View Full Version : AA sacks 7,000

13th Aug 2002, 09:40
From the BBC:


Also, US Airways has been given access to $78million of funds from the US Courts:


flite idol
13th Aug 2002, 13:37
Look as though either the A300`s or the F100`s are going! Why do none of the good rumours in this business come true, but the bad ones although vehemently denied by management until the press release, come true! Any clue as to the impact on flt ops! Good luck folks!

Kerosene Kraut
13th Aug 2002, 13:57
F100 plus 763 are to go.

13th Aug 2002, 14:01
(from NY Times)

American Airlines to Cut 7,000 Jobs

American Airlines will cut 7,000 jobs by March 2003, retire
74 aircraft and defer 35 aircraft deliveries in 2002, the
company said on its Website on Tuesday. The new initiatives,
coupled with those already implemented, will result in annual
operating savings of more than $1.1 billion, the company


So, out of those 7000, how many are pilots?

13th Aug 2002, 14:21
The 9 leased B767-300 ex TWA are going shortly.

The 49 AA B767-300 are to have standardised 2 class cabins.

The 43 AA B777's are to have standardised 3 class cabins.

Raw Pilot numbers could be reduced by up to 800.

Blue & White
13th Aug 2002, 14:31
This is what the pilots heard:

Due to system reductions and fleet simplification, it will be necessary to furlough up to 550 pilots (Oct02 - Mar03).

Furloughs will be done in accordance with the Seniority Integration Agreement, affecting the most junior pilots on the combined seniority list.

A “bridge to retirement” will be made available for up to 450 of the most senior pilots. This is part of the TWA transition agreement. The agreement has a limited duration and is also limited in the number of pilots eligible and to those already eligible for retirement.

13th Aug 2002, 19:29

Numbers are basically correct. Up to 550 pilots to be furloughed over five months beginning in October 2002. Up to 450 early outs to be bid on seniority basis before furloughs begin.

All F100's to be leaving starting third quarter of 2003 over approximately a two year time frame.

13th Aug 2002, 21:28
The rumour is that most of the pilots at the bottom of the list are from the TWA merger. Good luck folks.

15th Aug 2002, 15:00
You're not wrong Lewis, from St Louis Post-Dispatch(15/8):

"Former Trans World Airlines pilots now flying for American Airlines are calling on that carrier and Congress to revisit their complaints about a seniority system that puts them first in line for layoffs.
Roughly 60 percent of TWA's 2,100 pilots were placed at the bottom of the seniority list at American, even though most had substantially more years of service than the American crew members directly above them.

As a result, the ex-TWA pilots will bear the full impact of the 550 pilot layoffs American announced as part of a major restructuring this week. Those layoffs will affect former TWA pilots hired as early as 1996.

"TWA brought value to American," said Jeff Darnall, one of the 40 or so pilots who rallied Wednesday at Lambert Field to voice their concerns. "To treat its employees as having less value than newly hired employees is arrogant and unfair."

Most former TWA flight attendants also lost their seniority in the change of ownership. American has warned that fleet and schedule cuts will create 2,500 excess flight attendant positions by the end of the year, putting those ex-TWA workers first in line for furloughs.

American announced Tuesday that it would reduce its work force by 6 percent -- or 7,000 people -- cut capacity by 9 percent and retire 83 aircraft in a bid to reverse losses and respond to changing industry economics.

More than 300 ex-TWA pilots out of 2,100 based at Lambert were laid off in the months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Pilot Sally Young said the latest round of cuts would be devastating to workers assigned to American's St. Louis hub.

"We are now facing a 40 percent reduction . . . in the St. Louis employee group, as opposed to 4 percent for the American employee group," said Young, who joined TWA in 1989. "This is neither fair nor equitable to the St. Louis employees and the St. Louis area," she said.

Officials for the Allied Pilots Association and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the unions representing cockpit and cabin crews at American, noted this week that the former TWA workers might be without jobs already were it not for American.

TWA was running low on cash before its deal with American, and might have gone out of business had it tried to remain independent.


In announcing American's broader restructuring Tuesday, Chairman Donald Carty acknowledged that the company's long-standing business model seemed to be broken.

"It's our expectation that demand will be very soft and the economy will remain uncertain for some time," Carty said in a message to employees. "Make no mistake about it: Change at American will continue."

Change was a constant at TWA in the decade leading up to its deal with American. Despite three bankruptcies, six management teams and an unbroken string of losses, the airline remained aloft.

Pilots, flight attendants and other employees who accepted concessions to keep TWA in business thought last year's deal with American would bring them secure futures, said Darnall, founder and president of TWA Pilots Inc., a group that represents the interests of ex-TWA workers.

But the union that represented TWA's pilots, the Air Line Pilots Association, was unable to reach an agreement with the union that represents American's pilots on how the two work forces would combine.

As a result, American's union, the Allied Pilots Association, unilaterally adopted its own seniority list, which put six out of 10 TWA pilots at the bottom of the list.

Other, more senior TWA pilots were put higher up on the list, subject to certain rules and restrictions.

TWA's flight attendants ran into the same sort of problems. They are mounting a legal challenge in federal court in New York.

Former U.S. Rep Jim Talent, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, spoke at Wednesday's event. He said he was surprised to learn that the approach American's unions took to the integration of the seniority lists was legal.

"This is an example of a system that failed because it failed to be fair," Talent said in a prepared statement. "The American Airlines officials in Fort Worth should agree to go back to the negotiating table and design a compromise on the seniority issue so that former TWA pilots and flight attendants in Missouri get a fair hearing and a fair deal."

Dave Coyne, a TWA captain who lost 12 years of seniority in the American deal, said putting highly skilled, veteran workers below newer employees makes no sense, especially in a business where experience and safety are directly related.

"In any other industry," he said, "when one company acquires another company, they don't put all the employees of the acquired company in the mailroom and say, 'Good luck. Work your way back up.'"

Blue & White
15th Aug 2002, 18:44
For the TWA guys that feel the way you do, I'm sure American will be more than happy to sell you back your Airline (at a discount). For the rest of the TWA folks, we (american included) are all in a mess and I don't think RJs are the answer.:confused:

15th Aug 2002, 19:38
<TWA brought value...> to American?

The "low-cost" model is the name of the game, folks, like it or not...and many won't.

AND, more RJ's absolutely ARE the answer...the pawning off of lower density routes to Eagle will lower costs substantially, whether the APA likes it or not...and they certainly will not.

Blue & White
15th Aug 2002, 20:33
Actually, the only people that like the RJs are management and the pilots that aren't employed by a major carrier.
Let's see, we have a shortage of gates, the airways are saturated and you want to bring in more aircraft with less capacity. Yes, that will go over about as well as the RJs New York shuttle.

