Is this a dying breed of Airman / Pilot for airlines?
Jabiman;
Appropriately quoted. Of course, Captain Sullenberger's appearance before Congress is the quintessential statement on the industry as it stands today.
For others reading or contributing, in my view it is a fundamental mistake in this argument of pay-vs-skill to make a direct connection between how much a pilot is paid and the quality of decision-making s/he makes on a daily operational basis. I have argued for at least a decade within my own former airline and elsewhere that that is not where the problem lies. Pilots, once in the cockpit will do their absolute level best even if they are paying their employer to fly their airplanes simply because it is good survival strategy if nothing else. One does not make "better" decisions because one has a higher paycheck coming in at the end of the month. However, there is indeed a strong connection, but it is not at this level and you have quoted the finest example of this argument.
Sully has argued the case for change and enhancement of the profession of "airline pilot" more clearly, succinctly and successfully than anyone when he says in his brilliant statement that the best and brightest will not come to the profession under the present atrocious working and pay conditions. What has happened to our profession under the guise of "helping the employer" is nothing less than a desecration of this profession at the hands of marketing theorists, newbie MBAs and the daily bean-counting middle managers who know nothing about aviation but know about pressure from above to control costs at all cost.
Such fine-tuning of what is an enormously capital-intensive business can be done, but unless done intelligently with data and honest feedback instead of meetings and bureacratic structures which silo and otherwise kill efficiency and which drive and sustain the illusion of success, the results will turn out just as we see them today - a cheapened, marginalized profession which is not the least bit attractive to the keen and talented young people we need to fill our retiring ranks.
The "best and brightest" have taken a look at "professional airline pilot" and said, "I don't think so...", and have taken their intelligence, talent, discipline and desire for a good living elsewhere. Airline managments have not yet heard the news, and the MCPL is filling the holes with "98.6F" in the right seat but not much else. The Royal Aeronautical Society does not take causes on lightly, but they have this one. The technique of ticking the box has extended right into the human component in the cockpit and the incident and accident trends are now reflecting that thinking.
As for the thread itself, it is a worthwhile discussion but perhaps would have been a better reflection on our profession for some to have retained the dignity of respectful, non-personal discussion in the thread, but there it is - it is an emotional issue for all and passions run deep, which is a sign of how seriously we all take what has occurred to our profession at the hands of those who don't know aviation, and don't know that they don't know.
Appropriately quoted. Of course, Captain Sullenberger's appearance before Congress is the quintessential statement on the industry as it stands today.
For others reading or contributing, in my view it is a fundamental mistake in this argument of pay-vs-skill to make a direct connection between how much a pilot is paid and the quality of decision-making s/he makes on a daily operational basis. I have argued for at least a decade within my own former airline and elsewhere that that is not where the problem lies. Pilots, once in the cockpit will do their absolute level best even if they are paying their employer to fly their airplanes simply because it is good survival strategy if nothing else. One does not make "better" decisions because one has a higher paycheck coming in at the end of the month. However, there is indeed a strong connection, but it is not at this level and you have quoted the finest example of this argument.
Sully has argued the case for change and enhancement of the profession of "airline pilot" more clearly, succinctly and successfully than anyone when he says in his brilliant statement that the best and brightest will not come to the profession under the present atrocious working and pay conditions. What has happened to our profession under the guise of "helping the employer" is nothing less than a desecration of this profession at the hands of marketing theorists, newbie MBAs and the daily bean-counting middle managers who know nothing about aviation but know about pressure from above to control costs at all cost.
Such fine-tuning of what is an enormously capital-intensive business can be done, but unless done intelligently with data and honest feedback instead of meetings and bureacratic structures which silo and otherwise kill efficiency and which drive and sustain the illusion of success, the results will turn out just as we see them today - a cheapened, marginalized profession which is not the least bit attractive to the keen and talented young people we need to fill our retiring ranks.
The "best and brightest" have taken a look at "professional airline pilot" and said, "I don't think so...", and have taken their intelligence, talent, discipline and desire for a good living elsewhere. Airline managments have not yet heard the news, and the MCPL is filling the holes with "98.6F" in the right seat but not much else. The Royal Aeronautical Society does not take causes on lightly, but they have this one. The technique of ticking the box has extended right into the human component in the cockpit and the incident and accident trends are now reflecting that thinking.
