Very poor pay offer for jmc pilots
Guest
Posts: n/a
OzDude--
Wrong again, old chap. Middle tier manager, you say? Try Chief Operating Officer with 35% ownership of the company. And this after 35 years line flying, and still line flying. We are a very small company and will stay that way by choice rather than by chance. The profit picture at airlines can be very deceiving in good years, pilots look at the bottom line and say....."where's my cut?". Ever hear of "retained earnings" to cover unexpected business downturns?
I wonder if in the very lean years these pilots would also like to "contribute" to the bottom line so as to enable the company to keep trading. Aircraft lease payments (to name just one item) suddenly do NOT stop simply because they sit idle on the tarmac.
Delta pilots a few years ago agreed to accept less during the recession of '91-92 and today find that that are rewarded with the best contract in the industry. Co-operate and graduate or, find yourselves out in the street like the Atlas guys, or for that matter, the OZ guys in '89.
Wrong again, old chap. Middle tier manager, you say? Try Chief Operating Officer with 35% ownership of the company. And this after 35 years line flying, and still line flying. We are a very small company and will stay that way by choice rather than by chance. The profit picture at airlines can be very deceiving in good years, pilots look at the bottom line and say....."where's my cut?". Ever hear of "retained earnings" to cover unexpected business downturns?
I wonder if in the very lean years these pilots would also like to "contribute" to the bottom line so as to enable the company to keep trading. Aircraft lease payments (to name just one item) suddenly do NOT stop simply because they sit idle on the tarmac.
Delta pilots a few years ago agreed to accept less during the recession of '91-92 and today find that that are rewarded with the best contract in the industry. Co-operate and graduate or, find yourselves out in the street like the Atlas guys, or for that matter, the OZ guys in '89.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Flybyvelcro
As one of the 'whinging charter pilots' - just returned from a long night trip - a bit
knackered - may I ask one or two questions.
This 4.5k take home you are on about. Is this
your gross pay or your net pay - does it
include flight/sector pay, pension contribution, medical insurance, loss of
licence cover, holiday concessions etc etc.
Do you really have to buy your own uniform
and sandwiches. Does the company pay for medicals and licence renewal ?
I'm not entering any arguements about the
why's and wherefores about Charter versus
Low-cost or BA versus the rest - just a little interested in the make-up of your
quoted figures.
As one of the 'whinging charter pilots' - just returned from a long night trip - a bit
knackered - may I ask one or two questions.
This 4.5k take home you are on about. Is this
your gross pay or your net pay - does it
include flight/sector pay, pension contribution, medical insurance, loss of
licence cover, holiday concessions etc etc.
Do you really have to buy your own uniform
and sandwiches. Does the company pay for medicals and licence renewal ?
I'm not entering any arguements about the
why's and wherefores about Charter versus
Low-cost or BA versus the rest - just a little interested in the make-up of your
quoted figures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, my cynicism stems from my experiences of my company where during a lean period, we the pilots agreed to a pay cut, and quite a sharp one at that but over the last seven years not once has the company offered to restore our pay and conditions to what it would have. What we have seen is the company record record profits year on year yet offer pay increases in-line with the cost of living index or below.
Now the company has expanded and the management are still wondering how come the majority of pilots voted to be represented by their union in pay negotiations. Most of the management are alright but unfortunately a few of the higher up ones have adopted methods which are underhand and devious and the middle management tier are all on bonus schemes which undercut everything to the lowest common denominator and udermine everything those of us working at the front end try to keep at a high level of safety and quality.
Those middle tier managers will get their bonuses, move on up the corporate ladder or to a different company and those of us left at the 'coal face' will have to try and manage to keep everything running and the customers satidfied whilst we have second rate services provided by contractors. The low salary, high bonus, method appears to engender greed and not better quality. Add to this the inevitable empire building and corporate backstabbing that appears to be a part and parcel of this new corporate structure and philosophy of farming out every concievable service and all you are left with is a management that is temporary, greedy and more interested in their bonuses than the overall health of the company.
