Race to the bottom
 

Toxic Management is an international aviation disease....

CNBC Travel

A toxic culture and ‘race to the bottom’: Pilots open up on why air travel is in chaos

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/air-...ne-errors.html

Seabreeze

To be fair it is not an international ‘aviation’ disease but a disease of modern corporate culture. Allowing upper management to enrich themselves off short term cost cutting KPI’s drives the behaviour that consigns all workers to ever worsening conditions.

Aviation is finished as a lucrative career in Oz. Only for the diehards and passionate lovers of it now.Those who have just started in airlines will have a good job don’t get me wrong, but will not enjoy the [relative] pay that those enjoyed in the past. Pay as we knew it is finished, there’ll be no more $400,000 plus a year for Airline Captains after new future agreements are negotiated. Before people come in and dispute my figures I’ve got mates in Qf who earn $440,000 on the 330 and over $500,000 if they’re in training [including super and allowances]. We’ve already seen 747 + 380 conditions eroded on the 787 and 350 awards. Those currently on the 380 and 330 and 787 at Qf are on the last of the best we’re ever going to see. We’re watching Network, Cobham, Jetconnect, Alliance etc, walk in and fly for half of what the Qf 737 crews get paid. Good luck to them, it’s a job offer and I’d take it too.

Yes it’s definitely a race to the bottom as airline executives pit work groups against one another to hire the cheapest labour they can. Things cannot get better they will only get worse. For those that might say a pilot shortage will change things; there are always stacks of pilots flying around the world willing to come home and fly for less. Rip aviation in Oz and great pay. Airline management has successfully seen to that.

Curiously, why does the Qantas 330 trainer earning 500k or SO earning 200k get quoted as including overtime, super, allowances etc etc.

Do people not bank super before seeing it, spend allowances on dinner and drinks, or refuse overtime? Or is it just a way to peacock?

Its always a mate or someone thats knows someone with a mate doing the quoting too, never the mate themselves.

It was asked on another thread and now I can't not notice it anymore.

Personally I don't consider myself to have any real control over what sort of overtime, bonus, allowances etc I get thoughout a given year so I dont get too fixated on it.

I only look at my take home pay after all deduction/car payments etc so really never compare to anybody really

If you lament the erosion of salaries to $500k I think you need a reality check.

why? What are you worth?

Absolutely - why do we undervalue what we do in comparison to other professions to our own detriment? We are our own worst enemies when we argue for things to go backwards.

That's because it's the top right hand figure on our payslips and includes everything. It's the easiest thing to quote.

I'm lamenting the erosion of salaries from $500,000 because we'll never see them again, despite inflation running away at 6% at the moment.

Pilots used to be compared to the pay scale of judges, now we're a shadow of that. Pilots used to have pays of many multiples of the average weekly earnings, now the multiples are shadows of that. When I say pilots I mean Captains in Qantas which used to be the only international airline in Australia, and I'm talking 60's through to the 90's. since then the contract has been downgraded and continues to be. I stand by my points in my initial post. Pilots at the top end of the industry in Australia are on the last of the good pay, it's a race to the bottom, and as others have said above why are we going backwards versus other professions, and why do we continue to accept it. Have some value about yourself man!!!!!!! We're in a highly skilled professional job with massive responsibility. Why talk yourself down, airline exec's with MBA's and straight out of Uni love hearing us devalue our profession. Divide and conquer in a race to the bottom, I'm glad I'm not starting off in the industry.

QF’s last 3 negotiated EBAs will see A350 and 787 skippers and A321 skippers (albeit at max hours) making $400k or close to it, so your “future” will have to be aircraft arriving here post 2040.

Really only for S/Os. Plenty of very good feedback from 787 CAs and FOs, no one in those positions stating their conditions have been “eroded”.

That’s definitely true.

And watching them as they walk out the door almost as fast.

Maybe that's the outlook management count on.

Funnily enough, I can’t find PJRUNe to verify that….

Debating pay is pointless, it’s market economics. The simple fact is that becoming a Judge is far harder than becoming a Qantas Captain (and please don’t quote time to command, thats a BS seniority issue). Lawyers take a pay CUT from being a QC or SC to be a judge.

Good on QF Captains for getting $500k, Pilots across the world should make the most of the current shortage, and lock it in.

There is however a certain irony to your lament given the constant whinging from QF Pilots about their executive pay levels… perhaps a cultural issue?

Some true some not.
Those four companies have base rates for captains of between $170-$195k. Is that HALF of a 737 captains salary? $340-$390k?
All four are certainly learning the folly now of not being an "employer of choice".

Only Network 320 and Jetconnect can be compared like for like to a QF 737 pilot.

A 717 and E-Jet/F100 are around 25-30% smaller so you’d need to account for the size difference when comparing pay.

