American Airllines pilots ask for a 53% pay rise.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF management assumes WE are a resource. Like fuel, electricity, spare parts etc.
WE have have almost no effect on the profit of the company and WE are a dime a dozen. Keeping aircraft safe, flying and on schedule is only a small part of running an airline whereas...
THEY are irreplaceable, THEY actually generate all the profit, THEY keep the money flowing. THEY have to be paid that much to attract the TALENT, to be competitive with all the other companies who pay their execs those amounts, because they work hard and THEY deserve it, because without them and "without the shareholders, we would be all out of a job."
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,
But hey, it's only $128,846.15 per fortnight in the hand,
that bloke from Macq Bank gets heaps more...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has some interesting reading in their defence of stratospheric salaries...
including this crock of ****e...
Sound familiar?
including this crock of ****e...
Executive wage outcomes also reflect a range of considerations for executives and their employers (particularly in Australia’s largest companies) which effectively distinguish them from the employment experiences of most Australians, and from award wage earners in particular. These include:
- Executives assuming a level of risk in their employment which is considerably higher than for most other employees, including award covered employees.
- The market for executive expertise is becoming increasingly internationalised, with Australia’s major companies increasingly needing to search overseas for executives.
- Executives making a very high level of personal investment in their education, skills and experience, which is often recouped only on promotion to the highest strata of executive employment.
Yep nice one!
The QF crew always compare their salaries to the top CEO's in multi nationals and say how they are not overpaid and that they are on average for the position. Meanwhile they compare their staff's salaries to china and say they are way overpaid.
If my memory serves me correctly United airlines pulled the same stunt and once things got slightly better all the execs jacked up their salaries while asking their employees for voluntary pay cuts.
Aircraft what is your take on the above post?? Replace the word executive with pilot and see what you get.
If people want to get mega rich they should do it through ownership, not through salaries. That was actually the original free market principles that western economies were built on!! The owners risk was higher and therefore was rewarded through profit (aka Bill Gates, Buffet, Branson etc etc)
CEO's these days can screw up completely and still get massive payouts.
The QF crew always compare their salaries to the top CEO's in multi nationals and say how they are not overpaid and that they are on average for the position. Meanwhile they compare their staff's salaries to china and say they are way overpaid.
If my memory serves me correctly United airlines pulled the same stunt and once things got slightly better all the execs jacked up their salaries while asking their employees for voluntary pay cuts.
Aircraft what is your take on the above post?? Replace the word executive with pilot and see what you get.
If people want to get mega rich they should do it through ownership, not through salaries. That was actually the original free market principles that western economies were built on!! The owners risk was higher and therefore was rewarded through profit (aka Bill Gates, Buffet, Branson etc etc)
CEO's these days can screw up completely and still get massive payouts.
Grandpa Aerotart
There is not an individual employee, and that is all Dixon et al are, on the planet that is worth more than $1 mill/annum.
Different deal if you own a business and it is highly successfull...more power to your arm because you actually have risked something.
CEOs are paid very well to use their talents and best endeavour to run a business...why on earth do they feel they are worth bonus' of the type they pocket just for doing their job? If they don't do their job well they should simply be sacked...that should be all the incentive they need.
In virtually every level of employee below management level there are VERY good, good, average and below average employees, as in life.
Usually the good, average and below average are recompensed equally while often the VERY good are indentified as being a threat, marginalised by politically adept but below average former employee/now lower management and eventually leave in disgust and frustration.
What a good system
Different deal if you own a business and it is highly successfull...more power to your arm because you actually have risked something.
CEOs are paid very well to use their talents and best endeavour to run a business...why on earth do they feel they are worth bonus' of the type they pocket just for doing their job? If they don't do their job well they should simply be sacked...that should be all the incentive they need.
In virtually every level of employee below management level there are VERY good, good, average and below average employees, as in life.
Usually the good, average and below average are recompensed equally while often the VERY good are indentified as being a threat, marginalised by politically adept but below average former employee/now lower management and eventually leave in disgust and frustration.
