Four Corners
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fiona, as others have said, your contribution was heartbreaking in its simplicity, and exposing the salary paid to a relatively experienced pilot will raise questions, but in the end nothing will change. Why? I think everybody reading this thread knows the answer. Read on for what it's worth.
Uncommon Sense,
This is where we part company. Your arguments belong to an ideal world, and it is my view that anybody who thinks those ideals can ever apply to GA pilots is deluding himself.
I'm not a pilot, but I've been around the periphery of the GA scene a long time, certainly long enough to know the good operators from the bad.
GA companies have one thing in common. They almost all struggle to make a buck. They all look for ways to improve that situation, and there are lots of ways to do it. Increasing income is difficult, so all the possibilities involve reducing expenditure. Reading through this forum alone will give you some idea of how that expenditure is reduced, but number one on the list will always be pilots' wages.
Not for the first time on this forum, I'm going to return to the principle of supply and demand, because it is the inherent problem. There are so many young people with stars in their eyes with a vision to be airline pilots, and so few positions available, that it doesn't take an economics degree to forecast the result.
If you look back over this forum, you will see hundreds of threads on this subject. The young hopefuls post, "how do I get hours?"
Those two rungs up the ladder say "piss off, you aren't going to undercut me".
Those at the top of the ladder, the airline pilots, all say "Thou shalt not work for less than a reasonable wage, and thou shalt never fly parachutists for nothing just to accumulate hours, and thou shouldst always think of thy fellow aviators, though verily we made it to where we are by doing exactly what thou doest now".
I can only repeat; the law of supply and demand rules everything. As long as there are kids (of whatever age) who are prepared to break rules to achieve that impossible dream, the status quo will remain. The flying dream will always overcome logical thought, and it's quite certain that industrial action will never work. Why? Because anybody with an unquenchable dream will do anything to achieve that dream; and if that involves stabbing others in the back, metaphorically of course, that is what will happen.
My usefulness is limited, but I hope, though I can't be sure, that I had some part in dissuading a pilot of my acquaintance from joining Cathay during their industrial action. Said pilot now flies for Virgin and loves it.
While this is a different subject, it belongs in the same general field. When your eyes are fixed on a distant dream, it's bloody hard for anybody to divert those eyes.
Uncommon Sense,
This is where we part company. Your arguments belong to an ideal world, and it is my view that anybody who thinks those ideals can ever apply to GA pilots is deluding himself.
I'm not a pilot, but I've been around the periphery of the GA scene a long time, certainly long enough to know the good operators from the bad.
GA companies have one thing in common. They almost all struggle to make a buck. They all look for ways to improve that situation, and there are lots of ways to do it. Increasing income is difficult, so all the possibilities involve reducing expenditure. Reading through this forum alone will give you some idea of how that expenditure is reduced, but number one on the list will always be pilots' wages.
Not for the first time on this forum, I'm going to return to the principle of supply and demand, because it is the inherent problem. There are so many young people with stars in their eyes with a vision to be airline pilots, and so few positions available, that it doesn't take an economics degree to forecast the result.
If you look back over this forum, you will see hundreds of threads on this subject. The young hopefuls post, "how do I get hours?"
Those two rungs up the ladder say "piss off, you aren't going to undercut me".
Those at the top of the ladder, the airline pilots, all say "Thou shalt not work for less than a reasonable wage, and thou shalt never fly parachutists for nothing just to accumulate hours, and thou shouldst always think of thy fellow aviators, though verily we made it to where we are by doing exactly what thou doest now".
I can only repeat; the law of supply and demand rules everything. As long as there are kids (of whatever age) who are prepared to break rules to achieve that impossible dream, the status quo will remain. The flying dream will always overcome logical thought, and it's quite certain that industrial action will never work. Why? Because anybody with an unquenchable dream will do anything to achieve that dream; and if that involves stabbing others in the back, metaphorically of course, that is what will happen.
My usefulness is limited, but I hope, though I can't be sure, that I had some part in dissuading a pilot of my acquaintance from joining Cathay during their industrial action. Said pilot now flies for Virgin and loves it.
While this is a different subject, it belongs in the same general field. When your eyes are fixed on a distant dream, it's bloody hard for anybody to divert those eyes.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no law of supply and demand
Binoculars, you might be able to convince me if your argument was based on a real 'law' rather than an observation. All you tell me when you rabbit on about economic 'laws' is how little you know about economics..
