Are we facing a safety issue?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As an airline its ways arent the worst lo-co UK outfit, BMI Baby takes that position, and for my money, the best - Easyjet."
Actually bmi baby pay their pilots reasonably well and don't charge masses for type ratings unlike RYR. As for EZY just look at this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...ng-pool-2.html
Some FO's only offered a few weeks work having forked out £100k in training through an approved scheme......
Actually bmi baby pay their pilots reasonably well and don't charge masses for type ratings unlike RYR. As for EZY just look at this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...ng-pool-2.html
Some FO's only offered a few weeks work having forked out £100k in training through an approved scheme......
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots on low wages aren't a safety risk becasue they don't care about doing a good job, but because they may:
- have to take two jobs = fatigue risk
- be burdened by debt = distraction, and easily threatened by airlines (safety culture, working practices etc)
- not necessarily be the best candidate for the post, but just the one who can pay for it i.e. training/the job (literally, paying to fly) the lifestyle by having another income stream
Whilst FOs coming into jet jobs in the EU/UK aren't on the kind of wage highlighted in Moore's article, most of them will have anywhere between £30000 (£50000 if they have a degree) and £100000 of debt, whilst still in their early twenties, and without a mortgage. Similar problem.
No matter how much people want to do the job, if it doesn't pay enough to live on compared to other jobs requiring an equivalent level of qualification, the talent will desert the industry and we will get left with the monkeys earning peanuts and the talentless playboys.
- have to take two jobs = fatigue risk
- be burdened by debt = distraction, and easily threatened by airlines (safety culture, working practices etc)
- not necessarily be the best candidate for the post, but just the one who can pay for it i.e. training/the job (literally, paying to fly) the lifestyle by having another income stream
Whilst FOs coming into jet jobs in the EU/UK aren't on the kind of wage highlighted in Moore's article, most of them will have anywhere between £30000 (£50000 if they have a degree) and £100000 of debt, whilst still in their early twenties, and without a mortgage. Similar problem.
No matter how much people want to do the job, if it doesn't pay enough to live on compared to other jobs requiring an equivalent level of qualification, the talent will desert the industry and we will get left with the monkeys earning peanuts and the talentless playboys.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental Connection Flight 3407
"Continental Connection Flight 3407, which crashed on Feb. 12 as it prepared to land at Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, killing all 49 aboard and one man in a house below.
Testimony at a National Transportation Safety Board hearing in May indicated the flight's captain and first officer made a series of critical errors leading up to the accident, possibly because they were fatigued or unwell. The flight was operated for Continental by Colgan Air Inc. of Manassas, Va.
Documents released by NTSB show the 24-year-old co-pilot earned less than $16,000 the previous year, which was her first year working for the regional air carrier. On the day of the crash she said she felt sick, but didn't want to pull out of the flight because she'd have to pay for a hotel room."
from : US Congress Airline safety is on US lawmakers agenda - eTurboNews.com
Testimony at a National Transportation Safety Board hearing in May indicated the flight's captain and first officer made a series of critical errors leading up to the accident, possibly because they were fatigued or unwell. The flight was operated for Continental by Colgan Air Inc. of Manassas, Va.
Documents released by NTSB show the 24-year-old co-pilot earned less than $16,000 the previous year, which was her first year working for the regional air carrier. On the day of the crash she said she felt sick, but didn't want to pull out of the flight because she'd have to pay for a hotel room."
from : US Congress Airline safety is on US lawmakers agenda - eTurboNews.com
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
case in point
Just take a look at Asia now gentleman. Why is that in Japan and China they can not find people willing to fly as Pilots ? Most middle managers in these countries earn much more than a beginner pilot and that is why they are outsourcing to us in the west.
By the way I am a captain and earning a salary that I was paid in 2001, but happy to be working. With the way the roster is I don't have time to take a second job.
By the way I am a captain and earning a salary that I was paid in 2001, but happy to be working. With the way the roster is I don't have time to take a second job.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo:
Lomapaseo, you missed the point. Nobody said that being under paid will make you become suicidal, but may, indirectly affect safety if you have to take a second job to reimbourse your loan, to pay your rent... you got the idea.
And it seems that it is the reality for many, taking a second job. Here is the point.
But aren't all pilots motivated to save themselves as well as their passenger's or is there a suicidal urge somewhere to end it all?