You also have to remember the market is totally different to when those gold plated salaries were the norm. Many less people used to fly and when they did they paid a premium for it. Regulation ensured National Airlines had a monopoly on the gold palted money making routes and the number of pilots employed on the massive salaries were far fewer. Meeting an Airline Captain was rare. Now days the market has changed, passengers are plentiful but only because the low cost model has changes the game, margins are tight and the sale of onboard items like muffins make up viable cash flows for the airline. Salaries are lower but there are many more jobs for pilots. I went overseas in the 90’s as at that stage Air NZ had over 3000 CV’s on file with appropriately qualified pilots and were recruiting 20 ish per year. The fact is many did go overseas leading to a massive cohort who did enjoy good money making conditions and can afford to come back and work for less further dampening the ‘shortage’ that may or may not exist. Gold plated contracts are gone and only a massive shift in the travel habits of people will bring them back. The likes of Jetstar, Virgin, Jetconnect etc will NEVER pay those numbers.

Times have changed, pilots are not regarded as highly as they once were and in part it's true that the skills required to be a good pilot are no longer that higher standard. Just about anyone can be trained as a pilot now with reasonable judgement and hand eye coordination, and almost any working age group as well. So in broad terms the job is no longer the highly skilled occupation it was where you needed to be good on the stick and rudder or navigation skills and now is more of a technician working a piece of computerised machinery via a checklist and SOPs. You see the dumbing down every day where approaches are being dropped, radio calls seem to be talking to idiots (being told to hold short of runways you should know you have to), pilots refusing to do visual circuits or the SHEED arrival at Melbourne because its all too complicated, basic visual approaches and dealing with traffic and other airplanes seems all too hard.

So you then have to justify why you get paid this level of income to sit and watch a computer fly from A to B (public perception not mine). The whole glorified bus driver quip from a certain time stuck with the job unfortunately, so yes big paydays will never come back until there is a real sustained lack of pilots, but will that drive up pay? probably not, companies will just pack up, reduce schedules or just shut down to meet supply rather pay more. If GA is proof to the puzzle than companies rather go broke than pay more and look for ways to improve conditions, after all that would take effort.

So now you are all “Children of the magenta line” and you still want the same money as those who flew before its existence? Bean counters want a return on all that expensive new automation hardware and software.



-

I think using the “children of the magenta line” as an excuse for cheaper wages is a bit rich. Sure there is the reduced requirement for actual “flying” and that is something I definitely miss, but there are other aspects that we never really had to deal with when flying the classic noise makers.
Crew these days have a lot less operational support than we used to, every aspect of your flying is under scrutiny through a myriad of flight data reporting, the amount of traffic at airports has increased massively, ground staff etc are inexperienced, little support for management… the list goes on.
it’s a good argument to have over a few beers, but in the end crews today should have the opportunity to be remunerated to a comparable amount that crews have in the past, it’s just the complexities of the job that has changed, not the responsibilities.

Automation has far less risks, the historical data proves it. There are different risks, but airliners are far safer now than say in the 1970s, when there was a lot of handling accidents on large jets. Part of the reduced handling mishaps are due to better SOPs, but a lot is due to modernisation of approaches, aircraft equipment and ATS coverage. Planes tell you when they get too low, come too close to other planes and getting off course by more than a mile means serious pilot input error to the FMS, rather than just some slight miss tracking or DR between ranged NDBs. You also now have RADAR/ADSB watching you over most areas with alarms built into the system if you stray from plan/clearance. Major airports have sensors to tell ATC when you cross a hold line, etc etc... Then there's just general reliability of the machines and maintenance practices that means major failures are few and far between. Most air returns and shut downs are due to indication errors rather than actual component failures. And when you have a failure its now really not a struggle between man and machine to remain airborne, where early aircraft didn't have the design features or thrust in some cases to deal with problems with many more cases of overloading occurring.

Its very easy to see types that are not as 'foolproof' and have nasty traits, like the ATR, which has an abnormally high accident rate for that type of aircraft. Or some Russian or Chinese types that regularly appear in footage with some catastrophic failure, or fire.

Pre 1980s a Captain was paid to not only fly and command the aircraft but bare a lot of responsibilities on layovers such as making decisions given no or difficult communication with the company. Now you can call company from just about anywhere, and more modern stuff will communicate aircraft issues inflight before the crew know it, with engineering able to send crew alerts and so on.

On the Met side, pilots have ridiculous amounts of information at hand, from close to real time radar coverage of huge areas to satellite pictures, hundreds of automated weather stations, weather cams. If you seriously think that today is anywhere near as bad or worse than years ago you simply are not using the system.

