Why Airline Pilots Should Make $200,000 (or more)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 60
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, there are those who just aren't happy if they can't shout to the world that pilots are a bunch of self-centred, ego-centric prats.
Pilots do what they do in no small part because of their type of personality, just as doctors and lawyers (among others) do. Given the realities of what it takes to both become a professional pilot and then continue to be a professional pilot, why do so many of you so easily bash a pilot for validating his/her salary or career path but never say a thing when it comes to other professions requiring a similar level of committment???
The article is great, the views pretty much spot on and the author doing an absolutely superb job of putting into layman's terms what a lot of us have gone through to get to where we are.
Well done and I shall pass it along.
Pilots do what they do in no small part because of their type of personality, just as doctors and lawyers (among others) do. Given the realities of what it takes to both become a professional pilot and then continue to be a professional pilot, why do so many of you so easily bash a pilot for validating his/her salary or career path but never say a thing when it comes to other professions requiring a similar level of committment???
The article is great, the views pretty much spot on and the author doing an absolutely superb job of putting into layman's terms what a lot of us have gone through to get to where we are.
Well done and I shall pass it along.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF, I prefer ticket prices lower- that's just being honest. I'll through in the following points for discussion- my opinions only, based on my experience.
1- The total (or near total) lack of trust, justified in many cases, between labor (not only pilots) and management. BTW, this is not unique to airlines, I have it in my on little co. as well. But why is it Southwest does well, has seemingl few labor problems, and everybody loves Herb? There has to be some connection. As an aside, the one Jetblue pilot I've spoken too over lunch at the airport has a lot of respect for David Neeleman as well.
2. Pilots probably should be paid well based upon the job criteria and conditions they work under. However, what they should be paid and what they can be paid are impacted by a free market system. The competetive marketplace defines how much money there is to go around, it's that simple.
3. I've said it before here, and I'll say it again- I fly the low cost carriers, Southwest and Airtran, not only to save money. I have found consistently better service and friendlier, happier personnel. To be fair, I don't necessarilly blame the front-line employees, as in many ways their ability to provide better service is hampered by management decisions. It's as simple as limes (or even lemons) in a gin and tonic- If I pay $4 for a G&T and I don't get a lime because of cost cutting, well that's not good enough. At the low cost carriers, I always get excellent service, albiet to a somewhat slightly lower standard.
4. Labor challenges and complaints shine through on service- and this is a service industry. I'm tired of hearing complaints about how bad things are for the airlines, this isn't the first rough patch and probably won't be the last. IMHO, the best you can do for the customer is smile and try to service the heck out of them within the confines management gives you. Remember, it's not as much fun for us to fly anymore either.
I fly roughly once a week, and the major I have almost a million miles on has become my virtual last choice, how the mighty have fallen.
In any case, I hope everybody can get (or keep) as much as they can.
1- The total (or near total) lack of trust, justified in many cases, between labor (not only pilots) and management. BTW, this is not unique to airlines, I have it in my on little co. as well. But why is it Southwest does well, has seemingl few labor problems, and everybody loves Herb? There has to be some connection. As an aside, the one Jetblue pilot I've spoken too over lunch at the airport has a lot of respect for David Neeleman as well.
2. Pilots probably should be paid well based upon the job criteria and conditions they work under. However, what they should be paid and what they can be paid are impacted by a free market system. The competetive marketplace defines how much money there is to go around, it's that simple.
3. I've said it before here, and I'll say it again- I fly the low cost carriers, Southwest and Airtran, not only to save money. I have found consistently better service and friendlier, happier personnel. To be fair, I don't necessarilly blame the front-line employees, as in many ways their ability to provide better service is hampered by management decisions. It's as simple as limes (or even lemons) in a gin and tonic- If I pay $4 for a G&T and I don't get a lime because of cost cutting, well that's not good enough. At the low cost carriers, I always get excellent service, albiet to a somewhat slightly lower standard.
4. Labor challenges and complaints shine through on service- and this is a service industry. I'm tired of hearing complaints about how bad things are for the airlines, this isn't the first rough patch and probably won't be the last. IMHO, the best you can do for the customer is smile and try to service the heck out of them within the confines management gives you. Remember, it's not as much fun for us to fly anymore either.
I fly roughly once a week, and the major I have almost a million miles on has become my virtual last choice, how the mighty have fallen.