As for the thread itself, it is a worthwhile discussion but perhaps would have been a better reflection on our profession for some to have retained the dignity of respectful, non-personal discussion in the thread, but there it is - it is an emotional issue for all and passions run deep, which is a sign of how seriously we all take what has occurred to our profession at the hands of those who don't know aviation, and don't know that they don't know.
Last edited by PJ2; 3rd Jan 2011 at 17:22.
SNS3 Guppy,
I think you're lying or you don't work for a real airline. There is no reputable 121 carrier in the U.S with these statistics:
Apologies for the blunt approach. However, your claims are outlandish. If your claims were true then the HR and training department should be fired at a far greater rate than any pilot.
You refused to identify your employer earlier. A third tier cargo company in Michigan perhaps ?
Cheers
I think you're lying or you don't work for a real airline. There is no reputable 121 carrier in the U.S with these statistics:
In my initial class at my present employer, about half the applicants who started the class made it to flying the line
Historically our captain upgrades have run at about a 50% pass/fail rate.
You refused to identify your employer earlier. A third tier cargo company in Michigan perhaps ?
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upgrades failures may happen simply because a candidate was not ready. This can happen in a seniority based system particularly at times when hiring is busy and employers need to reach down farther into the depths of the pool.
Unscheduled ops are far different than those used to domestic or flag rules. In the non-skeds you are pretty much on your own and upgrade failures happen in the sim or during ioe/line checks due to the sometimes overwhelming nature of the beast for those who are not ready.
Unscheduled ops are far different than those used to domestic or flag rules. In the non-skeds you are pretty much on your own and upgrade failures happen in the sim or during ioe/line checks due to the sometimes overwhelming nature of the beast for those who are not ready.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're lying or you don't work for a real airline.
Have you anything to contribute to the subject at hand?
Junkflyer is correct.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quoting statistics on pprune doesn't mean much at all. I can look up statistics elsewhere. What I do want to hear about is what we see for ourselves on the line, out in the wild blue, or at a meeting of the quiet birdmen.
In my new hire class of about 22 people some 23 years ago, 3 of us were injured and on disability, one died of stomach cancer, one retired, 3 changed to a different airline, one has been pregnant twice, another died of another ailment (I forgot what).
so what does that mean? stuff happens!
cheers
In my new hire class of about 22 people some 23 years ago, 3 of us were injured and on disability, one died of stomach cancer, one retired, 3 changed to a different airline, one has been pregnant twice, another died of another ailment (I forgot what).
so what does that mean? stuff happens!
cheers
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why isn't it a rule on this forum that people be required to post in their public profile at least the basics of what empowers (or not) them to comment? Even I list my pitiful aviation accomplishments--the reason I rarely put an oar in--and it really annoys me that other commenters condescendingly list simply that they "live somewhere on the planet" and then hold forth on whatever issue amuses them.
Certainly they needn't list their employer or home address, but why not just a certificate or type rating?
I suspect SNS3guppy is entirely legitimate, but why the cat-and-mouse game?
Certainly they needn't list their employer or home address, but why not just a certificate or type rating?
I suspect SNS3guppy is entirely legitimate, but why the cat-and-mouse game?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think identifying the airline you work for is a mistake. In this internet age, one can easily find posts used against them and lose their job.
It is hard to know if someone is bluff or real. I met a fellow on this site who actually knew someone I knew...and knew enough about them that I have no doubt about their flying background.
There isn't a secret handshake or anything. But I can usually spot a phony.
There are questions one can ask...''in jokes'' hotels that aren't there anymore that can really identify someone.
Ask an old USAIR East pilot what the hotel's name was for the overnights in KBUF...anyone might tell you...but when he smiles, you will know.
Ask an American pilot who CR was and see how many tell a canadair regional (ha!!!!!)
I could go on, but won't.
It is hard to know if someone is bluff or real. I met a fellow on this site who actually knew someone I knew...and knew enough about them that I have no doubt about their flying background.
There isn't a secret handshake or anything. But I can usually spot a phony.
There are questions one can ask...''in jokes'' hotels that aren't there anymore that can really identify someone.
Ask an old USAIR East pilot what the hotel's name was for the overnights in KBUF...anyone might tell you...but when he smiles, you will know.
Ask an American pilot who CR was and see how many tell a canadair regional (ha!!!!!)
I could go on, but won't.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it's irrelevant. That's why.
Whether I'm a retired space shuttle pilot or a student in a lowly Cessna, my responses remain the same.