So those of you who want to support the likes of people who think we should just sit back, be grateful that we have a job that we enjoy and earn more than most people, you are obviously management material for the new corporate thinking of the 21st century.
As has been shown by the replies, those that think that way are all in management. Need I say more?
Now the company has expanded and the management are still wondering how come the majority of pilots voted to be represented by their union in pay negotiations. Most of the management are alright but unfortunately a few of the higher up ones have adopted methods which are underhand and devious and the middle management tier are all on bonus schemes which undercut everything to the lowest common denominator and udermine everything those of us working at the front end try to keep at a high level of safety and quality.
Those middle tier managers will get their bonuses, move on up the corporate ladder or to a different company and those of us left at the 'coal face' will have to try and manage to keep everything running and the customers satidfied whilst we have second rate services provided by contractors. The low salary, high bonus, method appears to engender greed and not better quality. Add to this the inevitable empire building and corporate backstabbing that appears to be a part and parcel of this new corporate structure and philosophy of farming out every concievable service and all you are left with is a management that is temporary, greedy and more interested in their bonuses than the overall health of the company.
So those of you who want to support the likes of people who think we should just sit back, be grateful that we have a job that we enjoy and earn more than most people, you are obviously management material for the new corporate thinking of the 21st century.
As has been shown by the replies, those that think that way are all in management. Need I say more?
Guest
Posts: n/a
A friend of mine runs his own dental practice. He came out with a truism. It is the duty of management to get as much work from its employees for as little money as possible. It is also incumbent on the workforce to get as much money as they can for as little work as is acceptable.
In my 25 years flying, I have been with two airlines that have gone bust. In neither case was pilots salaries anything to do with their demise.
Pilots should aim to earn as much as they can, using a strong union as their negotiating tool.
In my 25 years flying, I have been with two airlines that have gone bust. In neither case was pilots salaries anything to do with their demise.
Pilots should aim to earn as much as they can, using a strong union as their negotiating tool.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bourbon, don't wonder too hard, we wouldn't want you to strain yourself now would we?
I'll try to answer the question as you obviously are impatient for my thoughts but as I am about to go off on a trip and as far as I am concerned the question is not a particularly well thought out one or relative but here goes:
WTF has a comparison between the CEO's salary and the pilots got to do with anything? 
If I ran an airline I'd make sure I employed competent managers who were worth their salaries and I'd pay the pilots whatever it took to keep them happy and loyal. I wouldn't try to lower everything to basic costs. To get quality you have to pay for it but in the long run quality lasts a lot longer.
A pilot workforce that believed they were getting paid their worth would be much more productive than a workforce that felt deceived and alienated when they saw a sham management who didn't fully understand the consequences of their cheapskate decisions.
I fully inderstand that profits for shareholders is important but as a shareholder I also understand how a poor management who increase the short term profits without an understanding of how the future will pan out is more than likely to end in failure. Just look at the Cathay situation. Pay cuts followed by record profits and now more pay cuts in prospect. Share price still down in the doldrums and a strike looming.
The final part of my answer though is that I would not become a manager because I don't have the skills but I do see the effects of poor management every day. I see our ground handling being farmed out to the lowest bidder and now all I get is poor turnaround times and disgruntled pax. Yes the company probably saved a couple of thousand dollars a year but we probably lose 50 times that in pax that won't book with us again because of the crap handling and delays caused by it. I have no doubt though that the bright spark that made the decision to go for the cheapest option received their bonus for ending their financial year with a bit to spare in their budget.
To put it into terms you might be able to comprehend, it is not a case of the pilots trying to screw the company for as much as they can get but to be paid as much as is necessary to feel appreciated for the work we do with the skills we provide and in return we would be as productive as possible. It all comes down to quality in the end.