In any case, I hope everybody can get (or keep) as much as they can.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in the sky with diamonds
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr cooper
as a licenced engineer i do hold your fate in my hand every day,and not only once a day but at least 8 times on a 12hr shift.any mistake on my part can have catastrophe concequence
for aircraft.pax,and crew my pay does not reflect the responsibility i have on my head every day.
a few engineer friends of mine now fly for majors in the UK and after only 2 years training they are on the f/o position.as 2nd officers.
for me to certify my first aircraft all those years ago fit for release to sevice took me 5 years of training and i am still learning now . $200.000 per year for a systems monitor seems over inflated regardless of rank.
ps i do your job for a hobby.
as a licenced engineer i do hold your fate in my hand every day,and not only once a day but at least 8 times on a 12hr shift.any mistake on my part can have catastrophe concequence
for aircraft.pax,and crew my pay does not reflect the responsibility i have on my head every day.
a few engineer friends of mine now fly for majors in the UK and after only 2 years training they are on the f/o position.as 2nd officers.
for me to certify my first aircraft all those years ago fit for release to sevice took me 5 years of training and i am still learning now . $200.000 per year for a systems monitor seems over inflated regardless of rank.
ps i do your job for a hobby.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be your hobby, Sir, but it is certainly not our job that you do. A frolick in a Cessna on a sunny day is a grand thing, reminds me of happier, more carefree times.
Tis’ a hard row we mostly hoe, the only reason we do it is because we love it, and many of us, I suspect, would be lost doing anything else. I’ll never be rich, but my current pay provides me and my family with all that is required to sustain life comfortably.
I’m a happy man.
Tis’ a hard row we mostly hoe, the only reason we do it is because we love it, and many of us, I suspect, would be lost doing anything else. I’ll never be rich, but my current pay provides me and my family with all that is required to sustain life comfortably.
I’m a happy man.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Mercury Project
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Egg Man? I think not. You are the walrus, and are truly living in the sky with diamonds.
I have bruised your delicate ego. I apologise.
You missed my point and there's nothing I can do to help you with that. However, judging by the syntax in your post, you may have bigger fish to fry. I'll leave it with you.
$200, 000 may indeed be too much to pay some aircrew, but when your loved ones survive an aircraft accident that should have been fatal (I say again, Sioux City) by snappy piloting, then that's money well spent I'd suggest. They deserve it.
You do nothing like my job Egg Man and if systems monitoring is all you think even commercial pilots do then I'm pretty sure you don't know much about aviation at all. My job is also my hobby but the difference is I get paid quite nicely for it, and I don't have the eternal burden of being a frustrated professional pilot.
I have bruised your delicate ego. I apologise.
You missed my point and there's nothing I can do to help you with that. However, judging by the syntax in your post, you may have bigger fish to fry. I'll leave it with you.
$200, 000 may indeed be too much to pay some aircrew, but when your loved ones survive an aircraft accident that should have been fatal (I say again, Sioux City) by snappy piloting, then that's money well spent I'd suggest. They deserve it.
You do nothing like my job Egg Man and if systems monitoring is all you think even commercial pilots do then I'm pretty sure you don't know much about aviation at all. My job is also my hobby but the difference is I get paid quite nicely for it, and I don't have the eternal burden of being a frustrated professional pilot.
UkEng
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post if a bit overdramatic, I'm an Eng with a large UK airline and have to say in general the crew i've met have been nothing but proffesional, calm and confident.
I've flown with many different airlines and apart from one (TAME) i've always felt safe, enjoyed some cracking landings and some more entertaining ones
but most of all have always got there in one piece.
I've also seen the state of some aircraft which have come in for repairs with loss of hydraulics, collapsed landing gear and large electrical system failures which to me is where the crew earn their dough. However many redundant systems and computer controls you build in, you can't be a good old bit of well trained flesh and blood up there in the hot seat.
Given that a hard landing can easily cause hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars damage , it really does pay to pay the crew well.
I've flown with many different airlines and apart from one (TAME) i've always felt safe, enjoyed some cracking landings and some more entertaining ones
but most of all have always got there in one piece.I've also seen the state of some aircraft which have come in for repairs with loss of hydraulics, collapsed landing gear and large electrical system failures which to me is where the crew earn their dough. However many redundant systems and computer controls you build in, you can't be a good old bit of well trained flesh and blood up there in the hot seat.
Given that a hard landing can easily cause hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars damage , it really does pay to pay the crew well.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Words & phrases that I have NOT seen in this thread: "cyclical", "Darwinian", "self-fulfilling prophesy".