What a good system
Mr. Hat said:
If the airline could afford to give pay rises then this would be a meaningful question.
This is a purely philosophical question. In this world, workers are remunerated strictly according to economic factors, so you will, from time to time, see apparently gross disparities in salary between occupations.
It is not beyond the realms of the possible, for example, to see bus drivers on a salary of $100K with pilots of similarly sized aircraft on $50K. There won't be too many pilots that believe bus drivers should be paid more than them, but at the end of the day, those are just opinions.
We would all like our salary increases to keep pace with such things but regrettably, the aviation industry would rather see our salaries going in the opposite direction - and the aviation industry is very good at getting what it wants!
777Contrail said:
Aviation is not what it used to be! So, do you keep banging your head against the wall in frustration that you are not held in the same regard as your counterpart of several decades ago, or do you make a little adjustment to your perceptions of aviation?
Of course management would like to see the back of all pilots. They would like nothing more than a level of automation that would see no pilots at all on the flight deck. It is part of their job to look for ways to cut costs!
Chimbu chuckles said:
I don't believe that "something bad" will happen. I do believe there will be the odd "correction" that occurs from time to time, but overall, I believe commercial aviation will continue to follow the trend it has been on for more than 50 years now.
That trend, of course, is for ever more cheaper air travel for the world's people, and over the last decade particularly, a large slice of the reduction to air fares has come directly from reductions to pilot T&Cs.
Lodown said:
Problem is though, that the company is only profitable because the pilots are on the reduced T&Cs. Return the pilot's T&Cs to the 1992 levels and the company will be back at square one and looking bankruptcy in the face. Actually, just try to begin returning the T&Cs and the airline will go bankrupt!
I would doubt that the management, in making that deal with the pilots to stave off bankruptcy, were intentionally trying to stitch the pilots up. It could be said to have turned out that way, yes, but the deal was struck 15 years ago, with no consultation of the crystal ball and no doubt featured liberal doses of wishful thinking.
lesgo said:
Executive remuneration follows a very different arrangement to your package. A large component of the increases in that article would have been based on performance bonuses. It is only a matter of time before those airlines have a bad year, at which time those executives will be looking at reductions of the same magnitude.
I don't think you will be crying "me too!" then. In fact, with the media being what it is, I very much doubt that the corresponding article would make it into print - big drops to executive remuneration just don't get the public fired up like the big rises.
So Aircraft could you explain what is a fair deal in your book? 3%?
Do you think that an airline pilot should be paid the same as a nurse teacher bricklayer??
It is not beyond the realms of the possible, for example, to see bus drivers on a salary of $100K with pilots of similarly sized aircraft on $50K. There won't be too many pilots that believe bus drivers should be paid more than them, but at the end of the day, those are just opinions.
Do you think that given that houses are in some cases double and triple what they were 5-10 years that any correction to wages is required?
777Contrail said:
And yes, it's not just the money isue.
The way pilots are treated - that's the real isue!
We are seen as the trash needed to take the aircraft from A to B.
And for trash there's no respect, and you do not want to pay it any real money either. If only management can get rid of ALL pilots they will do so ASAP!
The way pilots are treated - that's the real isue!
We are seen as the trash needed to take the aircraft from A to B.
And for trash there's no respect, and you do not want to pay it any real money either. If only management can get rid of ALL pilots they will do so ASAP!
Of course management would like to see the back of all pilots. They would like nothing more than a level of automation that would see no pilots at all on the flight deck. It is part of their job to look for ways to cut costs!
Chimbu chuckles said:
So PAF/aircraft just how long do you think wages can go down in real terms for non management/pollies before something really bad happens?
That trend, of course, is for ever more cheaper air travel for the world's people, and over the last decade particularly, a large slice of the reduction to air fares has come directly from reductions to pilot T&Cs.
Lodown said:
Lo and behold, the company returns to profitability and back into the light, thanks in part to the voluntary sacrifices of the pilot body. So now the pilots would like to share in that success.
