The Future?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falling leaf.
The flying schools often hold out the carrot of the professional salary of a wide body captain to get business. We then have a flood of wannabies who will work for peanuts for a few years hoping to get that huge salary "soon".
That's why we have low salaries.
Some actually pay to fly. Many quit.
The flying schools often hold out the carrot of the professional salary of a wide body captain to get business. We then have a flood of wannabies who will work for peanuts for a few years hoping to get that huge salary "soon".
That's why we have low salaries.
Some actually pay to fly. Many quit.
Folks,
Is "flying" a trade or profession??
This debate in Australia has been around longer than I have been flying, and in all that time, I have only once come across something approaching a definitive judgment.
Many moons ago, we used to have an Arbitration Commission/Court, that set a "basic wage". There was a long list of trades, with sub-categories, with margins (more money) for "skills". Participation was not voluntary --- pretty much what the present Commonwealth government is trying to re-create, the "industrial relations club".
The old Airline Pilot Association (predecessor to the AFAP) tried to get out from under the strict wage scales, without success.
The Commission's categorization of "airline pilot" declared such to be:"The equivalent of a First Class Fitter, with a margin for skills".
It will indeed be interesting to see what the Government's new animal does for pilots, if anything.
Remember that the old Airline Pilots Association was dissolved to get out from under the Government imposed wage levels, and when the AFAP was formed, the then Government rather promptly established the Air Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, with the same result as the Commission, not allowing market price for pilot's services.
It seems to me that the division between "trade" and "profession" in Australia has largely been whether you were subject to legislative constraint as to remuneration levels --- a trade, or could set your own fees, either individually or via your professional association, as much as a professional association set the standards for entry to (membership of the association) "profession", as opposed to Governments setting the standards (CASA).
Tootle pip!!
PS: Remuneration has never been a measure of "professionalism", unless you believe being a crane driver on a building site, or the guy who drives the refueling rig up to your aircraft at a major airport is a "professional" --- both being paid more than most airline pilots in Australia, in may cases a lot more.
Is "flying" a trade or profession??
This debate in Australia has been around longer than I have been flying, and in all that time, I have only once come across something approaching a definitive judgment.
Many moons ago, we used to have an Arbitration Commission/Court, that set a "basic wage". There was a long list of trades, with sub-categories, with margins (more money) for "skills". Participation was not voluntary --- pretty much what the present Commonwealth government is trying to re-create, the "industrial relations club".
The old Airline Pilot Association (predecessor to the AFAP) tried to get out from under the strict wage scales, without success.
The Commission's categorization of "airline pilot" declared such to be:"The equivalent of a First Class Fitter, with a margin for skills".
It will indeed be interesting to see what the Government's new animal does for pilots, if anything.
Remember that the old Airline Pilots Association was dissolved to get out from under the Government imposed wage levels, and when the AFAP was formed, the then Government rather promptly established the Air Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, with the same result as the Commission, not allowing market price for pilot's services.
It seems to me that the division between "trade" and "profession" in Australia has largely been whether you were subject to legislative constraint as to remuneration levels --- a trade, or could set your own fees, either individually or via your professional association, as much as a professional association set the standards for entry to (membership of the association) "profession", as opposed to Governments setting the standards (CASA).
Tootle pip!!
PS: Remuneration has never been a measure of "professionalism", unless you believe being a crane driver on a building site, or the guy who drives the refueling rig up to your aircraft at a major airport is a "professional" --- both being paid more than most airline pilots in Australia, in may cases a lot more.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and many professionals don't earn so well either.
Interns (hospital doctors) work atrocious hours for a starting salary of about $45K pa, which is less than a public servant. This is after at least six years at university, normally more. Junior lawyers don't earn a very exciting salary either, and often work sixty hour weeks to get it.
The difference is that they can reasonably expect their salary to increase with experience, as can a tradie. In the current climate, pilots cannot assume that the same applies to them. If anything, conditions seem to be consistently getting worse.
Interns (hospital doctors) work atrocious hours for a starting salary of about $45K pa, which is less than a public servant. This is after at least six years at university, normally more. Junior lawyers don't earn a very exciting salary either, and often work sixty hour weeks to get it.