Airline biz is inherently cyclical. Qualified and Certificated Aircrew can name their price when demand is up, and they can hardly find a parking place when it is down. Get used to it. Figure out a couple of alternate destinations in your career path and put yourself in position for a moderately smooth transition to each one of them, should things suddenly turn sour with the flying bit. Consider it "occupational IFR."
The sometimes miserable ziggurat to top flying opportunities is competitive in the extreme. Each player can be washed out at any point by a thousand different things. Persistence, luck, patience and more persistence are the necessary qualities. Similar to what you need to nurse a sickly aircraft to a happy end on one of those days when you're really earning the wage. Just imagine how many dragonflies in the puddles along the tarpon would really love to mate with an Airbus or a Boeing, and then reckon how many actually get to do it.
Salaries are already too high! What you really want is not the cash, that tends to get taxed a great many different ways and the slim remainder then dribbled away in often frivolous (gotta love 'em) pursuits; what you do want is some chance at capital accumulation during your career, both as compensation for the much discussed miseries of getting there and also to pave over the comforts and discomforts of your senior years. A far better deal than the $200K up-front would be $70k nominal income and $100K into a fully paid-up and company-independent annuity that will pay you the going rate of return (which is maybe $6K/annum right now) in perpetuity and then eventually devolve on your heirs as a capital asset. After 20 years of that you're making $120K p/a when not working at all. With a more annuitized form of compensation you lose the largely illusory glamor of the big-bucks-for-superhuman-skills deal, but save considerably in the taxes and actually come out with salvagable pieces of a life whether things do or do not turn out perfectly after one has obtained the qualifications and then done some serious work.
Periodic agonies can be heard, here and elsewhere, expressing anxiety that flight crews will be replaced or at least turned into working zombies by computerized things that do all the brain work and never have to pay rent, eat, or make nice for the spouse. For many reasons, I think. these fears are exaggerated, but the larger the digits are on the payroll tab, the larger the motivation is among the bean counters to spend company money on skilled boxes versus skilled people.
Footnote: LG Cooper sounds more like DB Cooper, the late 60's "inventor" of aircraft hijacking. Except now he's hijacking threads. Bitter and antagonistic make such a fine combination in a person, don't you know?.
Airline biz is inherently cyclical. Qualified and Certificated Aircrew can name their price when demand is up, and they can hardly find a parking place when it is down. Get used to it. Figure out a couple of alternate destinations in your career path and put yourself in position for a moderately smooth transition to each one of them, should things suddenly turn sour with the flying bit. Consider it "occupational IFR."
The sometimes miserable ziggurat to top flying opportunities is competitive in the extreme. Each player can be washed out at any point by a thousand different things. Persistence, luck, patience and more persistence are the necessary qualities. Similar to what you need to nurse a sickly aircraft to a happy end on one of those days when you're really earning the wage. Just imagine how many dragonflies in the puddles along the tarpon would really love to mate with an Airbus or a Boeing, and then reckon how many actually get to do it.
Salaries are already too high! What you really want is not the cash, that tends to get taxed a great many different ways and the slim remainder then dribbled away in often frivolous (gotta love 'em) pursuits; what you do want is some chance at capital accumulation during your career, both as compensation for the much discussed miseries of getting there and also to pave over the comforts and discomforts of your senior years. A far better deal than the $200K up-front would be $70k nominal income and $100K into a fully paid-up and company-independent annuity that will pay you the going rate of return (which is maybe $6K/annum right now) in perpetuity and then eventually devolve on your heirs as a capital asset. After 20 years of that you're making $120K p/a when not working at all. With a more annuitized form of compensation you lose the largely illusory glamor of the big-bucks-for-superhuman-skills deal, but save considerably in the taxes and actually come out with salvagable pieces of a life whether things do or do not turn out perfectly after one has obtained the qualifications and then done some serious work.
Periodic agonies can be heard, here and elsewhere, expressing anxiety that flight crews will be replaced or at least turned into working zombies by computerized things that do all the brain work and never have to pay rent, eat, or make nice for the spouse. For many reasons, I think. these fears are exaggerated, but the larger the digits are on the payroll tab, the larger the motivation is among the bean counters to spend company money on skilled boxes versus skilled people.