I would doubt that the management, in making that deal with the pilots to stave off bankruptcy, were intentionally trying to stitch the pilots up. It could be said to have turned out that way, yes, but the deal was struck 15 years ago, with no consultation of the crystal ball and no doubt featured liberal doses of wishful thinking.
lesgo said:
So why exactly can't WE get pay rises????
I don't think you will be crying "me too!" then. In fact, with the media being what it is, I very much doubt that the corresponding article would make it into print - big drops to executive remuneration just don't get the public fired up like the big rises.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australis
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the fact that year to year Pilot's don't have shareholders voting on their pay or whether they should keep their job.
The CEO can make decisions that effect profit (positively) to the tune of tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm yet to see a situation where we pilot's can do the same
Bloody fantastic system for all concerned
Grandpa Aerotart
The CEO can make decisions that effect profit (positively or negatively) to the tune of tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm yet to see a situation where we pilot's can do the same .
I dunno...you seen what a crashed jet full of pax costs lately?
J* have had what can only be described as, at least one, VERY close call just recently...that close call can be laid directly at the feet of innexperience and reduced/poor training.
The reason we are seeing such innexperience in jet cockpits is because growth has outstripped the availability of experienced pilots. Poor or reduced training is a result of innappropriate cost cutting.
Lack of availability of experienced pilots is partly to do with the perceived and real degadation in T&Cs and the status of the profession which is a flow on from the dumbing down that advanced technology has been perceived by beancounters to allow.
Unfortunately an A320/330/787 is not quite like other plant and equipment when it comes to 'dumb as a box of rocks'.
Grandpa Aerotart
I think that is a simplistic view...it doesn't take long for the actuaries to adjust rates for a company with a bad risk profile.
How long would CASA sit by without suspending an AOC for a company that was having accidents along the lines of what so nearly happened in ML and a litany of other less serious incidents that were attributable to a combination training standards and innexperience?
Then perhaps CEOs of airlines wanna be a bit more circumspect...if you don't call spiralling insurance premiums and Law suites from victim's families and regulatory restrictions on a companies ability to function 'financial peril' what is it called?
I don't want to sound alarmist but Australia's aviation industry can only be 'lucky' for so long....it was a safe as it was for many years not from luck but from high standards....now it is, in some segments, relying on luck. Because the industry is so small even 1 major hull loss with 150-200 fatalities will have a relatively enormous effect on any statistic the insurance industry, for starters, relies on for calculating risk worthiness.
How long would CASA sit by without suspending an AOC for a company that was having accidents along the lines of what so nearly happened in ML and a litany of other less serious incidents that were attributable to a combination training standards and innexperience?
You can't get insurance for a CEO running a company into financial peril.
I don't want to sound alarmist but Australia's aviation industry can only be 'lucky' for so long....it was a safe as it was for many years not from luck but from high standards....now it is, in some segments, relying on luck. Because the industry is so small even 1 major hull loss with 150-200 fatalities will have a relatively enormous effect on any statistic the insurance industry, for starters, relies on for calculating risk worthiness.
Grandpa Aerotart
I am not attacking pilots in Australia in any way shape or form..I think if you reread my post I said 'Industry'...an industry can't keep cost cutting without, eventually, the possibility of a result that wasn't intended. I am suggesting the trend is not positive.
Grandpa Aerotart
If you think I am gonna answer THAT question you're NUTS
I am simply suggesting that airline growth in Australia cannot continue without experienced pilots (edit: and engineers) to ensure that growth is a safe as reasonably possible.
Companies are shouting from the roof tops that we are in a pilot shortage crisis...the experience IS available but they, demonstably, don't want to pay for it.
Companies like Rex are the first being impacted, and so far the most vocal, but it WILL flow uphill.
How long do you reckon that is sustainable?
Take a look at all the threads on this type of topic and then sit back and take a holistic overview of where our industry is likely heading. There is a LOT of smoke out there...you betting there are no flames?
Because I am in the industry I hear more than you likely do in the RAAF...and WAAAYYY more than makes it on these pages..like I said, if you think I am going to post specifics on a public forum you're nuts.
