

[Alchemy101]

That doesn't sound believable to me. Can you elaborate/ explain ?


Because in the public system, junior consultants (specialist surgeons who have completed medical school, internship, residency, registrar training, and fellowship, and then often more years) are frequently paid a small percentage of a full time equivalent.

For example, you might be expected to do two days 'on call' a week. So they pay you for the two days (9-5) + $12 for being on call overnight (seriously it's $12).

However, every other day you're also the first point of contact for the trainees on your team, who can't operate independently on major cases - so you are always on call for that.

And you need to help with ward rounds for your inpatients, some of whom will be long stay patients who need lots of input, and obviously the people you admit often stay in a few days, have issues, get sick, get better etc and people call you about them as well. People often wait days for an operation on the emergency list (with no scheduled time), and suddenly you'll get a slot and need to be available for it. And you can't just not come in, because people are people, and they are dynamic, changing, improving and declining all the time. So the admin staff don't care, because they know if you've got patients you'll be there, whether they pay you or not, because duty ties you (it's the same as if you stop paying pilots halfway through the flight - they'll still finish it!).

The result? You work full time and then some - but for peanuts when you're on such an arrangement. Often in the hope of scoring the elusive full time job, or even better, visiting medical officer (fee for service) appointment.

Myself and the surgeon in question I mentioned performed an 8 hour emergency operation just last Wednesday that finished at 3am. Fortunately for me, my contract does pay for overtime - but hers is a fixed 'full time equivalent' boss job - so she did that operation for free. Things like that happen all the time.

So that's why :)

[bazza stub]

Wasn't airline pilot also voted the most stressful job some time back? Let me sum it up then:

>Most stressful
>Cost of failure is potentially career ending/fatal
>Quickly becoming moderately/poorly paid
>Handles tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment and hundreds of lives at any one time, all day every day
>Airlines truly believe (and advertise) that we don't really do anything "up there"
>Get put through the ringer every 3-6 months in the simulator
>Get put through the ringer every year by a Doctor
>Have to beg for basic human right most days
>And don't forget, we have to indemnify ourselves against loss of licence too

Riiiiiiiiiight! What was I thinking? Should have become an accountant :}

[Mach E Avelli]

Bollocks that flying is "the most stressful job".
A surgeon working casualty, bomb disposal, abalone diver - now THOSE are stressful!
The only part of flying I ever found stressful was in latter years when they brought in all the security bull**** and I had to wait in line while some gorilla checked out my toothpaste for Semtex.

[highflyer40]

I do think it's funny that in almost every thread that comes up about pilot pay the comparison with doctors always comes up. They are incomparable because they are in two different leagues. That's the biggest problem is that most pilots put themselves on too high of a pedestal.

[OzSync]

Spot on highflyer, I find it quite embarrassing that so many of my peers feel we are comparable - I must say this tends to be the older generation that feel this way though.

As for "airline pilot being stressful" - seriously, no, unless you really find it hard to be proficient I guess.

[Lookleft]

As for "airline pilot being stressful" - seriously, no, unless you really find it hard to be proficient I guess.

The insurance companies don't agree with you. Why do you think income protection (not loss of licence) will only cover you as an airline pilot to age 55?

And yes there is no way being a pilot is comparable to being a doctor- because the medical profession kill 4000 people/year!

[Oakape]

Usually surgeons only rake it in when working private practice in their 40s/50s, and by then, they're playing catchup having effectively worked for peanuts for 20 years.


Used to be that way in aviation, raking it in in the later years (well, at least making up for the lean earlier years). Sadly that's no longer the case!

[Willie Nelson]

This comparison is so ridiculous, why do pilots do this to themselves.

Having formerly dated a doctor, I can vouch that the medical profession for most individuals provided substantially more stress than this great profession of ours, at least here in Australia.

Apart from the exams, which most of us would not pass.

Five years study before you earn, literally anything and then you find that the nurses are earning more money when you're an RMO

The hours doctors work, working on days off for no extra money with the continuing ongoing study for years on end, almost complete lack of social life, for most specialties barring perhaps GP's.

Our industry, on the other hand, has very clearly defined FDTL's Minimum days off that certainly, in the airlines are adhered to. Minimum ongoing study requirements albeit with regular checks and keep up study here and there.

There's just no comparison, I get to have a life in this job and the more time I spend away from this job the more I love it, I get lots of time away.

As for money:

The girl I dated almost fell over whe she heard what I earned as an FO. At that time I was earning around $95k all in, compared to her $75k as a paediatric registrar. Of course she will no doubt overtake me at some point but on a time investment versus financial return the comparison is ridiculous.

Pilots don't generally get in to their profession because of the money and neither do doctors. One of the only things pilots and doctors have in common is that we both get in to the job because for many a varied reason we like the idea of said occupation.

The greatest driver for our pay and conditions here is Australis is the level of public interest in an air crash. The unfortunate reality is that there is not the same level of public interest in an individual death of a patient and the public's ability to objectively comprehend the cause of such a death is limited at best.

I have the utmost respect for doctors, please stop the comparison, you make us look like overpaid idiots.

[Buttscratcher]

Bob? Bob, is that you?

[Icarus2001]

Alchemy101, you say you are a surgeon, so I respect the fact you may know what this guy earns, but really...?

A senior colleague of mine (who is a fully qualified specialist) works five days a week and makes about $1200 a fortnight.

Given that the minimum full time wage in Australia is about $640 per week, or about $33,000 a year. I cannot see how he earns $600 a week. Even if you mean net pay?

Minimum wage up 3 per cent, rise of $18.70 a week (http://www.smh.com.au/national/minimum-wage-up-3-per-cent-rise-of-1870-a-week-20140604-39is5.html)

[framer]

Thanks Alchemy, I'm astounded by this. I always imagined doctors and especially surgeons starting on about $70k at year one but rapidly rising through to 2 or 300k within a decade.
Would it be a minority who earn low dollars like this or perhaps 50/50 ?
Again, I can't quite believe it.
When I holiday on the Sunshine Coast I have seen several ads for GP's with salary's starting with a 3. Is there a particular reason for that?
Thanks for your time.