The difference is that they can reasonably expect their salary to increase with experience, as can a tradie. In the current climate, pilots cannot assume that the same applies to them. If anything, conditions seem to be consistently getting worse.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somersby NSW
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, it is not so much an issue of whether pilots are 'professionals' or not. It is kind of irrelevant. Here is the Oxford definition:
professional
• adjective 1 relating to or belonging to a profession. 2 engaged in an activity as a paid occupation rather than as an amateur. 3 worthy of or appropriate to a professional person; competent.
• noun 1 a professional person. 2 a person having impressive competence in a particular activity.
The only outstanding definition here, that can apply to any trade or 'profession' is the last one- 'impressive competence in a particular activity', which to me means it is irrelevant if you are a plumber or a pilot or a doctor or a mechanic. They can all be professional, in their conduct, competence, etc. Nothing special about pilots here.
What is special, unique and not recognised in the award and remuneration of aircrew is the level of responsibility and liability they carry on their shoulders. What other profession, trade, whatever is so strictly legislated and subject to so many items of 'Offence of strict liability' (LAME/AMEs included here)?
Police get full protection of the Crown if something screws up. Docs, lawyers have their associations, we have AOPA and the AFAP, who carry virtually no weight of influence in the political arena (not necessarily through any fault of their own).
Just my 2c.
This is not likely to change, ever, btw.
professional
• adjective 1 relating to or belonging to a profession. 2 engaged in an activity as a paid occupation rather than as an amateur. 3 worthy of or appropriate to a professional person; competent.
• noun 1 a professional person. 2 a person having impressive competence in a particular activity.
The only outstanding definition here, that can apply to any trade or 'profession' is the last one- 'impressive competence in a particular activity', which to me means it is irrelevant if you are a plumber or a pilot or a doctor or a mechanic. They can all be professional, in their conduct, competence, etc. Nothing special about pilots here.
What is special, unique and not recognised in the award and remuneration of aircrew is the level of responsibility and liability they carry on their shoulders. What other profession, trade, whatever is so strictly legislated and subject to so many items of 'Offence of strict liability' (LAME/AMEs included here)?
Police get full protection of the Crown if something screws up. Docs, lawyers have their associations, we have AOPA and the AFAP, who carry virtually no weight of influence in the political arena (not necessarily through any fault of their own).
Just my 2c.
This is not likely to change, ever, btw.
'Falling Leaf', you write well and put forward a good argument, but I still cannot understand your desire to lower the status of an Airline Pilot. You don't work for that oufit with no money, that walk through the terminal wearing no hat and tie looking like a chocolate vendor do you?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wessex19, exactly right, that's my point. All pilots can see is worsening conditions and less pay.
I just don't think the 'professional/non professional' wrangle is relevant and it draws focus from the real issue, which is the pay and conditions some pilots are prepared to work for. Clergy are one of the traditional professions and look at the reputation and pay they have. Many respected occupations are not traditional 'professions', such as Air Traffic Control (although they'd probably walk through the terminal in the nude, if you let them
). Successful property developers make more money than a doctor and lawyer combined, but are not professionals in the traditional sense.
If patients could pay $16 an hour for a cardiologist, you can bet your buns they would. However, cardiologists have a nice little cartel going, and none of them would work for that money. While the airlines have job applications by the hundred (I assume interest in recruitment has not declined?) and the accident rate remains low, there's no way they're going to increase wages without concerted industrial pressure. Why would they?
I just don't think the 'professional/non professional' wrangle is relevant and it draws focus from the real issue, which is the pay and conditions some pilots are prepared to work for. Clergy are one of the traditional professions and look at the reputation and pay they have. Many respected occupations are not traditional 'professions', such as Air Traffic Control (although they'd probably walk through the terminal in the nude, if you let them
). Successful property developers make more money than a doctor and lawyer combined, but are not professionals in the traditional sense. If patients could pay $16 an hour for a cardiologist, you can bet your buns they would. However, cardiologists have a nice little cartel going, and none of them would work for that money. While the airlines have job applications by the hundred (I assume interest in recruitment has not declined?) and the accident rate remains low, there's no way they're going to increase wages without concerted industrial pressure. Why would they?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 27th Jul 2009 at 02:34.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Falling Leaf', you write well and put forward a good argument, but I still cannot understand your desire to lower the status of an Airline Pilot.