Footnote: LG Cooper sounds more like DB Cooper, the late 60's "inventor" of aircraft hijacking. Except now he's hijacking threads. Bitter and antagonistic make such a fine combination in a person, don't you know?.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ignorance is bliss
this poster ignores the fact that:
a) MBAs and Doctors all pay for their own training -- hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of training. Most pilots pay until they get their first real job (maybe with a commuter) and then training is paid for (save at Ryanair). The financial sacrifice of other "top professionals" appears to be lost on this poster, as is the capital cost that airlines incur to train their pilots. They have to get something for that financial commitment. And with the preponderance of RJs these days, just go to Embry riddle or Comair Flight academy and you are left seating in a real airplane after a year of school.
b) The unions he supports so aggressively are the reasons that it takes so long to fly heavy metal. Asian carriers hire pilots with under 1,500 hours to fly widebodies. There is no logical reason that supports the concept of bigger airplane=bigger pay. Each airplane has its nuances, but how different is a 747 from a DC9 once you've been trained? not much, other then more people to kill if you screw up, but the statistics do not support the fact that a 20 yr captain is going to make any fewer mistakes than a 2,000 hour pilot. If pilots could switch carriers without losing seniority and if pilots could also stay with one type for a career, total training and pilot labor costs at the airlines would be far, far less, and pilots could therefore make more, on average. Airlines would love that, but unions resist.
c) the market for pilots, despite the alleged impediments listed in the posting, is so robust that most airlines have 10 to 20 qualified applicants for each spot. Logically, that means that pilot pay needs to come down and it means that it's not so tough to get the requisite training to apply. It must be too fun relative to the "pain" incurred in advancing or else the interest just would not be there.
d) as an ex Army officer, I think this pilot's view of his military self worth is a bid inflated. Ground pounders have a much higher rate of injury and death, and generally destest the flyboys with their air conditioned birds and required hours of sleep each day. Put on the other guy's uniform before you go crying for sympathy -- you guys got it easy. That goes for a pilot's job too. I don't feel sorry for a pilot who flies 55 hours a month, away from home or not -- sorry, I work that in a week, pal, and I travel all the time too.
I appreciate your position, but I'm hard pressed to take your side -- some of you guys really live in a little bubble.
a) MBAs and Doctors all pay for their own training -- hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of training. Most pilots pay until they get their first real job (maybe with a commuter) and then training is paid for (save at Ryanair). The financial sacrifice of other "top professionals" appears to be lost on this poster, as is the capital cost that airlines incur to train their pilots. They have to get something for that financial commitment. And with the preponderance of RJs these days, just go to Embry riddle or Comair Flight academy and you are left seating in a real airplane after a year of school.
b) The unions he supports so aggressively are the reasons that it takes so long to fly heavy metal. Asian carriers hire pilots with under 1,500 hours to fly widebodies. There is no logical reason that supports the concept of bigger airplane=bigger pay. Each airplane has its nuances, but how different is a 747 from a DC9 once you've been trained? not much, other then more people to kill if you screw up, but the statistics do not support the fact that a 20 yr captain is going to make any fewer mistakes than a 2,000 hour pilot. If pilots could switch carriers without losing seniority and if pilots could also stay with one type for a career, total training and pilot labor costs at the airlines would be far, far less, and pilots could therefore make more, on average. Airlines would love that, but unions resist.
c) the market for pilots, despite the alleged impediments listed in the posting, is so robust that most airlines have 10 to 20 qualified applicants for each spot. Logically, that means that pilot pay needs to come down and it means that it's not so tough to get the requisite training to apply. It must be too fun relative to the "pain" incurred in advancing or else the interest just would not be there.
d) as an ex Army officer, I think this pilot's view of his military self worth is a bid inflated. Ground pounders have a much higher rate of injury and death, and generally destest the flyboys with their air conditioned birds and required hours of sleep each day. Put on the other guy's uniform before you go crying for sympathy -- you guys got it easy. That goes for a pilot's job too. I don't feel sorry for a pilot who flies 55 hours a month, away from home or not -- sorry, I work that in a week, pal, and I travel all the time too.
I appreciate your position, but I'm hard pressed to take your side -- some of you guys really live in a little bubble.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You keep going on about Sioux City LG , but that was ONE flight amongst MILLIONS !
True, they did an amazing job, but really if the odds were stacked against you like that everyday, none of us would be up there.
The truth is , that wx/maintainence issues aside, the plane works well for you in all probability most days, and so the odd heroic action aside-things are fairly routine....
Come on, how many pilots LOVE their job??? - pretty much all of them.....
True, they did an amazing job, but really if the odds were stacked against you like that everyday, none of us would be up there.
The truth is , that wx/maintainence issues aside, the plane works well for you in all probability most days, and so the odd heroic action aside-things are fairly routine....