[pull-up-terrain]

$70k at year one but rapidly rising through to 2 or 300k within a decade.

That may of been the case 20 years ago, but these days, to become a specialist in a particular area or a GP, you can't really start training in any of these areas unless you have at least 10 years experience of working in hospitals. So to see these sort of high incomes, you probably will be in your early 40's at the absolute earliest (assuming you complete a 3 year science degree and swap over into a 5-6 year medicine degree).

[Alchemy101]

Given that the minimum full time wage in Australia is about $640 per week, or about $33,000 a year. I cannot see how he earns $600 a week. Even if you mean net pay?


Yes, it's pretty outrageous isn't it. It boils down to being paid as part time, but the hospital knowing full well (and expecting) that you're full time. Awards etc haven't quite solved the 'on call' responsibilities of doctors. The doctor in question I mentioned is paid as a percentage of a full time equivalent (the 100% rate of which is about $130000 PA) but still works at least 6 days a week. But we don't clock on or off, as it were, and we migrate around the hospital so there's no real record. However, there are very few who are actually employed 100%. This is really common, and is a form of underemployment where you still spend your days working, but on paper are only part part time.

Thanks Alchemy, I'm astounded by this. I always imagined doctors and especially surgeons starting on about $70k at year one but rapidly rising through to 2 or 300k within a decade.
Would it be a minority who earn low dollars like this or perhaps 50/50 ?
Again, I can't quite believe it.
When I holiday on the Sunshine Coast I have seen several ads for GP's with salary's starting with a 3. Is there a particular reason for that?
Thanks for your time.

Interns are currently paid about $60,000 PA in NSW (before tax). Resident 1 are paid about 68k, Resident 2 78k (same as registrar 1) and so forth. Full time final year surgical registrars (specialist trainees in the public system) are paid about $100,000 but expected to work crazy hours. Surgical fellows (when you're qualified, but not yet in a permanent boss job) are often paid $20k stipend per annum or less. Staff specialist surgeon starts at about $130k but again, only if you get employed as 100% full time equivalent which is very very rare now except in the country (and to be honest, $130k for someone who has worked their arse off for ~15 years and holds significant responsibility I think is not excessive!)

When members of the public see a specialist they might have a consult in rooms for 10 minutes and be charged $170 and think that's a bit steep. But when the costs of rooms, practice costs (so much regulation $$), secretary, insurance, courses, training debts, relocation debts and heaps of pro-bono stuff you have to do are factored in, most surgeons do not break even in rooms unless they see >14 people in day of consulting rooms. Same goes for operations - in a private list you need at least a couple of cases to cover the overheads.

I'm only a PPL so I don't know how hard it is to be a CPL and airline pilot etc which I'm sure are much more effort. But I did the PPL for relaxation and found the exams to be relaxing - surgical exams are somewhat more scary!

As multiple people have said - we do it because we like it, or we have some weird sense of duty or something. I didn't pick my profession for money - I had other options if that was the priority! And I don't regret it.

But I reiterate - pilots should be paid more, I think, especially (some of the) poor buggers in GA and SO/FO who are getting paid $60k - total exploitation. Reckon it should be 100+

[pilotchute]

This is how it works. You finish your medical degree then you start your year hospital placement. At the end of that 12 months you can start applying for training positions. Surgeon or Psych whatever tickles your fancy. If you get a training position straight away you can expect to be fully qualified by early thirties at the earliest. Once qualified you will be on 150 a year min. This will rise quickly. The average taxable income in 2013 for a surgeon was 300k.

The only way you would be walking the wards for 10 years is if you got continuously rejected for every training position you applied for.

[Alchemy101]

The only way you would be walking the wards for 10 years is if you got continuously rejected for every training position you applied for.

Actually if you look at the SET Selection regulations for RACS you'll see the earliest you can apply is in postgraduate year (PGY) 2, for PGY3. Last year, one candidate got on in PGY2, the rest were PGY3+ The shortest training program is general surgery, which is 5 years not including fellowship or research components. The longer ones are 7 years. So assuming you get on to everything instantly, and never fail any exams, the soonest you could theoretically be a consultant surgeon in Australia is as a general surgeon after 7 years of walking the wards. Given that neurosurgery, orthopaedics etc all take candidates PGY4+ and they are 5-7 year programs, their minimum PGY status to be a consultant is 10 years of ward walking (not including the ward walking you do as a student), assuming you get on to everything instantly, and never fail an exam, and never do research. In reality most candidates are at least PGY 10+ for general and 12+ for the other specialities by the time they become consultants.

So you're mistaken in that. And in your salary estimates.

[Fred Gassit]

And the medical schools have been very successful in churning out far more candidates than can be accommodated.
A GP working in an inner city bulk billing clinic would have to churn through patients at a ridiculous rate to keep up with the Jones's these days. It's not actually clear to me how they are profitable at all.

[framer]

Fascinating ( and a bit disturbing).
Can you give us a rough run down of your medical career Alchemy? Pay included?
Thanks again, it's nice to get a different perspective.

[pilotchute]

So alchemy your example only covers surgeons. What about ANZCA or other colleges?

I have just been informed that yes 2 post grad years min for RACS. So undergrad med degree in 5-6 years so possible to finish by 24? Two years then acceptance to RACS possible. So the shortest course is 5-7 years so how could you not be qualified by under 35? I didn't say it was the norm but possible and it has been done. How are my salary figures out please tell.

How is what I said before so wrong? I didn't say neuro or ortho.

[slats11]

From where I sit with family in aviation and medicine, things are going downhill for both professions.

Exploitation in early years as people crawl over broken glass competing to land that dream job.
Significantly greater responsibility that most workers will ever know - especially in an era when most people are doing all they can to minimise their professional responsibility.
If you make it (and many don't), yes there is significantly higher pay than average workers. This comes at a very high price however, and the Australian tax rates mean you quickly come to learn about the law of diminishing returns.
A job that is intrinsically rewarding per se, but which is becoming ever more difficult due to cost-cutting, ever increasing requirements for productivity gains, ever increasing public expectations, and an ever increasing regulatory burden.
Higher than average divorce rates - in addition to the emotional cost, a divorce will seriously erode whatever wealth you may have managed to build by your 40's or 50's.
Diminished respect by the general public - which does gradually erode morale and goodwill, and which assists our industries to drive down our T&C.
The ever present risk that a single bad decision could be enough to effectively end your career.