You want to know whether to give them credence by determining if you think I'm important enough. If Sully mouths the words, they must be true, because after all, he made a forced landing once. If Joe Blow mouths the words, the same identical words, they have no meaning, even though it's the same data, the same words, because Joe Blow doesn't have the qualifications that float your boat?
The words stand, and so does my point, which is correct, and true. I realize that perhaps you can't address the subject intelligently, and thus want to address me, instead, but that doesn't change the subject, my point, or the accuracy of my comments.
Have you something to contribute to the thread?
Whether I'm a retired space shuttle pilot or a student in a lowly Cessna, my responses remain the same.
You want to know whether to give them credence by determining if you think I'm important enough. If Sully mouths the words, they must be true, because after all, he made a forced landing once. If Joe Blow mouths the words, the same identical words, they have no meaning, even though it's the same data, the same words, because Joe Blow doesn't have the qualifications that float your boat?
The words stand, and so does my point, which is correct, and true. I realize that perhaps you can't address the subject intelligently, and thus want to address me, instead, but that doesn't change the subject, my point, or the accuracy of my comments.
Have you something to contribute to the thread?
I would like to contribute. 
You are either lying about the statistics at your company, or you are supporting a management that hires and trains incredibly poorly.
Any respectable Pilot, HR or training department would be ashamed of those statistics. Not defending them. Where are you finding these people and how are you training them ?
You are either lying about the statistics at your company, or you are supporting a management that hires and trains incredibly poorly.
Any respectable Pilot, HR or training department would be ashamed of those statistics. Not defending them. Where are you finding these people and how are you training them ?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Have you something to contribute to the thread?"
Absolutely not, as you can plainly see by reading my profile, a decades-ago Citation driver. That's why I make that profile available, and that's why I simply ask the question as to why others apparently daren't.
I don't wish to give your responses credence according to whether you're "important" enough but whether you're experienced enough. Your response that it doesn't matter whether you're a Cessna student or a Shuttle commander is so baffling that you've pushed me straight into JPJP's camp.
That's my contribution to this thread.
Absolutely not, as you can plainly see by reading my profile, a decades-ago Citation driver. That's why I make that profile available, and that's why I simply ask the question as to why others apparently daren't.
I don't wish to give your responses credence according to whether you're "important" enough but whether you're experienced enough. Your response that it doesn't matter whether you're a Cessna student or a Shuttle commander is so baffling that you've pushed me straight into JPJP's camp.
That's my contribution to this thread.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are either lying about the statistics at your company, or you are supporting a management that hires and trains incredibly poorly.
Any respectable Pilot, HR or training department would be ashamed of those statistics. Not defending them. Where are you finding these people and how are you training them ?
Any respectable Pilot, HR or training department would be ashamed of those statistics. Not defending them. Where are you finding these people and how are you training them ?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might be one response.
I haven't flown with everyone at my operator, and I meet new people all the time. Most of those with whom I fly or work are extremely well qualified individuals, most of whom have been around the block more than once.
We don't tend to attract, nor hire, the lower common denominator. Most all have former captain experience on various large equipment, many have heavy, international experience.
We do still upgrade people from the FE seat; indeed, some captains began many years ago in that seat, while at the same time, we still have professional flight engineers who have no intention of vacating those seats.
The background and experience, like any company, fluctuates with the pilot market and the times; presently, one would be hard pressed to get an interview without fifteen thousand hours or more and international widebody experience. I couldn't compete with many who are being interviewed today; if I were to apply today, I wouldn't stand a chance, given some of the quality individuals I've met who have been hired of late. Many are very experienced individuals who have a full career behind them, or like so many in this business, several experiences with furloughs, etc.
The company has a large pool from which to draw, particularly given the events of the past few years. Individuals who thought they were working the last job they would ever need, found themselves on the street; we've been lucky to get them, as would any operator. I'm not involved in the hiring at my employer, nor the selection, testing, or training. I'm not a check airman there. I don't know the current statistics. I don't visit the training department save for twice a year, for the most part, and my work keeps me abroad most of the time.
I'm not going to discuss my employment; it doesn't change the fact that the accusations made here by certain individuals, indictments on the industry as a whole, are false. Airlines have not replaced technical questions and interviews with questions regarding parental approval. The sky is not falling. Training standards are not being lowered, and airlines do not set out with agendas to hire the least experienced, least able, and least capable pilots that they can.