I have spent 20 years in aviation, I have a degree, and was a commissioned officer. My career as an airline pilot (tragically for me) was paused in the smoke and ruins of SAW, and I'm still chasing 'the dream'. I always considered myself to belong to a Profession, and yet I am keenly aware (more so after reading LeadSled's post) that when it comes down to the correct definition of a 'Professional', I am not one. I was also reacting to comments such as:
these are professional people much like doctors or lawyers
I just don't think the 'professional/non professional' wrangle is relevant and it draws focus from the real issue, which is the pay and conditions some pilots are prepared to work for.
Nice to have an intelligent and interesting debate on this forum. Thanks.
'Falling Leaf', Sorry to hear about you and SAW. Things are starting to pick up here in Asia. The rot has stopped, loads are coming back and I think within 12 months something will come up. Good Luck .
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been guilty of thread drift, with our discussion on the P word, thought I would post this article to get back on topic; 'The Future'.
The following is adapted from $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better by Christopher Steiner, Grand Central Publishing (2009).
The following is adapted from $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better by Christopher Steiner, Grand Central Publishing (2009).
The world's airline executives stare at the very real possibility of disaster every day. If they don't outwardly acknowledge that they're living on leased time, they think it. They think it every hour of every day that they show up for work. Everything that airlines have done in the last five years--paring their workforces; charging for checked baggage; stripping away in-flight meals; raising mileage requirements for reward flights; asking $4 for a tiny package of Oreos; and generally thinking up fees for anything they can--has been done to offset the concrete baluster of fuel prices steadily dragging them toward extinction.
There has been no industry in the history of the world that has defied the simple laws of economics as long as the airline business. How do the major traditional carriers of the United States--United, American, US Airways, Delta, Northwest and Continental--survive year after year? American stock market investors have a strange affinity for airlines. The airline model, which, even in the best of times, has small profit margins, clearly loses relevancy with every cent gasoline goes up in price. Yet people seem drawn to airline securities, as if owning a few shares of United is somehow sexier than owning equity in Kraft or Coca-Cola.
It makes no sense. For the last eight years, all these airline companies have managed to do is lose money. Lots of it. Since 2001, the airlines have hemorrhaged $45 billion. Their fortunes in 2007 turned out decently, actually, when they turned a profit of $5.6 billion. But fuel prices smashed that party quickly, and the industry surrendered those winnings in 2008 when they spent $186 billion on jet fuel. Usually, when an industry performs this badly for this long, it either disappears or radically changes.
In 2003, a mere six years ago, jet fuel made up less than 13% of airlines' costs. When gas prices reach $4 a gallon, as they did for part of 2008, jet fuel makes up 40% of carriers' costs. That's an astounding number. Almost half of airlines' costs—including the price of planes, ground crews, pilots, insurance, airport fees, maintenance—comes from the hydrocarbons needed to keep these sleek, purring machines aloft. When gas reaches $8, carriers will be throwing down 60% of their operating costs for fuel. That cannot be sustained. The ultimate contraction awaits.
With $8 gasoline, the American domestic network will contract to 50% of its current size. Mid-size towns with decent air service currently, like Grand Rapids, Mich., and Dayton, Ohio, will lose most of their flights. A coast-to-coast ticket will cost closer to $1,000 than $200. Southwest and JetBlue will become the dominant domestic airlines in an age of $8 gasoline. Their elegant and lean operations will allow them to persevere through high oil costs. The lack of competition from giant money-losing airlines will allow JetBlue and Southwest to charge the premiums they will need to turn a profit at $8 gasoline.
Regional jets, those of the 30-seat variety, will disappear. There will no longer be 25 flights from Chicago to Cleveland a day. There will be two. And they will be on big planes. Flights of that length--350 miles or so--will be the shortest commercial flights available. If you want to fly from New York to Boston or from Chicago to Indianapolis or from Seattle to Portland, you'd better own a plane, because those kinds of short-hop commercial flights just won't exist. Technology such as video phones and satellite teleconferencing will further hasten the death of the short-hop business trip. Planes burn an inordinate amount of fuel just getting up to cruising altitude, so shorter flights cost more per mile. Few people will pay $750 for a 200-mile flight, so major air service between cities in the same regions will cease.