Ignition Override
16th Aug 2002, 04:33
Even though Mr. Carty must be smiling while the APA's Merger Committee battles the TWA's Committee over the slick "staple job", with the more radical Merger members helping upper mgmt. reach a typical upper mgmt goal-"divide and conquer" - it looks like many of the (already and soon-to-be) furloughed employees will be handy "hostages" for Mr. Carty's short-term financial goals. By the way, how many years will Carty stay with American, following the corporate battles?

Will APA show as much concern for the out-of-seniority laid off people who were with TWA, as they would for original American? Their dues come from the entire pilot group, unless I'm mistaken. I've been through a merger years ago, and understand how Merger Committee self-righteousness often seeks any justification for its goals and anxieties regarding all Captain seats and especially widebody bid awards for Captains, i.e. "We had expectations when hired...". One can almost hear the sad violin music in the background.

I realize that many line pilots don't always agree (in public) with their own Merger Committee's goals and methods.

I. M. Esperto
16th Aug 2002, 16:11
TWA pilots are used to being screwed by management.

Nothing has changed.

Elliot Moose
16th Aug 2002, 16:44
B&W wrote
"the airways are saturated and you want to bring in more aircraft with less capacity"

Yes, that is exactly the point of the exercise. You put RJ's on the routes that are being served by fuel guzzling dinosaurs which are operating half full. Now you still move the same number of pax, but in a FULL plane, which also burns a fraction of the fuel. Some days the volume of aircraft will be higher, but for the most part the idea is to run the same service but with full aircraft.
Tell me please how running a F100 or similar at 30-40% capacity makes more economic sense for an airline than running an RJ at 85-95%!

Blue & White
16th Aug 2002, 21:02
Actually, Mr M..............
Our F-100s hold 87 pax vs 70 pax for the new RJ.

16th Aug 2002, 21:19
Yes...and crewed by rather expensive APA guys instead of cheaper Eagle crews.

The ONLY way for companies to move forward is to cut costs, and the expensive crews will have to go, like it or not, and certainly most will not.

The high cost of "beaks above the ground effect" pilots have finally come home to roost at many US carriers. They will just have to pull in their collective belts and accept the inevitable, otherwise, no jobs at all...period.

Tough beans.;)

Blue & White
16th Aug 2002, 22:39
That's why you have pilots at the majors and pilots that WANT to be at the majors. If you're not there already, when and if you get there.............don't you think you'll have earned a decent salary.
By the time you add up all the training, experiences, all the restarts at different carriers..............you'll have earned that salary. You're getting paid for that 30 seconds of expertise needed when an emergency occurs. If you don't think, at that time, the company's money is well spent................then I wouldn't want my family flying with you.
You should be a professional, don't let anyone sell you short. Okay, I'm off my soap box.

17th Aug 2002, 00:41
Hmm, ...the 'ole "I deserve it" argument.
You get only what the company can afford to pay. Yes the APA signed an agreement, but if no cash in 'de bank, no dinero, comprendo?
If the company is driven to the wall due to unfortunate circumstances, ALL employees will be out of a job, not just pilots.
Wake up.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Blue & White
17th Aug 2002, 05:17
Hey 411..........what kind of single-engine did you say you flew??? Why don't you work for free, then the company will have more money to give to the CEO.

17th Aug 2002, 05:33
411A, you are so blinded by your hatred of airline pilots who earn a decent salary I am beginning to suspect you must have a psycho hang up of some sort. Did your wife run off with a pilot or something?

Pilot salaries are high if you are lucky enough to get to the top of the heap. If you are just starting you would be better off at Best Buy pushing stereos. We can argue forever about the responsibilities versus rewards of the job. Just stop being so vitriolic for Heavens sake. It makes your sometimes sensible comments less credible.

What you refuse to consider is the "ticket price" side of the equation when you talk of airline losses. Recently, AMR was selling tickets for 40% of last years prices. Tickets, in adjusted dollar terms, are far cheaper now than they were in 1978. Tell me the name of any other business or industry that has seen the price it charges for its product reduced to such an extent.

No doubt the reduction in salaries will come but this will not save the industry or any individual airline. Only when the airlines start selling tickets at something like the cost of the product will the airline industry turn itself around. Unfortunately, the cost of the product includes various large items such as fuel costs, insurance, various airport and security fees and aircraft financing. Lumping all the blame for the costs on the employees salaries is short sighted and ineffectual and does not reach the roots of the problem. Reducing salaries will perhaps help the airline industry to recover but as long as other costs are out of control only sensible product pricing will ensure survival of the airlines.

Jet II
17th Aug 2002, 06:58

Tell me the name of any other business or industry that has seen the price it charges for its product reduced to such an extent.

Have you bought a computer recently? - the price charged for a product is generally what the market will stand. I am not up to date on the way the airline market operates in the states, but in Europe we have seen the big state monopoly airlines, BA, Air France, KLM, Alitalia etc. etc. struggle because their prices are too high.

By comparison the Low Cost airlines EasyJet, Ryanair, Go etc. etc. are booming because they deliver what the consumer wants at a price that he/she is willing to pay.

To be fair to the staff of American, I am not convinced that salaries have a great role in deciding the bottom line - it is just that mismanagement see salaries as an easy target when times are tough, rather than concentrating on the real problems of efficiency, which are rather harder to tackle.

Good luck to everyone at American at this time.

17th Aug 2002, 09:17
Guys, whether you like 411A or not is hardly the issue here. What he is trying to tell you are in my ears wise words, and you better take them ad notam rather sooner than later.

If you have the time, I suggest that you read the following speach (http://www.lac.no/lowcostpage.html) done by Captain Otto Lagarhus at the International Aviation Conference at Sola near Stavanger, Norway.

17th Aug 2002, 11:17
Some of the UA pilots know a salary cut will not change the end result. They might as well take as many $$$$ as they can while they can.

The end result being bankruptcy for UA in Nov. I also believe there will be major havoc in the US financial system come Nov.

Mark it in your diary.

17th Aug 2002, 14:51

As pointed out previously, the computer you are using to reply to this forum is no doubt far cheaper today than it would have been just five years ago.

The aviation landscape is littered with failed companies whose pilots no doubt never expected their respective companies to turn turtle. Take Eastern Air Lines, a perfect example of gross mis-management and unbridled demands of unionised employees.

The lower cost airlines operating today represent the future. The flying public demands lower fares and this very basic fact will NOT change. A large revenue shortfall requires economies of scale, which includes reduced salaries from all, like it or not...and most certainly will not.

Take your pick, lower pay or no pay. The choice is yours.

