Very poor pay offer for jmc pilots
Guest
Posts: n/a
My dear Pete Otube
No doubt it is a difficult and stressful job you do, dear heart. So, my abject apologies to you if you are offended by the term ‘beancounter’.
Naturally, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the contribution made to our society, not to mention humanity as a whole, by the sensitive, caring and invariably upright fraternity of company accountants, especially those that tirelessly beaver away within our airlines to “make the columns balance out”.
Let’s face it, some of the airline accountant fraternity’s most noteworthy achievements include, but are not limited to: seat pitches that cause DVT in luckless passengers; routine aircrew rostering to the limits promulgated by CAP 371 where such limits are intended to be ABSOLUTE maximums; and enforced carriage of the barest minimum of fuel reserves in unwise circumstances. And, of course, the crowning glory of said fraternity would have to be the imposition upon the “pilot moneygrabbers” of the pilot bonding agreement for the alleged purpose of ‘protecting training investment’.
My hearty congratulations to you all. Based upon your own job description, then, I retract my ill-chosen term of ‘beancounter’ and will in future employ the term ‘column-balancer’. Happy, now?
Further, if the ‘moneygrabber’ cap fits then I am quietly confident that pilots would be happy to bear that description. However, my acquaintance with many hundreds of professional pilots would lead me to feel that said cap does not fit. Generally speaking, the average airline pilot so loves to do the job that his/her willingness to forego the ‘money’ is tantamount to gross stupidity. It has never been my experience that accountants are prepared to make the financial sacrifices so frequently endured by the aircrew fraternity. You, of course, are the sole exception, I suppose?
In summary, the answer to your question is yes, it is OK, dear heart. I for one will accept the term you use in the interests of fair play and each of us may choose to wear, or not wear, the cap as appropriate. If you count beans (or even make the columns balance out) then you might fairly be described as a beancounter (or column-balancer), and, if we grab money, then we must surely accept your imaginative term, must we not?
Duuuhhh, one bean, two beans, three beans, four .....
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]
No doubt it is a difficult and stressful job you do, dear heart. So, my abject apologies to you if you are offended by the term ‘beancounter’.
Naturally, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the contribution made to our society, not to mention humanity as a whole, by the sensitive, caring and invariably upright fraternity of company accountants, especially those that tirelessly beaver away within our airlines to “make the columns balance out”.
Let’s face it, some of the airline accountant fraternity’s most noteworthy achievements include, but are not limited to: seat pitches that cause DVT in luckless passengers; routine aircrew rostering to the limits promulgated by CAP 371 where such limits are intended to be ABSOLUTE maximums; and enforced carriage of the barest minimum of fuel reserves in unwise circumstances. And, of course, the crowning glory of said fraternity would have to be the imposition upon the “pilot moneygrabbers” of the pilot bonding agreement for the alleged purpose of ‘protecting training investment’.
My hearty congratulations to you all. Based upon your own job description, then, I retract my ill-chosen term of ‘beancounter’ and will in future employ the term ‘column-balancer’. Happy, now?
Further, if the ‘moneygrabber’ cap fits then I am quietly confident that pilots would be happy to bear that description. However, my acquaintance with many hundreds of professional pilots would lead me to feel that said cap does not fit. Generally speaking, the average airline pilot so loves to do the job that his/her willingness to forego the ‘money’ is tantamount to gross stupidity. It has never been my experience that accountants are prepared to make the financial sacrifices so frequently endured by the aircrew fraternity. You, of course, are the sole exception, I suppose?
In summary, the answer to your question is yes, it is OK, dear heart. I for one will accept the term you use in the interests of fair play and each of us may choose to wear, or not wear, the cap as appropriate. If you count beans (or even make the columns balance out) then you might fairly be described as a beancounter (or column-balancer), and, if we grab money, then we must surely accept your imaginative term, must we not?
Duuuhhh, one bean, two beans, three beans, four .....
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone care to forward some views or idea's as to why such a large number of UK pilots are so reluctant to become union members? You only have to look at the levels of union membership and the results they get in the states to come to the fairly reasonable conclusion that it is of serious benifit?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Standby1
IMHO:
1. Disillusionment – take a look at the thread entitled “Airlines Seek Stay On Pilot Fatigue Rule”, in particular the post by Danny with regard to the words of Captain Woerth of the US ALPA. Can anyone in the UK even imagine a BALPA man having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to airlines in like manner? No, pilots here like to spend their hard-earned money on things that give good value and likely return. BALPA is not one of them. And, contrary to another suggestion elsewhere, 1% of a pilot’s salary is quite a high premium to pay merely for litigation insurance (which is the only return that may be realisable for the vast majority of union members here).