There is no 'law' of supply and demand. It is a construct. A rational construct that explains a set of behaviours.
It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.
You probably don't want to believe me. Fine. Before you relax and allow your 'law' to stand, a minor challenge for you.
Show me a society or civilisation that has permitted complete, unregulated supply and demand in all areas of life.
Go on. I'll check back in a few years to see if you found one. Your search will be a long one, and eventually fruitless. That is because NO human society, whether agrarian, capitalist, socialist, the whole shebang, has EVER been silly enough to completely surrender to 'supply and demand'
Some things are just TOO important to allow 'the market' to allocate resources.
This is why Australians have public schools, public hospitals, legal aid, fire brigades that don't charge a fee for service, etc. It is why we have service guarantees for telephones. It is why we have public roads.
So do yourself a favour and drop the free market fervour. You just don't understand the real world. Not your real world, the REAL real world!
Successive governments have pandered to big interests and deregulated aviation to the point where a community of a thousand people with no roads have to pay $450 plus for a return trip to a regional centre about 300km away. That same amount of money buys a city dweller a round trip to a holiday destination several thousand km away.
Not even touching the argument 'they choose to live there.' Those communities are there, and they have every right to be there. If not, well, is there a spare room in your house?
So, you have these very poor communities, that have no choice when it comes to travelling. Must be via plane.
They are lucky enough to have a two crewed turbine RPT service.
But, instead of the rest of us Aussies adding a dollar or ten to our ticket on the A320, these folks have to use aerodromes and services that have to cover all of their infrastructure costs, plus make a dollar!
So the two crewed turbine RPT service means not quite as much as your average Aussie has a right to expect.
We have two problems in Australian aviation. (1) it is too easy to train to be a pilot. Yes, too easy. Expensive and time consuming, but anybody who has a few dollars and dreams of flying is encouraged to do so by flying schools.
We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots. It is almost ridiculous that we have so very many young pilots that spend tens of thousands of dollars on their pathway to Qantas, when Qantas will take maybe one in fifty.
If somebody discovered that only one in fifty DipEd students ever got a full time job in a school, there would be amazement!
If somebody discovered that only one in fifty medical students ever actually became practicing doctors, there would be an outcry over the waste of resources.
Yet we allow it in aviation. It creates a culture of undercutting, non-reporting on safety issues, the whole shebang.
General aviation and third level airlines do not have a culture of excellence. Pilots and engineers in this industry do not have the luxury of a decent basic wage. It is not an industry that encourages best practice. It does not reward the pilot who studies and knows their aircraft and their rules. It values the pilots that will shut up, do what they are told and endure wannabe/hasbeen/neverwas chief pilots and operators and all the **** they shovel their way.
Not an industry to be proud of really.
The other thing (2) is that we have been hoodwinked into believing that regional airlines and air charter is somehow very different from other transport and communications infrastructures. It is a complete contradiction that every level of aviation from ab initio training upwards, must make a dollar. This is not the case with rail, with road transport, with telephones, with sea transport.
Aviation is the odd one out. Every person that boards a C210, a Baron or a Metro is paying too much and not getting anywhere near what is their right to expect. And now 15 people have paid with their lives.
I thought it was an excellent program. As a former resident of Arnhemland communities, I thought it made an excellent point.
There is no 'law' of supply and demand. It is a construct. A rational construct that explains a set of behaviours.
It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.
You probably don't want to believe me. Fine. Before you relax and allow your 'law' to stand, a minor challenge for you.
Show me a society or civilisation that has permitted complete, unregulated supply and demand in all areas of life.
Go on. I'll check back in a few years to see if you found one. Your search will be a long one, and eventually fruitless. That is because NO human society, whether agrarian, capitalist, socialist, the whole shebang, has EVER been silly enough to completely surrender to 'supply and demand'
Some things are just TOO important to allow 'the market' to allocate resources.
This is why Australians have public schools, public hospitals, legal aid, fire brigades that don't charge a fee for service, etc. It is why we have service guarantees for telephones. It is why we have public roads.
So do yourself a favour and drop the free market fervour. You just don't understand the real world. Not your real world, the REAL real world!