I'll try to answer the question as you obviously are impatient for my thoughts but as I am about to go off on a trip and as far as I am concerned the question is not a particularly well thought out one or relative but here goes:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If you ran an airline, what would your philosophy be on pilots'pay? How would your (CEO's)salary compare with a line captain's?</font>
If I ran an airline I'd make sure I employed competent managers who were worth their salaries and I'd pay the pilots whatever it took to keep them happy and loyal. I wouldn't try to lower everything to basic costs. To get quality you have to pay for it but in the long run quality lasts a lot longer.A pilot workforce that believed they were getting paid their worth would be much more productive than a workforce that felt deceived and alienated when they saw a sham management who didn't fully understand the consequences of their cheapskate decisions.
I fully inderstand that profits for shareholders is important but as a shareholder I also understand how a poor management who increase the short term profits without an understanding of how the future will pan out is more than likely to end in failure. Just look at the Cathay situation. Pay cuts followed by record profits and now more pay cuts in prospect. Share price still down in the doldrums and a strike looming.
The final part of my answer though is that I would not become a manager because I don't have the skills but I do see the effects of poor management every day. I see our ground handling being farmed out to the lowest bidder and now all I get is poor turnaround times and disgruntled pax. Yes the company probably saved a couple of thousand dollars a year but we probably lose 50 times that in pax that won't book with us again because of the crap handling and delays caused by it. I have no doubt though that the bright spark that made the decision to go for the cheapest option received their bonus for ending their financial year with a bit to spare in their budget.
To put it into terms you might be able to comprehend, it is not a case of the pilots trying to screw the company for as much as they can get but to be paid as much as is necessary to feel appreciated for the work we do with the skills we provide and in return we would be as productive as possible. It all comes down to quality in the end.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As all our politicians seem to keep reminding us it is vital that we remain at the heart of the European Union. I'm sure that we have seen some benefits from that membership already! But I was just wondering if it would allow us, from a legal perspective, to join a union from another country (which seems to have more success than the present union in the UK). Or for that matter whether any of the more successful European unions might want to encourage membership from different countries if their airlines have interests there?
Any views?
Any views?
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those of you that feel the need to accept low pay rises, let me explain why it is important to ensure that you make hay whilst the sun shines.
It takes a great deal of time, effort, and money to become a commercial pilot. There is no easy way. Very few obtain sponsorship to achieve their goal, and even if you do, it involves about 18 months hard study with little or no income, usually followed by a period of employment at a reduced salary. There is no easy way to become a commercial pilot.
I progressed through the flying instruction route. For reasons outside my control the economy took a nosedive in the early 1990s (I did not vote for the Conservatives). This was co-incident with my obtaining my first professional licence (a BCPL) and instructor rating. Saddled with several thousands of pounds of debt, I could not get any work flying for several months. I drove round flying schools, wrote to everyone in the universe, yet still no work. On several occasions I was asked "Will you work for nothing?". I never considered this option as I believe that no professional pilot should stoop so low. Eventually I cane across some work on a hourly flying rate, and progressed until I financially had to find a proper job.
When my experience allowed, I upgraded to a CPL/IR with a frozen ATPL. Now I had a proper licence and was in the market for a proper job. So, what were the employers offering at the time? Cityflyer a £9,000 salary as a F/O in Gatwick. You could not afford to live in Toxteth on that kind of salary. Others demanded that you pay for your own type rating.
However, I stuck to my principals and eventually made it. I was 4 years after I had my frozen ATPL that I got my first commercial flying job, and I did not have to sell my sole to get it.
So, what is the relevance? That during the early-mid 1990s, times were hard, pilots two a penny, and companies, from flying schools through to airlines s c r e w e d the pilots for every penny that they could. Salaries went down, yet inflation continued to rise. We were an easy target, and the managers knew it. That some sold their sole is a discredit to the majority that stuck by their principles.
What I am not preaching is revenge. It is merely that when times are good we have to stick together in order to preserve the conditions that we have at present, and perhaps regain some of the ground that was lost in the last downturn, both for ourselves and those that will follow in later years. Failure will result in a gradual errosion of the conditions that we currently enjoy.
