Are we facing a safety issue?
 

Michael Moore's pointing out something no one in the media seems to want to discuss: How little money the people who are flying commercial planes are getting paid. As he says, these are not the people you want working a second job:

We're on the descent from 20,000 feet in the air when the flight attendant leans over the elderly woman next to me and taps me on the shoulder.

"I'm listening to Lady Gaga," I say as I remove just one of the ear buds. I know not this Lady Gaga, but her performance last week on SNL was fascinating.

"The pilots would like to see you in the cockpit when we land," she says with a southern drawl.

"Did I do something wrong?"

"No. They have something to show you." (The last time an employee of an airline wanted to show me something it was her written reprimand for eating an in-flight meal without paying for it. "Yes," she said, "we have to pay for our own meals on board now.")

The plane landed and I stepped into the cockpit. "Read this," the first officer said. He handed me a letter from the airline to him. It was headlined "LETTER OF CONCERN." It seems this poor fellow had taken three sick days in the past year. The letter was a warning not to take another one -- or else.

"Great," I said. "Just what I want -- you coming to work sick, flying me up in the air and asking to borrow the barf bag from my seatback pocket."

He then showed me his pay stub. He took home $405 this week. My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.

I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated). In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year. For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps. Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.

"I have a second job!," the two pilots said in unison. One is a substitute teacher. The other works in a coffee shop. You know, maybe it's just me, but the two occupations whose workers shouldn't be humpin' a second job are brain surgeons and airline pilots. Call me crazy.

I told them about how Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot who safely landed the jet in the Hudson River) had testified in Congress that no pilot he knows wants any of their children to become a pilot. Pilots, he said, are completely demoralized. He spoke of how his pay has been cut 40% and his own pension eliminated. Most of the TV news didn't cover his remarks and the congressmen quickly forgot them. They just wanted him to play the role of "HERO," but he was on a more important mission. He's in my movie.

"I hadn't heard anywhere that this stuff about the airlines is in this new movie," the pilot said.

"No, you wouldn't," I replied. "The press likes to talk about me, not the movie."

And it's true. I've been surprised (and slightly annoyed) that, with all that's been written and talked about "Capitalism: A Love Story," very little attention has been paid the mind-blowing stuff in the film: pilots on food stamps, companies secretly taking out life insurance policies on employees and hoping they die young so the company can collect, judges getting kickbacks from the private prison industry for sending innocent people (kids) to be locked up. The profit motive -- it's a killer.

Especially when your pilot started his day at 6am working at the local Starbucks.





Alright, that is not really new, but my question is, what can we do? Is the situation going to get worse in the future? And the most important: Is it going to influence safety?

Is that a supply and demand (too many pilots trained) issue?
Is that because of the recession only?
How about the fuel price in the next few years?
Are we about to face a change, or the end of this career?

As long as lowest priced tickets are available they will live happy with the mis-understanding that pilots earn hundreds of thousands a year, live in big executive homes, send thier progeny to private schools and have a yacht on the med.

Unfortunately the media and the travelling public don't really five a t0ss as long as ticket prices stay bargain low.

As a non pilot, I have difficulty understanding how a UK airline Captain can be earning £100,000+ per year & junior first officers maybe a third of that, yet the OP states that some American pilots earn $17,000 per year.

Is the rate of pay in the UK & America so different?

Yep...but if we're not careful, we'll be equal before too long...

Maybe I should give the source of the article:
The title is: Do you want airlines pilot working two jobs?



I don't know to what extend Michael Moore tell the truth and don' t exagerate, but when I read this article, first I feel it is the reality of many pilots, and second I start wondering about the future, about safety.
So here you are: an other questions I am asking you, does this unconfortable pilot situation concerns only north american and low cost companies, or is that a general and worldwide trend and phenomenon?

Bruce Wayne:
The low cost tickets... But are we carrying more passenger with less pilots than before yes or not? Low cost tickets should mean low pilot salaries?

Flying idle:
Here is a real issue: A new F/O should have the possibility to work on his knowledge, procedures, aircraft systems instead of working in an other unrelated field. Here is one aspect of the safety issue right?