I am simply suggesting that airline growth in Australia cannot continue without experienced pilots (edit: and engineers) to ensure that growth is a safe as reasonably possible.
Companies are shouting from the roof tops that we are in a pilot shortage crisis...the experience IS available but they, demonstably, don't want to pay for it.
Companies like Rex are the first being impacted, and so far the most vocal, but it WILL flow uphill.
How long do you reckon that is sustainable?
Take a look at all the threads on this type of topic and then sit back and take a holistic overview of where our industry is likely heading. There is a LOT of smoke out there...you betting there are no flames?
Because I am in the industry I hear more than you likely do in the RAAF...and WAAAYYY more than makes it on these pages..like I said, if you think I am going to post specifics on a public forum you're nuts.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 3rd Nov 2007 at 15:22.
Grandpa Aerotart
Well I think you should answer who or not make the claim!
And I agree with your last post completely...in fact taking a world view it is happening already...Australia is, as usual, dragging along behind the rest of the world...witness 85% payrises for ATCOs in the middle east and then view the AsA threads...bits and bobs of payrises happening for pilots here and there throughout the expat world as airlines compete for an apparently, constrained resource...and that will flow on in Australia when Australian airlines realise that they will have to compete with airlines in Asia and the ME..even EU, for the services of pilots and engineers.
CEOs suggest they are a world resource and must be remunerated accrdingly...well now so to are many other segments of Labour...notably in our industry pilots and engineers.
Going by the (admitedly extreme) example of CEOs I'd say that is a bloody excellent turn of events.
Grandpa Aerotart
By 'that reality' I meant that if people had to name names on this site or not post at all the site would implode....stop putting words in my mouth.
Nope....I'll never pipe in a say "I knew it"....that would be crass
Nope....I'll never pipe in a say "I knew it"....that would be crass
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys arguing over this is pointless.
Market forces will determine if there is a pilot shortage and market forces will determine if pay and conditions improve or airlines go out of business.
Pilot availability is an example of a market force.
Market forces will determine if there is a pilot shortage and market forces will determine if pay and conditions improve or airlines go out of business.
Pilot availability is an example of a market force.
Grandpa Aerotart
Potentiallyyes...depends on the experience of the fella in the LHS.
We have had in Australia fellas getting commands with 500 TT on type...on complex aircraft like A320s..after only small turboprop experience...do you think that individual matched with a 300 TT on type (or TT period) FO is an optimal situation?
We have had in Australia fellas getting commands with 500 TT on type...on complex aircraft like A320s..after only small turboprop experience...do you think that individual matched with a 300 TT on type (or TT period) FO is an optimal situation?
Grandpa Aerotart
No it does not mean that...airforce train for a different result...war fighting.
Expecting a military trained pilot, or any military trained individual, to drop seamlessly into civvy street after decades in the mil is not a realistic expectation....if it was there would not be shrinks making a good living out of de milling ex mill people....ok mostly that is for army
The RAAF trains a very small number of people to a defined and designed, for their purpose, standard...the result is a relatively narrow band...especially in peace time...I am sure you would admit the mil standards get a bit more latitude in times of war such as the Vietnam experience. People fail pilot course in the airforce.
In the civvy world VERY few people fail to get a licence....civvy flying schools just don't operate that way...an individual keeps paying and they keep training until he/she passes...even if only due luck on the day.
Very few pilots fail type rating courses when they are paying for them compared to airline funded in house type rating courses...simple fact of human nature...they figure an airline will sort them out or fail them later so don't want to feel guilty for inhibiting a paying customers career...a customer is viewed VERY differently to an employee.
The weeding out process that happens in pilot course in the RAAF happens in industry outside the RAAF...and in times of shortage that weeding out process is not as efficient as in times of plenty.
The standards band is not as narrow in civvy aviation...and in times of pilot shortage people can be promoted beyond there current skill level...doesn't mean they would never be suitable but most pilots benefit greatly for 3 or 4 years in the RHS watching how various scenarios are coped with...both well and not so well...by the captains they fly with.