It takes a great deal of time, effort, and money to become a commercial pilot. There is no easy way. Very few obtain sponsorship to achieve their goal, and even if you do, it involves about 18 months hard study with little or no income, usually followed by a period of employment at a reduced salary. There is no easy way to become a commercial pilot.
I progressed through the flying instruction route. For reasons outside my control the economy took a nosedive in the early 1990s (I did not vote for the Conservatives). This was co-incident with my obtaining my first professional licence (a BCPL) and instructor rating. Saddled with several thousands of pounds of debt, I could not get any work flying for several months. I drove round flying schools, wrote to everyone in the universe, yet still no work. On several occasions I was asked "Will you work for nothing?". I never considered this option as I believe that no professional pilot should stoop so low. Eventually I cane across some work on a hourly flying rate, and progressed until I financially had to find a proper job.
When my experience allowed, I upgraded to a CPL/IR with a frozen ATPL. Now I had a proper licence and was in the market for a proper job. So, what were the employers offering at the time? Cityflyer a £9,000 salary as a F/O in Gatwick. You could not afford to live in Toxteth on that kind of salary. Others demanded that you pay for your own type rating.
However, I stuck to my principals and eventually made it. I was 4 years after I had my frozen ATPL that I got my first commercial flying job, and I did not have to sell my sole to get it.
So, what is the relevance? That during the early-mid 1990s, times were hard, pilots two a penny, and companies, from flying schools through to airlines s c r e w e d the pilots for every penny that they could. Salaries went down, yet inflation continued to rise. We were an easy target, and the managers knew it. That some sold their sole is a discredit to the majority that stuck by their principles.
What I am not preaching is revenge. It is merely that when times are good we have to stick together in order to preserve the conditions that we have at present, and perhaps regain some of the ground that was lost in the last downturn, both for ourselves and those that will follow in later years. Failure will result in a gradual errosion of the conditions that we currently enjoy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Coming from a company that is on the verge of BALPA recognition I can not understand why your pay rise will be accepted if the general opinion is that it is inadequate. As I understand it your CC is made up entirely of flight deck members who have the use of a BALPA professional negotiator. At least this is how the system has been explained to me.
Has BALPA justified why it is recommending this deal.
My interests are 2 fold. Firstly, as I say we are just about to get recognition and JMC is a company I would be interested in joining.
Has BALPA justified why it is recommending this deal.
My interests are 2 fold. Firstly, as I say we are just about to get recognition and JMC is a company I would be interested in joining.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DPIT,
You asked, <but how many people would honestly take a pay cut when the business is doing babdly...not many I would imagine>
Well, funnily enough, the Flight Crew of the company you work for did during the Gulf War. It was sold to us by BALPA as the 'responsible' course of action to ensure that BA survived the ravages of reduced load factors.
And, funnily enough, we were the only group of staff that did agree to wage cuts, the management didn't, the cabin crew didn't, the ground engineers didn't, the loaders didn't, need I say more.
And also, funnily enough, when BA actually posted a profit for that year there were considerable dividends paid to all shareholders but we were not given a 'cent' back.
I protested at the time of the proposed 'cuts' but was ignored.
I have been given access to a 'confidential' (Ho Ho!) paper produced by BALPA (with input from BA) regarding comparative pay scales and the 'efficiency' of BA. I won't go into the pay scales here unless anybody wishes me to, but it is worth making a basic comment regarding efficiency.
BA have twice the number of employees per A/C as BMI,and considerably more than most others; what is going on here? All I see around the Compass centre is 'suits', and if you go to 'Waterworld' the mind boggles!
For God's sake Rod get a grip on this lot.
JMC I wish you all the best in your endeavours and I apologise for slightly hijacking this thread, but I felt that DPIT needed to be sent a message.
We (BA pilots) are really going for it this time, prepare for blood in the streets!
Regards
Exeng
You asked, <but how many people would honestly take a pay cut when the business is doing babdly...not many I would imagine>
Well, funnily enough, the Flight Crew of the company you work for did during the Gulf War. It was sold to us by BALPA as the 'responsible' course of action to ensure that BA survived the ravages of reduced load factors.