Successive governments have pandered to big interests and deregulated aviation to the point where a community of a thousand people with no roads have to pay $450 plus for a return trip to a regional centre about 300km away. That same amount of money buys a city dweller a round trip to a holiday destination several thousand km away.
Not even touching the argument 'they choose to live there.' Those communities are there, and they have every right to be there. If not, well, is there a spare room in your house?
So, you have these very poor communities, that have no choice when it comes to travelling. Must be via plane.
They are lucky enough to have a two crewed turbine RPT service.
But, instead of the rest of us Aussies adding a dollar or ten to our ticket on the A320, these folks have to use aerodromes and services that have to cover all of their infrastructure costs, plus make a dollar!
So the two crewed turbine RPT service means not quite as much as your average Aussie has a right to expect.
We have two problems in Australian aviation. (1) it is too easy to train to be a pilot. Yes, too easy. Expensive and time consuming, but anybody who has a few dollars and dreams of flying is encouraged to do so by flying schools.
We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots. It is almost ridiculous that we have so very many young pilots that spend tens of thousands of dollars on their pathway to Qantas, when Qantas will take maybe one in fifty.
If somebody discovered that only one in fifty DipEd students ever got a full time job in a school, there would be amazement!
If somebody discovered that only one in fifty medical students ever actually became practicing doctors, there would be an outcry over the waste of resources.
Yet we allow it in aviation. It creates a culture of undercutting, non-reporting on safety issues, the whole shebang.
General aviation and third level airlines do not have a culture of excellence. Pilots and engineers in this industry do not have the luxury of a decent basic wage. It is not an industry that encourages best practice. It does not reward the pilot who studies and knows their aircraft and their rules. It values the pilots that will shut up, do what they are told and endure wannabe/hasbeen/neverwas chief pilots and operators and all the **** they shovel their way.
Not an industry to be proud of really.
The other thing (2) is that we have been hoodwinked into believing that regional airlines and air charter is somehow very different from other transport and communications infrastructures. It is a complete contradiction that every level of aviation from ab initio training upwards, must make a dollar. This is not the case with rail, with road transport, with telephones, with sea transport.
Aviation is the odd one out. Every person that boards a C210, a Baron or a Metro is paying too much and not getting anywhere near what is their right to expect. And now 15 people have paid with their lives.
I thought it was an excellent program. As a former resident of Arnhemland communities, I thought it made an excellent point.
Last edited by ITCZ; 5th Jul 2005 at 13:36.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ,
Tuesday nights are generally not a good time for me to expound an argument lucidly. I will cheerfully address your concerns tomorrow, but in the meantime it may be best not to write me off as a free market proponent. In fact, it may be best to re-read my post with an open mind.
Cheers for the moment....
Tuesday nights are generally not a good time for me to expound an argument lucidly. I will cheerfully address your concerns tomorrow, but in the meantime it may be best not to write me off as a free market proponent. In fact, it may be best to re-read my post with an open mind.
Cheers for the moment....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bino's, fair enough. I have to admit that my cage is rattled whenever I hear the word 'laws' and 'economics' used in the same sentence.
My point is that purely rational systems are tools for humans. When you allow an idea to rule the humans, instead of the humans using the idea as a tool, then you have given away all the advantages of being human.
I don't think the 4C program is focussed on the plight of pilots. I believe the point made by the 4C program is that regional aviation is a mess. The people it serves are Australians, they deserve better than they are getting, and the crap conditions that pilots endure are just one symptom.
Pilots rank near the top in surveys of 'the most trusted professions.' For many non-aviation people watching, the program would have been a jaw-dropper.
Noted your point about tuesday nights. Look forward to seeing your next post, I'll try to keep a lid on my temper
My point is that purely rational systems are tools for humans. When you allow an idea to rule the humans, instead of the humans using the idea as a tool, then you have given away all the advantages of being human.
I don't think the 4C program is focussed on the plight of pilots. I believe the point made by the 4C program is that regional aviation is a mess. The people it serves are Australians, they deserve better than they are getting, and the crap conditions that pilots endure are just one symptom.
Pilots rank near the top in surveys of 'the most trusted professions.' For many non-aviation people watching, the program would have been a jaw-dropper.