I. M. Esperto
17th Aug 2002, 15:19
If the pay drops drastically, the job will not attract the best of the pilots looking for a good job.

Then there will be an increase in accidents and incidents, and the public will hurt. Then they might understand, but probably not. The airline pilot job is becoming less attractive as the months go on, and it isn't all due to the events of 9-11.

Unbridled competition in the industry is not necessarily healthy.

17th Aug 2002, 15:21

As I suggested elsewhere: Why not a variable pay ?

An acceptable base income - similar to what the low cost carriers may pay - and an oppertunity to earn a lot more, if the company makes a profit.

That would cause everybody to think twice before introducing new costs and not limit the pilots (and others) to a permanent low wage.

I have been on that scheme for 6-7 years at my IT company, lots of money in the good years, less in the bad.

Since the payments go down when profits do, we rarely fire people and then in much more limited fashion than the competitors.


17th Aug 2002, 16:48
Here's another side of this situation to think about:

The pilots who get furloughed from AA have a ten year right of recall. (At least that's what one of the ex-TWA/AA guys told me last week when we were flying together).

This guy told me that he had applied to Polar, along with another colleague who was 17 numbers senior to him at AA.

He heard from an inside source that the reason they both didn't get hired was their AA seniority number.

That is also the reason they will never upgrade here at the company we work at now.

Why should a company put out good money in training costs for someone who will leave when they are recalled?

Both of these pilots are good guys, and excellent pilots, but it seems my company would rather invest in some of the younger guys who have been here longer, and will stay longer.

When UAL furloughs in Nov (and they will), along with the USAir pilots all ready out there (we have 2 of those guys here also) the streets are going to get more crowded.

As 411 says, no matter how bad your flying job is at the moment, it is a flying job. Do whatever you can to keep it, because there are lots of companies out there who are simply not hiring right now.

The days of thinking you can go fly night freight or commuters until your recall are over.

Even the old stand-by...C-402's to the islands are full up at this time.

17th Aug 2002, 16:55
Glad you found an example so that we can examine the fundamental difference between the airline industry and other businesses.

Let's compare the cost of a computer and the cost of an airline seat. We are equating the individual computer with the individual airline seat.

The difference is that a computer has a low, and almost fixed, cost in materials. Once the design work is completed and the production facilities are on line the cost of producing an individual computer is very predictable and falls dramatically. The variable costs of computers are amortised over hundreds of thousands of units over a relatively long period of time. To look at things simplistically, after a certain break-even point in the production run almost every machine sold is pure profit. You can afford to sell machines later in the production run at reduced rates because you have recouped your expenses. However, compare the price differential between a computer which is new on the market, with new features, with a computer that has been around for a while. You will see that, although some computers are indeed cheap you still pay a premium price for the top of the line, new items. Although computers may be cheap, on an average, an individual computer can still be an expensive item.

This situation has a parallel in the airline industry but with a difference. Whereas each computer produced is an inherently low cost item after the break even point is reached each individual airline seat is still a high cost item. That is why break even load factors are so high. Once the machinery is in place a computer plant can make an extra thousand units purely for the cost of materials but every airline ticket sold generates extra cost in terms of services and material required, baggage handlers, food service, fuel etc. Computer production cost are amortised over hundreds of thousands of units , airline seat costs are amortised over a few hunderd at most. It is as though you have to start a new computer production line for each flight. Each flight generates its own costs which must be amortised over the number of tickets sold. The benefits of volume are not as great in the airline industry as they are in the computer industry,

Certain costs of reaching the break even point for a flight are variable items ie they reduce as the number of tickets sold increase. However, a very large portion of the expense items do not show a dramatic fall off with volume (the number of tickets sold). For example the amount of fuel used on a flight is relatively constant because the bulk of the fuel used lifts the zero fuel weight of the aircraft rather than the passengers. There are advantages to scale and volume but they are not as marked as in the example of the computer industry. Unfortunately, the high cost items, ie fuel, represent a very large proportion of the production costs and their price is very volatile. The airline industry also suffers from unique variables such as weather and 9/11. If your production line breaks and ruins a hundred computers the computer maker has lost very little in expenses. If one hundred airline flights are diverted because of weather the financial cost and disruption are enormous because each individual flight is a high cost item.

The computer industry is still a developing technology where new designs and production techniques are being introduced which allow each new wave of products to be technologically improved whilst lowering production costs. Aviation, under the present financial model, is a mature (overmature?) industry where new techniques produce relatively minor cost reductions.

A more educated model of cost control is required in the airline industry but it must be coupled with a more intelligent pricing structure which ensures that seats are not sold for less than they cost to produce. The computer industry discounts its products after their useful production life has been completed and it has new products on offer. The airline industry discounts the very products it is currently selling and that it needs to sell a a fair price to survive. The airline industry, and the airline passenger, must get used to the idea that airline ticket pricing is a dynamic activity if ticket prices are to be kept low. One day it is going to cost you $50 to go see Grandma, the next day it might cost you $150.

Jet II
17th Aug 2002, 17:23
BOINGThe airline industry discounts the very products it is currently selling

The reason that the airlines discount current products is that once the aircraft has left the ground any empty seat is just excess weight.

For airlines (and any other business) to succeed they must keep there costs under control - the majors have failed to do this and are now in trouble - the Low Cost carriers have their costs under control and are booming - its not rocket science.


17th Aug 2002, 18:07
I'm afraid you are oversimplifying the production costs of computers.
Much of the cost of computers lies in the massive R&D expenditures - in 2000, Intel spent $2.3 Billion and had 20,500 scientists doing pure research for the next Pentium/Itanium whatever. Once somebody builds a factory - its not as simple as churning new designs through it. Entire manufacturing facilities have to be rebuilt when new technologies are introduced.

The reason computers are cheap is because: sophisticated (and expensive) design & manufacturing, enable and benefit from economies of scale.

Also, most US pax are aware that one day it costs $300 to go JFK-SFO, and the next is $415, and if they don't stay over Sat nite its $2400. Dynamic pricing is certainly not a secret - try Expedia, or even the airline sites for their "every day leisure fares"!
In fact - its because business travelers know how the pricing works, and are disgusted enough - that the airlines are suddenly finding that they don't have full Y pax anymore.

Instead of paying $2400 for a 2-day business trip, companies are encouraging their employees to book a Sat stay -> get a $400 ticket on the same flights/same seats, the company picks up an extra night or two of hotel, and the employee gets a weekend on the company. (the company is better off by at least $1800, and the airline got screwed)

In my opinion, airline mgmt have spent too much time and effort concentrating purely on the revenue side (eg complex yield mgmt techniques) without being able to/or wanting to make the operations more efficient.