And, funnily enough, we were the only group of staff that did agree to wage cuts, the management didn't, the cabin crew didn't, the ground engineers didn't, the loaders didn't, need I say more.
And also, funnily enough, when BA actually posted a profit for that year there were considerable dividends paid to all shareholders but we were not given a 'cent' back.
I protested at the time of the proposed 'cuts' but was ignored.
I have been given access to a 'confidential' (Ho Ho!) paper produced by BALPA (with input from BA) regarding comparative pay scales and the 'efficiency' of BA. I won't go into the pay scales here unless anybody wishes me to, but it is worth making a basic comment regarding efficiency.
BA have twice the number of employees per A/C as BMI,and considerably more than most others; what is going on here? All I see around the Compass centre is 'suits', and if you go to 'Waterworld' the mind boggles!
For God's sake Rod get a grip on this lot.
JMC I wish you all the best in your endeavours and I apologise for slightly hijacking this thread, but I felt that DPIT needed to be sent a message.
We (BA pilots) are really going for it this time, prepare for blood in the streets!
Regards
Exeng
Guest
Posts: n/a
exeng,
I have not been in my current company to know about the gulf war pay cuts. If indeed you all did take a pay cut, and were not given any increases after the financial problems, then I would agree with you; That is not on. You should have been properly compensated.
However, I do not agree with you on the grounds of airline efficiency. Is it really advisable to use a measure of employees per aircraft? I think not. A short haul operation, mostly intra Europe, is not going to need as many employees as a long haul-intercontinental carrier. I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers, or indeed the total revenue passenger kilometres (RPK's a measure of how many passengers and how far). If you do this, then BA come out in a much better position. Out of interest, how would you rank size of airline. If we take your measure of number of aircraft, then southwest airlines beat BA...is it really bigger than BA? Using the same measure, Continental Express is half the size of BA...is this really the case? Would it be better to use a measure of RPK's. Interestingly enough, this is how airlines are actually measure for size!
You say that there are a lot of 'suits' at Waterworld & Compass. Why are you surpirsed? BA is a very large company (£6 billion turnover), and you would expect that! Also at the compass centre, you have staff that perform operational and planning tasks...are the schedules planners not neccessary then?
I think that Rod is going to be making cuts, and your correct, they will be on the 'suits' side. If you read my other posts, you will notice that I totally agree with that. You obvisouly have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil! I think this is sad, as if we all worked together, it would be a better place!
I have not been in my current company to know about the gulf war pay cuts. If indeed you all did take a pay cut, and were not given any increases after the financial problems, then I would agree with you; That is not on. You should have been properly compensated.
However, I do not agree with you on the grounds of airline efficiency. Is it really advisable to use a measure of employees per aircraft? I think not. A short haul operation, mostly intra Europe, is not going to need as many employees as a long haul-intercontinental carrier. I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers, or indeed the total revenue passenger kilometres (RPK's a measure of how many passengers and how far). If you do this, then BA come out in a much better position. Out of interest, how would you rank size of airline. If we take your measure of number of aircraft, then southwest airlines beat BA...is it really bigger than BA? Using the same measure, Continental Express is half the size of BA...is this really the case? Would it be better to use a measure of RPK's. Interestingly enough, this is how airlines are actually measure for size!
You say that there are a lot of 'suits' at Waterworld & Compass. Why are you surpirsed? BA is a very large company (£6 billion turnover), and you would expect that! Also at the compass centre, you have staff that perform operational and planning tasks...are the schedules planners not neccessary then?
I think that Rod is going to be making cuts, and your correct, they will be on the 'suits' side. If you read my other posts, you will notice that I totally agree with that. You obvisouly have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil! I think this is sad, as if we all worked together, it would be a better place!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dunno what you lot are whinging about.
I believe that 3.5% is well above current UK headline inflation rate - so it's an actual payrise, not just a keeping-up-with-inflation one.
