Staff retention essential but business owners not prepared to pay for it!

[Sunfish]

Aircraft, yet again you get something completely wrong, in this case, the supply demand relationship (like most people)

The Supply Demand relationship relates the price people are willing to pay to the propensity of people to supply what they want to buy, not the other way around.

By your twisted logic, economic growth is impossible because by definition you are saying that all pay rises have to come at the expense of someone else, which is twaddle.

What started this thread was the assertion that companies cannot find qualified pilots at the prices that the company is willing to pay - which is a correct assertion of the supply/demand relationship.

Qantas must therefore raise the price it is willing to pay pilots in order to obtain its required supply of pilots.

The old employers lament is "I can't get any staff!", when what they are really saying is "I can't get any staff who are prepared to work for me for what I want to pay them."

As for the company perspective, if you cannot afford to pay for the labor you require to compete with your competitors, and yet they can, then you must be an incompetent manager, all other things being equal, and you deserve to go out of business.

Hint: Pay me $500,000 dollars per annum, and I will cheerfully drive a garbage truck all day every day (barring weekends)
Errrr, No!

[Stick Pusher]

I know how about stopping those rediculous low fares! $59 etc. i cant get a taxi to the airport for that just to start with! how about these marketing people absorb that cost. people will fly if they dont see that fair they'll go the next cheapest, at whatever mark u set it. and extra $10 on a fair i highly doubt they would know or blink at it. Everything else has gone up in the last 10 years (the good old dimmi for one has almost doubled! ) so why not a small increase to retain staff, attract staff, reduce training costs and keep your front line troops happy and get the best out of them....? ....really...


Cheers

SP

[aircraft]

Sunfish:

... you are saying that all pay rises have to come at the expense of someone else, which is twaddle.

Yes, all pay rises have to come at the expense of someone or something - or does money just grow on trees where you live?

[Fliegenmong]

Ho hum - school must be out...........

Do you write guest articles for the Governmant Gazette Aircraft??

[WynSock]

Same old chestnut.

• " We need our CEO salary so huge to attract the talent."

but...

• "We need to put continual downward pressure on costs (wages) to remain competitive."

I reckon QL for example has become rudderless. Shareholders come first? Employees last? Not a valid or logical way to continue the company in my opinion. Particularly for the long term.

But who cares, I've got my big bonus! Bye!

[Sunfish]

AIrcraft is assuming that there is zero economic growth, and also assuming that paying somebody to produce more for you is actually costing you more.

[wethereyet]

Aircraft, I'de really rather not let the thread get this low but you are a complete spastic.

Do you really think a nominal 20% payrise for both rex tech crew at the cost of approx $3/ticket, which is less than 2% of a ticket is really going to affect demand? I will tell you right now though that it would affect my decision and others to look for greener pastures... The costs of training and loss of experience which you seem unable to understand the value of don't seem to fit into your theory either...

[lowerlobe]

Go easy on aircraft...When you are at school and have no experience except reading text books and you want to be a company director like daddy you are going to have no idea.

[Danger Mouse]

"

Yes, many of these problems can be fixed by more money better rosters etc etc, but that is not our (line pilots) action to initiate."

Well heres a new thought for you, those of you who are not being lured away from the regionals by the big jets, who say you are happy in your job and would stay for the extra $$$ WHY DON"T YOU OFFER THE OPTION TO YOUR MANAGMENT! Why cant you initiate??? Do something great for your struggling industry!

Training pilot this pilot turnover costs lots not only in $$$ but in hardwork and frustration to see a newly trained pilot leave so fast. But why should regionals pay lots of $$$ to pilots who all leave for the big airlines anyway and cost the company lots of $$$ in training that the pilot leaves with only to give to the big airline for nothing.

[neville_nobody]

ever more cheaper and safer travel

Firstly you can't have more cheaper AND safer travel it's either one or the other. By cutting costs by definition you will be cutting safety. Qantas once upon a time used to have very strict MELs above and beyond what Boeing recommended. These days it's just absolute minimum, because the old MEL's were very expensive to upkeep to was considered unnecessary to maintain them. Sure it saved money but it is not safer.

Pilot wages are not going to go any lower because we are already suffering a pilot shortage and to lower the wages any more will only accelerate the pilot shortage.

Also Aircraft I am curious using your economic theories to explain how some of the worlds leading LCC (southwest, ryanair) manage to pay very high salaries yet are still running around with ridiculous airfares. Southwest have some of the highest paid pilots in the world and they have tens of thousands of people queuing up to work for them.

[aircraft]

neville_nobody:

Firstly you can't have more cheaper AND safer travel it's either one or the other.

I cannot believe how little you guys understand about your own industry. Your knowledge of it must come purely from the enroute flight deck discussions and what you read on PPRUNE!

Since 1945, has air travel become progressively cheaper? Spectacularly and dramatically so. I will be making a post devoted entirely to this subject soon.

Since 1945, has air travel become safer? A resounding yes. Surely it is not necessary for me to do a post on that!

[neville_nobody]

So Aircraft you think that SAFER to have items that once upon a time had to be repaired or you don't go; can now be u/s for a 15 hour flight over the pacific?
I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done, I am just arguing that as soon as you cut costs it IS becoming more unsafe.

The safest option is to have no MEL and as soon as something goes u/s it is repaired, however it is considered as acceptable risk to fly around with certain things broken. Whilst not necessarily dangerous it is not as safe as having the thing fixed in the first place.

Running an airline is a giant juggling act once you affect one thing that will then affect another. The art is to keep all the balls going around in the most cost effective manner.

Also the decrease in the cost of aviation that you allude to is through technological change in aircraft and reservation/internet technology is what really has pushed aviation along. What I am talking about is cutting costs by removing certain things that are deemed to be "acceptable risk".

[Hugh Jarse]

Hi Baxter,

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately there isn't a "tongue in cheek" emoticon here to attach to my last posting. I wouldn't for a minute suggest to Hoss that we get on the turps on an overnight Plus I haven't flown with him for over 2 years, and I believe he's a responsible parent and teatotaller now......

I seem to be the king of Dubbo at the moment (cringe), so maybe I should spend all those Dubbo Dollars on something nice for Mrs. Jarse God knows she deserves it....

[hoss]

I was only there a week ago and cleaned them out of Baileys, for the Missus of course. Just be careful the next the morning, the passengers look differently at you if the bottles are 'clinking' around in your overnight bag as you walk past.



ps. whats this business about me being a 'teatotaller', you know I prefer coffee.