And it seems that it is the reality for many, taking a second job. Here is the point.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the U.S. government's PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp) insured employees vested defined benefit pensions in cases where the employer became insolvent, declaried bankruptcy and elected to reject pension claims.
My uncle is a retired United pilot. The pension he worked for was somewhere north of $100k U.S. He's getting around $36k from the PBGC....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny you should mention ATC! In the US, they just signed a new contract that provides controllers about $160,000 on the top end AND a guaranteed Government pension at required retirement age of 55.
Compare that to a United Airlines 747-400 Captain, whose "normal" retirement age is now 65, whose pension has been terminated, and who currently earns $180,000 after 30 years on the job (something MOST controllers are unable to achieve due to the early retirement requirement).
You tell me who has the most stressful job with the greatest mental and physical demands for upto 18 hours per day. (Hint: It is NOT the controller!!)
Compare that to a United Airlines 747-400 Captain, whose "normal" retirement age is now 65, whose pension has been terminated, and who currently earns $180,000 after 30 years on the job (something MOST controllers are unable to achieve due to the early retirement requirement).
You tell me who has the most stressful job with the greatest mental and physical demands for upto 18 hours per day. (Hint: It is NOT the controller!!)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol and fatigue studies have PROVEN that the often chronic fatigue experienced by many, many pilots is akin to flying while drunk. However, because managements and the government have little or no interest in further restrictions of flight crew FT/DT, then we are not routinely "screened" for fatigue, only drugs and alcohol! Ironically, it is often those two things people revert to in order to TRY and recover some level of normalcy through "forced" sleep brought on by their effects.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way I am a captain and earning a salary that I was paid in 2001, but happy to be working. With the way the roster is I don't have time to take a second job.
Throw in the fact that it costs $200,000 to go through the university flight program I attended and one comes out the other end with about 250 hours of actual light aircraft flight time and some sim "experience," and one wonders who would EVER do this again?
The new hire FO position at my airline pays about $32,000 (~£19,000), we have just laid off the 1500 pilots (again) whose 12 years of experience were insufficient (not to mention their military careers or years of regional carrier experience!), grounded our 100 aircraft fleet of 737-300/500s, and entered into an international outsourcing agreement with Aer Lingus, who has ALSO just grounded aircraft and laid off about 500 pilots!!!
Throw in the fact that over 50% of the domestic flying at United Airlines is done by OUTSOURCED REGIONAL CARRIERS operating under a fee-for-departure system, and paying their pilots what that Colgan crew was getting, and there is clearly NO REASON for ANY reasonably intelligent person to EVER get involved in a flying CAREER ever again. Throw in the scheduling/rostering issues, and one would be FAR BETTER OFF getting a "real world" job and getting a 1/4 share of a light aircraft with at least one A&P owner and ENJOYING GOING FLYING when you want, to where you want.
Just sayin'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angelorange
I was referring to my experience as a passenger. BMI Baby is pretty bad. From their website (which has a few nasty tricks when you actually book) to the continuation of a service or route its awful. Out of the 5 lo co I have flown with Easyjet is the one I prefer, although that amounts to which is the least worst experience rather than a comfortable one. As a matter of persepective flying out of MRV on a Tu 154 is more pleasant than flying out of EMA on BMI Baby.
I was referring to my experience as a passenger. BMI Baby is pretty bad. From their website (which has a few nasty tricks when you actually book) to the continuation of a service or route its awful. Out of the 5 lo co I have flown with Easyjet is the one I prefer, although that amounts to which is the least worst experience rather than a comfortable one. As a matter of persepective flying out of MRV on a Tu 154 is more pleasant than flying out of EMA on BMI Baby.
lomapaseo;
Under most circumstances, there is no direct link between a poorly-paid pilot and the safety of his or her flight. Clearly this principle does not obtain in the Colgan case, which I think is a serious indicator of this very problem but which will not be seen as such by any airline in the US or Canada. Of this, more in a moment.
The link is not resident within the individual pilot but within the much broader processes of who is coming into aviation and the nature of the pilot selection process.
This won't be taken well by anyone so I'll just say it bluntly: Those who have the native intelligence and personal discipline as well as the talents and strong motivations to make a good pilot are not coming into the profession anymore, simply because it is an atrociously-treated and horribly-paid profession with no security, no pension and no real respect or status within the business community and these candidates know this very well.