17th Aug 2002, 18:59
JetII. Far too simplistic. The low cost carriers have their costs under control for two main reasons.

In the case of established low cost carriers such as Southwest their management has been smart enough to grow the company in a low cost environment with specific "low cost" business plans. This includes such items as having only one aircraft type in the fleet and operating in an air traffic and weather environment which allows reliable service. Both items cut business costs significantly. The question is whether Southwest can, or wishes to, make the transition to a full major, implying nationwide and international operations with several aircraft types. The temptation must be there but I am sure Southwest management clearly sees the problems involved. This company has made attempts to break in to established "major" markets and has felt the pain. Not to say they could not succeed in the future. The point is that they are successful as a low cost carrier because of a specific business plan which may not work during expansion.

The other type of low cost carrier is the startup or the fairly new carrier. These carriers have a cost advantage over the majors but unless they are very careful it is only a temporary advantage. Mainly, they have a cost advantage because:
1. They start service with older aircraft or aircraft that some owner or lease company is prepared to supply at very low cost.
2. They have a young, new and unsophisticated workforce. This workforce is cheap because of low pay and low benefits. The workforce is willing and enthusiastic. All very excellent attributes.
3. They make their entry into a specific market where they are not in serious direct competition with a major.

Unfortunately, these advantages fade away over time. Expansion leads to new aircraft orders and increased finance costs. The workforce ages and thinks of families and mortgages. The company is forced to increase pay and benefits or lose experienced workers. Expansion leads to entry into less than optimum markets, competition with majors, worse operating conditions, less local support etc. At this stage you are left with something approaching the cost structure of a major airline with none of the benefits of scale or route system. You are left with People's Express, Vanguard and all the other bright hopes of the industry.

The point is that the relatively low cost structures you see are, in fact, adaptions to particular business plans and market segments. When the low cost airline becomes "major" the playing field becomes more levelled. This is exactly why we now see the major airlines floundering trying to find a new way of doing business and trying to beat the opposition. The costs of doing business for the major airlines are almost constants. They pay about the same for fuel, they pay about the same for labour, they pay about the same in airport fees etc. These costs are about the same for the majors because to a great extent they are forced upon the airlines by external events over which they have no control. Wars, fuel shortages, cost of living increases weather. When the low cost airline moves into the "major" arena it is inevitable over a period of time that it will have to face some of these operating cost increases. For example, do you think fuel suppliers at, say Chicago, are going to sell fuel more cheaply to a low cost carrier that operates ten flights a day rather than a major that flys several hundred?

The low cost carriers are not, in fact, a long term benefit to the aviation industry or to the passenger. The immediate effect of a low cost carrier is short term ticket price reductions. The long term effect is a lowering of the average quality of airline service. Will a passenger who wants to buy a First Class ticket be able to do so in the future? Probably not the way the trend is moving. Can a passenger expect a meal on a flight to replace the one he missed because of his business meeting? Probably not. And we must not lose sight of the fact when all the blood has been spilt, all the mess has been sorted out. THE FINAL ACT OF THE SURVIVING CARRIER WILL BE TO RAISE TICKET PRICES. See you sucker!!!!!

InitRef. No way we can post messages on the boards without some simplification. Sorry.

I know development cost of computers are very high. The point is that the computer makers have a disproportionately large advantage due to volume. Each computer contains a few dollars worth of plastic, copper, fibreglass and silicon. Its intrinsic value is less than a steak. What makes it expensive is what it takes to build those basics into a functioning computer. You have a very large one time RD cost and plant cost. (Simplified I know). After that the computer costs you basically the cost of its materials to produce. In contrast, each airline seat costs an element of the organisational costs (equivilent to the computer R&D) plus a large individual overhead. These costs are ongoing and never amortised, a painful fact about a service intense industry. These costs tend to be horribly unpredictable in the long term unlike computer production costs.

Whilst it is true that an empty airline seat is income lost forever this is where the generally held view is too simplistic. Let us assume we really know the costs of filling an aircraft seat and that we can view our costs as units. Say we have 100 passengers and their bags need exactly 4 baggage loaders to handle. We add 4 more passengers to the aircraft to fill those empty seats. But, Lo and behold, we now need another baggage handler for a total of 5 to get the aircraft out of town on time. Question, Did the extra income raised by filling those 4 extra seats at a discount price, as conventional wisdom requires, justify the cost of the extra baggage handler? Of course not. On the other hand if the airline had not added an extra baggage handler and the flight had been delayed and bags had been lost would the savings have been worthwhile in terms of PR in a service industry. Not easy is it? I would venture to guess that airline cost control is far more complex than computer production line cost control and it is more of an art than a science. I know this is a simple example, deliberately so, but I hope it demonstrates that the "cost cutting" approach, although valid, must be implemented with care.

By the way, how much do the 20,000 engineers working at Intel get paid per year? Bet on average it is more than the 20,000 best paid airline pilot including stock options etc. Perhaps Intel should cut its employee costs so that my cheap computer will get even cheaper. Same argument.

18th Aug 2002, 12:56
Very informative post but forgive me for playing the devil's advocate :

How do you make the difference between a lousy and a good airline pilot ??? Stop right here !! I know........the plane doesn't crash. Oversimplification though.
What does a 300 000 USD 777 Captain bring to UAL compared with ( haven't got a clue ) a Virgin Atlantic very young 744 Captain ( heard they hed a guy promoted at age 35 some time ago ) ? That's the question a lot of uninformed people, generically called " travelling public " regularly ask under the pen of well meaning / informed journalists.
This is the crunch question coz let me tell you that for all the years I flew the 744 as an F/O I saw quite a bewildering number of guys who were just " filling" the seat and nothing more. I was sitting there trying to keep my mouth shut and had I not been an animal lover my poor dog would have suffered a lot when back from a trip !!. None of the guys I'm refering to brought anything that another Johnie wouldn't have brought. At least they were not causing any damage and that's good coz I was also sitting there. Yet, they were what has been described above as valuable experienced .......bla bla bla.
There may a lot of people out there who like/love their job, but entousiasm like the one that has been reported in start up or aging start up airlines??? Certainly not and it shows when you are a pax. Put a enthousastic fellow at the wheel and it comes all the way down to door 5.
To all of you ready to shoot me from the hip, please do reholster.
I am not an expert able to bable on the future of low cost high quality airlines and what our future will be not that I don't care trust me on that one !
None of what has been said regarding salaries has kept major airlines from losing aircrafts in the last 2 years and sometimes under shocking circumstances that make us all feel rather sheepy.
So much for airline safety / salaries and that sucks !
To conclude, I have also been flying with guys I shall never forget because they were everything one expects from an airline pilot and I think they deserved a fat raise that they never got because too busy to ask.
We need to change our rethoric, or rather match or rethoric with our actions if we want to keep what certain ignorants describe as " fat " checks which we, by the way, deserve.

