Cruel to be kind
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guv, if B744 pilots are going to make the same as ATR pilots why not take it to its logical conclusion and include C150 pilots as well?
For that matter, it can then be logically followed that airline managers should make the same as McDonalds shift managers no?
I think one of us is missing something.
For that matter, it can then be logically followed that airline managers should make the same as McDonalds shift managers no?
I think one of us is missing something.
Paxing All Over The World
If I may, several points but first, Guv - Yes, to me as an outsider, I think that sounds about right.
a) It is stated that the UK gov will hand over some dosh to BA + VS for losses incurred when US airspace closed. As this was due to the incompetence of the CIA/FBI and the length of closure too long (IMHO), the US tax payer should have to pay for the shortcomings of their gov not us. Tell Washington to pay!
b) eeper: "... a great many of whom are PP24ers soon to retire. The flight operations salary budget will fall sharply over the next few years." The budget might fall but if they do not change the Ts & Cs, it will soon climb again. The Ts & Cs will be changed!
c) Reference to which profession uses 'buggins turn' for seniority. For many years the medical did. Hospital consultants sometimes (not always) climbed the greasy pole by age and years of service. This, however, is changing rapidly!
d) As to the takeover/merger debate: The alliances were made with a clear eye to future merger as international carriers. We can expect One World (and the rest) to be deeply involved in debate about this now.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
a) It is stated that the UK gov will hand over some dosh to BA + VS for losses incurred when US airspace closed. As this was due to the incompetence of the CIA/FBI and the length of closure too long (IMHO), the US tax payer should have to pay for the shortcomings of their gov not us. Tell Washington to pay!
b) eeper: "... a great many of whom are PP24ers soon to retire. The flight operations salary budget will fall sharply over the next few years." The budget might fall but if they do not change the Ts & Cs, it will soon climb again. The Ts & Cs will be changed!
c) Reference to which profession uses 'buggins turn' for seniority. For many years the medical did. Hospital consultants sometimes (not always) climbed the greasy pole by age and years of service. This, however, is changing rapidly!
d) As to the takeover/merger debate: The alliances were made with a clear eye to future merger as international carriers. We can expect One World (and the rest) to be deeply involved in debate about this now.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Dockjock,
Don't be a twerp. How many airlines do you know flying the C150? Guv was merely making the point that if you're flying a commercial aircraft with fare-paying pax then your duty of care remains the same whether it's a 747 or an ATR that you're flying ergo the rate of pay should be the same.
But, on reflection, perhaps pilots should be remunerated based on the size of aircraft they fly? So, a 767 pilot gets more than a 737 pilot, but less than a 747 pilot. That will work!
But hang in a minute, Concorde is much smaller than a 747, so how can we pay its pilots loads of dosh? Easy, we'll use cruising speed as the yardstick. Erm, but they don't fly for as long as 747, so could we use flight time as the denominator?
It all gets too complicated, so is a flat rate such an outrageous suggestion?
Don't be a twerp. How many airlines do you know flying the C150? Guv was merely making the point that if you're flying a commercial aircraft with fare-paying pax then your duty of care remains the same whether it's a 747 or an ATR that you're flying ergo the rate of pay should be the same.
But, on reflection, perhaps pilots should be remunerated based on the size of aircraft they fly? So, a 767 pilot gets more than a 737 pilot, but less than a 747 pilot. That will work!
But hang in a minute, Concorde is much smaller than a 747, so how can we pay its pilots loads of dosh? Easy, we'll use cruising speed as the yardstick. Erm, but they don't fly for as long as 747, so could we use flight time as the denominator?
It all gets too complicated, so is a flat rate such an outrageous suggestion?