Instead, those with the necessary qualities and abilities are going into other, far more rewarding careers while those with stars in their eyes but perhaps without the same level of capabilities choose to go into flying. Please understand that I do not mean this unkindly - it needs to be stated that some are suited to aviation, most are not, and the qualities it takes to do airline flying safely and well are not that common. It is not a career one just "decides on day" to do. I won't elaborate further. It needs to be lived to understand this.
Although it is far reduced from a decade ago there is still a pilot pool to hire from but, and this is important to comprehend, standards have had to be lowered significantly to fill the seats.
Combine this with an absent regulator under SMS and the airlines will cut corners where they will, including in training. Productivity demands are very high and the issues of fatigue risk management have been dismissed by both the airlines and the regulator in Canada. (At least the FAA is saying something about this major concern).
One very big sign of this is the MCPL licence which puts what I consider a "non-pilot" into the right seat of medium and large size aircraft. An MCPL can't rent a Cessna 172 but can sit in an airliner as one of two pilots.
This initiative has been discussed at length and those interested can do a search of the threads on PPRuNe for further. I absolutely don't intend to insult anyone in this category but this is aviation and "being nice to people" sometimes creates unwarranted dangers and can even kill people so take this the way it is intended - as "advice" from experience and not an arrogance which is inappropriate in the cockpit.
As a (now retired) captain of 35 years and 20,000hrs or so who has flown all heavy transports except the B747, B777 and A300/310 series and spent a career in flight safey work, I do not want a 250hr simulator wonder helping me make decisions on the ramp about MEL items, fuel and the dozens of passengers items that come up during the cockpit check, or over the Atlantic or Pacific on weather diversions, TCAS responses, ETOPS diversions or alternate changes while enroute. I want an experienced First Officer and Augment Pilot up front while I'm back on my break who are disciplined, knowledgable, can use the radar intelligently and otherwise won't do something stupid outside of the SOPs.
The Colgan accident took a highly-motivated, marginally trained, poorly-paid First Officer who had no idea of the kind of airline she was working for and no concept of the overriding risks inherent in the working conditions and job on the Q400 she was doing. This was through and through an organizational accident and it's going to happen again because the standards have been lowered to fill the two seats up front. She was likely just super-glad to be flying for living and making it work just to get by. That said, she flew after commuting across the country, with a cold and with the knowledge that her training was indeed marginal. THAT is the reality of airline flying today and while there are many, many highly-experienced, highly-capable veterans flying for airlines today, that is slowly changing.
THAT is the connection between poor pilot pay and flight safety. No MBA is capable of seeing it because first of all they dont' believe it and second of all, they know nothing about aviation and flight safety work.
A lot more could be said, but it's all been said before, perhaps more politely but it's time to ditch that approach and convey some of the realities of airline flying today to those just getting their first job but especially to some SLF's (not you lomapaseo, who's contributions I always enjoy) who continue to offer their views but still will complain about air fares.
I just can't seem to develop a link in my head between pilot poor pay and safety performance.
I guess if Michael Moore says so there must be something rotten.
But aren't all pilots motivated to save themselves as well as their passenger's or is there a suicidal urge somewhere to end it all?
Based on what I have read I thought that safety was supposed to be tied to the money grubbing big businesses sending out our airplane tied together with speed tape. But if Michel is on to something could we as passengers just add in a few bucks per ticket each and guarantee that our crew is well fed and happy enough to fly the damn plane.
Perhaps there should be a tip jar at the exit doors to ensure our money is well spent and that we survived long enough to reward the crew.
I guess if Michael Moore says so there must be something rotten.
But aren't all pilots motivated to save themselves as well as their passenger's or is there a suicidal urge somewhere to end it all?
Based on what I have read I thought that safety was supposed to be tied to the money grubbing big businesses sending out our airplane tied together with speed tape. But if Michel is on to something could we as passengers just add in a few bucks per ticket each and guarantee that our crew is well fed and happy enough to fly the damn plane.
Perhaps there should be a tip jar at the exit doors to ensure our money is well spent and that we survived long enough to reward the crew.
The link is not resident within the individual pilot but within the much broader processes of who is coming into aviation and the nature of the pilot selection process.
This won't be taken well by anyone so I'll just say it bluntly: Those who have the native intelligence and personal discipline as well as the talents and strong motivations to make a good pilot are not coming into the profession anymore, simply because it is an atrociously-treated and horribly-paid profession with no security, no pension and no real respect or status within the business community and these candidates know this very well.