Airports now are far too big for a future of higher oil prices. Giant airports in Denver, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta and Houston will shut down more than half of their gates. Metros with more than one big airport, such as New York (JFK, LaGuardia and Newark), Chicago (O'Hare and Midway) and San Francisco (SFO, Oakland and San Jose) will consolidate their traffic into one field. Parking at airports will no longer be ridiculous. The hinterland lots, the ones farthest out from the airport, will be closed. The erstwhile short-term lots will be all that we need for our small cars.
There has been no industry in the history of the world that has defied the simple laws of economics as long as the airline business. How do the major traditional carriers of the United States--United, American, US Airways, Delta, Northwest and Continental--survive year after year? American stock market investors have a strange affinity for airlines. The airline model, which, even in the best of times, has small profit margins, clearly loses relevancy with every cent gasoline goes up in price. Yet people seem drawn to airline securities, as if owning a few shares of United is somehow sexier than owning equity in Kraft or Coca-Cola.
It makes no sense. For the last eight years, all these airline companies have managed to do is lose money. Lots of it. Since 2001, the airlines have hemorrhaged $45 billion. Their fortunes in 2007 turned out decently, actually, when they turned a profit of $5.6 billion. But fuel prices smashed that party quickly, and the industry surrendered those winnings in 2008 when they spent $186 billion on jet fuel. Usually, when an industry performs this badly for this long, it either disappears or radically changes.
In 2003, a mere six years ago, jet fuel made up less than 13% of airlines' costs. When gas prices reach $4 a gallon, as they did for part of 2008, jet fuel makes up 40% of carriers' costs. That's an astounding number. Almost half of airlines' costs—including the price of planes, ground crews, pilots, insurance, airport fees, maintenance—comes from the hydrocarbons needed to keep these sleek, purring machines aloft. When gas reaches $8, carriers will be throwing down 60% of their operating costs for fuel. That cannot be sustained. The ultimate contraction awaits.
With $8 gasoline, the American domestic network will contract to 50% of its current size. Mid-size towns with decent air service currently, like Grand Rapids, Mich., and Dayton, Ohio, will lose most of their flights. A coast-to-coast ticket will cost closer to $1,000 than $200. Southwest and JetBlue will become the dominant domestic airlines in an age of $8 gasoline. Their elegant and lean operations will allow them to persevere through high oil costs. The lack of competition from giant money-losing airlines will allow JetBlue and Southwest to charge the premiums they will need to turn a profit at $8 gasoline.
Regional jets, those of the 30-seat variety, will disappear. There will no longer be 25 flights from Chicago to Cleveland a day. There will be two. And they will be on big planes. Flights of that length--350 miles or so--will be the shortest commercial flights available. If you want to fly from New York to Boston or from Chicago to Indianapolis or from Seattle to Portland, you'd better own a plane, because those kinds of short-hop commercial flights just won't exist. Technology such as video phones and satellite teleconferencing will further hasten the death of the short-hop business trip. Planes burn an inordinate amount of fuel just getting up to cruising altitude, so shorter flights cost more per mile. Few people will pay $750 for a 200-mile flight, so major air service between cities in the same regions will cease.
Airports now are far too big for a future of higher oil prices. Giant airports in Denver, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta and Houston will shut down more than half of their gates. Metros with more than one big airport, such as New York (JFK, LaGuardia and Newark), Chicago (O'Hare and Midway) and San Francisco (SFO, Oakland and San Jose) will consolidate their traffic into one field. Parking at airports will no longer be ridiculous. The hinterland lots, the ones farthest out from the airport, will be closed. The erstwhile short-term lots will be all that we need for our small cars.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What future ?
Have a read of the article posted by Falling Leaf and then go back to the original link at the start of the thread.
Oz will head down the same path and aviation will slowly be left to die in this country.
Why do I think this?
1. We are running out of oil and without it, and the cheap stuff, there is no long term option for avaition. Forget bio-fuel and all the other crap, there is no alternative and as the stuff that makes planes fly becomes less and less, guess which industry which be allowed to die off.