There is no question that the industry has some pay issues, quality of life issues, duty and rest issues, and other factors that are less than stellar, and which must be addressed. That a regional airline pilot can work full time and still receive government aid because he meets poverty criteria is something the public doesn't realize, and it's something more endemic to the regional rungs in the United States than most places abroad. It's none the less a problem. This isn't necessarily a quality problem, in that it doesn't represent airlines seeking to hire the lowest common denominator. It represents the entry level position, that has always been the entry level position, and it's not one that has ever attracted the most experienced pilots, or that likely ever will.
Every industry has it's starting points. One of my last fire assignments paid four hundred dollars a flight hour, plus a daily salary, plus overtime, plus perdiem, plus mileage, plus other considerations. I won't ever make that flying for an airline. It also wasn't an entry level job, whereas many airline jobs, especially at the regional level, are. I've been in the unfortunate position in the past in which I wanted to change employment from government utility flying, but couldn't afford to make the change. Given my present obligations, I couldn't afford to go to a regional airline, or even a starting position with any major airline, presently. I recently had an offer of a friend to interview for a position with an established national airline, inside recommendation, and all. A very generous offer on his part. Unfortunately, I can't live on what I'd make, and the job wouldn't permit me to do what I've had to sometimes do in the past; work second employment to make up the difference. I very much doubt I'm the only one in this position.
A little less than a year ago, I returned from a furlough. I count myself fortunate, and grateful, to have employment, period. There are a lot of unemployed aviators out there. I was fortunate to be able to stay employed doing various things during my furlough, and I've often worked second and third assignments, temporary assignments, contracts, etc, on the side, or part time, or during leaves of absence. Many are unable. Many, presently, are unable to find work at all.
I had an interesting experience a couple of years ago, while doing some charter work for a small company. The operator had an early morning run to a neighboring state, flying some rush medical supplies every morning. The supplies were radioactive, and contained in heavy boxes. The work involved IFR in mountainous terrain, often IMC, sometimes in ice. It involved bending, lifting, and it was hard on one's back. It didn't pay well. I was working in the shop, doing instruction on the side, and fulfilling check airman duties as well, to make ends meet. Clearly such positions are not often the first choice of an experienced airman, and when several out of work airline pilots approached me about work, it was the only thing to which I could point them.
Every one of them said no. No way they were going to fly light airplanes, including single engine airplanes and light piston twins, at night, IMC, and do all that work, especially for that amount of money. Surely I had something better for them. Sorry; it's all that was available.
Then their unemployment benefits began to run out. They began to realize that their chances of finding work were better if they were currently flying something, anything. Far better to get paid a little and stay current, than have no income, do no flying, and not be marketable. None of them had any maintenance skills, none of them were instructors, so the only work available for them was an occasional charter, and the morning "juice run." Suddenly they were very interested in flying those early morning runs. I gave them up to make room for the other pilots, and soon they were taking the flights.
Overnight, the company went from using pilots who were inexperienced flight instructors with few hours and a very short resume, to pilots with ten thousand hours and a decade or more of airline flying, some with corporate flying, etc, to do those early morning runs.
The thread, of course, is talking about airlines, rather than charter departments. The airline industry does not operate, however, in a vacuum. Individuals flow through many channels to arrive in airline seats, and individuals flow through airlines to arrive in other seats throughout the industry. One cannot consider the airlines without considering a much wider scope, as well.
It's been said that the industry is failing because it can no longer attract the "best and brightest." That is a rather trite expression that sounds good on paper, but really means nothing. Does it suggest that individuals who once felt drawn to aviation will instead turn to become space shuttle scientists, doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs? Hardly.
Many enter into aviation without the slightest intention of ever becoming an airline pilot. Being an airline pilot is not the be-all, nor end-all of employment as a pilot, or employment in aviation, for matter. It's not exactly a high-speed, low-drag segment of the industry, and not really the most demanding, either. One doesn't need to be a hot stick, or the best and the brightest, to be an airline pilot. One needs to be able to operate to the standards prescribed by the training department, to be able to follow regulations, and to operate within a fairly small window of performance, routing, etc. That's all. It's the very reason that for many years, we were able to introduce fairly inexperienced aviators in the flight engineer seat, transition them to the right seat, and eventually the left.