Come on, how many pilots LOVE their job??? - pretty much all of them.....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in the sky with diamonds
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well put LDM
i too work about 60 hrs per week day shifts ,night shifts ,weekends,public holidays ect ,but thats neither here nor their as my flying pals do the same.
if only we got a fraction of the pay and respect for a truely safety critical job that pilots get iwould be a happier man.
what gets my goat is the few whinging airframe drivers who always feel how hard they have be done by.and everyone in the airline chain is unimportant as long as they get their own way all of the time.
northwest pilot strike in 98 where nortwest had to sack a few thousand staff worldwide just so there pilots could get there demands met,comes to mind.
i too work about 60 hrs per week day shifts ,night shifts ,weekends,public holidays ect ,but thats neither here nor their as my flying pals do the same.
if only we got a fraction of the pay and respect for a truely safety critical job that pilots get iwould be a happier man.
what gets my goat is the few whinging airframe drivers who always feel how hard they have be done by.and everyone in the airline chain is unimportant as long as they get their own way all of the time.
northwest pilot strike in 98 where nortwest had to sack a few thousand staff worldwide just so there pilots could get there demands met,comes to mind.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: everywhere
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANTI-ICE,
I think you have nailed it.... most of us love our jobs. And that is a far cry from all the proles we see below us, sitting in their cars on the M25 every morning commuting to their computers.
Personally, (and dont tell the unions this). But I would do this job for half the pay. Simply because it is not really work. Ive done real work and it is an overrated experience. I think what all of us want at the end of the day is lifestyle. For the bulk of people lifestyle=money.
In regards to the substance of this thread. I feel that our salaries compare pretty favourably with the average wages in most developed countries. Of course, we had to pay a lot to get here, and our training and recurrancy is the highest in most fields of employment. But we are not the only people in the world who would be considered underpaid. Take a look at any science journal in the world, and you will see phenomenally educated, qualified and intelligent people getting paid diddly for very important work. Scientists especially get shafted. After an 8 year PHD, some guy with an IQ of 160+ is getting paid less than half what I make. Its not fair to him.
My salary is fine. Id love more, but I dont feel I have any right to complain.
What I object to, are companies like Ryanair and Easyjet, who, through a number of different ways, trivialise my profession. The TRSS scheme is one, TV docu-soaps about airlines, paying to submit CV's, and all this sort of thing. I think most people would agree with me. But hopefully the tables will turn in the future with the tides of supply and demand.
thanks enough for now
bate
I think you have nailed it.... most of us love our jobs. And that is a far cry from all the proles we see below us, sitting in their cars on the M25 every morning commuting to their computers.
Personally, (and dont tell the unions this). But I would do this job for half the pay. Simply because it is not really work. Ive done real work and it is an overrated experience. I think what all of us want at the end of the day is lifestyle. For the bulk of people lifestyle=money.
In regards to the substance of this thread. I feel that our salaries compare pretty favourably with the average wages in most developed countries. Of course, we had to pay a lot to get here, and our training and recurrancy is the highest in most fields of employment. But we are not the only people in the world who would be considered underpaid. Take a look at any science journal in the world, and you will see phenomenally educated, qualified and intelligent people getting paid diddly for very important work. Scientists especially get shafted. After an 8 year PHD, some guy with an IQ of 160+ is getting paid less than half what I make. Its not fair to him.
My salary is fine. Id love more, but I dont feel I have any right to complain.
What I object to, are companies like Ryanair and Easyjet, who, through a number of different ways, trivialise my profession. The TRSS scheme is one, TV docu-soaps about airlines, paying to submit CV's, and all this sort of thing. I think most people would agree with me. But hopefully the tables will turn in the future with the tides of supply and demand.
thanks enough for now
bate
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Moved back to enemy territory... Leeds!!
Age: 49
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally recommend that instead of printing this out and handing it to colleagues, pilots hand it to passengers (people who pay your wages etc. etc.) and see just how much admiration/sympathy (delete as applicable) you get. But as has been already proved the "proles" who don't happen to be pilots are below contempt and so have no valid opinion, their purpose being solely to stump up the cash to allow you to be paid very handsomely for doing your jobs. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of the coach drivers (do the same job but work longer hours and don't have computerised driving aids)book and arrange for a whip round? Rant over, for now.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ATH
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impressive!
I stand somewhere in between...
Very well written, alittle too dramatic but it makes a point!
I served in the special forces for 13 months. Apart from putting your own life on the line and if you are stupid maybe a couple of others too, there is not a high risk.