If you still believe the grass really is greener on the other side, comfort yourself in the certain knowledge they are turning off the irrigation on the other side as well.

[Hoofharted]

Divorce x (child support + payout) = Fly until I die :ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch:

[slats11]

And yes there is no way being a pilot is comparable to being a doctor- because the medical profession kill 4000 people/year!


The true figure here is almost impossible to know.

There are a lot of groups with vested interests who promote this issue. Not just malpractice lawyers. But all the industry groups trying to get their products into the hospital system. Electronic medical records or computerised dispensing of medications or expensive new devices are all purported to reduce errors and increase safety. Some do. Some make no difference. And some are frankly counter-productive. Suffice to say that few of these products ever fully deliver the promised results. But just understand you need to find a problem before you can sell a solution.

All that notwithstanding, this is a real problem. There are literally hundreds of patient:clinician encounters for a sick patient admitted to hospital for a week or more. This many encounters guarantees there will be some errors and mistakes.

In aviation, we accept that the majority of errors or failures (holes in the cheese) don't cause an incident or accident. An accident often requires multiple holes to line up. In medicine however, you will always be able to find a hole when reviewing a death. Did the hole cause the death? Or was the death inevitable and unrelated to the earlier error. Causality to mere association? Did an error actually cause the death of the patient? Sometimes it is clear cut. But often it is subjective judgement call haven more to do with prejudice and vested interest than fact.

Remember also that the death rate is the same as it has always been. One per person. Doctors don't save lives, they just delay death. Sometimes however, death can't be delayed and becomes inevitable. Planes can be scrapped or be parked in the desert when they are no longer viable. People however have to die.


Consider also how aviation would work under the following circumstances that characterise the public hospital system:
Often operating aircraft 70-80 years old that had been poorly maintained.
Critical equipment is missing or obsolete or broken, but there is no money this year. Its on next years budget, so hopefully then. For now, just do your best.
People turn up unannounced at an airport and demand to fly wherever they want as often as they want. Unlimited air travel on demand is their right as they "paid for it in their taxes." The politicians keep promising free air travel is here to stay. The passenger does not have to put his hand in his own pocket before deciding if he really wants to fly interstate. If he wants to fly, he flies. Today.
If there are no seats on the plane, thats the airlines problem. Sit them in a toilet or stand them in an aisle or put them in the hold. Whatever. Solve it as best as you can, but you can't deny carriage.
If there are no landing slots, or there are no gates available at the terminal, then that is ATC's or the airports problem. Because another 3 planes are on final (just like another 3 ambulances arriving at an over-capacity hospital). So find a solution.
The relatives change their mind at the last minute and decide they can't come to the airport to pickup grandma today but will come tomorrow. So grandma has to stay on the plane another 24 hours. You needed that seat for someone else? Your problem baby.
Many of the passengers tuning up at the airport don't actually know where they want to fly. They just know they want to fly today. You first job is to diagnose where they want to go. And its random. Some days more want to go to Melbourne. Some days more want to go to Cairns. The number of passengers wanting to go to different destinations will bear no relationship to the capacity you actually have on these different routes today. Good luck.
5% of your pilots called in sick this morning because of those sick passengers at the airport the other day. Guess the other 95% of you are going to be a bit busy today.

[AT 2]

:ok: Great analogy Slats, although that does sound suspiciously like a GA operator I used to work for :)

[jamhassan00]

This is possible that, they have different criteria to categories the salaries of the people. so you to check their method.

[abgd]

And despite all this in Britain a high proportion of doctors emigrate to Australia. And they never come back!

[brown_hornet]

Stressful? I must be in a different profession.

Take first break and have a nice read of the paper, or if I'm feeling inclined watch a movie; maybe have a cup of soup if I'm feeling a bit hungry half way through. Come back to the flight station and have the serenity eventually interrupted by having to send a few texts to a guy/gal in a tin shed somewhere in Indo requesting a bit of deviation around some thunderies. Order my crew meal exactly 27 minutes before the Manila boundary so old mate next to me does the HF work, phew. Decide whether or not to eat the cheesecake for dessert. The last few hours are spent contemplating what to have for dinner. Room service or head out for dumplings? Head to hotel and after having the room service, have a great sleep minus the screaming kids and watch a few movies and do it all again. Get home refreshed and have a week off. No wonder my wife plucked my first grey hairs out the other night:}

[Popgun]

Stressful? I must be in a different profession.

No, you're just in a different company.

PG

[HeSaidWhat]

Totally worthless fluff piece, yet it's allowed to continue. Interesting.

[Buttscratcher]

Yes, but still you continue reading it, so .....?

[Obie]

Well, I've just come back to it to find that you lot still think pilots are hard done by and suffering stress!

Hey, if you can't handle it and don't like it, move on!

40 yrs in the business for me, great job, great money, great conditions. Why do you lot complain!

Go and mow lawns or sell used cars if you're dissatisfied!

[Lookleft]

40 yrs in the business for me, great job, great money, great conditions. Why do you lot complain!


Spoken like someone with super seniority and flies 300hrs/year!

[MALT68]

Suffice to say, my day job helps pay for my flying. I am very fortunate.

[neville_nobody]

One point mentioning in this argument is that pilots take a substantial financial risk in their career in that they are self funded, and then their whole career is really tied to one airline thanks to seniority. As opposed to Doctors who while taking significant loss of earnings for a long time, once qualified are really never going to be unemployed and could work well into their 60's if they wanted to.
Pilot retirement is really around the 60 mark with few going much beyond that.

However it is much harder to qualify as a Doctor than a pilot it must be said

[Obie]

"Spoken like someone with super seniority and flies 300hrs/year! "

Far from it, Mate!
Just a line pilot who enjoyed the job.
Unlike you, it would appear.