Noted your point about tuesday nights. Look forward to seeing your next post, I'll try to keep a lid on my temper
Guest
Posts: n/a
It amazes me that CASA haven't made it a requirement for a servicable auto pilot to be fitted to this class of operation.
Its all very well to demonstrate a competent instrument approach in a simulator but in real weather with associated wind turbulence, rain etc its a bit more demanding.
Flying manually and taking your eyes off the gauges frequently to check the fine print on the approach plate in turbulence ups the ante. How easy it would be to misread the distance versus altitude required to the next waypoint ,for example.
You guys/girls who do it for 21k per year deserve the assistance of an auto pilot to take a lot of the load off at the critical times.
Its all very well to demonstrate a competent instrument approach in a simulator but in real weather with associated wind turbulence, rain etc its a bit more demanding.
Flying manually and taking your eyes off the gauges frequently to check the fine print on the approach plate in turbulence ups the ante. How easy it would be to misread the distance versus altitude required to the next waypoint ,for example.
You guys/girls who do it for 21k per year deserve the assistance of an auto pilot to take a lot of the load off at the critical times.
ITCZ, the trouble is mate, that the relationship we call the law of supply and demand does explain certain human behaviours, including the supply of pilots quite well.
Furthermore, whenever we try and tinker with said law, we stuff it up and create opportunities for bastardry of various kinds.
If we decide to ration the supply of pilots, then the price paid to pilots (wages) will eventually rise, but that increases ticket prices and provides opportunities for corruption in both the training and allocation of (scarce) pilots.
If we decide to train pilots for free, then pilots wages will fall.
I suggest that the smartest thing to do is to try and explain to young wannabees exactly what they can expect in terms of wages, lifestyle and career opportuniites, as well as the RISK they are taking, before they embark on a CPL. Its called a price signal in the marketplace.
Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.
Furthermore, whenever we try and tinker with said law, we stuff it up and create opportunities for bastardry of various kinds.
If we decide to ration the supply of pilots, then the price paid to pilots (wages) will eventually rise, but that increases ticket prices and provides opportunities for corruption in both the training and allocation of (scarce) pilots.
If we decide to train pilots for free, then pilots wages will fall.
I suggest that the smartest thing to do is to try and explain to young wannabees exactly what they can expect in terms of wages, lifestyle and career opportuniites, as well as the RISK they are taking, before they embark on a CPL. Its called a price signal in the marketplace.
Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez. If a pilot's career in GA can be totally ruined by having a reputation that they left a dodgey operator based on safety issues then the industry is beyond help.
If the above is true, that means that there is a full culture of stamping on those who take responsibility for safe conduct. That also suggests that most GA operators will actually not employ a pilot who is safety minded and that charter operators will actually say to other operators " I got rid of him because he wasn't happy with flying with my safety breaches......."
Is it really that bad out there now?? I don't think so. It's more a case of pilot's tolerating the dodgey operators so they can progress up the ladder which, in my mind, makes pilots just as bad as the operator. At the end of the day, if pilots deliberately won't obey the regs then what hope have we got to change this mess?
If the above is true, that means that there is a full culture of stamping on those who take responsibility for safe conduct. That also suggests that most GA operators will actually not employ a pilot who is safety minded and that charter operators will actually say to other operators " I got rid of him because he wasn't happy with flying with my safety breaches......."
Is it really that bad out there now?? I don't think so. It's more a case of pilot's tolerating the dodgey operators so they can progress up the ladder which, in my mind, makes pilots just as bad as the operator. At the end of the day, if pilots deliberately won't obey the regs then what hope have we got to change this mess?
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish and Tinpis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.
________________________________________________
let me assure you that there are a lot of pilots out there already who dream of actually getting paid that much.
As for pilots flying an aircraft with a serious, or even minor safety defect,
not only are you endangering your own life, and your passengers,
but guess who will most likely be charged if caught,
You, or the operator?
Is it worth it to endure all of this and then be asked by Virgin, Qantaslink to pay for your endorsement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: Now that Australians understand that the starting salary is $21,000, maybe a few will decide not to proceed with a CPL.
________________________________________________
let me assure you that there are a lot of pilots out there already who dream of actually getting paid that much.
As for pilots flying an aircraft with a serious, or even minor safety defect,
not only are you endangering your own life, and your passengers,
but guess who will most likely be charged if caught,
You, or the operator?