Michael Moore: Do You Want Airline Pilots to Be Working Two Jobs? | Crooks and Liars

I assume the last three words are the job titles of the author of the article - honesty for a change...........

Of course these salaries seem crazy, but remember nobody is forcing these guys to work for peanuts. They're all well educated people, they could get other jobs, but they choose to fly because they love it. And since deregulation the airlines have been able to exploit that.

We should also remember that there are far more jobs for pilots now than there were before deregulation - force salaries - and fares - up and there'll be fewer jobs.

It's a trade-off - few people would deny that it's gone too far in one direction, but there will be consequences that not everyone will like of pushing back in the other direction. And then of course there's the question of exactly how one might push back in the other direction. Government regulation to increase air fares wouldn't be an easy political sell.

The fact is that many of the new joiners to the industry in the UK, at some of the leading players are not even getting paid. Some are even paying circa 30,000 pounds upfront for a few hundred hours on a shiny jet (not including the cost of getting their licence). Others are 90,000 in debt, get 1000 pounds a month "allowance" - which is actually their own money that they're getting back (otherwise they'd be paying tax and national insurance on it), to be unceremoniously shown the door after six months to be replaced by the next starry eyed wannabe. But we all know this, and nobody seems to give much of a !!!!!. Safety best practice, hmmm????:ugh: Unfortunately, this is now becoming the norm worldwide. When it ends in tears with a smoking hole it'll already be too late. First officers have become a revenue stream when in fact they should be there as capable 2 second in commands.:yuk:

Fitter 2:
Yes, that is why I have added the source.
Still, who would have thought 10 years ago that Michael Moore would be interested by the supposed "demise" of the airline pilots? Itself it is something.
Speaking about Irak, Weapon industry, capitalism, I think we all can understand (agree or disagree), knowing who the guy is. But airline pilots?


Beanbag:
What about the airlines, the training industry?

Let' s say the accident rate rises a bit, and that we even evaluate that in some cases, that is because fatigue, low salaries... Who is responsable?
Training industry? The crew? The airline?
So first we have to evaluate wether there is a link or not between low wages and safety. If this is the case, who has to do something?

Curiously, and by almost complete coincidence, I came across this thread just after posting (several times) on this forum on a related point (my handle over there is "Observer"). I think this is a real worry and I wish I could feel it is more widely recognised in the air travel industry. Anyway, I hope you guys (commercial pilots) appreciate that some of the SLF you carry have some understanding of your concerns.

Some of the most beautiful antebellum mansions in the port city near me were built a hundred years ago by ship captains. They were the very cream of society in the 1800's.

Now, my uncle is a ship captain in the Gulf of Mexico. At the age of 55 he makes about $70,000 U.S. a year - which happens to be the median income of the U.S.

It's the Law of Entropy, applied to career earnings. Nothing we can do, I guess... go to law school and learn to sue people if you want to make a killing.....

Hi!

There is proposed legistlation in the (US) Congress, that will require ALL Part 121 (Domestic, Regional and Supplemental airlines that fly large aircraft, ie: Delta, Mesa, FedEx, USA Jet) carriers to employ ONLY pilots that have an ATP-MEL (same as the ICAO ATPL).

So, all new hires would need an ATP, which has, as part of its' requirements, at least 1500 hours TT. Under 1500 hours? No ATP. No -121 airline job.

It seems that pay would go up for new joiners.

cliff
NBO
PS-I applied, in 2000, to a number of US -121 airlines, with my ATP-MEL, and was told by most that I was unqualified. At the same time, they were hiring guys with 500 hours TT. Too bad for me!

GXER.....very interesting link.

The common thread among posters was their appreciation of getting value for money, particularly the individual who is proud to book tickets months in advance for 1 Euro a time.

I would be loathe to eat a fast food hamburger offered for 1 Euro............(how could I be sure of the origin of the meat or the age and contents of the frying fat for example, let alone the hygenic habits of the cook !).

So where low cost means no newspapers, drinks, bags and boarding cards and this is visible to the punters then they can make a straightforward and informed evaluation.between service providers.

But if all the cost components taken in to consideration in running a safe airline are reviewed, then surely lower cost must be eating in to the efficacy of these operations and therefore the punter who is proud to pay 1 Euro or 26 Euros is surely gambling based upon an area of operations about which they can have little or no knowledge and therefore can have no informed opinion on what "value" they are receiving.

A turbo prop freight pilot in the UK is on a similar wage, and turboprop and instructors un the UK aren't a world apart ...

Wrong comparison there! A one penny flight is available today with Ryanair. It's common knowledge that the FR fleet is the newest in the industy, and for all FR's faults, I've never seen any suggestion that their maintainance/operation procedures isn't up to scratch. This thread is about flight crew incomes, and that dosn't seem to relate to the airline being either legacy or lo-co.

WP

Well WP, in my opinion a reasonable comparison because those costs are hidden from me and I cannot have an informed opinion.

But just to choose one area related to this thread, does BA charge junior pilots for their type ratings and flying experience and then show them the door after 6 months ? does Ryanair or any of the other locos ? I am happy to be informed by a source who is close to the action.......

Is there evidence to suggest that a younger fleet needs less maintenance in the short term and that clever bulk purchasing can create a short term model which may not be sustainable in the long term ?......

Whats your definition of "common knowledge" as opined in your post, is that based on informed opinion ?

In hindsight however, I can see that spiralling house values, overinflated stocks and consumerism based on the never never had to come to a crashing stop, even though, once again, I personally had no informed opinion on the weak debt structures of the financial sector.

I just remember the old saying "no such thing as a free lunch".

However, if anyone can explain to me in an informed way that it is possible to deliver a very cheap fare structure without compressing crew salaries, as I have written I am willing to be open minded about how the "magic formula" works.

Ryanair does post fares for one penny, but after all the additions its not far from the other airlines, its just their gimmick. I have few safety concerns about Ryanair because if I did I wouldnt fly with them. The crew on every flight Ive flown with Ryanair have been polite and reasonable, its the set-up that makes passengers feel like cattle, which is bearable for a short while but not my preference. As an airline its ways arent the worst lo-co UK outfit, BMI Baby takes that position, and for my money, the best - Easyjet.

BA is not likely to get a fare from me for two reasons- they provide the same level of service as Ryanair for a lot more money and secondly, Heathrow. I loathe travelling from there and will avoid it at all costs.

US crew are indeed getting a bad deal but a low cost operation need not be either unsafe nor pay stupidly low salaries. Michael Moore has a knack for pressing the right buttons when needed. I'm glad hes doing what hes doing despite his political associations. If anything we need more Moores.

How were vested pensions lost?
 

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.

In cases where the pilots "lost" pensions, did this involve "voluntarily" exchanging vested pension rights for future employment contract rights when a carrier restructured in or out of bankruptcy?

Thx.

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'll get my coat I was just leaving

"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......

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.

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

Maybe the rapid advances being made with UAV's will solve the problem? Only a few ground controllers to pay when they take over, so their rate of pay can be suitably large.

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.

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.

Yes but it is a set amount, regardless of your pension. And Airline pilot pensions were disproportionately large - typically half your final salary.

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....

Maximum PBGC benefit for Age 60 pilot was $28,500 when United Airlines pension was terminated. Average pilot pension after 30+ years was AT LEAST FOUR TIMES THAT.

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!!)

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.

As a U.S. based Captain earning the same hourly rate as in 1991, with 18 flight days scheduled per month, and no more pension, I do not have the time to work a second job either, nor did I think I would ever need to!

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' :ugh:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fao City Fan
 

CityFan. Where did you get that info from? Aer Lingus have not laid off 500 pilots. Aer Lingus have 500 pilots approx. Aer Lingus have never laid off any operating pilots in the last 18 years that I know of. There are new cut backs being suggested and there are 100 pilots threatened with the chop but knowing the Aer Lingus guys.

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.

Bulls-eye
 

I believe PJ2 accurately and concisely described the current situation.

R

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.

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.

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.