Pilots live as you described, constantly been checked and tested.
They also work very hard to get there and you cant just do it for the money...you have to love it. I have seen people try it because they think it is a nice lifestyle,or the money is good, but they never make it.
I don't fully agree with the article but will definetely back it up!
Just so that some fools out there realise how important our job is. Even if that is done by showing them our worst case scenario..
Good work mate!
Very well written, alittle too dramatic but it makes a point!
I served in the special forces for 13 months. Apart from putting your own life on the line and if you are stupid maybe a couple of others too, there is not a high risk.
Pilots live as you described, constantly been checked and tested.
They also work very hard to get there and you cant just do it for the money...you have to love it. I have seen people try it because they think it is a nice lifestyle,or the money is good, but they never make it.
I don't fully agree with the article but will definetely back it up!
Just so that some fools out there realise how important our job is. Even if that is done by showing them our worst case scenario..
Good work mate!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the question that really needs to be answered may be; to what extend the law of offer and demand as regards to crew pay affects safety?
I agree that reality dictates that this law will affect pilots in most cases. My point is, there are limits to how low a salary can get before it starts to affects the moral of the crews involved and or be attractive to those that have the proper abilities.
Unfortunately you can not pay the flight crew of a 50 seats the same as a 350 seats, but in most cases the 350 seats guy will have flown the small plane for many years before and gained a lot of experience that will enable him to deliver what is expected from him once he flies the really big ones.
Remember that once you get to this stage you do not get to fly that much anymore and will have to rely on the experience gained during the years on the small ones doing may landings and take offs and everything that goes with it. It is not that obvious to perform at peak when you almost get no more practice.
In this reasoning I have of course only introduced a single variable (seat numbers) and I realize that there is much more to, however that would take us out of the context of this thread.
What I really wont to get across is that the issue of crew pay is similar to that of FDT rules. They (FDT and pay) should not be the core basis of Airline competition and the maximum FDT /lowest pay should be the same for all airlines since they are merely a safety issue.
Therefore a minimum should be set by law and the maximum should be left to the law of offer and demand. All this taking into account the huge investment that needs to be made by some pilots to get a license in the first place.
Having said so, I understand the reasoning in the posts by those that are not on the flight deck.
But why is it that the CEO of a company makes so much money, while he depends completely on the performance of his staff, as do pilots depend on maintenance and others.
I think it is because every often the crew does indeed safe the day or they do not make the mistakes that others would. Sometimes they anticipate and/or deal with the mistakes that others make. The difference with others is that they are the last resources available to the company to safe the day. On the other hand they can also screw up the work of many other employees if they are not properly qualified.
Feeling the desire to become a pilot is something that many people may have; it is only when you have done it for several years that you realize that it is not as romantic as it is often portrayed. Having said so it is unquestionable that, if you do not really love it you will never be good at it and the responsibility will undermine you soon or later.
To finish, I would like to remind the critics of pilot pay, that it is not that easy to get on the flight deck and once you are on it, it does not take that much to loose it.
There are many professions that pay very good money and offer a lot of protection if ever they screw up.
Try to nail a lawyer , CEO or doctor and you will understand what I am talking about.
I agree that reality dictates that this law will affect pilots in most cases. My point is, there are limits to how low a salary can get before it starts to affects the moral of the crews involved and or be attractive to those that have the proper abilities.
Unfortunately you can not pay the flight crew of a 50 seats the same as a 350 seats, but in most cases the 350 seats guy will have flown the small plane for many years before and gained a lot of experience that will enable him to deliver what is expected from him once he flies the really big ones.
Remember that once you get to this stage you do not get to fly that much anymore and will have to rely on the experience gained during the years on the small ones doing may landings and take offs and everything that goes with it. It is not that obvious to perform at peak when you almost get no more practice.
In this reasoning I have of course only introduced a single variable (seat numbers) and I realize that there is much more to, however that would take us out of the context of this thread.
What I really wont to get across is that the issue of crew pay is similar to that of FDT rules. They (FDT and pay) should not be the core basis of Airline competition and the maximum FDT /lowest pay should be the same for all airlines since they are merely a safety issue.
Therefore a minimum should be set by law and the maximum should be left to the law of offer and demand. All this taking into account the huge investment that needs to be made by some pilots to get a license in the first place.
Having said so, I understand the reasoning in the posts by those that are not on the flight deck.
But why is it that the CEO of a company makes so much money, while he depends completely on the performance of his staff, as do pilots depend on maintenance and others.