Is it worth it to endure all of this and then be asked by Virgin, Qantaslink to pay for your endorsement?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general public could not care less if a pilot is paid $20k a year. Why would they be upset about that? Are they also upset that a hairdressing apprentice only makes $23K a year too, what about the bloke that works at the toll booth in a carpark complex who only makes $27K a year? Why would they care?
The majority of people, whether they fly or not are more interested in the state of origin game tonight rather than pilot wages.
Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year? Would they only breach a few safety regulations if their salary went up instead of lots? Wages and good safety culture are not linked up in the case of the GA pilot. Not at all.
The majority of people, whether they fly or not are more interested in the state of origin game tonight rather than pilot wages.
Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year? Would they only breach a few safety regulations if their salary went up instead of lots? Wages and good safety culture are not linked up in the case of the GA pilot. Not at all.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor two..
______________________________________________ The general public could not care less if a pilot is paid $20k a year. Why would they be upset about that? Are they also upset that a hairdressing apprentice only makes $23K a year too, what about the bloke that works at the toll booth in a carpark complex who only makes $27K a year? Why would they care?
____________________________________________________
The reason that a more enlightened member of the public would be upset is because their lives are in the hands of the pilot....not the hairdresser or the tollbooth guy( unless they are spectacularly bad at their jobs). They associate low pay levels with low competancy and skill levels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe me....he/she is.
If you had been in the situation where you are working 50 hours a week for anywhere between zero dollars and $300 depending how much time airborne you got, and having to keep your ratings etc current, and having to pay for charts and plates and ammendments, and were always on the edge of being evicted for late rent payments....you would know that it is not conducive to a relaxed/confident state of mind and is in fact quite fatiguing, not ideal at the end of a 16 hour split duty where your rest quarters was the back room of the medical clinic and your doing an approach to minimas through cells.
Does that answer your question?
______________________________________________ The general public could not care less if a pilot is paid $20k a year. Why would they be upset about that? Are they also upset that a hairdressing apprentice only makes $23K a year too, what about the bloke that works at the toll booth in a carpark complex who only makes $27K a year? Why would they care?
____________________________________________________
The reason that a more enlightened member of the public would be upset is because their lives are in the hands of the pilot....not the hairdresser or the tollbooth guy( unless they are spectacularly bad at their jobs). They associate low pay levels with low competancy and skill levels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, why should a pilot be any safer if he made an extra ten grand a year?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe me....he/she is.
If you had been in the situation where you are working 50 hours a week for anywhere between zero dollars and $300 depending how much time airborne you got, and having to keep your ratings etc current, and having to pay for charts and plates and ammendments, and were always on the edge of being evicted for late rent payments....you would know that it is not conducive to a relaxed/confident state of mind and is in fact quite fatiguing, not ideal at the end of a 16 hour split duty where your rest quarters was the back room of the medical clinic and your doing an approach to minimas through cells.
Does that answer your question?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 Corners
ITCZ
I totally agree with every word you have written. You must have read my mind. From these threads it is easy to see who the operators are.
cjam
You are obviously on the same wave length as I am.
Victor two
With no disrespect but it would appear that you have or have had a vested interest in a GA company. I apologise if this is not the case but this is certainly the way you come over.
I can assure you that the industry is rotten in certain areas GA. Up until very recently I was employed by a GA company who I believed valued safety and pilot wellbeing, i.e. in regard to pay and conditions to be paramount. How wrong was I!! I was told to leave with no reason given. When asked for the reason the operator refused to give one. Guess what - they also refused to pay me out in regard to holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. I suspect the reason for my dismissal was because I voiced my concerns regarding certain safety factors. Hence I did take my safety concerns to the appropriate authority, i.e. CASA. This was before I was terminated.
I must also add that I am not exactly a green CPL holder. I have been in the industry for 18 years and worked for a couple of third level operators in Australia and overseas. The reason why I decided to take up a position with the company mentioned above was so I could be at home with my family and hence I did also take a 30% pay cut and had to go back to flying piston engine aeroplanes.
I see myself as being no expert in safety but based on my experience I do know what is right and wrong and unsafe. What annoys me is when people acknowledge problems with safety and it falls on deaf ears. Having had a number of close friends killed in the industry and to see that these accidents could have been prevented due to a number of reasons I feel that these dodgy operators should be dealt with accordingly.