Given the undeniable fact that we're in an economic downturn and companies are generally cutting - rather than increasing - costs, I'd say you're all jolly lucky.
What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?
Personally, I think that Exeng is spot on - there [i]are[/b] far too many managers at BA. Cutting some of the fat there (and elsewhere) should make Rod look good in the city!!
So far, no one seems to have come up with a better pay solution than that which I proposed some time ago - share out an agreed percentage of a company's profits (say 20%) amongst its staff; and have a compulsory ESOP. That way, everyone in the words of an earlier contributor "makes hay whilst the sun shines" and when it clouds over everyone participates equally in the downturn. Hopefully, as WN does, the company should have built up sufficient cash reserves during the fat years to ensure no layoffs during lean times when everyone's on basic pay - from the CEO down.
I believe that 3.5% is well above current UK headline inflation rate - so it's an actual payrise, not just a keeping-up-with-inflation one.
Given the undeniable fact that we're in an economic downturn and companies are generally cutting - rather than increasing - costs, I'd say you're all jolly lucky.
What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?
Personally, I think that Exeng is spot on - there [i]are[/b] far too many managers at BA. Cutting some of the fat there (and elsewhere) should make Rod look good in the city!!
So far, no one seems to have come up with a better pay solution than that which I proposed some time ago - share out an agreed percentage of a company's profits (say 20%) amongst its staff; and have a compulsory ESOP. That way, everyone in the words of an earlier contributor "makes hay whilst the sun shines" and when it clouds over everyone participates equally in the downturn. Hopefully, as WN does, the company should have built up sufficient cash reserves during the fat years to ensure no layoffs during lean times when everyone's on basic pay - from the CEO down.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Guvnor
You recently asked on another thread why it was that I frequently became aggressive in response to your posts.
Frankly, dear heart, it is because every time you post of late you manage to get right up my nose with some provocatively infantile remark. And here you go again ...
Quote: "What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?"
Well, precisely what is the point of this absurd question in the context of your argument as to pilots being 'lucky' to get a 3.5% pay rise?
Do you suggest here that pilots have some definitive control over whether or not every minute of their 'duty time' is what you might describe as 'productive' flight time?
Again, you show gross ignorance with your use of terminology. And just so it is abundantly clear to you, a 'flying duty period' inevitably includes time that might be seen by some management beancounters as less than positively productive. That's the nature of the beast, old bean. I would have thought a self-proclaimed airline entrepreneur like yourself would already have known that. Bear it and wear it!
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]
You recently asked on another thread why it was that I frequently became aggressive in response to your posts.
Frankly, dear heart, it is because every time you post of late you manage to get right up my nose with some provocatively infantile remark. And here you go again ...
Quote: "What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?"
Well, precisely what is the point of this absurd question in the context of your argument as to pilots being 'lucky' to get a 3.5% pay rise?
Do you suggest here that pilots have some definitive control over whether or not every minute of their 'duty time' is what you might describe as 'productive' flight time?
Again, you show gross ignorance with your use of terminology. And just so it is abundantly clear to you, a 'flying duty period' inevitably includes time that might be seen by some management beancounters as less than positively productive. That's the nature of the beast, old bean. I would have thought a self-proclaimed airline entrepreneur like yourself would already have known that. Bear it and wear it!
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii
I've no objection to the term "management beancounters" being used to refer to all of us who have to make the columns balance out. Is it OK to always refer to you as "pilot moneygrabbers" - in the interests of fair play, you understand, Dear Heart?
I've no objection to the term "management beancounters" being used to refer to all of us who have to make the columns balance out. Is it OK to always refer to you as "pilot moneygrabbers" - in the interests of fair play, you understand, Dear Heart?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is there anyboy out there who actually worked for or with the self styled Guvnor of fantasy airline fame? It would be interesting to find out whether he is as crass and ignorant in real as opposed to virtual life......don't tell me, it would have to be 411a (SOG)