"Best and brightest" is somewhat of a misnomer, then. Sully made a successful forced landing. That many think this is a remarkable thing is unfortunate. He did what we're paid to do: use judgment on the fly, and fly the airplane until it comes to a rest. We do not need twenty thousand hours to be able to do that. In fact, Sully noted that glider experience (to hark back to the general aviation discussion before) was the source he tapped when making his forced landing. Light airplane skills. Basic stick and rudder, when all is said and done. It doesn't take the "best and brightest" to make a forced landing; it takes someone who doesn't quit, doesn't cave in to pressure, and who understands that like it or not, there's a job to be done and no escaping it until the airplane comes to a rest. That's really what every one of us does on a day-in and day-out basis. It's what we're trained to do, it's what we do when the chips are down, and it's what we're expected to do. No one should ever expect less.
I can tell you that when I began flying, I had no intention of flying for an airline. It never crossed my mind. In fact, I took an entirely different track, eventually crop dusting and doing a number of other things from government, fire, certain military work, charter, ambulance, various utility flying, etc. I wasn't attracted, nor dissuaded by airline salaries. At various times I had opportunities to interview for, or received recommendations for airline positions. I couldn't afford to take them. At some point, I did take them, and while I still don't consider myself an airline pilot (I'm a displaced crop duster), I'm doing the same grind as many do presently.
We know the score starting out. We know the salaries; they're widely posted, and available. A student has but to do a little enquiring to learn that the first ten years are tough financially. He may need to move repeatedly. He may need to change jobs. He may need to work second (or even third jobs). It's a long haul, a tough row to hoe. All of that and more. This isn't a new thing, and it hasn't changed in many, many years. Yet suddenly as an industry we're no longer capable of attracting the "best and brightest?"
I submit that one who wants to fly for a living (I do it because it's cheaper than renting; someone pays me to fly) does it because one wants to fly. The drive to fly is what draws someone into this business; not the promise of lofty wages, flashy uniforms, and image. It's the flying. Some come up through the military, often getting out and going to an airline, and never having known the struggle or the hardship of surviving in the industry. Many who do so wrinkle their noses as the wages; it's typically a substantial pay cut for a military pilot to transition to an airline. Such is life. Are these the "best and brightest?" No. Might they go elsewhere? Maybe. Does this mean the industry suffers, or that the industry doesn't get dedicated professionals who can fly an airplane? Of course not.
The sky is not falling. Training departments have not relegated themselves to a kindergarten-level of training. Airlines haven't replaced technical interviews with parental consent questions only. Standardization still exists, is still enforced. If anything, the level and quality of training has improved over the years, and modern CRM and CRM-related training in it's various forms and names is a far cry from what it once was. Given some of the ols,d mentalities in the cockpit, one may say that today we're operating "better and brighter" than in the past, and to higher standards.
I do agree that too many "children of the magenta line" are out there, but this is a consequence of evolution in cockpits, not an indictment on the industry regarding airlines seeking to hire the least experience they can. Low entry wages are not new. Those who think they are new betray their own inexperience. There is little new, under the sun.
I haven't flown with everyone at my operator, and I meet new people all the time. Most of those with whom I fly or work are extremely well qualified individuals, most of whom have been around the block more than once.
We don't tend to attract, nor hire, the lower common denominator. Most all have former captain experience on various large equipment, many have heavy, international experience.
We do still upgrade people from the FE seat; indeed, some captains began many years ago in that seat, while at the same time, we still have professional flight engineers who have no intention of vacating those seats.
The background and experience, like any company, fluctuates with the pilot market and the times; presently, one would be hard pressed to get an interview without fifteen thousand hours or more and international widebody experience. I couldn't compete with many who are being interviewed today; if I were to apply today, I wouldn't stand a chance, given some of the quality individuals I've met who have been hired of late. Many are very experienced individuals who have a full career behind them, or like so many in this business, several experiences with furloughs, etc.
The company has a large pool from which to draw, particularly given the events of the past few years. Individuals who thought they were working the last job they would ever need, found themselves on the street; we've been lucky to get them, as would any operator. I'm not involved in the hiring at my employer, nor the selection, testing, or training. I'm not a check airman there. I don't know the current statistics. I don't visit the training department save for twice a year, for the most part, and my work keeps me abroad most of the time.
I'm not going to discuss my employment; it doesn't change the fact that the accusations made here by certain individuals, indictments on the industry as a whole, are false. Airlines have not replaced technical questions and interviews with questions regarding parental approval. The sky is not falling. Training standards are not being lowered, and airlines do not set out with agendas to hire the least experienced, least able, and least capable pilots that they can.
There is no question that the industry has some pay issues, quality of life issues, duty and rest issues, and other factors that are less than stellar, and which must be addressed. That a regional airline pilot can work full time and still receive government aid because he meets poverty criteria is something the public doesn't realize, and it's something more endemic to the regional rungs in the United States than most places abroad. It's none the less a problem. This isn't necessarily a quality problem, in that it doesn't represent airlines seeking to hire the lowest common denominator. It represents the entry level position, that has always been the entry level position, and it's not one that has ever attracted the most experienced pilots, or that likely ever will.
Every industry has it's starting points. One of my last fire assignments paid four hundred dollars a flight hour, plus a daily salary, plus overtime, plus perdiem, plus mileage, plus other considerations. I won't ever make that flying for an airline. It also wasn't an entry level job, whereas many airline jobs, especially at the regional level, are. I've been in the unfortunate position in the past in which I wanted to change employment from government utility flying, but couldn't afford to make the change. Given my present obligations, I couldn't afford to go to a regional airline, or even a starting position with any major airline, presently. I recently had an offer of a friend to interview for a position with an established national airline, inside recommendation, and all. A very generous offer on his part. Unfortunately, I can't live on what I'd make, and the job wouldn't permit me to do what I've had to sometimes do in the past; work second employment to make up the difference. I very much doubt I'm the only one in this position.
A little less than a year ago, I returned from a furlough. I count myself fortunate, and grateful, to have employment, period. There are a lot of unemployed aviators out there. I was fortunate to be able to stay employed doing various things during my furlough, and I've often worked second and third assignments, temporary assignments, contracts, etc, on the side, or part time, or during leaves of absence. Many are unable. Many, presently, are unable to find work at all.
I had an interesting experience a couple of years ago, while doing some charter work for a small company. The operator had an early morning run to a neighboring state, flying some rush medical supplies every morning. The supplies were radioactive, and contained in heavy boxes. The work involved IFR in mountainous terrain, often IMC, sometimes in ice. It involved bending, lifting, and it was hard on one's back. It didn't pay well. I was working in the shop, doing instruction on the side, and fulfilling check airman duties as well, to make ends meet. Clearly such positions are not often the first choice of an experienced airman, and when several out of work airline pilots approached me about work, it was the only thing to which I could point them.
Every one of them said no. No way they were going to fly light airplanes, including single engine airplanes and light piston twins, at night, IMC, and do all that work, especially for that amount of money. Surely I had something better for them. Sorry; it's all that was available.
Then their unemployment benefits began to run out. They began to realize that their chances of finding work were better if they were currently flying something, anything. Far better to get paid a little and stay current, than have no income, do no flying, and not be marketable. None of them had any maintenance skills, none of them were instructors, so the only work available for them was an occasional charter, and the morning "juice run." Suddenly they were very interested in flying those early morning runs. I gave them up to make room for the other pilots, and soon they were taking the flights.
Overnight, the company went from using pilots who were inexperienced flight instructors with few hours and a very short resume, to pilots with ten thousand hours and a decade or more of airline flying, some with corporate flying, etc, to do those early morning runs.
The thread, of course, is talking about airlines, rather than charter departments. The airline industry does not operate, however, in a vacuum. Individuals flow through many channels to arrive in airline seats, and individuals flow through airlines to arrive in other seats throughout the industry. One cannot consider the airlines without considering a much wider scope, as well.
It's been said that the industry is failing because it can no longer attract the "best and brightest." That is a rather trite expression that sounds good on paper, but really means nothing. Does it suggest that individuals who once felt drawn to aviation will instead turn to become space shuttle scientists, doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs? Hardly.
Many enter into aviation without the slightest intention of ever becoming an airline pilot. Being an airline pilot is not the be-all, nor end-all of employment as a pilot, or employment in aviation, for matter. It's not exactly a high-speed, low-drag segment of the industry, and not really the most demanding, either. One doesn't need to be a hot stick, or the best and the brightest, to be an airline pilot. One needs to be able to operate to the standards prescribed by the training department, to be able to follow regulations, and to operate within a fairly small window of performance, routing, etc. That's all. It's the very reason that for many years, we were able to introduce fairly inexperienced aviators in the flight engineer seat, transition them to the right seat, and eventually the left.