I totally agree with every word you have written. You must have read my mind. From these threads it is easy to see who the operators are.
cjam
You are obviously on the same wave length as I am.
Victor two
With no disrespect but it would appear that you have or have had a vested interest in a GA company. I apologise if this is not the case but this is certainly the way you come over.
I can assure you that the industry is rotten in certain areas GA. Up until very recently I was employed by a GA company who I believed valued safety and pilot wellbeing, i.e. in regard to pay and conditions to be paramount. How wrong was I!! I was told to leave with no reason given. When asked for the reason the operator refused to give one. Guess what - they also refused to pay me out in regard to holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. I suspect the reason for my dismissal was because I voiced my concerns regarding certain safety factors. Hence I did take my safety concerns to the appropriate authority, i.e. CASA. This was before I was terminated.
I must also add that I am not exactly a green CPL holder. I have been in the industry for 18 years and worked for a couple of third level operators in Australia and overseas. The reason why I decided to take up a position with the company mentioned above was so I could be at home with my family and hence I did also take a 30% pay cut and had to go back to flying piston engine aeroplanes.
I see myself as being no expert in safety but based on my experience I do know what is right and wrong and unsafe. What annoys me is when people acknowledge problems with safety and it falls on deaf ears. Having had a number of close friends killed in the industry and to see that these accidents could have been prevented due to a number of reasons I feel that these dodgy operators should be dealt with accordingly.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots conditions
To everyone who has sent lovely messages about my husband Paul Norris and myself I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To those of you have sent PM - a big thank you and I will keep you all posted.
I have just done an interview with The Aviation Journalist for The Australian about pilots wages and general conditions and again if this can help to shine a spot-light on the industry where people start asking questions then my time is not wasted.
If anyone else has any other ideas, thoughts that might shake things up then please pass them on.
Fiona Norris
I have just done an interview with The Aviation Journalist for The Australian about pilots wages and general conditions and again if this can help to shine a spot-light on the industry where people start asking questions then my time is not wasted.
If anyone else has any other ideas, thoughts that might shake things up then please pass them on.
Fiona Norris
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fiona, I wish you luck firstly with your interview, but mainly for the rest of your life after your personal tragedy. You are a strong woman who has made an impression on a lot of people in a short time.
ITCZ,
Having re-read this discussion in the cold and sober light of day, I confess I am at a loss to understand your attack on me. Your chief concern seems to be that I called a theory a law, though the first time I mentioned it I called it a principle. I'm quite happy not to call it a law if that term upsets you, but the rest of my post stands uncorrected. It is a simple fact that there is an enormous oversupply of pilots for the demand.
Neither will I resile from my OPINION that as long as there are kids looking up to the skies with stars in their eyes, nothing will change in that regard, and I believe it would be a brave man who would challenge that statement.
As to the rest of your post, apart from those attacks on me, I find no significant points of disagreement at all. Perhaps you assume that because I believe something is the truth I am by definition in favour of it? I can only assure you that is not the case.
I comfort myself that when I am attacked by those on both sides of political and economic fields of thought (as I have frequently been in the past on these pages) it's a reasonable sign.
Cheers.
ITCZ,
Having re-read this discussion in the cold and sober light of day, I confess I am at a loss to understand your attack on me. Your chief concern seems to be that I called a theory a law, though the first time I mentioned it I called it a principle. I'm quite happy not to call it a law if that term upsets you, but the rest of my post stands uncorrected. It is a simple fact that there is an enormous oversupply of pilots for the demand.
Neither will I resile from my OPINION that as long as there are kids looking up to the skies with stars in their eyes, nothing will change in that regard, and I believe it would be a brave man who would challenge that statement.
As to the rest of your post, apart from those attacks on me, I find no significant points of disagreement at all. Perhaps you assume that because I believe something is the truth I am by definition in favour of it? I can only assure you that is not the case.
I comfort myself that when I am attacked by those on both sides of political and economic fields of thought (as I have frequently been in the past on these pages) it's a reasonable sign.
Cheers.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJAM
spot on.
There is a correlation between pilot wages and safety in General Aviation.
The ability of a company to pay the award or better is an indicator financial health and depth.
It is no surprise that the companies who pay well also spend a lot more on maintenace.