[Lookleft]

I can understand why someone who started in 1975 still has that rosy glow about the industry. After all you have seen the best the industry has offered and with the seniority that you would enjoy you probably can't understand why those who don't work for a legacy carrier are not enjoying the choice of roster and holidays that come your way.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the joy of getting airborne and watching the world go by but its not just gravity and a limited fuel supply that is dragging you back to the ground. A lot of people still have to work 20,30+ years of crap rostering, short turn-arounds, minimum rest and a decline in real wages and conditions..

What they don't need is yet another baby boomer telling them, while they are sitting on the top of the aviation mountain, how wonderful the view is.

[Popgun]

I can understand why someone who started in 1975 still has that rosy glow about the industry. After all you have seen the best the industry has offered and with the seniority that you would enjoy you probably can't understand why those who don't work for a legacy carrier are not enjoying the choice of roster and holidays that come your way.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the joy of getting airborne and watching the world go by but its not just gravity and a limited fuel supply that is dragging you back to the ground. A lot of people still have to work 20,30+ years of crap rostering, short turn-arounds, minimum rest and a decline in real wages and conditions..

What they don't need is yet another baby boomer telling them, while they are sitting on the top of the aviation mountain, how wonderful the view is.

GOLD! :D:D:D

[Chocks Away]

Bravo Lookleft, well said :D:D:D
Many in that generation have been the bane of my career (& others I know) and should just piss off with their failing eyesight and hearing to retire gracefully, instead of creating more "occurrences" when they fly.

Highest earning occupation? How times have changed!

[highflyer40]

Join the rest of the world. Most people have crap hours, crap days off, treated like crap by their employers, and no job security....etc. and guess what the majority earn 26000 ( in the UK as that is the average annual salary ) I'm just a FO and guess what I think I'm overpaid for what i do ( not that I'm complaining) but I'm not about to complain that I should be getting more, I would be quite happy with just inflation pay rises for the remainder.

[Iron Bar]

Highflyer, I hear the TWU are looking for some EBA negotiators if you're interested?

[Keg]

Bugger the money discussion, this is inspired genius!

Order my crew meal exactly 27 minutes before the Manila boundary so old mate next to me does the HF work, phew.

:ok: :} :cool:

I want to hear more of brown hornet's operational decision making. :ok:

[Lookleft]

Wrong again, Mate...pre baby boomer!

I just think its sad. As someone I flew with said, you have two choices-retire or die.

[Tankengine]

Never underestimate it Obie!;)

[AngioJet]

The true figure here is almost impossible to know.

There are a lot of groups with vested interests who promote this issue. Not just malpractice lawyers. But all the industry groups trying to get their products into the hospital system. Electronic medical records or computerised dispensing of medications or expensive new devices are all purported to reduce errors and increase safety. Some do. Some make no difference. And some are frankly counter-productive. Suffice to say that few of these products ever fully deliver the promised results. But just understand you need to find a problem before you can sell a solution.

All that notwithstanding, this is a real problem. There are literally hundreds of patient:clinician encounters for a sick patient admitted to hospital for a week or more. This many encounters guarantees there will be some errors and mistakes.

In aviation, we accept that the majority of errors or failures (holes in the cheese) don't cause an incident or accident. An accident often requires multiple holes to line up. In medicine however, you will always be able to find a hole when reviewing a death. Did the hole cause the death? Or was the death inevitable and unrelated to the earlier error. Causality to mere association? Did an error actually cause the death of the patient? Sometimes it is clear cut. But often it is subjective judgement call haven more to do with prejudice and vested interest than fact.

Remember also that the death rate is the same as it has always been. One per person. Doctors don't save lives, they just delay death. Sometimes however, death can't be delayed and becomes inevitable. Planes can be scrapped or be parked in the desert when they are no longer viable. People however have to die.


Consider also how aviation would work under the following circumstances that characterise the public hospital system:
Often operating aircraft 70-80 years old that had been poorly maintained.
Critical equipment is missing or obsolete or broken, but there is no money this year. Its on next years budget, so hopefully then. For now, just do your best.
People turn up unannounced at an airport and demand to fly wherever they want as often as they want. Unlimited air travel on demand is their right as they "paid for it in their taxes." The politicians keep promising free air travel is here to stay. The passenger does not have to put his hand in his own pocket before deciding if he really wants to fly interstate. If he wants to fly, he flies. Today.
If there are no seats on the plane, thats the airlines problem. Sit them in a toilet or stand them in an aisle or put them in the hold. Whatever. Solve it as best as you can, but you can't deny carriage.
If there are no landing slots, or there are no gates available at the terminal, then that is ATC's or the airports problem. Because another 3 planes are on final (just like another 3 ambulances arriving at an over-capacity hospital). So find a solution.
The relatives change their mind at the last minute and decide they can't come to the airport to pickup grandma today but will come tomorrow. So grandma has to stay on the plane another 24 hours. You needed that seat for someone else? Your problem baby.
Many of the passengers tuning up at the airport don't actually know where they want to fly. They just know they want to fly today. You first job is to diagnose where they want to go. And its random. Some days more want to go to Melbourne. Some days more want to go to Cairns. The number of passengers wanting to go to different destinations will bear no relationship to the capacity you actually have on these different routes today. Good luck.
5% of your pilots called in sick this morning because of those sick passengers at the airport the other day. Guess the other 95% of you are going to be a bit busy today.

That is one fantastic analogy Slats! Was laughing out loud on way home from said 'airport' having just had umpteen on final and no slots... :E

[Keg]

40 yrs in the business for me, great job, great money, great conditions. Why do you lot complain!

Been retired for thirteen years!


The job is significantly different now to what it was even 13 years ago let alone 20, 30, 40 and 53 years ago. :ugh:

That's the point Lookleft was making! :D

PS: I'm not complaining here either but I've seen more changes in the last 5 years tha the preceding 15.

[Lookleft]

The mistake I made Keg was taking someone at face value and that they were suggesting that they were still in the industry. Being out of the industry for so long makes any comment they make redundant and not even worth the 2cents value they consider it to be.

My comment while they are sitting on the top of the aviation mountain, how wonderful the view is. should now be considered in the past tense. As you point out the changes that have occurred in the industry even in the past 5 years give those still participating every right and freedom to complain. Of course anyone who flew through the heyday of airline flying would have done so without any complaints.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

My oath. No complaints from me in the past, that all started when airlines started expending ALL their energy fighting their staff in stead of providing a top notch service to it's customers.