Instead, those with the necessary qualities and abilities are going into other, far more rewarding careers while those with stars in their eyes but perhaps without the same level of capabilities choose to go into flying. Please understand that I do not mean this unkindly - it needs to be stated that some are suited to aviation, most are not, and the qualities it takes to do airline flying safely and well are not that common. It is not a career one just "decides on day" to do. I won't elaborate further. It needs to be lived to understand this.
Although it is far reduced from a decade ago there is still a pilot pool to hire from but, and this is important to comprehend, standards have had to be lowered significantly to fill the seats.
Combine this with an absent regulator under SMS and the airlines will cut corners where they will, including in training. Productivity demands are very high and the issues of fatigue risk management have been dismissed by both the airlines and the regulator in Canada. (At least the FAA is saying something about this major concern).
One very big sign of this is the MCPL licence which puts what I consider a "non-pilot" into the right seat of medium and large size aircraft. An MCPL can't rent a Cessna 172 but can sit in an airliner as one of two pilots.
This initiative has been discussed at length and those interested can do a search of the threads on PPRuNe for further. I absolutely don't intend to insult anyone in this category but this is aviation and "being nice to people" sometimes creates unwarranted dangers and can even kill people so take this the way it is intended - as "advice" from experience and not an arrogance which is inappropriate in the cockpit.
As a (now retired) captain of 35 years and 20,000hrs or so who has flown all heavy transports except the B747, B777 and A300/310 series and spent a career in flight safey work, I do not want a 250hr simulator wonder helping me make decisions on the ramp about MEL items, fuel and the dozens of passengers items that come up during the cockpit check, or over the Atlantic or Pacific on weather diversions, TCAS responses, ETOPS diversions or alternate changes while enroute. I want an experienced First Officer and Augment Pilot up front while I'm back on my break who are disciplined, knowledgable, can use the radar intelligently and otherwise won't do something stupid outside of the SOPs.
The Colgan accident took a highly-motivated, marginally trained, poorly-paid First Officer who had no idea of the kind of airline she was working for and no concept of the overriding risks inherent in the working conditions and job on the Q400 she was doing. This was through and through an organizational accident and it's going to happen again because the standards have been lowered to fill the two seats up front. She was likely just super-glad to be flying for living and making it work just to get by. That said, she flew after commuting across the country, with a cold and with the knowledge that her training was indeed marginal. THAT is the reality of airline flying today and while there are many, many highly-experienced, highly-capable veterans flying for airlines today, that is slowly changing.
THAT is the connection between poor pilot pay and flight safety. No MBA is capable of seeing it because first of all they dont' believe it and second of all, they know nothing about aviation and flight safety work.
A lot more could be said, but it's all been said before, perhaps more politely but it's time to ditch that approach and convey some of the realities of airline flying today to those just getting their first job but especially to some SLF's (not you lomapaseo, who's contributions I always enjoy) who continue to offer their views but still will complain about air fares.
Last edited by PJ2; 14th Oct 2009 at 20:38.
KAG
A fair point, (my bold)
So let's address the primary issue, which is fatigue. IMO you shouldn't expect to throw money at problems hoping that you can buy your way out when you have no data to confirm it efficacy.
Lomapaseo, you missed the point. Nobody said that being under paid will make you become suicidal, but may, indirectly affect safety if you have to take a second job to reimbourse your loan, to pay your rent... you got the idea.
And it seems that it is the reality for many, taking a second job. Here is the point.
And it seems that it is the reality for many, taking a second job. Here is the point.
So let's address the primary issue, which is fatigue. IMO you shouldn't expect to throw money at problems hoping that you can buy your way out when you have no data to confirm it efficacy.
Last edited by lomapaseo; 14th Oct 2009 at 23:54.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF here who will continue to offer his views!
PJ2, In the main I applaud your approach to making the realities of today's airline practices known. As I said in a previous post, if it takes a Michael Moore to bring that into the very public forum then thats all to the benefit of the crew and the SLF.
PJ2, In the main I applaud your approach to making the realities of today's airline practices known. As I said in a previous post, if it takes a Michael Moore to bring that into the very public forum then thats all to the benefit of the crew and the SLF.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UIP : 4° 10’ 0” W, 47° 58’ 0” N
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fao City Fan
and entered into an international outsourcing agreement with Aer Lingus, who has ALSO just grounded aircraft and laid off about 500 pilots!!!