Taking Cairns as an example, the majority of operators there pay at or above the award,
and have high standards of maintenance.
Unfortunately they also all have very high minimum experience requirements, i.e. they are prepared to pay for quality and experience.
There are other GA centres with a similar history.
What is tough is that the good companies that have higher overheads have to
compete at a cost disadvantage with the shonks.
Fortunately their established clients understand and accept that a premium service comes at a premium price.
spot on.
There is a correlation between pilot wages and safety in General Aviation.
The ability of a company to pay the award or better is an indicator financial health and depth.
It is no surprise that the companies who pay well also spend a lot more on maintenace.
Taking Cairns as an example, the majority of operators there pay at or above the award,
and have high standards of maintenance.
Unfortunately they also all have very high minimum experience requirements, i.e. they are prepared to pay for quality and experience.
There are other GA centres with a similar history.
What is tough is that the good companies that have higher overheads have to
compete at a cost disadvantage with the shonks.
Fortunately their established clients understand and accept that a premium service comes at a premium price.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe,
My point precisely - and Cairns was the example that came to mind.
The supply and demand argument espoused by others here does not take in to account that cheaper is not always better - more than often it is not.
My point precisely - and Cairns was the example that came to mind.
The supply and demand argument espoused by others here does not take in to account that cheaper is not always better - more than often it is not.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem about 'speaking up' is that a pilot who does so, is regarded as a 'troublemaker' and not 'worth the trouble' or a 'disruptive influence' .
Waiting next in line is the pilot who will accept unserviceabilities and fly a machine that is defective, without 'making trouble' and water down safety for all - including their fellow crews.
It comes right back to a fragmented pilot group that will not stick together, nor support one and other.
The program did not really shed any light on things most pilots who have, or currently, flying GA already know, have previously or continue to, tolerate. On the greater scheme of things, how many punters actually watch 4 corners? Not enough to demand any change, that's for sure.
Change must be effected from within the industry, from the pilots up, including the regulator. Unfortunately, being so fragmented, filled with so much self interest, this is unlikely to ever occur.
One thing is for sure - there are alot more fundamental things that need to be addressed to 'fix GA' and improve aviation in Australia than f@rt@rsing around with airspace.
The catch-all phrase: "That's GA"
Waiting next in line is the pilot who will accept unserviceabilities and fly a machine that is defective, without 'making trouble' and water down safety for all - including their fellow crews.
It comes right back to a fragmented pilot group that will not stick together, nor support one and other.
The program did not really shed any light on things most pilots who have, or currently, flying GA already know, have previously or continue to, tolerate. On the greater scheme of things, how many punters actually watch 4 corners? Not enough to demand any change, that's for sure.
Change must be effected from within the industry, from the pilots up, including the regulator. Unfortunately, being so fragmented, filled with so much self interest, this is unlikely to ever occur.
One thing is for sure - there are alot more fundamental things that need to be addressed to 'fix GA' and improve aviation in Australia than f@rt@rsing around with airspace.
The catch-all phrase: "That's GA"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think that the low pay IS related to safety. For one thing, isn’t a pilot who is worried about his financial dire straits and not resting easy at night and stressing over financial matters going to be more prone to fatigue?
Besides, if the company is not paying the award wages or otherwise operating without regards to the working conditions of the pilots, it shows me that they do not have regards to the rules, morals and ethics. What is the very root of safety? To me, it’s ethics – the ethical obligation towards everyone involved to provide a safety environment, whether that is the workplace, mode of transport, or whatever. If the operators are not generally behaving in an ethical manner, we cannot expect them to be behaving in an ethical manner towards safety issues either. Of course, it’s terribly simplified, but I think you get the gist.
Another aspect is the financial viability. If an operation is so financially tight as to be unable to pay their staff award wages, then it is quite likely that they are cutting out other aspects of their operation, such as maintaining their aircraft properly. Should they even be operating if they are so financially tight? I do not think so – it gives them too much motivation to cut costs to the extent that it may compromise the safety of their flight.
It is possible that many operators will be unable to continue their business if they were to pay proper wages and do everything properly to the highest standards. The general public is expecting low fares, and there’s a limit to how much they would be prepared to pay, above which point they would stop flying. So here comes the problem with aviation being an essential part of the country’s transport infrastructure, yet being starved of funding to support it.