[Mach E Avelli]

LL, even in the 'heyday of airline flying' we complained and compared our salaries to other better paid professions such as high court judges.
One boss I worked for (a good guy) said that the collective for a group of pilots was a " whinge".
Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose.

[Lookleft]

The only difference today is the equipment, nothing else has changed.

And you call me thick! Your major contribution to aviation was leaving it in 2002. The discussion is not about the act of flying it is about the industry that surrounds it. If you think that the only thing that has changed is the equipment then you are more out of touch than someone supporting the Australian Democrats.

[mikedreamer787]

The only difference today is the equipment, nothing else has changed.

In Australia? I think you need to get out more buddy!

[wdew]

Met up with a mate of mine over the weekend and ,with him having a PPL , Pprune came up. He is a specialist anaesthetist with 24 years of specialist experience in Liver transplants and cardiac anaesthesia . He had to go in for an emergency case on Easter Friday . For the public holiday three hours of effort he gets $289 TOTAL before tax !!!!!!!! I didnt believe him untill he showed me his payslip . A plumber will charge you that just to come to your place in normal working hours.
Medicine is not worth the effort unless you like charity work with a bit of better pay than the average uni graduate.:ugh:

[bazza stub]

The only difference today is the equipment, nothing else has changed.

Oh, hang on, I forgot to mention, attitude!

Errr, um B,C,D scale maybe?

But your right about attitude though, I see your attitude every day usually attached to a wannabe trying to impress the chief pilot thinking that's how you get ahead.

[aveng]

Certificate IV in Aviation Commercial Pilot Aeroplane Licence (AVI40108)
The Certificate IV in Aviation is designed to meet the needs of Commercial Pilots (Aeroplanes) by using a practical, hands on approach.

The course is 9 months full time.

Come on - comparing a pilot to a doctor is a bit rich.

[Caedus]

Certificate IV in Aviation Commercial Pilot Aeroplane Licence (AVI40108)
The Certificate IV in Aviation is designed to meet the needs of Commercial Pilots (Aeroplanes) by using a practical, hands on approach.

The course is 9 months full time.

Come on - comparing a pilot to a doctor is a bit rich.

That's basic CPL though? No IR no ME?

Unless we're comparing with intern doctors...

[Icarus2001]

That's basic CPL though? No IR no ME?

Well add another month, heck two months for the CIR. You are still talking less than a year a uni. (Holidays excepted ;) )

[QUOTE]One point mentioning in this argument is that pilots take a substantial financial risk in their career in that they are self funded, and then their whole career is really tied to one airline thanks to seniority.

Just like tertiary education now. The difference being that through HECS it is post paid.

[The name is Porter]

the collective for a group of pilots was a "whinge"

No it's not, it's a "wank"

[Lookleft]

Did some sim instruction in a 738 a couple of years ago

Sitting in the back of a Flight Experience session doesn't count as industry experience. I will agree on one thing though. The gear lever and the flap lever on the 737 hasn't changed much in 40 years either.

[Derfred]

I believe the primary difference between the pilot profession and the medical and legal professions are that pilots tend to be "standardised" to the point where there is little identifiable difference between a "good" pilot and an "adequate" pilot - at least not to the bean counters.

In contrast, the highly regarded/highly experienced surgeons and lawyers get to pretty much write their own salaries (in private practice at least) - whereas the mediocre or non-ambitious, or those in the public sector, are paid poorly in comparison.

Yes, years of training and experience are rewarded in some professions, but not all. I know a surgeon who does very well thank you very much. I also know a highly regarded CEO who does not, simply because he chooses to work for companies he wants to work for rather than who will offer the highest salary. I also know several very low paid PhD graduates.

It took me nearly 10 years to get into the back seat of a jet and a further 15 to get into the LHS of one. I don't feel overpaid, nor do I feel underpaid. My CEO keeps telling me I'm overpaid - at least there the feeling is mutual. Some pilots get to the top a lot faster than that, some slower. Big deal. Many earn a lot more than I do too, many less. I think its worth it to keep up the fight or we'll continue the race to the bottom.

[mikedreamer787]

The gear lever and the flap lever on the 737 hasn't changed much in 40 years either.

That's because Boeing got it right the first time. :)

If it aint broke don't fix it.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Muppets. The lot of you.

https://youtu.be/YaLzwMBHMps

[josephfeatherweight]

Pastor of Muppets - thanks, I enjoyed that!

[Big Balls]

It's simple.

You won't get paid what you deserve,

You won't get paid what you're worth,

You will get paid what you negotiate!!

[Derfred]

Until such time as your superior negotiation skills price you so far above the market that your employer will set up another airline or crewing contractor to replace you. Or your airline goes bust.

Negotiation ain't just about maximising pay if the jobs go elsewhere. There has to be an element of reality in there somewhere.

If someone else is prepared to do the job for less, your only option is to pursuade your employer that your higher premium is worthwhile.

That's become a lot more difficult for pilots in recent decades since the accident rate has declined significantly, and a pilot of mere adequate competency and experience is considered by the bean counters "good enough".

I've noticed Emirates has embarked on a significant marketing campaign to recruit pilots because they can't get enough to replace those who have had enough and are leaving. If that doesn't work they may have to up the incentives. Sadly we rarely have that supply/demand equation in Australia, and when we do the answer tends to be ab-initio cadet programmes.

[Big Balls]

Agreed Defred.

The problem with our industry is that there will always be some little focker that is prepared to fly a jet for free. The averages have been dragged down by these types that are prepared to accept less than what they're worth to get their foot in the door, so to speak.

[topdrop]

Unfortunately, what you think a jet pilot is worth is different to what "some little focker" thinks it is worth to get out of GA, come home etc. They may also be looking at the long term where it will/may eventually pay off.

[Compylot]

It is interesting to see the two simultaneous threads, one bemoaning the fact that pilots aren't amongst the "Highest Earning Occupations", the other posing the most very important question, "QF or VA?"

In the "QF or VA" thread the first three replies simply state..

I would choose to work for the airline that said yes first.

The first one that says yes.

Ditto

and on it goes...

So there you have it.