I think it is because every often the crew does indeed safe the day or they do not make the mistakes that others would. Sometimes they anticipate and/or deal with the mistakes that others make. The difference with others is that they are the last resources available to the company to safe the day. On the other hand they can also screw up the work of many other employees if they are not properly qualified.
Feeling the desire to become a pilot is something that many people may have; it is only when you have done it for several years that you realize that it is not as romantic as it is often portrayed. Having said so it is unquestionable that, if you do not really love it you will never be good at it and the responsibility will undermine you soon or later.
To finish, I would like to remind the critics of pilot pay, that it is not that easy to get on the flight deck and once you are on it, it does not take that much to loose it.
There are many professions that pay very good money and offer a lot of protection if ever they screw up.
Try to nail a lawyer , CEO or doctor and you will understand what I am talking about.
Excellent description of the challenges faced by various types of aviators. Did he describe what happens when pilots worked at three jet airlines (Presidential, Midway, Air Florida. PBA, Golden West....) in a row, all of which paid pilots salaries far below the majors rates (40-60% or less)- yet still went out of business?
Back on page five or so, "the Egg Man" stated that the Northwest pilots strike cost thousands of jobs around the world, or words to that effect.
Did he also tell us that Northwest management made the risky decision to walk out of negotiations with about two or three hours to go until the tentative stopping point at midnight? The deadline was not carved into stone, as with the Rosetta Stone. No, I didn't think that the Egg Man mentioned that, and was probably ignorant of strategic gambles made. Their upper mgmt ASSUMED that former Pres. Bill Clinton would appoint a PEB, an "emergency board" which would have forced an arbitrated and very concessionary contract. After a few days of the strike, the company did not appeal to the pilots to talk.
Those arbitrated contracts are crafted by people who don't understand or care if you deadhead around for a few days (at the company's demand) without getting paid. often spending only six-seven hours (results of strict compliance with FAR 121 regs) in a hotel after a 12-hour non-stop duty day, or are forced to spend six days gone with only ten hours pay, because the company is allowed to have totally inefficient crew scheduling with no duty or trip "rigs"....ad infinitum-get the picture? The mainstream media never stated this most inconvenient fact. Unions tend to keep talking with management after a deadline (known 30 days in advance), as long as both sides stay at the bargaining table. How about the numerous times, even before 9/11 when pilot unions agreed to 15, 20 or even up to 30% pay cuts for (i.e.) three years, sometimes to compensate for ruthlessly greedy executives or sharks who siphon many critical millions in cash from the operations?
Did he mention, along with others who need to blame labor for mgmts' screw-ups, the few HUNDREDs of mILLIONS of dollars or more which Northwest Airlines spent to buy back its own stock a few years ago? How about American's (AMR's) decision to spend over a BILLION to buy back stock? Were decisions made by dedicated mgmts? How many hundreds or thousands of NWA, or American and Eagle planes brought in the profits to fund this well-planned business decision? No, this was also left out of his problem in a nutshell.
Back on page five or so, "the Egg Man" stated that the Northwest pilots strike cost thousands of jobs around the world, or words to that effect.
Did he also tell us that Northwest management made the risky decision to walk out of negotiations with about two or three hours to go until the tentative stopping point at midnight? The deadline was not carved into stone, as with the Rosetta Stone. No, I didn't think that the Egg Man mentioned that, and was probably ignorant of strategic gambles made. Their upper mgmt ASSUMED that former Pres. Bill Clinton would appoint a PEB, an "emergency board" which would have forced an arbitrated and very concessionary contract. After a few days of the strike, the company did not appeal to the pilots to talk.
Those arbitrated contracts are crafted by people who don't understand or care if you deadhead around for a few days (at the company's demand) without getting paid. often spending only six-seven hours (results of strict compliance with FAR 121 regs) in a hotel after a 12-hour non-stop duty day, or are forced to spend six days gone with only ten hours pay, because the company is allowed to have totally inefficient crew scheduling with no duty or trip "rigs"....ad infinitum-get the picture? The mainstream media never stated this most inconvenient fact. Unions tend to keep talking with management after a deadline (known 30 days in advance), as long as both sides stay at the bargaining table. How about the numerous times, even before 9/11 when pilot unions agreed to 15, 20 or even up to 30% pay cuts for (i.e.) three years, sometimes to compensate for ruthlessly greedy executives or sharks who siphon many critical millions in cash from the operations?