Several years in a Kingair, 1 in the rhs of a complex jet and then command is a potential problem.
Expecting a military trained pilot, or any military trained individual, to drop seamlessly into civvy street after decades in the mil is not a realistic expectation....if it was there would not be shrinks making a good living out of de milling ex mill people....ok mostly that is for army
The RAAF trains a very small number of people to a defined and designed, for their purpose, standard...the result is a relatively narrow band...especially in peace time...I am sure you would admit the mil standards get a bit more latitude in times of war such as the Vietnam experience. People fail pilot course in the airforce.
In the civvy world VERY few people fail to get a licence....civvy flying schools just don't operate that way...an individual keeps paying and they keep training until he/she passes...even if only due luck on the day.
Very few pilots fail type rating courses when they are paying for them compared to airline funded in house type rating courses...simple fact of human nature...they figure an airline will sort them out or fail them later so don't want to feel guilty for inhibiting a paying customers career...a customer is viewed VERY differently to an employee.
The weeding out process that happens in pilot course in the RAAF happens in industry outside the RAAF...and in times of shortage that weeding out process is not as efficient as in times of plenty.
The standards band is not as narrow in civvy aviation...and in times of pilot shortage people can be promoted beyond there current skill level...doesn't mean they would never be suitable but most pilots benefit greatly for 3 or 4 years in the RHS watching how various scenarios are coped with...both well and not so well...by the captains they fly with.
Several years in a Kingair, 1 in the rhs of a complex jet and then command is a potential problem.
Grandpa Aerotart
I am saying there is a wider band of standards in civvy street than you're used to in the airforce.
Too you get people who's abilities vary just like the airforce...not everyone can be a fast jet pilot even though the airforce probably starts out with that as a criteria at initial selection. I bet you know pilots who made fast jet and then decided, or had it decided for them, that they were just not up to the very specific demands of that type of flying.
Perfectly capable in a transport but not a fighter.
And there are probably a few fast jet pilots who shouldn't be fast jet pilots...just like there are going to be a few airline captains who possibly have been promoted beyond there competency.
It's human nature.
Too you get people who's abilities vary just like the airforce...not everyone can be a fast jet pilot even though the airforce probably starts out with that as a criteria at initial selection. I bet you know pilots who made fast jet and then decided, or had it decided for them, that they were just not up to the very specific demands of that type of flying.
Perfectly capable in a transport but not a fighter.
And there are probably a few fast jet pilots who shouldn't be fast jet pilots...just like there are going to be a few airline captains who possibly have been promoted beyond there competency.
It's human nature.
Grandpa Aerotart
I am not going to speak to specifics...if you cannot peruse these boards and work out potential problem areas yourself you're not as intelligent as you seem...there are only about 8 threads on this page alone that display the concerns of various and sundry industry disciplines...plus it is past my bedtime.
Grandpa Aerotart
Here is something you don't read often.
Throughout my career I have never failed to be surprised about how little it would take to make people happy and how often companies fail to make that little bit of effort.
I remember in Talair when a new manager started fecking with peoples accom how unhappy people became...and some long serving and experienced pilots walked feeling devastated at being treated in such a manner after, in one case, a decade + of loyal service. All of a sudden he wanted to move pilots out of their houses so he could rent out the 'better' housing to outsiders. Leave aside for the moment that the compound had been built to house staff...out came a decree that all staff would be moved into houses 1 through XX...for many this was a move from houses they had been in for MANY years into houses that were too small for families, 3 bedroom to 2, or for single guys from 2 bedrooms into bedsits. All said manager had to do was nothing...just leave people alone, in this case, and they'd have remained happy and good employees...when it almost backfired he went as far as renumbering the houses to achieve what he wanted....why?
On another occassion tax laws changed giving the troops a potential payrise at no cost to company...the first in years...the company was going to reduce our gross as a result and, I am reliably informed, Dennis Buchannan only blinked at the very last moment due to the depth of feeling from CP down...why?