Doesn't matter what, where, when or how much, just as long as you are given the opportunity then TAKE IT.

Take it NOW!

And that gentlemen, is the problem and the cause of why we are not amongst the highest earners anymore. Because there is and always will be someone willing to do the job for less.

Oh, and also it may have something to do with modern aircraft that are ergonomically designed to be operated by any human with an average intelligence (I'm sorry to say it doesn't take an intelligent, qualified and educated person such as an engineer to pilot an aircraft in this day and age anymore, just someone who thinks they are. Do a search on the Dunning-Kruger effect)

So as much as you may think you are wonderful and immensely important, the reality is that a large proportion of the general population could and is able to be monkey trained up to a standard that can carry out the duties of a pilot.

Easy :)

[captjns]

Pay to Fly schemes is not the issue.... It's the participants that bypass the normal career progression. These scheme offer no guarantees other than parting these miscreants with their parents' money.

The bar has been to an all time low with such schemes, as carriers realize they can recruit free labour.

[mikedreamer787]

Compylot take a look at my 'ditto' post under a different mouselight.

You are right due to things changing for the worse during the last 30 years.

[Icarus2001]

And that gentlemen, is the problem and the cause of why we are not amongst the highest earners anymore. Because there is and always will be someone willing to do the job for less. I wonder if the ranks of lawyers and doctors (of every type) suffer the same problem?

I guess the fact that there is not a publicly available Professional Surgeons Rumour Network must tell us something about the mentality of both groups?

A few years ago I mentioned in a post about the profession of being a pilot that nowadays we only get to make five decisions as captain.

Which leg to fly.
How much fuel to load.
Which level to fly at.
Which meal to eat.
When to stop the show. (Divert, cancel etc)

My point was that either in a company manual, or a manufacturers manual, would be words TELLING you HOW to do everything. The rest is just process.
I was of course howled down by the big watch brigade as knowing nothing about the role of a jet captain. Pretty funny stuff. I believe my theory holds true.

Of course the landing on the Hudson gets dragged out as an example of how I was wrong. Yes, a very small statistical blip. A magnificent job by an experienced pilot nonetheless.

Compare that to a doctor who has a patient present with abdominal pain. Or a lawyer who has to figure out what element of law to use to defend a client. Much more "thinking" required.

[Derfred]

It's more that doctors and lawyers in private practice will be differentiated from one another due reputation and experience and the good ones will be paid accordingly. Pilots are not, due to various reasons - some of which are seniority systems, collective bargaining, and the fact that adequate is considered good enough.

Two surgeons may be differentiated by reputation - surgeon A may stuff it up 10% of the time and surgeon B 1% of the time. Surgeon B will be head hunted by a private hospital and paid a high salary to keep them. Surgeon A may get stuck in a public hospital paid according to a standard public service pay scale. Same would go for a lawyer.

Pilot A may just scrape through the system and Pilot B may be vastly superior in decision making skills etc. But the seniority system will ensure pilot B misses out on early promotion and collective bargaining ensures they are paid the same. The employer doesn't value pilot B until the day pilot A drives one into a mountain.

[Fred Gassit]

There are forums for these other professional groups, they are generally very supportive of each other, I guess they have enough insight to realize their limitations.

[neville_nobody]

the reality is that a large proportion of the general population could and is able to be monkey trained up to a standard that can carry out the duties of a pilot.

This is true to a certain extent.

However no airline is willing to spend the amount of money that would bring that to fruition, and second to that, the average punter is not going to put up with the high amount of life disruption that entails with aviation. What is the 'large proportion of the general population' doing on NYE/NYD, Xmas, Easter, Australia Day? They ain't at work.

Additional to this is the average punter may not be able to hold a medical.

So your 'large proportion of the general population' ain't that large anymore.

[Popgun]

A few years ago I mentioned in a post about the profession of being a pilot that nowadays we only get to make five decisions as captain.

Which leg to fly.
How much fuel to load.
Which level to fly at.
Which meal to eat.
When to stop the show. (Divert, cancel etc)

My point was that either in a company manual, or a manufacturers manual, would be words TELLING you HOW to do everything. The rest is just process.
I was of course howled down by the big watch brigade as knowing nothing about the role of a jet captain. Pretty funny stuff. I believe my theory holds true.


Very true, Icarus2001. Though I would modify that to read: How much EXTRA, if any, fuel to load since the company has already decided on a minimum fuel quantity.

It's the company's train set these days...not the Captain's. (I, too, was howled down recently in another thread for suggesting similar in relation to FO's not needing to grovel to skippers for a PF leg in modern airline ops)

Its all just part of the PROCESS. A process that is dictated by the company (not the Captain) via a manufacturer-derived, regulator-approved Ops Manual.

PG

(PS. Before anyone gets hot and bothered by that reality....yes, of course Captain still = PIC! :ugh::ugh::ugh:)

[Derfred]

Look, it is true that bulk decades ago when you went flying in an aircraft there was a high likelihood that something could go wrong and your pilot ace could save you. But if you have never read the history of pilot wages in the mid 1900's, it might surprise you that the same **** was going on then as is going on now.

Pilot wages actually only got going in the 60's and 70's be because post war there were so many aces looking for work most had to grab a shovel and work on a farm.

Pilots didn't get their **** together until a couple of decades after the war and for the first time managed to get their profession properly recognised.

Korean airlines in the 80's-90's thought they could monkey train pilots into their aircraft. After a dozen or so fatal crashes killing many hundreds of citizens they realised it wasn't working. They decided they actually had to employ experienced western captains and offer them a high salary to do it. Some of my colleagues left QF to do it as it was a good payrise. There was supply and demand and a bit of recognition of what we actually do or achieve in a profession on display. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often enough.

You might be pursauded to think that what we do is monkey-dumb. If that's the case, why so many crashes in countries that actually do think it's monkey-dumb? Adam Air anyone?

[cattletruck]

My optometrist whom I've been seeing for 30 years is awesome. Old school in every way, extremely knowledgeable, and has consistently addressed my needs at a very high level. He's retired now and passed the business on to his son but still works the odd few days a week. The business has changed a lot, gone are beautifully crafted frames replaced with cheap variants (he still lets me use the frames of glasses that he sold me over a decade ago because the quality of them still stands), gone are the traditional eye testing methods replaced with a black box computer system that only does an average job. Gone is the art of hand grinding lenses replaced with precast mass produced lenses that have sizes like shoes.