There are also too many pilots. Supply and demand is currently not very well balanced, and pilots are forced to accept low wages and substandard working conditions if they want to build hours and get anywhere with their career, opening themselves to exploitation. Because pilots are so easily replaceable, the shonky operators tend to use it to their advantage and make pilots comply with their often unreasonable demands, even in safety-related matters. If it had been extremely difficult to attract pilots, then their working conditions would have been far better than they are now, even though there always is a limit to what the operators can pay, I guess, due to the restriction on how much they can charge the passengers.
Either way, I think the industry needs a huge shake-up. As far as I am concerned, the way many pilots are treated is nothing other than inhumane. $21,000 is not a suitable wage for a professional worker, particularly a safety-critical one. In fact I consider anything below $35,000 even for the least experienced pilot to be unacceptable, considering the responsibility involved (i.e. in charge of other people’s lives as well as themselves).
I don’t know what the solution is – all I know is that the way things are at the moment is totally unacceptable.
Fiona,
My sincere condolences to you.
As someone on the periphery of aviation, I would like to thank you for speaking out on television. You are a very brave lady. I am sure your husband would have been very proud.
Besides, if the company is not paying the award wages or otherwise operating without regards to the working conditions of the pilots, it shows me that they do not have regards to the rules, morals and ethics. What is the very root of safety? To me, it’s ethics – the ethical obligation towards everyone involved to provide a safety environment, whether that is the workplace, mode of transport, or whatever. If the operators are not generally behaving in an ethical manner, we cannot expect them to be behaving in an ethical manner towards safety issues either. Of course, it’s terribly simplified, but I think you get the gist.
Another aspect is the financial viability. If an operation is so financially tight as to be unable to pay their staff award wages, then it is quite likely that they are cutting out other aspects of their operation, such as maintaining their aircraft properly. Should they even be operating if they are so financially tight? I do not think so – it gives them too much motivation to cut costs to the extent that it may compromise the safety of their flight.
It is possible that many operators will be unable to continue their business if they were to pay proper wages and do everything properly to the highest standards. The general public is expecting low fares, and there’s a limit to how much they would be prepared to pay, above which point they would stop flying. So here comes the problem with aviation being an essential part of the country’s transport infrastructure, yet being starved of funding to support it.
There are also too many pilots. Supply and demand is currently not very well balanced, and pilots are forced to accept low wages and substandard working conditions if they want to build hours and get anywhere with their career, opening themselves to exploitation. Because pilots are so easily replaceable, the shonky operators tend to use it to their advantage and make pilots comply with their often unreasonable demands, even in safety-related matters. If it had been extremely difficult to attract pilots, then their working conditions would have been far better than they are now, even though there always is a limit to what the operators can pay, I guess, due to the restriction on how much they can charge the passengers.
Either way, I think the industry needs a huge shake-up. As far as I am concerned, the way many pilots are treated is nothing other than inhumane. $21,000 is not a suitable wage for a professional worker, particularly a safety-critical one. In fact I consider anything below $35,000 even for the least experienced pilot to be unacceptable, considering the responsibility involved (i.e. in charge of other people’s lives as well as themselves).
I don’t know what the solution is – all I know is that the way things are at the moment is totally unacceptable.
Fiona,
My sincere condolences to you.
As someone on the periphery of aviation, I would like to thank you for speaking out on television. You are a very brave lady. I am sure your husband would have been very proud.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The huge disparity between GA and airline wages is a significant factor, not just the GA wages alone. This disparity encourages, in part, an enormous motivation to get in and through GA as fast as possible doing what it takes to sacrifice over the (perceived) short term for the pot of gold in the long term.
In many industries, the people progressing up the ladder also seem to involve themselves in furthering the industry they came up in. It might just be my skewed observations, but it seems that most airline pilots are just happy to be rid of the GA scene. I might be in disagreement with them at times, but hats off to those who give of their time and resources in public GA organisations.
In many industries, the people progressing up the ladder also seem to involve themselves in furthering the industry they came up in. It might just be my skewed observations, but it seems that most airline pilots are just happy to be rid of the GA scene. I might be in disagreement with them at times, but hats off to those who give of their time and resources in public GA organisations.
Last edited by Lodown; 6th Jul 2005 at 14:33.