One can say everthing one wants about the crisis looming before Sept 11th, this is horse donk. What happened that day changed the way people live ( at least in the US ) if not for ever but for a long long time and I am convinced we would never be facing big cuts like what is happening to AA under different circumstances.
The profession is not attracting as many people as it did ? No s..t ? Who needs to have the finger pointed at everytime business is not shiny ? The prospect of being bolted behind a cockpit door with all sorts of ridiculous coded knocks on the door to take a pee, eat, God knows what doesn't make it look very appealing. Having to pack your bags to work at Office depot once the tune of musical chairs has stopped while the college tuition comes in isn't what what one would be hoping for and the list goes on.
Good luck guys.

By the way 411 A, I'm not on your side and get nicked !

18th Aug 2002, 16:54
The current stance that major US airline pilot salaries are inflated and that the upstart carriers and regional pilots salaries are the "market" rate is flawed.

The low salaries that pilots for upstart/regional carriers are willing to work for is actually a "subsidy" paid for by these pilots in the short term.

In the majority of the cases, pilots for upstarts are willing to work for far less than what would be a real "market" rate in the hopes that their carrier becomes another Southwest, Delta or AA. They know a fast upgrade may be in store for an immediate raise, and another raise once the carrier achieves and economy of scale to be very successful. Southwest union members are pressing for big raises at this time. UPS is another example. In 1990 top CA pay was 80k and top FO pay was 40K with no retirement. I believe they are near the best now. I not sure of the exact amount, but UPS large truck drivers make more than any regional 70 seat Captain in the US.

The regional pilots when starting generally have hopes of making it to the top paying jobs also. Not all, but the majority. By the time they get stuck in several downturns, those who haven't left over many years are outnumbered by the new hires willing to (subsidize) work for less for the same dream. This depresses the wages for the long term guys.

What is the real "market" rate? I don't know, but it isn't what the wannabee airline economists here claim to know. If they are right, why did Continental Airlines go into bankrupcty twice in the 1980's with the lowest labor costs in the industry?

18th Aug 2002, 18:27

Continental. Interesting subject.
Many will tell you that Frank Lorenzo "done 'em in". The real reason is that Contineltal at the time was the weakest trunk carrier, and simply could not compete with UAL at DEN and ORD.
UAL could set the fares low enough (much like AA vs Braniff at DFW), and afford to operate at a loss for as long as it took.
Continental went downhill very rapidly after loosing Robert Six.
Now we are looking at a complete turnabout...Continental doing so-so and UAL against the wall.
Serves 'em right. What goes around, comes 'around.

Market rate, also an interesting subject.
Lets face facts. Some folks just like to fly aeroplanes, and pilots just starting out will work for less simply because they enjoy the work, not just because they want to move on to the majors and higher salaries.
Of course they want more cash (and larger, faster equipment), but as long as that supply is there, salaries at the regionals will NOT move all that much higher. And the supply will NOT diminish anytime soon, inspite of what some may wish.
One could just as easily argue that it is the major airline salaries that are "out of line". :rolleyes: ;)

18th Aug 2002, 18:46
Please keep in mind that the ONLY cost advantage held by RJ's is in the cockpit. The non-crew-related CASM for an RJ is the same as a 757.

DAL is already farming out RJ flying to Chautauqua because Comair's crew costs went up and they need lower costs in the low-yield Florida market.

Pilots at JetBlue will fly for $80/hr. for how long? Will they take stock instead of cash?

The big majors were busy pissing away cash over the past few years because they had so much coming in. They have to change the way they are doing things. But simply slashing employee compensation isn't the answer.

Why is the UAL Captain worth $300k/year? Look at it as payback
for babysitting his captains while he was an F/E and F/O making $40k. And, even if you hire cheaper crews, they will eventually demand increased compensation as the operation expands and prospers. Profit sharing is tenuous due to a company's ability to hide cash. We've seen how valuable stock can be--NOT!

The CEO's now have to earn their keep. Pilots do it daily.TC

18th Aug 2002, 19:02

Babysitting Captains? Oh come now! You could just as easily argue that they are entitled simply because they have to "put up" with the mis-guided opinions of the more JUNIOR crew

Costs for an RJ the same as for a 757, except for salaries? Hmmm, don't think so. If you put that 757 in the regional system, the cost would be lower simply because the regional airline costs are lower, exclusive of salaries. 'Course it might cost the regional a bit more for fuel and financing costs, but if they could FILL that 757, would be operated a whole lot cheaper.

Elliot Moose
18th Aug 2002, 19:29
Please keep in mind that the ONLY cost advantage held by RJ's is in the cockpit. The non-crew-related CASM for an RJ is the same as a 757.

Yes, but the difference is that you only have to fill 50 seats on an RJ vs ??? on the 757. If a CRJ takes off on an hour long trip and has only 15 pax, you lose out based on 2200lbs of fuel burned. How do you make out on the 757 (and don't say that they don't fly with this many people on them because they do--i.e. Sept 11).
More importantly though, look at what the RJ's are replacing across the system. Old generation 737's, DC9's (and their variants), F100's, etc. Those things can't compare in the CASM analysis to an RJ or a 757, and that's why they are going.

Somebody suggested that you don't gain much by replacing an 87 seat F100 with a CRJ 700. Let's see. An average 60% load on an F100 would be 52 (ish) pax. Those same 52 on the RJ makes a load of 74% on a CRJ700 and 100% (if you boot off the couple of [email protected] that were flying for free on airmiles or passes) on a 200 series. If there's always 60 or 70 on board one of these routes, then the F100 or 737-200 may be just the ticket, but if not, the airlines must, in this day and age put on an aircraft that fits the route exactly. What is the alternative with requirement to still make a profit? One long haul in a turboprop (or more likely two, due to a changeover at a hub).

Now I know many have their panties in a bunch over what the RJ guys make, vs the mainline folks. Right now Comair is in the black if 16 people get on any one of their flights (this was the last number I got--correct me if I'm wrong). So, show some solidarity with them and get their wages up. Even if the costs at the pointy end go up to more reasonable rates, they still have a good profit. OR....Maybe the mainline folks should be pushing for more RJ flying for themselves instead!

Just a thought......

18th Aug 2002, 19:40
Pleased to see some sensible consideration about what a realistic pilot pay scale should be. Unfortunately, the fact is that pilot salaries are ONLY, SOLELY, PURELY, ABSOLUTELY what a pilot or group of pilots can induce their employer to pay.