With regard to pay, none of that matters, you get paid what the company offers and what you accept. Now if the accident rate started to go up, you would see some companies lift pay and conditions to attract better pilots as a result, as with recruitment standards and minimums going up. Thing is, the accident rate is very low and really non existent in most notable Airlines, so they see no need to have Chuck Yeager in the left seat anymore. We havn't even got to desperate airlines yet either, where they actually pay for mass cadet courses, then you know the pilot shortage is real.

Ollie Onion summed it best: The pie is now bigger, but the slices are smaller. Is that a bad thing?

Depends on perspective. Remember you might have been that guy earning 500k a year now like old mate on the QF A330 apparently (I've never met one though, only heard of people who know people who have), or you might have statistically never got an airline gig full stop.

Now i earn a lot less than a 500k salary a year, but I rarely fly at night, and rarely work more than 40hrs in a 28 day period, and don't take on any additional responsibilities. I am happy.
Have a contributed to a race to the bottom? I don't think its an apples and apples comparison anymore as the industry has changed in the last 40 years.

Infact, the entrie casualisation of the workplace means many of my non flying professional peers are either contracting, or employed on a tempory basis no matter the industry/job.

Moral of the story:
Things are changing, some for the better and others the worse. A headline grabbing salary doesn't tell the whole story however, and suggesting someone earning less than 4 or 500k is contributing to race to the bottom is ignorant at best, particularly as not all 'airline pilot' jobs are created the same as they may have been in the old days of the small pie.

Just as much as Robotic Surgeons should have their conditions reduced when compared to those still wielding scalpels...don't think so.
Just imagine surgeons being told to accept reduced conditions, or that shiny new operating table with state-of-the-art foot controls - the one that saves the hospital money - will go next door...:ugh:

We, as a pilot group have a lot learn from these doctors. The AMA is one of the most successful unions in the country and does not present as such. With input as far reaching as who gets in to medical school and who gets a treasured provider number. Strictly controlling the supply of doctors to maintain the profession, clever people.

Why would we be compared to a surgeon? We are not in the same league.

Maybe we are not...although I know of a number of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and Engineers who became career pilots - it is more an analogy of how we allow our 'profession' to be degraded as long as we get to play with the newest toys.

I'm sure Train Drivers are not chomping at the bit to have their conditions reduced every time a more economical train with increased pull capacity is introduced...or the surgeon's receptionist same for the absolute privilege of transferring from Windows to Mac.

Engineers scrap their mistakes
Surgeons bury their mistakes
Pilots are buried with their mistakes
CEO's get golden handshakes for their mistakes

Not in the same league academically perhaps, but I don't understand this desire to constantly put down the job of professional flying. I spent eight years in GA and then ten years in the right seat to gain the position of Captain. Eighteen years of apprenticeship is a fair amount in anybody's book. Not to mention all the exams, ground schools and simulator sessions. I have seen many struggle in the simulator over the years. Sure automation has made operating the aeroplane easier but the emphasis in other areas has shifted to being more demanding. Just keeping up with all the rules, regulations and bull-**** is more difficult compared to the seventies and eighties. In some ways a 727 is easier to fly than a 747-400, simple autopilot, manual thrust and a helpful flight engineer. The job has changed but still requires somebody with half a brain and real dedication.

There is a difference between putting down, and simply being realistic,

You are not a surgeon. Your job is not difficult.

Thank god for that. The amount of aircraft incidents would be extraordinary.

Find that an interesting comment. So slicing and dicing, generally the same way, every day, in the same non changing environment, with the responsibility of the one that's on the table becomes more difficult or less after a few years. Being simply realistic about the medical profession I am pleased that a lot of surgeon's are only in charge of one person at a time.

You are not a surgeon, but your work has its complexities and difficulties. A surgeon does a degree, a pilots licence when ATPL exams are included are certainly degree level education. Certainly similar levels of responsibility exist.

Again ridiculous comparisons. A surgeon is the top of the medical profession, comparable in Aviation to say only the very top positions, like say an A380 Captain or even C&T on the A380, or even skilled top test pilots in some cases. And then there are many variations to the average surgeon from the top Heart and Brain surgeon to the top plastic surgeon and who knows in-between. The vast majority of doctors are not surgeons. Just like the vast majority of commercial pilots are not A380 check and trainers. You can practice as a GP after 12 years or so of study and experience and earn between $100k-$400k depending on location, experience and clientele. Guess what, a commercial pilot will be earning between $100k-$300k easily in less than 5 years, depending on time to command and workload. Surgeons also work long hours fitting a number of surgeries in one day and then multiple consultations on other days, fitting in with OR vacancies depending on specialisation again, which might mean a number of back of the clock operations.

Same as comparing the job to plumbers. Which plumbers, apprentices, short term contractors, self employed contractors, plumbing business owners, plumbing supply owners.... The pay varies from $30k a year to infinite depending on how successful you are, as would the case of a self employed pilot who expanded their own business.