Did he mention, along with others who need to blame labor for mgmts' screw-ups, the few HUNDREDs of mILLIONS of dollars or more which Northwest Airlines spent to buy back its own stock a few years ago? How about American's (AMR's) decision to spend over a BILLION to buy back stock? Were decisions made by dedicated mgmts? How many hundreds or thousands of NWA, or American and Eagle planes brought in the profits to fund this well-planned business decision? No, this was also left out of his problem in a nutshell.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To LMDflyer
Indeed, ignorance is bliss,
a) "...and you are left seating in a real airplane after a year of school."
and ...I don't want to be a pax in that aircraft whatever the training of the guy (or girl). After 20 years in that business I still learned everyday, my lack of knowledge about aviation when I was a young first officer (and hopefully I was not left seating at that time) was impressive indeed, whatever my opinon was at that time :-)
Don't think I had a sub standard training, I had one of the best in the world by a major flag carrier. It is just that experience IS a value in this job.
b) "There is no logical reason that supports the concept of bigger airplane=bigger pay"
There are a few indirect ones, bigger airplanes means more weight and more inertia. That's need for early reaction and early detection of problems (aka more experience); If you think an approach in a DC9 or B747 is the same, you never flew a big jet!
most of the time,it also means longer flights with more difficult decision making process. You have to taken into account what will hapens in 8,10 or 12 hours and not what will happens in the next hour. Also, as a rule bigger airplane, generally means long haul with more sleep disturbed pattern and longer time away from your family, wicht justified a higher salary.
But I confess, you will easily find situation where this doesn't applied, japanese companies doing short flight in B744, for instance.
That's why there is a strong tendancy to reduce the number of salary scales. In my previous airline, only two remains 'narrow body' and 'wide body'. And some negociation was started to transform it to 'short' and 'long' haul as A321 was sometimes doing very long flight and B744 sometimes short streches.
And about staying on one type for all your carreer, I think part of the success of Airbus, is the very short training required to qualify on a new aircraft and/or mixed fleet flying. Indeed, airline management love it.
c) There is not so many pilot available, or should I say qualified, airline receives a lot of application's letter but very few experienced pilot. That is the reason why the asian companies you wrote about hire pilots whith less than 1500h . They don't find anybody else!! And have a look at the safety of some asian companies in the last ten year and sorry but it shows.
d) Working 55hours per month, ROFL, Ok it has been discussed so many time here, have a look in past forums.
Your point is some guys have a harder time than pilots, I concur fully. But sorry, when one-eyed, I will try to protect my remaining one even if some guys are blind.
a) "...and you are left seating in a real airplane after a year of school."
and ...I don't want to be a pax in that aircraft whatever the training of the guy (or girl). After 20 years in that business I still learned everyday, my lack of knowledge about aviation when I was a young first officer (and hopefully I was not left seating at that time) was impressive indeed, whatever my opinon was at that time :-)
Don't think I had a sub standard training, I had one of the best in the world by a major flag carrier. It is just that experience IS a value in this job.
b) "There is no logical reason that supports the concept of bigger airplane=bigger pay"
There are a few indirect ones, bigger airplanes means more weight and more inertia. That's need for early reaction and early detection of problems (aka more experience); If you think an approach in a DC9 or B747 is the same, you never flew a big jet!
most of the time,it also means longer flights with more difficult decision making process. You have to taken into account what will hapens in 8,10 or 12 hours and not what will happens in the next hour. Also, as a rule bigger airplane, generally means long haul with more sleep disturbed pattern and longer time away from your family, wicht justified a higher salary.
But I confess, you will easily find situation where this doesn't applied, japanese companies doing short flight in B744, for instance.
That's why there is a strong tendancy to reduce the number of salary scales. In my previous airline, only two remains 'narrow body' and 'wide body'. And some negociation was started to transform it to 'short' and 'long' haul as A321 was sometimes doing very long flight and B744 sometimes short streches.
And about staying on one type for all your carreer, I think part of the success of Airbus, is the very short training required to qualify on a new aircraft and/or mixed fleet flying. Indeed, airline management love it.
c) There is not so many pilot available, or should I say qualified, airline receives a lot of application's letter but very few experienced pilot. That is the reason why the asian companies you wrote about hire pilots whith less than 1500h . They don't find anybody else!! And have a look at the safety of some asian companies in the last ten year and sorry but it shows.
d) Working 55hours per month, ROFL, Ok it has been discussed so many time here, have a look in past forums.
Your point is some guys have a harder time than pilots, I concur fully. But sorry, when one-eyed, I will try to protect my remaining one even if some guys are blind.