A bit of both. Hiring over here is fierce - it's a bit like it was in the '80s. Some regional airlines have hired in excess of 250 pilots in the last year, again partly due to expansion, partly due to folk moving on to bigger types. And that is REGIONAL airlines... I guess that is why I find NZ hiring figures somewhat underwhelming.
In our case, in order to attract new pilots, we are substantially increasing pay packages, which I am sure would be music to the ears of NJS pilots.
Our crews didn't ask for it - we just did it, because we recognise that we need to safeguard our workforce for the long term. In addition to that, we are also in the process of improving conditions - better hotels, friendlier rosters, more time off, better equipment in the aircraft, and so on. Again. we are doing this without being asked, for the same reasons. We take the view that we want to be known as a good employer, and we want our company to be a good place to work. Achieve that, and pilots will beat a path to your door... it is the part of the Southwest Airlines model that most low-cost operations conveniently forget. Our company ethos is to ensure that lifestyle is considered on an equal footing with profit.
Why, you might ask, would we do such a thing? Well, it comes down to the fact that for most pilots, once they have achieved a reasonable level of employment (say, their first jet), lifestyle issues start to dominate and the desire to fly the bigger jet starts to recede. Most pilots who have been in the airlines for more than five years are mostly concerned with lifestyle, once you get to ten years in the job, 90% of pilots are primarily concerned with lifestyle issues.
In our case, in order to attract new pilots, we are substantially increasing pay packages, which I am sure would be music to the ears of NJS pilots.
Our crews didn't ask for it - we just did it, because we recognise that we need to safeguard our workforce for the long term. In addition to that, we are also in the process of improving conditions - better hotels, friendlier rosters, more time off, better equipment in the aircraft, and so on. Again. we are doing this without being asked, for the same reasons. We take the view that we want to be known as a good employer, and we want our company to be a good place to work. Achieve that, and pilots will beat a path to your door... it is the part of the Southwest Airlines model that most low-cost operations conveniently forget. Our company ethos is to ensure that lifestyle is considered on an equal footing with profit.
Why, you might ask, would we do such a thing? Well, it comes down to the fact that for most pilots, once they have achieved a reasonable level of employment (say, their first jet), lifestyle issues start to dominate and the desire to fly the bigger jet starts to recede. Most pilots who have been in the airlines for more than five years are mostly concerned with lifestyle, once you get to ten years in the job, 90% of pilots are primarily concerned with lifestyle issues.
I remember in Talair when a new manager started fecking with peoples accom how unhappy people became...and some long serving and experienced pilots walked feeling devastated at being treated in such a manner after, in one case, a decade + of loyal service. All of a sudden he wanted to move pilots out of their houses so he could rent out the 'better' housing to outsiders. Leave aside for the moment that the compound had been built to house staff...out came a decree that all staff would be moved into houses 1 through XX...for many this was a move from houses they had been in for MANY years into houses that were too small for families, 3 bedroom to 2, or for single guys from 2 bedrooms into bedsits. All said manager had to do was nothing...just leave people alone, in this case, and they'd have remained happy and good employees...when it almost backfired he went as far as renumbering the houses to achieve what he wanted....why?
On another occassion tax laws changed giving the troops a potential payrise at no cost to company...the first in years...the company was going to reduce our gross as a result and, I am reliably informed, Dennis Buchannan only blinked at the very last moment due to the depth of feeling from CP down...why?
Adding to the Air Force Civvy street debate, is that the Air Force recruit a very very very small number of people compared to the civy market so they are able to pick and choose exactly who they want and train them to the standard, if they don't get that standard in the time required they are fired. I doubt you could apply the exact same standards to large volumes of intakes that is required right now.
If training in this country is going to be improved who is going to foot the bill? The airlines will argue they are not responsible; the pilots won't be able to afford it, and the government doesn't want to know.
If training in this country is going to be improved who is going to foot the bill? The airlines will argue they are not responsible; the pilots won't be able to afford it, and the government doesn't want to know.