2. Thatcherism – we still have not risen above the violent striking down of unionism during the Thatcher years. We were duped into believing that any form of solidarity among workers was tantamount to high treason and we remain so duped.
3. Selfishness – we are not alone in becoming more focussed upon our own lives than with keeping the overall picture in view. Perhaps we will one day realise that only the collective worth is of true value.
That’s my six penneth.
IMHO:
1. Disillusionment – take a look at the thread entitled “Airlines Seek Stay On Pilot Fatigue Rule”, in particular the post by Danny with regard to the words of Captain Woerth of the US ALPA. Can anyone in the UK even imagine a BALPA man having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to airlines in like manner? No, pilots here like to spend their hard-earned money on things that give good value and likely return. BALPA is not one of them. And, contrary to another suggestion elsewhere, 1% of a pilot’s salary is quite a high premium to pay merely for litigation insurance (which is the only return that may be realisable for the vast majority of union members here).
2. Thatcherism – we still have not risen above the violent striking down of unionism during the Thatcher years. We were duped into believing that any form of solidarity among workers was tantamount to high treason and we remain so duped.
3. Selfishness – we are not alone in becoming more focussed upon our own lives than with keeping the overall picture in view. Perhaps we will one day realise that only the collective worth is of true value.
That’s my six penneth.
Guest
Posts: n/a
chihuahua
Your post is almost refreshing in that I had exactly the same ideals in that why should I prostitute myself having gone through the process. I refused rhs safety pilot jobs because I had to pay. I also would not work for a pittance when the boss made money out of me. Colleges and friends did. They are now Captains, Training Captains etc. I am not yet. My stubbiness while feeling right at the time has really cost me. For me there is no moral to this story because there are too many conflicting realities.
hassel.
Your post is almost refreshing in that I had exactly the same ideals in that why should I prostitute myself having gone through the process. I refused rhs safety pilot jobs because I had to pay. I also would not work for a pittance when the boss made money out of me. Colleges and friends did. They are now Captains, Training Captains etc. I am not yet. My stubbiness while feeling right at the time has really cost me. For me there is no moral to this story because there are too many conflicting realities.
hassel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
F/O RJ 100s
You are a seriously confused little chappie. A peek at your profile reveals that, though both your handle and your email suggest you fly 146s, your occupation is "Wannabe Turpboprop [sic] Pilot" (we'll forgive the presumed typo in the word 'turboprop').
Your closing remark above with regard to flying, or not "actually" flying, the 146 does nothing to dispel this impression of utter confusion.
Sadly, CEP, as you say, you DO "sound a little naive and 'un wised up' to the aviation world". So, before you imply that Ozdude, myself, and others have a "serious chip" on our shoulders, it might be wise for you to put out the reefer, get your mind clear, and tuck some real aviation experience under your belt.
And, for the record, never been a 'Nav' in the RAF, but those I've met who were did not appear to me to have a shoulder chip either.
I can see you're going to do really well CRM-wise on the flight deck, dear chap.
Sincerely hope that the "major airline" in which you are a cadet is not the one for which I fly (guess it can't be if you're on 146s or aspiring to fly 'turpboprops').
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 23 June 2001).]
You are a seriously confused little chappie. A peek at your profile reveals that, though both your handle and your email suggest you fly 146s, your occupation is "Wannabe Turpboprop [sic] Pilot" (we'll forgive the presumed typo in the word 'turboprop').
Your closing remark above with regard to flying, or not "actually" flying, the 146 does nothing to dispel this impression of utter confusion.
Sadly, CEP, as you say, you DO "sound a little naive and 'un wised up' to the aviation world". So, before you imply that Ozdude, myself, and others have a "serious chip" on our shoulders, it might be wise for you to put out the reefer, get your mind clear, and tuck some real aviation experience under your belt.
And, for the record, never been a 'Nav' in the RAF, but those I've met who were did not appear to me to have a shoulder chip either.