2. The CEO's and the bean counters all know this and they are ripping the guts out of everything they can to make a profit while it lasts, then get out of the game. Have a look at the CEO's bailing out of airlines. They are also very aware that they will find pilots who will fly, because they love it.
3. No investment in aviation. How long can Boeing and Airbus afford to make planes (maybe outsource to China for a while)? Are any Governments investing in aviation ? How much did our Government allocate in the National Infrastructure Program, that we will be in billions of debt for? What did aviation get? Nothing.
4. Greenies. Its only a matter of time before they get their way and start to have an impact on aviation.
The glory days of aviaton are gone and may not be back. I hear what DrinkSleepFly&repeat is saying, I made the choice to ditch a flying career for very similar reasons a long time ago. I'm still involved in aviation but its sad to say that I made the right choice for myself and my family a long time ago.
I still love flying but I can't see a future in it beyond the next decade or so. Maybe our future pilots will have a lot in common with cab drivers.
I hope I'm wrong.
Oz will head down the same path and aviation will slowly be left to die in this country.
Why do I think this?
1. We are running out of oil and without it, and the cheap stuff, there is no long term option for avaition. Forget bio-fuel and all the other crap, there is no alternative and as the stuff that makes planes fly becomes less and less, guess which industry which be allowed to die off.
2. The CEO's and the bean counters all know this and they are ripping the guts out of everything they can to make a profit while it lasts, then get out of the game. Have a look at the CEO's bailing out of airlines. They are also very aware that they will find pilots who will fly, because they love it.
3. No investment in aviation. How long can Boeing and Airbus afford to make planes (maybe outsource to China for a while)? Are any Governments investing in aviation ? How much did our Government allocate in the National Infrastructure Program, that we will be in billions of debt for? What did aviation get? Nothing.
4. Greenies. Its only a matter of time before they get their way and start to have an impact on aviation.
The glory days of aviaton are gone and may not be back. I hear what DrinkSleepFly&repeat is saying, I made the choice to ditch a flying career for very similar reasons a long time ago. I'm still involved in aviation but its sad to say that I made the right choice for myself and my family a long time ago.
I still love flying but I can't see a future in it beyond the next decade or so. Maybe our future pilots will have a lot in common with cab drivers.
I hope I'm wrong.
still love flying but I can't see a future in it beyond the next decade or so. Maybe our future pilots will have a lot in common with cab drivers.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CEO's and the bean counters all know this and they are ripping the guts out of everything they can to make a profit while it lasts
I have been reading for the past 3 days hundreds of posts (Terms of Endearment etc) about Terms & Conditions, and IMHO the vast majority of people in this industry have not made the connection between T&C and the oil price over the past 10+ years.
IMHO there is a simple, and direct correlation. As oil prices increase, T&C must decrease! To maintain a profit, every extra $ spent on AVGAS needs to come from somewhere, and after all the 'efficiency' drives and 'outsourcing' is already done, then staff's paypacket/pension fund etc is the only place to get it (is not the LCC model a result of increasing oil prices?), unless of course you want to try and increase ticket prices...
Airline profit has been marginal, even in the best of times (remember oil averaged under 25USD bbl during the 1990's). Many commentators have stated that airlines are not structured to survive with oil above $60 bbl. Well, its above that again. And look at what a wrecking ball oil above $60 bbl was last year throughout the global industry.
I have said it multiple times on other posts, Aviation is an industry in decline. If you are willing to continue here (love of flying or whatever else is your motivation), you have to accept the inevitable decline in T&C, job prospects, etc. As airlines relentlessly cut costs to pay for AVGAS, expect more paying for TR's, Jepps, travel, even flying! Look at what has already been lost compared to T&C 20 years ago!
The only ray of sunshine on the horizon, aside from whatever 'recovery' we will see from the current recession, is that with the global debt bubble now well and truely popped (and with it access to easy credit), and with the industry becoming more and more unattractive to Newbies (who have less access to $$ to self fund training/TR/hours), there may be less people chasing the decreasing number of jobs.
Also, without being an expert on demographics, the retiring wave of baby boomers may lead to an overall reduction in pilot numbers (interesting to note on the QF threads the anger directed at Captains over 60).
Its now a game of keeping your existing job, not getting one, as new positions are unlikely to be created.
Good Luck.