Here is some background information on the subject of pilot pay checks for our non-pilot members. It is important because it answers the question of, How did pilot salaries get so high in the first place?

This rate of pay is basically determined by supply and demand. The airlines are required by certification and federal regulation to put a certain size pilot crew on an aircraft. This crew must meet certain (very minimal) experience requirements (even the ATP is a joke but it is all we have as a base standard). The airline wants to pay the pilots as little as possible (quite sensibly). However, other factors usually prevent the airline from using minimally qualified pilot crew members.

Assuming there are plenty of pilots available the airlines then choose pilot employees considering several requirements. This is what complicates the process. If an airline trains its own pilots it needs to make sure its applicants can pass training otherwise it wastes a lot of money on training failures. The company may have minimum experience levels agreed with its insurance carrier. Most companies want people with stable personalities because they realise work conflicts can be dangerous or counter productive. Several more selection criteria can be added to this list. You will recognise them as the basic items covered during airline pilot selection. Other corporate planning factors also may enter into the considerations. The applicants age may be a factor because it will be reflected in the number of pilots retiring in a certain year and the company wants to smooth out this curve.

Importantly, these selection procedures are not common to all airlines. For example, a start up airline may not be interested in training its own pilots. It will insist on previous experience on its aircraft type for applicants. Some airlines insist on a type rating on its aircraft as proof of dedication and basic operating ability.

The situation varies almost directly with the size of the airline. A small carrier or an attractive carrier can probably find a number of pilots willing to get type ratings before applying for a job. A large carrier, in an expansion mode, will not be able to find enough type rated applicants so it must accept non-rated pilots and train them itself.

The supply of pilots varies over time. It depends on the basic cost of civilian pilot training (ie can I afford the cost of qualifying as a pilot which must, of course, take the future benefits into account). It depends on military demand, retention policies and retirements (the old question. Do I join the airforce to get pilot training or pay for it myself?). It also depends on the movement of previously employed commercial pilots into to and out of of the labour pool because of furloughs and airline failures and cut-backs.

Here is where the fun really starts. Firstly, the supply side. The supply side basically always lags behind the demand side, both on the up slope and the down slope. Airline pilot training takes time. Usually several years from commencing training to a producing a usable pilot with a few thousand hours flight time, some jet or t'prop time on multi-engined aircraft. What DOES happen is that the potential pilot who had always tended towards a pilot career sees the airline industry in one of its expansion modes. Supply is bad for the airlines and the pay checks are really getting up there. He decides to become a pilot. If he is very lucky, three or four or more years later, after suffering and working for peanuts, he finally gets that junior co-pilot position. Now the airline industry hits a bump, fuel price increase, Gulf War, Sept11th, whatever. He gets furloughed. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR. Now the airlines see big supply and small demand. Guess what happens in the next round of contracts negotiations (or in the next bankruptcy threat). Pilot pay dives. Under these conditions nobody but the most dedicated (or perhaps most stupid) train as pilots. Now the demand side kicks in. Three years down the road things get better for the airlines, they recall their furloughees. Three more years down the road they need new hires because of retirements. Viola! a pilot shortage. Pilot pay goes up again. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR.

Now, how does this tie in with what a pilot really gets paid. If the situation was totally laissez-faire each individual pilot would negotiate his own pay rate, say bi-annually, with his employer. This is what happened in the early days of aviation. Unfortunately, it became rapidly apparent that there were severe problems with this approach. Business owners have not changed over the years. Many early aviation managers could force pilots to perform dangerous duty under the threat of reprisal by pay check or firing. In a nutshell this safety problem led to the formation of pilot unions and government regulation. Of course, as soon as pilots were organised and protected as a group the group became the instrument for negotiating pay rates. In the "earlier" days of aviation this was a relatively minor factor. The airline industry was regulated, airlines were virtually guaranteed a profit and so they had no incentive to severely limit pilot pay checks. Around the time the pilot unions were formed the "seniority system" came into being which, although generally agreed to be imperfect, has been accepted over the years as the norm for the industry. Under this system, the senior pilots get the choice of which aircraft they fly with the size of the pay checks being proportional to the size of the aircraft. Note that the size of the paycheck being tied to the size of the aircraft has nothing to do with safety or responsibility. The argument is that flying the larger aircraft is more productive for the company and is hence worth more pay. For example, two pilots flying a 200 seat aircraft are more productive than two pilots flying a 100 seat aircraft for the same time and hence deserve more pay. No safety , responsibility or skill considerations, just productivity for the company.

The introduction of union contracts and the regulation of aviation distorted the "free market" concept of pay rates in the airline industry but it did confer certain benefits (here I must acknowledge exceptions which intrude in any large system). The first benefit was safety. Airlines, being guaranteed a profit, were under no restraint on spending for excellent pilot training and aircraft maintenance. Pilot status led to the conditions for the safety of flight being left with the crew rather than the company. Because of regulation the aviation industry had a very stable if somewhat restricted operating environment (I remember seeing a group of excited pilots clustered around a company notice board. We had just been assigned a new route, Chicago to Grand Rapids!). All of this changed with deregulation.

Under deregulation the airlines were no longer protected. Cost controls became vitally important and the pressure was felt through employee pay checks.

OK, this is probably boring for most of you. I will continue to bore you later if that;s OK. I need a coffee break.

18th Aug 2002, 20:05
Continental. Interesting subject.
Many will tell you that Frank Lorenzo "done 'em in". The real reason is that Contineltal at the time was the weakest trunk carrier, and simply could not compete with UAL at DEN and ORD. ......411A

411A, would be nice if you knew what you were talking about.

I referred to the Continental of Lorenzo. somehow you drag in the Bob Six, pre-deregulation, bankruptcy for whatever reason Continental.

The Continental I referred to was your "wet dream", of a major airline, the one combining Texas Air in Houston, Peoples Express in EWR and a Cleveland hub.the airline with rock bottom labor costs, no pilot union, FAR work rules, ect. They only came back when a good manager raised salaries and provided leadership.(something out of your comprehension given you posts on being a "Captain") Their pay is very close to mine at AA now.

The major pilot salaries are a big factor on the demand. If your wish of airline Captains making 75K while living in expensive metro areas like NY, LA, ORD, BOS, or MIA comes true, I'm moving into a cave.

411A, In AZ a firefighter can make 100k in his 9 year on the job. A UPS truck driver is up in salary too. It is a supply and demand issue. The supply will react in a delayed manner if you got your wish. The major airline pilot job is still living off its long gone reputation of the 1960's and 1970's (remember when you couldn't get hired?). Throw in a 75K top pay, then watch the airlines cry about turnover costs and wage pressures not to mention hangar and taxi "rash" costs.