Blood testing has gone down the same path with kits replacing expert analysis. Sounds familiar?

Because there is and always will be someone willing to do the job for less.

Not quite, the accountants are always trying to find someone who can do the job for less, they're the ones with whom the final decision rests.

It's only real estate agents and bankers that are making the big money these days, significantly more money than those holding more important positions.

[The Professor]

“You will get paid what you negotiate!!”

No, you will get paid largely what you are worth. Unless you have 100 years of industrial impediment standing in the way of market forces preventing the business from evolving to cope with the challenges of rising lower cost competition in which case you will eventually be marginalized.

Then you will get paid largely what you are worth.

“and on it goes...

So there you have it. Doesn't matter what, where, when or how much, just as long as you are given the opportunity then TAKE IT. Take it NOW!”

So are you suggesting you should refuse a job offer from Virgin and wait patiently for QF to step up?

“normal career progression.”

What exactly is normal career progression? Is normal defined only by you? Is there a memo defining normal that others can refer to?

“The gear lever and the flap lever on the 737 hasn't changed much in 40 years either . . .That's because Boeing got it right the first time”

Really? The gear and flap levers could be replaced by tiny little switches that weigh virtually nothing. They could even be operated through a computer interface. Just because the engineers at Boeing got it right 40 years ago does not mean it should still be employed today.

“The averages have been dragged down by these types that are prepared to accept less than what they're worth”

I am confused. Your opening comment was “You won't get paid what you're worth”. Now the system is being dragged down by someone who will accept “less than what they're worth”.

Which is it? Worth or negotiation?

“Pilot A may just scrape through the system …pilot A drives one into a mountain.”

If pilot A made it through the system and then crashed into a mountain, don’t you think there is a regulatory issue at play. Why would he crash into a mountain if he “made it through the system”?

“They decided they actually had to employ experienced western captains”

No, they were forced by the insurance underwriters to employ experienced pilots from any hemisphere. Westerners are not the only people who can fly planes.

[blueloo]

Well I think that post pretty much sums up why the aviation industry is so crappy these days.

[Keg]

Pilot A may just scrape through the system …pilot A drives one into a mountain.”

If pilot A made it through the system and then crashed into a mountain, don’t you think there is a regulatory issue at play. Why would he crash into a mountain if he “made it through the system”?

Because the 'pass mark' is (say) 80%. Sometimes, though very rarely like the Hudson prang, events require you to demonstrate that you're capable of 90% plus or you die. If you only ever accept those that got 80-81%- perhaps because those who got 98% went to a better paying gig- then you WILL eventually face a day where the numbers catch you out.

[Derfred]

If pilot A made it through the system and then crashed into a mountain, don’t you think there is a regulatory issue at play. Why would he crash into a mountain if he “made it through the system”?

No, I don't.

Wow, it appears you think just like the bean counters.

You seem to seriously believe that pilot skills are black and white. Competent and Incompetent. And if an aircraft crashes it's the regulators fault. You can't regulate all factors that contribute to air safety. At some point, skilled and experienced human beings are required to complete the safety system, and that's where it becomes subjective.

Do you think the same of surgeons? Black and white? Competent and Incompetent? Only assessable by a regulator?

Why would a surgeon stuff up an operation if he "made it through the system"? Yet they do!

So do pilots. Only you often don't read about it in the paper because the stuff up wasn't serious enough to bend any metal, or it was recovered in time - sometimes due to the intervention of another pilot or another party. But occasionally the holes in the cheese line up. It is up to us to minimise the number of holes and maximise the number of slices to prevent that from happening, and that isn't a black and white process.

As far as regulations go, the buck stops with someone. That would be the airline AOC holder, who has a mandate to ensure the safety of the operation - including assessing the experience and competence of the pilots. Last time I looked, the AOC holder at my airline wasn't even a pilot. He delegates his responsibility to a team of office-dwelling pilots who work tirelessly improving this or that to maximise the safety of the operation (or, more likely, desperately trying to minimise the safety impact of cost cuts). But at the end of the day, when that aircraft just misses that mountain, all those people are comfortably tucked up in bed, while pilot B calmly takes over from pilot A and averts a disaster. I just hope there aren't two pilot A's on the flight deck tomorrow night.

Why do air accident investigation reports run to so many pages? Because the accident is never black and white. There is no such thing as safe and unsafe. There is only more safe and less safe.

[Derfred]

No, they were forced by the insurance underwriters to employ experienced pilots from any hemisphere. Westerners are not the only people who can fly planes.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/chuckandbeans_5821.jpg

[c173]

A few years ago I mentioned in a post about the profession of being a pilot that nowadays we only get to make five decisions as captain.

Which leg to fly.
How much fuel to load.
Which level to fly at.
Which meal to eat.
When to stop the show. (Divert, cancel etc)

Wow, spoken like a true pilot that's either never flown in GA/Military or hasn't for a very long time. You all need to remember that being a pilot does NOT mean you are an airline pilot. There are plenty of us out there that make 100's of decisions a day out in the field flying hunks of cr*p on less money than the English backpacker working at the local roadhouse. This assumption that airliners can be flown by any punter may be true, but it does not apply to the rest of the industry.

If one of your hardest decisions is figuring out which meal to eat then go back to flying singles for a bit, your command decision making skills have obviously eroded away or you never had them in the first place. A few decisions the average GA or medical pilot makes on a daily basis to refresh your memory:

Which patch of dirt you're most likely to survive in when the fan stops
If the drum fuel out in Timbuktu isn't going to seize your engine
Whether you can squeeze that extra freight on so you don't get the sack when you land but don't plow it into the deck and get the sack anyway
Whether or not it's safe to fly a defected aircraft home when a recovery will cost 10's of thousands
Whether or not your passenger is going to die on you if you divert because of marginal weather
What to do when a passenger is abusing you, throwing things at you in flight over the tanami desert with the nearest suitable diversion 1.5 hours away
Whether or not you think your 1978 pa31 will remain in one piece after flying through a squall line at night when your weather radar (from the 70's) decides to show nothing
Deciding whether it's worth it getting up at 3am to be the operations, flight planner, ground handler, bag chucker, refueller, flight attendant, and engineer for the next 12 sectors for a measley 39k a year- oh and did I mention fly the plane in between?