By the way a few NQR jobs in either the medical or plumbing industry and your name will be mud and good luck getting those gravy pays, if you avoid court actions. A few NQR flights will probably be swept under the carpet and you can keep piloting and flying with nobody knowing it was you.

The entire context of the post was missed - I guess that is why we are not surgeons.
The point is, name any professional occupation (or other for that matter), that will consistently sell down their own worth in order to operate the newest equipment on the market. Do plumbers charge less per hour when they arrive with state of the art carp-blockage-trackers?

Advance surgery techniques are different and may or may not reduce the pay return per surgery for a given surgery. That is the patient pays for the hire of the OR that has the equipment, the OR may charge more for the use of advanced equipment for the facility, not the surgeon. The surgeon may be able to do more advanced surgery which then increases the rate they may charge, or they maybe be able to do existing surgery faster, meaning less cost to the patient for their time, and they get paid less per surgery, but can perform more surgeries in one day allowing more income over the day. Everything is more complicated than indicated on here when comparing jobs. The new technologies in medicine either allow new procedures altogether or reduce the time or mess of existing procedures, which could actually reduce the time and cost to the patient. Whether the surgeon gets paid more or less is dependent on the technologies purpose. If the technology made something much easier than the specialists available to do it increases and the cost will reduce, meaning those surgeons will have to reduce rates on it and yes, lose income.

The motivation for surgeons to move to new technology is also as complicated. A surgeon that perfects a procedure on the new tech and gets known for less pain and recovery time will get more work and referrals. Some stick to the old ways and slowly lose clientele and can become critical of the new ways and bitter about it, just like pilots get bitter about not being hired for the newest and shiniest. "Oh don't beleive (x surgeons claims), yeah you recover faster, but his technique has higher rate of breakage and complications, my way takes longer, slower recovery but guaranteed better results" etc etc... or " I have access to the latest scanning robot thing, so everything is painless and fast recovery, parts are made in Germany not china, so your new artificial thingy will last X longer than B".

It takes something like 15 years of training to be a surgeon. You can take someone off the street and 18 months later, they're flying 240 pax down the ILS.

Do you really, really think the jobs are on the same level?

Put another way. You need an ATAR of 99.95 to get into medicine (which is just the first step of being a surgeon). Aviation degree requires 73. And you don't even need a degree. I certainly don't have one, but it didn't stop me being offered positions at Qantas, JQ, Virgin and others over the years. and as tossbag will enthusiastically tell you, I'm an idiot.

A reminder of the old adage: the surgeon doesn't go down with the ship when (s)he screws up!

A surgeon came to my flying school to learn to fly helicopters. He had long, delicate fingers and thin wiry arms. His arms were so thin that he could not pull himself up the side of the aircraft to inspect the rotor head. He could not hold the control forces of an R22 for more than a few minutes, and had to change to the B47 which had hydraulic controls.

He was absolutely useless as a pilot. He gave up after about 10 hours, never got to the hydraulics-off sorties, and went back to being a millionaire.

I am working on my third million dollars at the moment. I gave up on ever making the first two.

Yes but a career pilot doesn’t pop down to the local surgery school to get a few hours of cutting time as a hobby. Therein lies a fundamental difference.

The point I was making was that despite being a noted surgeon, with degrees up the gazoo, his physical skills were way different from what was needed to fly.

Comparing a pilot with a bare grade 10 to a surgeon is a waste of neurons. 105 hours to qualify as a pilot, 72 months for a doctor plus the years of extra stuff to be a surgeon.

Fair points but the other side of the coin is, you do not get to be check and training Captain on the newest bit of gear in 18 months. Think the jobs are the same level, of what? Dedication, motivation, desire to improve. Yes there are a lot of similarities. Don't recall the movie but the line was " I can teach you how to take out an appendix in 20 min. But it will take me years to teach you what to do if something goes wrong". Another similarity with flying. Yes they are apples and oranges but there are similarities.
As far as an ATAR goes that changes with the demand for that position. Like anything academia, if you have a great memory you can get a degree for anything. It does not necessarily make you good at that specialisation.

I didn't follow any of this. Plenty of boys and girls who secured jet commands inside 18 months when timing favoured them. There is no shortcutting the training requirements to be a surgeon.

I honestly can't believe you're labouring this argument. You're trying to equate a job that requires 15 years of tertiary and above training and qualification with something you can do as a year 10 drop-out, and do perfectly well.

There is nothing wrong with our job, but don't get carried away thinking it makes you special. You drive a bus. It's not difficult, it doesn't require a decade of training and nearly anyone can do it.

BTW, love that you think all that is required to attain a degree in pure mathematics is a good memory. Highly entertaining take.