As a side note, during the negotiations of the last AA pilots contract (1997), we offered to fly the regional jets at AA at a pay level and workrules competitive with the regional industry, without any current limitations, and with a clause limiting future pay raises.

AA management said GFY's.

They instead ordered a fleet 44 seater EMB's instead of 50 seaters, (no limitation in numbers under our contract), an airplane which had to be certified for AA alone, no doubt for the same price or more than the 50 seater. It also has to have limited resale value for accounting purposes. They chose to fly with 6 less seats of revenue for the same aquisition costs when any increase of AA crewed 50 seater costs would have been less than the loss of revenue from those seats.

Shall we go into the artificial price of the RJ jets? Airplanes that could not have been developed without goverment subsidies shouldering the intial R&D. Spare me the free market crap. That talk is almost as ridiculous as my fellow americans claiming the "free market" cost of crude oil to the US is only $20-25 a barrell. (that is the price after subtracting the costs of 12 aircraft carriers, 1,000,000 soldiers, and 250 F15's to babysit the ME.)

Since when has any airline been interested in a free market?

18th Aug 2002, 20:29
Sorry folks, should have emphasised that the conditions I refer to are in the US pilot marketplace where all the turmoil is now.

Rest assured though, whatever happens in the US marketplace will not cause just a ripple in the world airline industry. It could cause a tidal wave. This is not national egotism. It is a fact of life that is a function of the size of the US aviation industry, the size of its suppliers to the aviation industry and the US's financial influence on international economics.
The international aviation market will not shrink significantly but its character willl change dramatically. Aircraft, pilots and other aviation resources are, by definition, the most mobile assets any business could own.

As they say "Watch your six o'clock!"

18th Aug 2002, 20:38
The abundance of pilots in North America is caused due to the carot effect of the large carriers. Brand new licensed pilots are willing to sell their soles in order to build up flite time. Then from a poor paying flite instructor to a poor paying charted pilot job to a poor paying regional pilot job ,always with the hope that some day all this blood ,sweat,and tears will finally pay off. If you finally get the break with the majors,based as much on affrimative action and other politics (UA min pre 911 was 350hrs total time),you hope in 10 to 15 years to make Capt.on a heavy and finally make the big bucks.
If the majors were to sour the reward for this dream job.they would be hard pressed to find enough new pilots in the long term to keep their airplanes flying.

18th Aug 2002, 21:13

Clearly you know nothing about Continental or other airlines of a few short years ago. The very same mistakes are made time after time by managements who know nothing about what went before...very BAD news for them, and you I suspect.
When you have been around just a "few" years, you just might see the problems in a "just slightly" different perspective...OTOH, from your attitude, perhaps not. Too bad for you, and those that think(?) along the same lines.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Hardpressed to find applicants...you must be joking. The stacks of CV's now nearly reach to the ceiling, three times over.;)

18th Aug 2002, 22:20
To get back to the topic.

Under regulation the airlines and the pilot groups devised a neat little formula for calculating pilot pay rates. This formula was pretty much an industry standard. Two factors in the formula were normally number of seats and aircraft Take-Off Gross Weight. Then the problem appeared, the 747. Up until that time the biggest aircraft flying commercially weighed about 350,000 pounds, now there was introduced an aircraft weighing in excess of 700,000 pounds. On the face of it a 100% pay increase. Great for the pilots, not quite so great for the employees but not a disaster since, under regulation, they could pass most of the increase in pilot costs straight on to the passenger. And do not forget, the increased number of seats on the aircraft did improve productivity so to some extent the old argument still held. Pay me more for being more productive. Along with the 747 the new generation of mini-jumbos appeared, the DC-10 and the L1011. The top end pilot pay checks increased nicely and the pay checks on the smaller aircraft did not do too badly either. Pilot pay in the whole industy rose. Only "major" airlines existed. The only pilot progression was to join at the bottom of a major and know you had lifetime job security unless you screwed up. Sit back, don't rock the boat and enjoy your first class crew-meal (Ha! Those were the days. "Excuse me Captain, How do you want your roast beef? Will you be eating on the Flight Deck or in First Class?").

It is this immediate pre-deregulation era that provides the baseline for the present pilot salary situation. However, I must point out something which all of the posters on this sight seem to forget. In terms of adjusted dollars and cost of living increases airline pilots are now paid LESS per pound of aircraft weight than they were in 1978. Pay check dollar figures have increased to where they look quite impressive but consider also the cost of houses and cars. Pilot pay checks have not maintained their relative value. Nobody says they must do that, of course, but it is a factor to be considered and is usually ignored.

Deregulation introduced ticket competition between the airlines where it had been non-existent before. It also introduced start-up carriers. At first, the start-up carriers were viewed as potential major airlines, competition for the majors. This view soon proved too optimistic despite political interference (every politician wanted a start-up in his own community, presumably to buy local votes and make it easier for him to get to work.). It took many years before viable start-up airlines appeared and stayed in the market.

Now pilots had more career progressions open to them. Most still wanted to join a major carrier because of career and financial benefits. However, pilots that had for some reason failed to get hired by the majors or had personal reasons for not wanting to join the majors had a place to go. The down side was that the start-ups paid less than the majors. Therefore, for a significant number of pilots the start-ups were a means to an end. It was a way of getting airline experience before applying to and moving on to the majors. The situation was fairly stable. The major carriers paid the high paychecks and basically did OK in business. The small carriers paid less but were OK if you diid not want a job with the majors or could not apply to them because of age etc.

Then came the dramatic changes in the late 70's early 80's. The first blow was a serious increase in fuel prices, which had been threatening for some time, arranged by OPEC. The second blow was internal. I will give you just the names and you will know what I mean. Continental, Eastern, Pan-Am, Lorenzo, Ferris, that is enough. Under the new deregulation profit became the name of the game. From a business sense that is perfectly reasonable but for the pilot group it caused chaos. Neither the pilot group or the airlines had ever seriously had to fight over paychecks before. The result was a very messy few years in the airline industry, bankruptcy, strikes and much conflict between airlines and employee groups where there had been none before.

One way or another the aviation industry weathered these storms. However, what did not go away was a new sense of, in many cases, bitter mistrust between airlines and employees. No longer were pilot pay checks be subject to the old formula. Every dollar in pay or item of benefits was bitterly fought over. It is the result of this bitterness, this adversarial relationship and mistrust, which we are seeing now in the industry causing so many problems.