There are plenty of pilots that make decisions like these everyday and they are on some of the lowest wages in Australia, so think again when some of you make the assumption that all pilots are just 'autopilot monitors' these days and aren't worth anything. They are the ones worth the big dollars and deserve to reap the 'rewards' of airline flying ($$$, lifestyle, comfort) later in their career because they have MADE those decisions for a long time for most. It doesn't matter if it's a drop in the ocean (Hudson river crash) experience that saves lives is worth every cent.

[dr dre]

Wow, spoken like a true pilot that's either never flown in GA/Military or hasn't for a very long time...... This assumption that airliners can be flown by any punter may be true, but it does not apply to the rest of the industry.


Calm down c173, airline pilots are making decisions on a daily basis all around the world as well, including the ones that never flew in GA

[The Professor]

“Sometimes, though very rarely like the Hudson prang, events require you to demonstrate that you're capable of 90% plus or you die”

Well, maybe the minimum regulatory standard should be set to 90% then. Maybe it already is.

The point being that there is no data to support the assertion that higher salary amongst pilots results in higher levels of safety assuming that all pilots within the system have satisfactory oversight and achieve the minimum standard.

Interestingly Sully was one of the lowest paid pilots of any legacy airline in the US but it clearly didn’t affect his judgment.

“perhaps because those who got 98% went to a better paying gig”

Flawed assumption as highlighted by your suggested example of Sully himself. To think the highest paying airline is staffed by the most talented aircrew is not supported by any data at all. Take a look at what Fedex get for being one of the highest paying companies in the industry.

“ . . . and that isn't a black and white process”.

No, and I am not implying that it is. If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A. Safe is good enough. Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A. Safe is good enough. Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?

You're pretending that safety is a binary, yes/no concept, which of course it isn't. My 1975 Holden Kingswood was a 'safe' car - if it was unsafe, no-one would've bought the things. But a 1975 Volvo was even safer, and some people were willing to pay more as a result. These days, either the 'safe' Holden or 'safer' Volvo would be a lethally dangerous ****box in comparison to even the most humble Kia. It's all relative.

As to whether a safe pilot would crash into a mountain, just about every pilot that's ever crashed an airliner was 'safe' when they reported for work. They'd passed their last renewal, route check and medical, and never crashed before. Their airlines were happy for them to fly their aircraft. By your standards, they were safe. And yet, within hours, they'd stalled from 35000' into the water, totally failed to manage their airspeed during a visual approach, or tried to land a 737 at 221 kts on a 2200m runway. They might've been considered 'safe' when they signed on, but clearly there were other pilots out there who were safer. I'd certainly value them more.

[Derfred]

“ . . . and that isn't a black and white process”.

No, and I am not implying that it is. If pilot A is SAFE and pilot B is SAFER, there is simply no reason to value pilot B more than pilot A.

Impossible to agee, based on the following.

Safe is good enough.

It would be, if and only if "safe" was defined as "this pilot is 100% guaranteed not to crash into a mountain."

Your definition of "safe" appears to be "meets the minimum standards under satisfactory oversight". We would then have to define "satisfactory oversight" which generally involves observation of a few SIM rides a year and an annual or biannual line check - all of which only require "meets minimum standards".

Now we all have good days and bad days, but all I have to do is demonstrate minimum standards a few times a year and I am deemed "safe" under your definition.

My arguement aready stated was that there is no such thing as "safe"' only less safe or more safe.

What makes us more safe, as a herd, is the constant professionalism and desire to excel. That is, we are not, as a pilot group, content with minimum standard (or at least 99% of us are not).

If we were all told tomorrow, our salary is reduced to $20K, do you think we would maintain that constant professionalism and desire to excel? We would probably collectively start putting in the minimum required until we found another career that paid more.

What I'm trying to say is, you need the incentive of a decent reward to keep putting in the hard yards, hour of study, ambition to get the promotion, and disclipline for your own reputation, because it's worth it.

If every airline pilot was paid McDonalds wages your premise of minimum safety required would most certainly result in a smoking hole in the side of a mountain.

Would you agree that a safe pilot wouldn’t crash into a mountain?

As per the above, no I wouldn't.

Nor would I conduct a search for the cheapest surgeon in the country to treat my prostate cancer, despite the fact that the system has deemed him/her safe. When life and death is on the line, the dollars and cents become a slightly lower priority.

To put the ball back in your court:

Would you agree that safe pilots sometimes do crash into mountains and perhaps a more safe pilot wouldn't have?

[Fool Sufferer]

Attempting to engage in rational debate with the market fundamentalist in residence is an exercise in futility. In his case, as with all zealots, ideology will always trump reality.

[Blitzkrieger]

I think the crux of this argument is not the level of pay pilots receive at all, but the CEO's of our beloved aviation organisations using our "highly paid" status as a lever to drive our profession into unskilled territory. It is quite clear we are not all that expensive in reality according to this.

[Icarus2001]

c173, you conveniently did not quote this line of my post...

I was of course howled down by the big watch brigade as knowing nothing about the role of a jet captain.

My theory relates ONLY to jet RPT operations.

I did my time in GA. Yes I know how difficult it is. Aviation is upside down, as you get more experience they give you another pilot to help you fly a better equipped and maintained aircraft. I shudder to think of me trying to do SP IFR in a Baron on a dark and stormy night nowadays. No snub intended.

[The Green Goblin]

Only in Australia.

Any good pilot is bad on a good day.

Any bad pilot is good on a good day.

Any bad pilot is bad on a bad day.

Any good pilot is bad on bad day.

The rest of us are just average on any day, and that's where I'd like to be.

[c173]

icarus, my apologies, I got a bit passionate/carried away and didn't read it properly :}

Still defending the value of all Australian pilots though!

[Pinky the pilot]

The rest of us are just average on any day, and that's where I'd like to be.

Amen to that.:ok: