Is this a dying breed of Airman / Pilot for airlines?

[SNS3Guppy]

And yet most, nay all, air operators specify minimum hours for any flight crew vacancy. Go figure?

Certainly as a HR function, yes. The published minimums are really quite meaningless, however, as it's the competitive minimums that rule the day.

A company that advertises a published minimum of 1,500 hours, but which is hiring pilots with ample international heavy experinece and 15,000 hours for example, hires at the competitive minimum established by those applicants competing for the job.

[SNS3Guppy]

An aircraft captain worrying about what an FO thinks when being corrected for a safety issue, becomes a safety concern himself.

The "beancounters" have no bearing on the issue.

We make professional decisions based on what is right and correct. Not what a subordinate may think.

[odericko2000]

Somebody on this thread is bashing every one and is now looking ridiculous contradicting himself.
If the competitive minimums set by applicants goes up to 15,000 hours and ample wide body experience, whereas the published mins. Were 1500hrs. then the HR department of the said airline bases it's minimum cut off for their interviews based on the types of heavy machinery and experience whereby in this case is going to be quantified in hours of flight.
Remember the recruiters doing the shortlisting of the 'applying candidates' have neither met nor flown with these wannabes, so their shortlisting is largely based on 'ample experience' which in this case can only be established by looking at types and hours provided on candidates resume.
Somehow the mr. Know it all is still going to try and convince us hours count for jerk. Go on kidding yourself, the argument that hours count for nothing can be argued very broadly as has been said on this thread severally, it all depends how, where and doing what or in this case flying what but generally speaking a 5,000 hour rated co pilot isn't the same as a 250 hour straight from flying school F/O. Remember I said generally speaking.
Your rants are now welcome, go on!

[Jabiman]

Certainly as a HR function, yes. The published minimums are really quite meaningless, however, as it's the competitive minimums that rule the day.

A company that advertises a published minimum of 1,500 hours, but which is hiring pilots with ample international heavy experinece and 15,000 hours for example, hires at the competitive minimum established by those applicants competing for the job.

And this is where your argument falls apart.
Airlines are in an extremely competitive environment with massive oversupply of pilots. A lot of airlines are losing money and struggling to survive, while most others are on razor thin margins.
The beancounters have figured out that by cutting crew T & C’s by 10% they can increase profits by 50% or more.
As this also results in bonuses for managers, and as this is one of the few controllable expenses then it is the trough to which they will continue to go to.
These experience pilots are going to be forced to work on ever decreasing salaries and if they refuse then there is someone less experienced willing to take their place.
From another thread on these forums:

i have the same problem as cuvcap but on A320.

Ttl hours 8.000, valid CPT ratings on A 320 but no flight on aircraft since february.
Does anybody have an idea where i may have the possibility to get flights, i would go for three month without any salary to compensate costs for the company.

http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/435040-recency-type.html

And the tail spin to the bottom is what this thread is all about.

[SNS3Guppy]

"Beancounters" is a term which keeps coming up here, suggesting as the original post alleges, that airlines are seeking to reduce the experience base and professional competence of the typical cockpit crewmember.

This is, of course, patently untrue.

And this is where your argument falls apart.
Airlines are in an extremely competitive environment with massive oversupply of pilots.

Quite an observation, given that all the talk is nothing but the so-called impending pilot shortage. I agree with you, however: we have no shortage, never have, and never will. We presently have ample qualified pilots seeking work. We are not seeing an influx of inexperienced aviators. Operators have an ample base of significant experience from which to draw, hence the high competitive minimums. Accordingly, my "argument" does not fall apart. It's consistent, and correct.

These experience pilots are going to be forced to work on ever decreasing salaries and if they refuse then there is someone less experienced willing to take their place.

I don't believe I've ever worked for an employer that cut my wages. It's come up, and I've been asked to make wage concessions. I've refused. Consistently, my career has seen a salary increase with time, and with employment. While I've taken new jobs, contract assignments, temporary work, and other duties that have paid less, I've not seen a decrease with any given employer over time. My wage has either been consistent in accordance with a contract, or has increased with longevity.

If you're talking about pilots who lose their employment and seek other employment, it's certainly possible that they may be forced to take a lower paying job. Don't blame that on the beancounters; not every employer pays the same, and let's face it: if furloughs and layoffs are in progress, the economy is down. The economy is down, expect the market to become employer-driven. The market becomes an employer's market.

This does not diminish the professionalism of crews. Lower pay does not equate to lower professionalism, or diminished airmanship. Your parallel is non-sequitur.

And the tail spin to the bottom is what this thread is all about.

No, the thread is built on a lie, and serves as fodder for the hungry media specialists out there seeking to build a story. In this case, a story about nothing.

If the competitive minimums set by applicants goes up to 15,000 hours and ample wide body experience, whereas the published mins. Were 1500hrs. then the HR department of the said airline bases it's minimum cut off for their interviews based on the types of heavy machinery and experience whereby in this case is going to be quantified in hours of flight.

No. Competitive minimums increase where more experienced pilots are available to compete for a given position. In nearly all cases, competitive minimums are well above published minimums.

Competitive numbers aren't necessarily flight hour numbers. The possession of a type rating, prior experience in the desired line of work, previous experience in type, command experience, etc, all serve as factors to make a pilot more desirable.

I tend to hire into positions with specialty experience. Often when I'm hired for a job, it's not based on my hours, or certainly not on my hours alone. When I take a job, it's not based on who is paying the most. In some cases, I'm hired based on my experience in a particular type of flying operation, or in a particular type of equipment. My dedication to a particular assignment, be it temporary, long term, contract, direct employment, or otherwise, is not contingent on what I'm getting paid. It's not contingent on the type of equipment I'm flying. I have gone from large turbojet to small piston and back, single to multi, multi to single, turbojet to piston to turboprop to turbojet, and back and forth. My own dedication to the assignment, my level of attention, my professionalism, and my effort have not diminished between assignments.

You would suggest that as airmen lose a position or move from one job to another and find lower wages, that professionalism diminishes? Airmanship decreases? CRM is somehow less? Hardly.

Remember the recruiters doing the shortlisting of the 'applying candidates' have neither met nor flown with these wannabes, so their shortlisting is largely based on 'ample experience' which in this case can only be established by looking at types and hours provided on candidates resume.

No. I can tell you that my employer looks at far more than hours. Most employers do. Employers look at past experience and job history; it's there on the resume. Employers look at the experience of the pilot. It's not a matter of he-who-has-the-greatest-hours-wins. Not at all.

A pilot with prior command experience and check airman experience may have less hours than others at the interview, but may make a better, more desirable candidate. Thus, hours don't necessarily trump experience.

I arrived at an interview session many years ago in which I was the highest time pilot present. The job involved twin turboprop aircraft. I had four-engine experience in large piston airplanes, which was counted by the interviewers the same as single engine time. The employers weren't interested in total time, but specifically experience.

Go on kidding yourself, the argument that hours count for nothing can be argued very broadly as has been said on this thread severally, it all depends how, where and doing what or in this case flying what but generally speaking a 5,000 hour rated co pilot isn't the same as a 250 hour straight from flying school F/O.

Precisely; the 5,000 hour rated copilot has greater experience.

[TopTup]

Guppy....Possibly against better judgement I'll respond.

You call this thread I started based on lies. In your opinion & your interprationation. It appears no one else has followed your opinion. You alone incorrectly interpreted my post & you alone jumped the gun to attempt to ridicule a point I gave, failing to check the reference given. I then quoted the reference yet still you write later none was given. Your retort? Baseless accusations borne from self-righteousness & failure to thoroughly read or comprehend before mouthing off.

Your tact of ridicule & constant berratement against anyone daring to offer a different opinion defines & is the epitome of poor charactor, lack of common courtesy & of course professionalism or airmanship. What agony & frustration you must be to share a cockpit with if your colleague offers a differing perspective or interpretation!!

All you've done is rant from your own cocoon. Ask the many UA drivers if their lifestyle suffered under dubious [unscrupulous] beancounters. Ask the many, many RAL contracted pilots about their cut in salary. Open your cycloptic view to the REAL TERM salaries of pilots since derregulation in the States. Ask the CX pilots & / or their AOA about their appreciation of the new "C-Scale" being arranged....... Ask the wider pilot body if their salaries benefitted from paying for endorsements, ratings, uniforms, accomodation, tea/coffee refer to RyanAir). Since as you claim YOURS never has then how can anyone else's possibly??!! Arrogance in the extreme. Then again as the doyan & sole benefactor of all that is right & true you can answer all these with utter denial because your one-eye chooses not to look there, least of all posess the professional fortitude to read, study or comprehend more of the world outside your one man band. Like believing there's no hunger in the world since you're not the one going without.

You alone have bought this dislike of you from not only me but others here seeking an intelligent debate on real issues we see as important. Most of us welcome an open & informative debate where we accept others' opinions & inputs. You haven't the charactor nor integrity to participate but for your arrogance & utter lack of professional courtesy.

All the world is stupid but you, eh?

Many EXPERIENCED airman have offered true accounts & opinions based on their long careers. The theme still appears the same. One can't be a part of the change if unable to accept the need for it.

[SNS3Guppy]

You alone incorrectly interpreted my post & you alone jumped the gun to attempt to ridicule a point I gave, failing to check the reference given.

Among your failings in this thread, aside from the creation of the thread, was your failing to provide a reference. You still haven't done so. No link, no citation. What you did finally do is provide a partial quote, out of quotations (not in), addressing a portion of the post to which you referred. The best you could do, a lazy and poor approach was to refer the reader to the CX Wannabe Forum. Did you assume someone would go read the tens of thousands of posts there in the hopes of finding your material? This isn't the first time you've stated you provided the reference. You failed to do so. Therefore, there was no reference to check.

Once you did copy some of the information you deemed relevant, it turned out that the only thing this information did for you was reveal your lie.

You opened with the clear attempt to state that interview questions today are no longer technical, but instead revolve around questions such as "what do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?"

As we have already clearly shown, this was your lie.

You later produced some of the questions from the CX Wannabe Forum, showing two distinct groups of questions: one, technical, the other, HR. You attempted to suggest that technical questions have been supplanted in pilot inteviews by questions about parental consent...when in fact the very information you provided showed that technical questions were asked. You attempted to confuse the issue and deceive by mixing the question bases and types of interviews. Your post, and your efforts to support it, were a lie.

Your only links and citations, in fact, were to reports concerning experienced airmen who performed well under pressure. You provided no links, no citations, to anything else. In this you failed, just as you failed to make your point, and then failed to support your point by providing information which contradicted what you said. This has already been clearly shown, ad nauseum.

Your tact of ridicule & constant berratement against anyone daring to offer a different opinion defines & is the epitome of poor charactor, lack of common courtesy & of course professionalism or airmanship.

You confuse "berratement" with the truth. You lied. You deceived. You picked a forum which is frequented by the press and the media and dangled a lie, and it's been shown to be what it is. Held up to the light, examined without any great need for care, it's clearly deceit and a lie. You made a blanket statement condemning what you see as a spiraling downward trend in the industry, supported it with falsehood and lack of citation, and were revealed. You're clearly unhappy about this, but don't confuse that with ridicule and "berratement."

Your assertion that revealing the truth about your comments is the "epitome of poor character, lack of common courtesy, and of course professionalism or airmanship" doesn't really deserve much reply. What revealing your lie has to do with airmanship, one can only guess. You shouldn't have attempted to deceive and lie.

All you've done is rant from your own cocoon. Ask the many UA drivers if their lifestyle suffered under dubious [unscrupulous] beancounters. Ask the many, many RAL contracted pilots about their cut in salary. Open your cycloptic view to the REAL TERM salaries of pilots since derregulation in the States. Ask the CX pilots & / or their AOA about their appreciation of the new "C-Scale" being arranged....... Ask the wider pilot body if their salaries benefitted from paying for endorsements, ratings, uniforms, accomodation, tea/coffee refer to RyanAir). Since as you claim YOURS never has then how can anyone else's possibly??!! Arrogance in the extreme. Then again as the doyan & sole benefactor of all that is right & true you can answer all these with utter denial because your one-eye chooses not to look there, least of all posess the professional fortitude to read, study or comprehend more of the world outside your one man band. Like believing there's no hunger in the world since you're not the one going without.

Wow, that's quite a rant. I'm one of those US pilots receiving a "real term" salary since deregulation, by the way. No particular need to tell me what I make, seeing as it's my paycheck. Thanks for your concern, though, however much it may be none of your business.

Doyan. There's quite a word. I had to look it up. You assert that I'm the senior in my profession, do you? Interesting.

No, my salary has never been cut by an employer. I've been asked to take pay concessions, and have refused. I've quit and gone elsewhere, and I've had paychecks "bounce." My answer was to seek other employment. If pilots are so busy sucking at the big tit that they can't see it's dry, and can't move on to find better work, then perhaps they deserve to stay and shrivel away.

What the salary has to do with professionalism and airmanship, however, is at best a weak association and directly, a lie.

If your airmanship is a function of your salary, then you indeed display no professionalism or work ethic.

Do I fly less precisely if I'm paid less? Of course not.

If the pay is indeed cut or a lower tier introduced in the pay plan, does that mean training is done to a lower standard? Of course not.

Do you really think that airlines seek out the least experienced and least competent pilots they can find? Of course not.

You've failed to provide citations in your initial post, save for two; one to the Qantas event, and one to the US Air event. Neither represents inexperienced aviators or poor airmanship.

You alone have bought this dislike of you from not only me but others here seeking an intelligent debate on real issues we see as important. Most of us welcome an open & informative debate where we accept others' opinions & inputs. You haven't the charactor nor integrity to participate but for your arrogance & utter lack of professional courtesy.

Gee, that really hurts. TopTup doesn't like me. Ouch. The day looks darker already. Whatever shall I do? (Forget about it entirely, most likely). You really know how to hurt a guy. Then again, perhaps not.

You really don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? You don't take it well, do you? You do not.

It's unfortunate that you had to lie, and it's unfortunate that you had to be revealed. It's unfortunate that you've continued to argue for and support your lie through all these pages, and it's unfortunate that your blood pressure is slowly rising as you support the lie. The fix is easy. Stop the lie.

You've whined about "beancounters" and pay tiers. You've whined about deregulation. You've whined about pay, and you've lied about interview questions (and even about your own references and citations...the ones you failed to provide). What you haven't done, and can't do, is show an association that proves that airmanship and professionalism in the cockpit is dead, and that those who engage in quality airmanship are a "dying breed."

I've yet to meet a single pilot, not one, in my entire career, who has said "I'm not getting paid enough, so I won't train to the same standard, and I won't fly accurately and precisely, and safety is going to suffer today." I've yet to meet a pilot who failed to perform his or her best because the wages weren't enough. I've yet to meet a pilot who risked the lives of passengers, or the safety of property because of "beancounters." Perhaps this is as you suggest, arrogance, seeing only through my own eyes and a full career spanning the globe. I can't see through your eyes (and frankly would rather be skewered with bamboo splinters), so I won't try. If you think restricting my observations to that which I've personally observed to be "arrogant," then so be it.

If you want "arrogant," try imposing your views on the world, lying in the reporters forum, and making wild, industry-condemning accusations without any basis of fact, citation, or ability to back it up. That would be you, of course, but don't let it stop you. Thus far, you certainly haven't.

Are you honestly going to tell me that pilots under the CX C-scale are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job?

Are you honestly going to tell me that UA (presumably you mean United Airlines: you throw around a lot of acronyms and jargon, an unfortunate assumption on your part, but one of many) pilots are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job because of "dubious (unscrupulous) beancounters?"

If so, then you can't help but lie.

All the world is stupid but you, eh?

I said no such thing, but let me ask you this: do you consider yourself to be "all the world?"

If so, I think you have your answer.

[protectthehornet]

I wish I could care about this thread, but I am at a loss.

anyway, if you are a passenger, I hope you have a good old fashioned and LUCKY pilot.

if you are a manager, you should consider hiring the above...it will pay for itself in the long run.

if you are a new fangled pilot, learn the old ways too.

and IF I've never heard of you, and you are a good old fashioned pilot...you've done your job and God Bless you.

[TopTup]

Guppy: as from my initial post, post #1:

"Interview questions used to be along the lines of "How did you accrue your hours? What lessons did you learn? Tell me about Vmca / Vmcg (piston vs twin jet).... How does the IRS work (then strap down gyros, etc...) Nowadays it's: "What do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?" ([/b][/i]refer CX Wannabes forum[/i][/b])."

No reference given, eh? True.... I did expect anyone questioning the claim to use the reference given (I know, I know.... The one too blatant provided). That may have taken some reading. Too much to ask to someone more hell bent on self righteous ridicule without the professionalism to research first.

You state "we" proved no reference given. No. Only you. Again, quit believing your self assumed omniscience.

I cannot find find ONE post linking or believing that salary scales directly proportional to pilot skill or ambition. Many have questioned motive for the job. Most have questioned the levels of professionalism & airmanship of those accepting lower T & C's owing to their competitive lack of experience as opposed to those with substantially more. You are the one flogging that agenda to death.

You deny airlines seek less experienced pilots via reduced pay scales: pay scales they know experienced pilots, by an overwhelming majority, will not accept. Reference: CX offer to the 60 experienced pilots for the CEP "short course" whereby all but 1 refused. There's another reference for you to deny it's existence & be too lazy to research!

I trust I didn't use any more words outside your vocabulary this time. No more response to you. I took 10 mins away from family & friends for the previous post & 5 this time. Like others' opinion here, you're just not worth it. Arguing with a narrow minded person isn't rewarding. Boring really.

[SNS3Guppy]

"Interview questions used to be along the lines of "How did you accrue your hours? What lessons did you learn? Tell me about Vmca / Vmcg (piston vs twin jet).... How does the IRS work (then strap down gyros, etc...) Nowadays it's: "What do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?" ([/b][/i]refer CX Wannabes forum[/i][/b])."

No reference given, eh? True.... I did expect anyone questioning the claim to use the reference given (I know, I know.... The one too blatant provided). That may have taken some reading. Too much to ask to someone more hell bent on self righteous ridicule without the professionalism to research first.

A reference to the forum is inadequate, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

You provided no link. I have no intention of researching your posts for you, and if you can't be bothered to link your information or at least quote it and give the thread reference, that's your failing, and your problem. You did neither.

You did assert, after all, that technical questions are no longer asked, but your quote listed technical questions all the same. You were called out on this, but failed to respond. When you finally did quote the CX post (in #8 in this thread), you excused yourself by saying "as frustrating as it is to do the research to prove what I knew, hence the reference!" Apparently you find researching your own posts frustrating, and expect others to do it for you. Alternately, your failure to reference was also excused in post #8 by saying "that was needed to be respectfully & professionally paid for: reference is personal knowledge of internal SIN Safety Dept info, sorry can't give the source." Perhaps if you're unable to give the reference, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.

Same song, same dance, same backpedaling. Here we are eight or nine pages later, and you remain the same.

It's an insult to argue you.

Yet you do it anyway. (and lose). Why punish yourself?

Not to question your highly educated English (I know you're very sensitive), but "It's an insult to argue with you," works a little better.

I cannot find find ONE post linking or believing that salary scales directly proportional to pilot skill or ambition. Many have questioned motive for the job. Most have questioned the levels of professionalism & airmanship of those accepting lower T & C's owing to their competitive lack of experience as opposed to those with substantially more. You are the one flogging that agenda to death.

No. Actually I'm the one not "flogging it to death." I'm the one who states that professionalism and airmanship doesn't depend on the paycheck.

Seeing as you brought it up, of course, the issue of professionalism linked to pay has been broached by you, in post #1 (asserting that airlines are actually seeking to lower standards--"the lowest common denominator"--by paying less), and continued throughout the thread. I'm one of the few asserting that professionalism and airmanship isn't reduced by lower pay.

Interesting that you tell me I'm the one perpetuating the idea. when it was your first lie, and the foundation of the thread. Of course, now you're telling us that pilots refuse those lower salaries, whereas your opening shot told us that "pilots are lining up in endless ques to accept them." Another example of your inconsistency throughout the thread.

So, let's see, posts linking pay with pilot skill and ambition...the thread, as you introduced it, is actually about airmanship, but if you want to call it skill and ambition now, as you wish. Posts that have done this: 1, 8, 9, 15, 25, 27, 30, 34, 37, 39, 46, 48, 55, 57, 87, 134, 138, 140, and of course, 142. There's the reference, broken down to save you the frustration of research, and no link is necessary, because it's this thread.

It's your agenda, you see, and one you won't let go. It is, after all the basis under which you wrote the opening shot for this thread.

You needn't argue with me; your argument is with your self, based on your frequent and constant contradictions.

You deny airlines seek less experienced pilots via reduced pay scales: pay scales they know experienced pilots, by an overwhelming majority, will not accept. Reference: CX offer to the 60 experienced pilots for the CEP "short course" whereby all but 1 refused. There's another reference for you to deny it's existence & be too lazy to research!

That's not a reference. You failed to provide one (again). It would seem you're too lazy to research your own posts, isn't it? Frankly, if you can't make your point, then don't bother. I'm certainly not going to go through tens of thousands of posts to help you make it. That you failed to do so (once more) is no surprise.

I don't know what the CEP short course is, and don't really care. If pilots elected not to take it, or a job, or a pay level, that's fine. I've elected not to take jobs before, as well. What of it?

Your sentence is ambiguous, so I'll address both possibilities in your ambiguity. On the one hand you could be attempting to say that I deny airlines seek less experienced pilots. In this, you're correct: I do deny this, and nothing in your statements is able to contradict it. Airlines don't seek the least experience they can find. If on the other hand, you are attempting to say that airlines would prefer to pay as little as possible, then you're quite correct. Find an employer that doesn't want to pay as little as is necessary or required.

You don't like pay scales, blame unions. Blame the pilots who accept the wages. Blame someone; you're hell-bent to do so (blaming me mostly, it would seem, but as you will). Here again, it's you blathering on about pay, and attempting to tie it to pilot quality. Ironically, right after you just accused me of doing that very thing. Another lie on your part, isn't it? It is.

[protectthehornet]

And They Lived Happily Ever After...the End.

[Jabiman]

Pissing contest

Are you honestly going to tell me that pilots under the CX C-scale are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job?

Are you honestly going to tell me that UA (presumably you mean United Airlines: you throw around a lot of acronyms and jargon, an unfortunate assumption on your part, but one of many) pilots are less able airman, display poorer airmanship, are less professional, and less capable of doing their job because of "dubious (unscrupulous) beancounters?"

If so, then you can't help but lie.

That is no lie and may indeed be happening though not by the mechanism to which you allude.
In Europe, a lot of wannabe pilots who have the financial resources are able to pay for an integrated course and then line training to move directly into the RHS of a jet.
These candidates may just think it’s cool to be a pilot and have no real passion for the profession and consider it a better alternative than going to university.
The airlines are exploiting this trend and the never ending supply of wannabe’s to lower T & C’s.
The FAA is effectively banning this practice by introducing the 1500 hour rule.
In Europe it is not only possible to purchase line training along with a subsequent job guarantee with some airlines but the competition for the RHS is forcing applicants to go this route or miss out and have wasted all the money they spent getting the ATPL.

This thread was initially asking whether these trends were resulting in a decline of airmanship.
It is a reasonable question but seems to have become a pissing contest.

[SNS3Guppy]

So, let's see, posts linking pay with pilot skill and ambition...the thread, as you introduced it, is actually about airmanship, but if you want to call it skill and ambition now, as you wish. Posts that have done this: 1, 8, 9, 15, 25, 27, 30, 34, 37, 39, 46, 48, 55, 57, 87, 134, 138, 140, and of course, 142. There's the reference, broken down to save you the frustration of research, and no link is necessary, because it's this thread.

We should also add #144.

[Jabiman]

You miss the point again

the thread, as you introduced it, is actually about airmanship, but if you want to call it skill and ambition now, as you wish

Skill and ambition are actually very relevant to declining airmanship.
The thread questions if airmanship is a dying breed because those now entering the profession do not have the requisite motivation and desire to learn true airmanship which requires consummate professionalism and dedication, something that you seem to posses but for some reason assume that ALL other pilots automatically do also.
It is this fast tracking into the right hand seat and the lowering of T & C’s which is opening the field for those who may not possess proper skill and the wrong type of ambition and which then conspire to remove the opportunity to learn true airmanship.
Also take note that not all training departments have the same high standard as the one that you work for and some MAY be affected by cost cutting and this coupled with a lower quality and less dedicated cadet may result in him never learning airmanship during the 200 hours of flying before he jumps into the RHS. Coupled with a subsequent over reliance on automation and this may result in the pilot airman indeed becoming a dying breed (to be replaced with the pilot automatom).

[SNS3Guppy]

Skill and ambition are actually very relevant to declining airmanship.

Not only do you have a real comprehension problem, you do it out of context. How unremarkable of you.

Yes, skill is relevant to airmanship. albeit only a part of airmanship. It is not tied to the economics of wages paid, however, and neither is professionalism.

The original poster asserts that professionalism is on the decline, and asserts that airmanship is soon to be ancient history, specific to the wages paid by airlines; furthermore, the original poster asserts, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the airlines intentionally hire underqualified and inexperienced airman, and establish lower wages to that end. The intent of the original poster has been stated repeatedly, the posts have been identified, and this is not within the realm of dispute.

The original poster attempted to make his case without citation or reference or quote (an obscure reference to search a forum doesn't count; it's indiscriminate, and not worthy of consideration). Specifically, he attempted to do so by claiming that technical questions are no longer asked, but instead that questions regarding parental consent are the standard and the norm. The original poster lied, and the basis for the thread is a lie. Perhaps you missed this material before.

We'll add your post as #146 to the list of posts that have linked pay with skill and ambition or airmanship, even though TopTup assures us such is not the case (he's searched the thread and can find no reference...other than conveniently missing 19 such posts). Surprise, surprise.

[Jabiman]

the original poster asserts, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the airlines intentionally hire underqualified and inexperienced airman, and establish lower wages to that end. The intent of the original poster has been stated repeatedly, the posts have been identified, and this is not within the realm of dispute.
The original poster attempted to make his case without citation or reference or quote

Ok, so if all this is required for the original poster to prove the validity of his assertion is a citation or reference, how about this:
Fatal Flying on Airlines No Accident in Pilot Complaints to FAA - Bloomberg
Specifically:

Pilots say Gulfstream has an unhealthy relationship between its airline and its flight school. Gulfstream’s training program is different from others, because it guarantees students time as a first officer, the No. 2 position in the cockpit, flying passengers for its own airline, Gulfstream says on its Web site.
“We offer the fastest possible transition to the ‘Right Seat’ of a commercial airliner,” Gulfstream says.
For $32,699, students get 522 hours of training -- including 250 hours as a first officer for Gulfstream International Airlines. That means student pilots are paying Gulfstream for the privilege of flying as first officers.
“Gulfstream is selling the job,” says Charlie Preusser, a regional airline pilot who flew for Manassas, Virginia-based Colgan Air. “When you’ve got a guy fronting the cash, there’s a lot of pressure on the company to keep him onboard no matter how bad he is.”

And:
Add 'pilot' to list of jobs that aren't so great now - USATODAY.com
Specifically:

The lack of advancement, low starting wages and training that can cost tens of thousands of dollars are leading fewer young people to become commercial airline pilots, says Les Westbrooks, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
"If I'm a smart young person ... I can go into medicine, engineering, I could go anywhere," Westbrooks says. "I would say that the passion of the students to fly ... is what has sustained the industry for a long time. But there comes a point where your passion and mathematics meet. And we are at that point."

And of course we have this classic blog:
Pilots on Food Stamps | MichaelMoore.com
Specifically:

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.

[SNS3Guppy]

Michael Moore is no more an authority on aviation than he is on anything else; he comes with a strong liberal agenda, a bag full of lies, and more misinformation than the CIA. In short, a really, really poor example to make your case. You might have better chosen the tooth fairy.

You quoted Bloomberg. You're attempting to give citations for the original poster (who is apparently unable), yet in your zeal to prove that airmanship is on the decline and that airlines have an overt agenda to hire less experienced aviators, you've chosen a quote regarding Gulfstream Airlines as that specifically states "Gulfstream's training program is different from others." Not really the prototypical example of the great conspiratorial agenda on a global scale now, is it?

Then again, you picked a quote regarding the laughing stock of the US airline industry: Gulfstream Airlines...a company so bad that simply having them on one's resume can be enough to prevent future employment. This is your example, your citation? Well done, brightspark.

Your USA Today reference...well...your attempting to prove the great conspiracy by suggesting that it's tough to get started in aviation? This is a secret? Wages aren't as high as everyone thinks, this is your revelation?

You're going to need to work a little harder to elicit more than a yawn, or to do anything but prove yourself wrong. You're supposed to be gathering evidence to the contrary, you see.

[protectthehornet]

isn't it interesting that fedex pilots and UPS pilots are paid more than pilots at passenger airlines?

[AirRabbit]

In an eariler post I mentioned that there was a program being sponsored by the United Kingdom's Royal Aeronautical Society in London that might wind up dealing with pilot training issues on a global basis. Here is an excerpt from that Society's announcement:

The Annual Royal Aeronautical Society International Flight Crew Training Conference is well established and highly successful. The 2011 Conference aims to seek solutions on how best to consider flight crew training standards from an international perspective. It will be held at the Headquarters of the Royal Aeronautical Society in London on Wednesday 28 and Thursday 29 September 2011.
Safety data indicates that there remain pressing issues in flight crew training. Further improvements are needed, especially in airmanship, air traffic management and situational awareness, upset recovery, and human factors. Issues arise on whether syllabuses mirror best practice, include new tasks and procedures, and exclude exercises no longer relevant. The Conference will address these issues and examine the latest thinking on competency-based training and recurrent training. Moreover, whilst the different operational and training needs of the rotary wing community need to be addressed separately, the Conference will examine the fundamental aspects that bear equally on rotary and fixed wing operations and certain initiatives currently under way. The Conference will address improvements in national and international training programmes and, with wide variations in training syllabuses, whether more harmonisation in training and evaluation standards and processes might be beneficial, whether some form of global resource for the flight crew training community might be helpful, and the constraints in achieving such goals.
This wide-ranging Conference will examine these challenges from the perspectives of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft operators, makers and users of training systems, training providers, researchers, and regulators. The papers, some of which will be novel and contentious, will be presented by leading experts, and some 120 delegates are expected from around the world. The very broad agenda seeks both to ensure that appropriate work is taken forward and also to determine how the Royal Aeronautical Society might best facilitate progress. With that aim, the Conference will include parallel breakout sessions for a full exchange of views by all stakeholders, and will conclude with an open forum where delegates will be able to table proposals for taking forward this important work. Regardless of your role, this Conference will provide a unique opportunity to become involved, discuss the issues and influence the work required to resolve them.

[Jabiman]

This thread seems to have run its course so let us remember the relevant testimony of Captain Sullenberger to the US Congress almost two years ago:

I am worried that the airline piloting profession will not be able to continue to attract the best and the brightest. The current experience and skills of our country’s professional airline pilots come from investments made years ago when we were able to attract the ambitious, talented people who now frequently seek lucrative professional careers. That past investment was an indispensible element in our commercial aviation infrastructure, vital to safe air travel and our country’s economy and security. If we do not sufficiently value the airline piloting profession and future pilots are less experienced and less skilled, it logically follows that we will see negative consequences to the flying public – and to our country.