"Best and brightest" is somewhat of a misnomer, then. Sully made a successful forced landing. That many think this is a remarkable thing is unfortunate. He did what we're paid to do: use judgment on the fly, and fly the airplane until it comes to a rest. We do not need twenty thousand hours to be able to do that. In fact, Sully noted that glider experience (to hark back to the general aviation discussion before) was the source he tapped when making his forced landing. Light airplane skills. Basic stick and rudder, when all is said and done. It doesn't take the "best and brightest" to make a forced landing; it takes someone who doesn't quit, doesn't cave in to pressure, and who understands that like it or not, there's a job to be done and no escaping it until the airplane comes to a rest. That's really what every one of us does on a day-in and day-out basis. It's what we're trained to do, it's what we do when the chips are down, and it's what we're expected to do. No one should ever expect less.
I can tell you that when I began flying, I had no intention of flying for an airline. It never crossed my mind. In fact, I took an entirely different track, eventually crop dusting and doing a number of other things from government, fire, certain military work, charter, ambulance, various utility flying, etc. I wasn't attracted, nor dissuaded by airline salaries. At various times I had opportunities to interview for, or received recommendations for airline positions. I couldn't afford to take them. At some point, I did take them, and while I still don't consider myself an airline pilot (I'm a displaced crop duster), I'm doing the same grind as many do presently.
We know the score starting out. We know the salaries; they're widely posted, and available. A student has but to do a little enquiring to learn that the first ten years are tough financially. He may need to move repeatedly. He may need to change jobs. He may need to work second (or even third jobs). It's a long haul, a tough row to hoe. All of that and more. This isn't a new thing, and it hasn't changed in many, many years. Yet suddenly as an industry we're no longer capable of attracting the "best and brightest?"
I submit that one who wants to fly for a living (I do it because it's cheaper than renting; someone pays me to fly) does it because one wants to fly. The drive to fly is what draws someone into this business; not the promise of lofty wages, flashy uniforms, and image. It's the flying. Some come up through the military, often getting out and going to an airline, and never having known the struggle or the hardship of surviving in the industry. Many who do so wrinkle their noses as the wages; it's typically a substantial pay cut for a military pilot to transition to an airline. Such is life. Are these the "best and brightest?" No. Might they go elsewhere? Maybe. Does this mean the industry suffers, or that the industry doesn't get dedicated professionals who can fly an airplane? Of course not.
The sky is not falling. Training departments have not relegated themselves to a kindergarten-level of training. Airlines haven't replaced technical interviews with parental consent questions only. Standardization still exists, is still enforced. If anything, the level and quality of training has improved over the years, and modern CRM and CRM-related training in it's various forms and names is a far cry from what it once was. Given some of the ols,d mentalities in the cockpit, one may say that today we're operating "better and brighter" than in the past, and to higher standards.
I do agree that too many "children of the magenta line" are out there, but this is a consequence of evolution in cockpits, not an indictment on the industry regarding airlines seeking to hire the least experience they can. Low entry wages are not new. Those who think they are new betray their own inexperience. There is little new, under the sun.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lf there`s one thing you can say about the yanks it`s that they know how to have a good scrap !
Sometimes misguided but always a good `un thankfully; no meally mouthed european pant wetting diplomatic nonsense.
Just get stuck in. We need more.
Personally, l`m quite handy with the odd taildragging powerhouse that would like to turn through 90deg when lifting the tail but latterly my aviation skills seem to centre around my ability to type 60 words a minute.
That`s the way it is, but don`t let me stop you guys !
Seconds out .......
Sometimes misguided but always a good `un thankfully; no meally mouthed european pant wetting diplomatic nonsense.
Just get stuck in. We need more.
Personally, l`m quite handy with the odd taildragging powerhouse that would like to turn through 90deg when lifting the tail but latterly my aviation skills seem to centre around my ability to type 60 words a minute.
That`s the way it is, but don`t let me stop you guys !
Seconds out .......
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lf there`s one thing you can say about the yanks it`s that they know how to have a good scrap !
Sometimes misguided but always a good `un thankfully; no meally mouthed european pant wetting diplomatic nonsense.
Sometimes misguided but always a good `un thankfully; no meally mouthed european pant wetting diplomatic nonsense.
But in Europe, with anaemic GA and the military pilots having record retention rates, the situation has become the norm where someone can be sitting in the FO seat with 200 hours. Does such a pilot possess adequate experience and/or airmanship?