As for the outsourcing agreement; Me thinks that might end up being a dead duck. Bookings are not that good from what I've heard.
mercurydancer;
Your posts are worth reading as well.
Absolutely. The matter is far from simple. Deregulation has its strong side and benefits - airline flying CAN be done more cheaply and still safely. However, like all good things, the industry has said to itself, "Gee, size 9 fits so well I think I'll buy size 12."
Airline fares need to rise so that the industry can recover both experience and appropriate succession as thousands of experienced pilots retire and are replaced, by, some airline managments assume, automation - another long thread.
I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that normal people who wait in Starbuck's lineups for 15 minutes and spend nearly five bucks on designer lattes can sometimes go postal at the first sign of the same time and cost differences when it comes to airlines.
True, airlines have taught their customers that a dollar and a minute makes a "huge" difference so must share in these unrealistic expectations and sophisticated software programs have taken Bob Crandall's notions of loyalty programs and the selling of seats at different prices as departure time draws nigh, but it has been taken too far in an attempt to squeeze every last penny from their ATM machine, (as Sully said), their employees.
Because an airline's inventory evaporates and becomes worthless the moment the door is closed, selling it all before becomes really critical, so different prices apply to get bums in seats. But this industry has consistently sold its product, (time), for less than it costs them out of some hope that people will come and the enterprise can make some money. Notwithstanding the known fact that, like owning a sports team, owning an airline is sexy and puts one into a different category of entrepreneur, the business is heavily capitalised and always will be. That is a reality which escapes everyone, SLFs included.
Small raises in airline fares will make all the difference in the world for the industry, but the wailing and knashing of teeth that would follow keeps that change from happening. I just can't get over the fact that people will hand over a five dollar bill for a coffee and get a bit of change and then dump all over the airlines for "overcharging" when less than a man's lifetime ago, "safe airline travel" was an oxymoron.
Your posts are worth reading as well.
the benefit of the crew and the SLF.
Airline fares need to rise so that the industry can recover both experience and appropriate succession as thousands of experienced pilots retire and are replaced, by, some airline managments assume, automation - another long thread.
I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that normal people who wait in Starbuck's lineups for 15 minutes and spend nearly five bucks on designer lattes can sometimes go postal at the first sign of the same time and cost differences when it comes to airlines.
True, airlines have taught their customers that a dollar and a minute makes a "huge" difference so must share in these unrealistic expectations and sophisticated software programs have taken Bob Crandall's notions of loyalty programs and the selling of seats at different prices as departure time draws nigh, but it has been taken too far in an attempt to squeeze every last penny from their ATM machine, (as Sully said), their employees.
Because an airline's inventory evaporates and becomes worthless the moment the door is closed, selling it all before becomes really critical, so different prices apply to get bums in seats. But this industry has consistently sold its product, (time), for less than it costs them out of some hope that people will come and the enterprise can make some money. Notwithstanding the known fact that, like owning a sports team, owning an airline is sexy and puts one into a different category of entrepreneur, the business is heavily capitalised and always will be. That is a reality which escapes everyone, SLFs included.
Small raises in airline fares will make all the difference in the world for the industry, but the wailing and knashing of teeth that would follow keeps that change from happening. I just can't get over the fact that people will hand over a five dollar bill for a coffee and get a bit of change and then dump all over the airlines for "overcharging" when less than a man's lifetime ago, "safe airline travel" was an oxymoron.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
As a matter of essential importance, the raising of air fares for the adequate training of air crew wont meet any objection from the vast majority of passengers. I certainly wouldn't object.
You are correct that owning and running an airline is a very challenging (I'm being kind in that comment) and so attracts the so called cream of the business world. Its certainly not tough. An airbus with both engines out and nowhere to go but into the Hudson is tough. The "tough" decisions are made by airline management in the interest of the shareholders. Flight crew are frequently the most harshly treated by airline management.
I would like to distinguish between bad airlines and bad crew. In the main if a passenger undergoes a horrible experience, it is provided by the airline as a whole and very very seldom during flight time. We in the back make a choice to where we want to go and how much we will pay to go there. We have no allegiance to shareholders of the airline. That is the crucial point. SLF have a vested interest in the safety of the aircraft and crew. If the airline bosses had any kind of business acumen at all it would be to advertise, very loudly, that their airline has the calibre of captain such as Capt Sullenberger, and would support the training and qualification of the best kind of pilot. This was one of the main reasons why BA was so successful. It had a structure for flight deck crew that was the finest in the world. It doesnt seem to do that nowadays. Would I be prepared to spend an additional 30 euros ( just a speculative figure) to provide such training then yes I'd pay it in a New York minute. I'd also hunt down the airline who said the addition was to go to pilot training and get on their aircraft.
