Jon Stewart and Sullenberger on Pilot's wages...
 

Impressive
 

Thanks 4D Enjoyed it all.

He hit the nail right on the head!

Sadly it'll take a hull loss for HKA or Cx before their greedy managers realise the truth in that. Even then, they'll blame the pilots......it'll never be a management fault.

Just put the damn tabs back in the book!!!

Well done.

Sully is an asset to the aviation business. He has almost entirely dedicated his '15 minutes of fame' under the media spotlight to fight a worthy cause for the entire industry and to help his own kind.

I know there are many others out there which would have done the same in his situation and I am proud of calling people like them my colleagues.





...Ok, so he made a few bucks and got a book deal too....
:E

Mass D it is probably before your time but we had a senior pilot manager some years ago who stated, "We can afford a hull loss...".

A wise chairman might have sacked him for such a statement but he retracted and stayed for a while before moving on to another jurisdiction.

I suspect that somewhere in every airline there is a number cruncher who works to the same deplorable standards of morality.

Back to the thread. Yes Sully has energised the pilot debate in the US, and I think the congressmen that he has addressed fly frequently enough to try to improve the appalling system that exists today.

two thumbs up!

"Sadly it'll take a hull loss for HKA or Cx before their greedy managers realise the truth in that. Even then, they'll blame the pilots......it'll never be a management fault."

Are you seriously lumping CX/KA pilots into the same basket as USAir. Sully probably earns between one half to one third that CX/KA skippers do.

Do you really think things are so tough in the harbor of fragrance that a hull loss is just around the corner?

Get a grip.

sounds like some of our crew are complacent, a hull loss could happen to the best of us. Take Sullys scenario for instance.

AnQrKa-- 2 tumbs up..:ok::ok: ..CX/KA pilots crying for money is shameful.

Leftwing

It's :mad: like you that lower that standards for everyone else.

Obviously you don't pride yourself on the effort and hard work it takes to become an airline pilot. Or did Daddy pay for your licence?

You deserve the sh!t pay you get.

Anqrka

Where did I compare USair pilots with CX? If you can read and understand english properly, its a stab at management of CX and HKA (not KA).

So Vitriolic
 

Anqrka, usually 99% I agree with you, but not on this one. This isnt about salaries in the Harbour, agreed. However, do you think the move towards 3 man ULH is safety driven or dollar driven? Do you think introducing LH procedures that have 'stood the test of time' but have questionable relevance to SH, and a move away from manufacturer recommended SOPS is safety driven or dollar driven, and during the introduction of those procedures, do you think your situational awareness was increased or decreased? Now that the hangover of drinking from the fire hose of learning, we are seeing an improvement or drop in standards as the guys are just exhausted by 'change saturation'? On the engineering front do you think the move to allow mechanics to sign intransit checks, but not having to sign their name so that a paper trail no longer exists is a move towards safety, or driven by the dollar because we cant attract engineering staff?

Would it be fair to say that 'it cant happen to us because we are paid ok' relative to what other operators pay, that is to say we are most at risk, when we go around saying it cant happen to us. Its not our pay packets, its what is happening around us that should be waving red flags. Mass has a point, the industry as a whole 'IS' less safe when regulators sign off on commercial pressures. The industry is less safe when companies think they know better than the manufacturers on how to operate aircraft. The industry is 'less safe' when fatigue management is ignored, and the industry is 'less safe' when money is sapped from engineering to line the pockets of investors and managers in the short term, "this quarter results" style management.

Cheers.

Denial is a powerful thing.

You guys really believe that if Sully here was payed a trillion dollars a year, and had to do just one day trip a month, and his jet was maintained like Air Force 1, these birds woudn't have hit them? C'mon.

Hull loss is a statistical inevitability. All we can do is hope, that we wouldn't be in that hull when it happens. Want 100% aviation safety? Don't try to fly.

CX is a reputable carrier, no doubt, but we have lost airplanes in the past, can't ignore that.

LowKoon , well done, totally agree :ok:

T101, Sully wasn't saying that, and neither are we. If you think his entire speech was about the safety implications of a single event bird strike on that particular day, then you maybe missed the whole point he was trying to make. The industry wide degradation of terms and conditions is just one of the symptoms of an even bigger problem.

The problem is that those who are responsible for implementing safety improvements are remunerated more in the form of a bonus if they don't implement the safety improvement, simply because safety costs money. Think about it, when was the last time you can remember a safety enhancing system or procedure that was introduced and paid for that wasn't legislated by one of the countries we fly to, and a requirement imposed my them, or something that the manufacturers had to implement themselves, in the form of an 'extra' included in orders or something that they were pressured into by the unions, public or other operators? Scratching your head? Now try and think of an example of where management actively set out to reduce safety in a blatant effort to increase profits? Both their own personal remuneration and that of the 'group'? I mentioned 3 recent ones in my previous post. This is what Sully is actively and openly referring to.

Stupidity is expecting managers to improve safety (ie spend money in a way that can not be statistically quantified to accountants) when their own remuneration is derived by them not spending the money. This is the ultimate source of the problem. Think of the childhood game "kerplunk". Needles are pulled out of a cylinder, and marbles sit above these needles. The aim of the game is to pull as many needles out, before the marbles fall. Management get to play this game blind folded. They get a bonus for each needle they pull out, but they don't know how many marbles are balanced precariously above the needle they are pulling on. The inevitable hull loss you mention becomes more inevitable while this fundamentally flawed system remains in place.

Well said.

4 minute speech at ALPA awards banquet. Well worth watching.

ALPA Channel Player > August 6, 2009 ? Capt. Chesley ?Sully? Sullenberger at the ALPA Awards Banquet

ALPA speech
 

Very gd speech in particular from 3:20 onwards.

Ie Our promise to operate with great care & preparation etc..

I have certainly noticed some pilots have lost track of this.

You could argue many ways as to why..

At the end of the day it is the Governments & the airlines responsibility to ensure
that in the long term those pilots with strong integrity & assertive personalities are maintained and nurtured.

Dismissing those that stand up for what is wrong, unjust and unsafe. (49's) Then using that to manipulating others that remain will certainly change the very core of the future of those that remain.

At the same time cutting costs in maintenance, shortcuts in training, and messing with FTL (Fatigue) and then ultimately HR continually changing career paths / contracts & remuneration & other benefits adds fuel to the already unstable fire of ever changing personalities of those that operate aircraft.

Sadly, it is unlikely that the majority of consumers will realize this and put more pressure on Gov & Operators to change their ways. As long as not more than a constant percentage of planes fall out the sky & ticket prices are affordable to ensure bums fill seats most will be happy.

What happened the no1. Priority SAFETY FIRST! :sad:
Always aiming to improve etc..