So what we are left with is a tradition of well paid pilots in an industry that is increasingly cost concious. Will pilots ever be valued for what they contribute to their airline? The answer is clearly no. It is just far too difficult to calculate what a pilots contribution is worth. For example, you can measure how much fuel a pilot uses to fly between A and B and compare it with his fellows but can you be sure the operating conditions were the same on the two occasions? Is fuel usage a valid criteria? If a pilot uses less fuel than his fellows for a year then diverts on one occasion because he was short of fuel did he actually save the company money in the long term?

The contribution a pilot makes to the company on a day to day basis is not quantifiable in abstract terms. How efficient he is, how safe he is or how hard he works. What do we have left then? One view would be to ask whether he gets the job done as assigned. A fairly crude measure of his contribution but, after all, that is what he is being paid for, getting the job done as assigned. If he gets the job done as assigned he is a good guy if not he gets retrained or fired. But how much do you pay someone who is "just good enough"? Do I really need a captain who has thirty years of AIRLINE FLYING flying on my 747 when a twenty year OLD fellow desperate for a job would do just as well? You can argue that when things go seriously wrong you would be happier behind a thirty year experienced fellow but can you prove that on a bean-counter's spreadsheet? No. Except in very limited areas where experience can be shown to significantly effect the bottom line it is not possible to LOGICALLY justify what a pilot pay check should be. It is not possible to LOGICALLY justify pay depending on seniority. It is barely possible LOGICALLY to justify pay based on productivity (in fact, some airlines have gone away from this idea).

So what, after all these considerations are we left with? Forte main, the strong arm. Airline management wants the lowest pay check. They know that they cannot go as low as they would like, rock bottom, because they feel, more by intuition than facts that they would be getting themselves into deep water if they needed to replace too many experienced pilots at one time. Training costs could escalate, disruptions would occur during the change over, an accident at the wrong time (for any reason) would surely reflect on them with serious legal implications. However, they can easily tell when it is an opportune time to squeeze the pilots pay check. On the other hand pilots would like to see the highest possible pay check but pilots too see the reality of the situation. They are still within their rights to go for the best deal they can get.

After all, the best way to establish pilot pay checks is free negotiations. Look at it either way. When times are good in the business and supply of pilots is low you can expect pilots to ask for the moon. On the other hand, if pilot supplies are high and companies feel they can justify the confrontation then expect to see pilot pay checks fall. What is entirely wrong is for people outside of the airline and pilot group to criticise the contract between the pilots and the airline. Both sides are consenting adults. If you approve of the other thing why criticise the sides in a contract settlement? Both sides in a contract accept what they have agreed. They might not like it and they might wish it was different but their value judgement is that they can live with what they are signing for, otherwise they should not sign. It is fine for either side to claim circumstances have changed and the contract needs to be changed but for either side to say they did not know what they were doing or that they were "forced" to do something is pure horse manure.

18th Aug 2002, 23:31
For the non-pilots on this sight here are the answers to some statements which drive me crazy.

Statement. You only work 80 hours per month.
Answer. I sit in a pilots seat for 80 hours per month. I am away from home to achieve these 80 hours for something like 250 hours. This is because the company wants me to be away from home and I am on company business. If I calculate my pay check based on the time I am away from home instead of my actual flight hours my paycheck per hour is less than a quarter of what it would seem to be. It puts my paycheck in the hourly range of a well paid plumber and about what you pay per hour to get your car serviced.

Statement. Your aeroplanes land themselves.
Answer. Most modern aeroplanes can land themselves, given a properly equipped aeroplane, a properly trained crew and, more importantly, a properly equipped airport (usually the limiting factor). However, most landings are carried out the old way, by hand. The reason is that an automatic landing requires special, and time consuming, arrival procedures to be carried out by the airfield controllers. If all aircraft tried to land automatically, even if all of the airfields were properly equipped, the air traffic control system would grind to a halt at the major airports.

Statement. The computers fly the aeroplane.
Answer. Yes the computers fly the aeroplane AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED BY THE PILOT.
Unfortunately, computers are useless in real time tricky situations like avoiding thunderstorms. Without pilot intervention the computer WOULD not COULD fly you straight into weather which WOULD rip the wings off you aircraft.

Statement. Pilots are all highly paid.
Answer. The pilots at the top of the tree are highly paid, possibly 5,000 pilots. Another 25,000 pilots do quite well. Below this level it begins to stink. A new Reional Jet co=pilot makes about $21,000. In his second year the figure goes up to around $45,000. He is also spending a couple of hundred hours a month away from home, should we credit him with $21 per hour? The same as in any organisation. The guys at the top do well but the others are all trying to get there. Think about your own company.

Statement. Everyone else does the work, you just fly the 'plane.
Answer. Before Sept.11th as an aircraft captain I was responsible for planning the safe operation of the aircraft and seeing the flight was carried out efficiently and safely. It does not take much to say that but I assure you it kept you busy. In addition, I became involved when I thought it was needed in various phases of the ground operation. Since Sept.11th. I am now also involved deeply in security matters which add considerably to my preflight duties. I have been given no extra time before flight to carry out these functions. I assure you I am very busy every minute until the landing gear is raised. You cannot understand as a non-commercial pilot that the time I spend in flight in an aircraft is the time I have to relax.

I am sure other pilots can add to this list. The point is that when you talk about the job of flying and the pay check you can have no real concept of what is involved in the job. If you want to talk about our easy job and our massive pay for doing it PLEASE get the facts first!

18th Aug 2002, 23:47

You are correct, you are boring, and taking up a lot of bandwidth saying the same thing over and over...

19th Aug 2002, 00:18

I guessed right that you didn't know much about CO. Except some ramblings referencing a 23 year old aviation week on the shelf of your nursing home.

I've casually read many of your posts over time, including those dripping with contempt about the major airline pilots and my airline AA. For instance," all we want is money and won't be competitive". I referenced our offer to fly the RJ's last contract in 1997. Despite this, you continue to harp about the Regionals and their cost structer. Do you know the rates we offered with a no reopener clause are less than what Comair pays now? Give me a break with the "I'm the old man, I gots experience" lecture. We all have flown with guys like you. Thank god the unions have enabled protections for FO's that speak up about your type.

Your history of posts reflects some sort of phsycological damage by a major airline or its pilots years ago. The airline hiring process unfortunately spit out alot of good people. In your case whatever it may have been, I think it is funny as hell now.:D

19th Aug 2002, 00:48
Sorry about that DownIn3 Green. As Winston Churchill said "I apologise for the length of my letter. I did not have time to write a short one".

Don't read unless you need to. Some of our subscribers have not lived through this history, even some of younger pilots. We need all the friends we can get right now and if a couple of Kilobytes of badly written text helps one person understand where we are coming from and it gains us one more friend I figure it was worth it.