As for people going postal at the aircraft, the worst I have ever been treated was by BA terminal staff (not crew) so by the time I got on board I was ready to strangle someone. Yes it was at Heathrow.
As a matter of essential importance, the raising of air fares for the adequate training of air crew wont meet any objection from the vast majority of passengers. I certainly wouldn't object.
You are correct that owning and running an airline is a very challenging (I'm being kind in that comment) and so attracts the so called cream of the business world. Its certainly not tough. An airbus with both engines out and nowhere to go but into the Hudson is tough. The "tough" decisions are made by airline management in the interest of the shareholders. Flight crew are frequently the most harshly treated by airline management.
I would like to distinguish between bad airlines and bad crew. In the main if a passenger undergoes a horrible experience, it is provided by the airline as a whole and very very seldom during flight time. We in the back make a choice to where we want to go and how much we will pay to go there. We have no allegiance to shareholders of the airline. That is the crucial point. SLF have a vested interest in the safety of the aircraft and crew. If the airline bosses had any kind of business acumen at all it would be to advertise, very loudly, that their airline has the calibre of captain such as Capt Sullenberger, and would support the training and qualification of the best kind of pilot. This was one of the main reasons why BA was so successful. It had a structure for flight deck crew that was the finest in the world. It doesnt seem to do that nowadays. Would I be prepared to spend an additional 30 euros ( just a speculative figure) to provide such training then yes I'd pay it in a New York minute. I'd also hunt down the airline who said the addition was to go to pilot training and get on their aircraft.
As for people going postal at the aircraft, the worst I have ever been treated was by BA terminal staff (not crew) so by the time I got on board I was ready to strangle someone. Yes it was at Heathrow.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I just butt in and say that I'm sick of the argument that "Safety in back is the fault of the meat in back that wants to pay so little?" If nothing else changed but that the tickets cost ten times as much, we'd still have the same problem. An administrator gets paid by cutting costs, regardless of the company's position. Two easy ways to cut costs are to cut salaries and to declare bankruptcy so that the pension fund might be raided.
In every civilized country, an airline ticket is issued guaranteeing transport to a minimum standard of safety, that the government ensures through regulation. In most places, the suits and marketing types get angry if one airline advertises its superior safety: safety is something that is supposed to be equal across airlines.
So it's not a problem higher ticket prices will resolve. And yes, passengers will seek the cheapest fare, but when that door closes, they forget about the ticket price.
The "efficiency experts" are always several steps ahead of the safety regulators, and several steps behind common business sense. So maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of regulation, considering that the crew's life and well-being as a whole has a direct impact on safety? There are ways to regulate a higher salary, the easiest of which is to reduce the pool of qualified personnel.
While they're at it, they can look at best practices for keeping the passengers calm. The latest batch of MBAs seems to have forgotten the wisdom of past generations: mammals become skittish and aggressive when enclosed together and denied food. Charging for meals may make a few bucks, but even giving out free crackers will calm the folks down and establish the proper power dynamic (provider-client as opposed to servant-patron), which, by the way, will help tremendously in an emergency.
In every civilized country, an airline ticket is issued guaranteeing transport to a minimum standard of safety, that the government ensures through regulation. In most places, the suits and marketing types get angry if one airline advertises its superior safety: safety is something that is supposed to be equal across airlines.
So it's not a problem higher ticket prices will resolve. And yes, passengers will seek the cheapest fare, but when that door closes, they forget about the ticket price.
The "efficiency experts" are always several steps ahead of the safety regulators, and several steps behind common business sense. So maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of regulation, considering that the crew's life and well-being as a whole has a direct impact on safety? There are ways to regulate a higher salary, the easiest of which is to reduce the pool of qualified personnel.
While they're at it, they can look at best practices for keeping the passengers calm. The latest batch of MBAs seems to have forgotten the wisdom of past generations: mammals become skittish and aggressive when enclosed together and denied food. Charging for meals may make a few bucks, but even giving out free crackers will calm the folks down and establish the proper power dynamic (provider-client as opposed to servant-patron), which, by the way, will help tremendously in an emergency.