I can see you're going to do really well CRM-wise on the flight deck, dear chap.
Sincerely hope that the "major airline" in which you are a cadet is not the one for which I fly (guess it can't be if you're on 146s or aspiring to fly 'turpboprops').
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 23 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
DPIT,
You stated, < I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers>.
O.K. I agree, these are the figures reproduced from the AEA annual report as of 31/12/99. I am not qualified to verify their accuracy.
Approx passengers per employee:
SA 1780
AL 1260
LH 1150
BMI 1040
SAS 840
AF 780
Iberia 750
KLM 600
Last and very much least BA at 530 !!
I do not have information to hand on RPK's per employee, a more exacting test I'm sure, perhaps you could provide this information DPIT.
DPIT you also said, < You obviously have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil!>
Yes I do have a grudge against a part of management but no I do not deem all management to be evil. Like you I'm sure, I make a judgment on actions and results.
The passengers, shareholders, and staff are now enjoying the legacy of Bob Ayling. He alone cannot be blamed for the state of this company. I believe it is one of the primary responsibilities of the non-exec directors to monitor the policies and actions of the C.E.O., then take action when necessary. They acted far too late and it will now take years to repair the damage. They largely failed in their responsibilities but most of them are still in place.
I have taken the trouble to read some of your other posts DPIT and you make a lot of sense.
Finally I agree with you entirely when you say if we all worked together it would be a better place. We as flight crew have attempted closer co-operation with management by the adopting of 'Guiding Principles' some years back. These guiding principles are seen by many of us now as having failed. I believe that guiding principles as a means of doing business with management will be dropped in the very near future. Another more effective means of working together will have to be found.
Finally, all flight crew in BA wish to be paid the 'market rate', the phrase that is often quoted in boardrooms the world over. To achieve that market rate blood will probably be spilt, so PETE OTAUBE I am fully prepared to spill a considerable amount of my own in pursuit of that objective.
Regards
Exeng
You stated, < I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers>.
O.K. I agree, these are the figures reproduced from the AEA annual report as of 31/12/99. I am not qualified to verify their accuracy.
Approx passengers per employee:
SA 1780
AL 1260
LH 1150
BMI 1040
SAS 840
AF 780
Iberia 750
KLM 600
Last and very much least BA at 530 !!
I do not have information to hand on RPK's per employee, a more exacting test I'm sure, perhaps you could provide this information DPIT.
DPIT you also said, < You obviously have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil!>
Yes I do have a grudge against a part of management but no I do not deem all management to be evil. Like you I'm sure, I make a judgment on actions and results.
The passengers, shareholders, and staff are now enjoying the legacy of Bob Ayling. He alone cannot be blamed for the state of this company. I believe it is one of the primary responsibilities of the non-exec directors to monitor the policies and actions of the C.E.O., then take action when necessary. They acted far too late and it will now take years to repair the damage. They largely failed in their responsibilities but most of them are still in place.
I have taken the trouble to read some of your other posts DPIT and you make a lot of sense.
Finally I agree with you entirely when you say if we all worked together it would be a better place. We as flight crew have attempted closer co-operation with management by the adopting of 'Guiding Principles' some years back. These guiding principles are seen by many of us now as having failed. I believe that guiding principles as a means of doing business with management will be dropped in the very near future. Another more effective means of working together will have to be found.
Finally, all flight crew in BA wish to be paid the 'market rate', the phrase that is often quoted in boardrooms the world over. To achieve that market rate blood will probably be spilt, so PETE OTAUBE I am fully prepared to spill a considerable amount of my own in pursuit of that objective.
Regards
Exeng
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surley it is down to how much you get paid in comparison to the market.
If you can get a lot more elsewhere then leave your company and go and get it. (A little drastic but it is the basics of how it works) The compnay will soon realise what is happening and put the pay up. It is pure market forces.
The company needs pilots to make money the pilots need the company to earn a salary. A compromise will be reached with both sides arguing the appropriate points. (As is happening in this thread.)
If you can get a lot more elsewhere then leave your company and go and get it. (A little drastic but it is the basics of how it works) The compnay will soon realise what is happening and put the pay up. It is pure market forces.
The company needs pilots to make money the pilots need the company to earn a salary. A compromise will be reached with both sides arguing the appropriate points. (As is happening in this thread.)
