Do Some Pilots Earn Too Much?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do Some Pilots Earn Too Much?
This is going to be a controversial one! 
I've followed with much interest the pay claims of pilots at United, American and Delta - and as can be seen from the thread on take home pay, their monthly after-tax pay is, in many cases, more than the annual pay of some crews flying identical aircraft.
From a corporate standpoint, this is a fast-track to bankruptcy, especially in a recession which it is widely acknowledged we're entering at the moment. Salaries are part of overhead - and high overhead kills off companies when revenues are down.
Not only this, but their agreements limit the number of hours they have to work to ridiculously low levels - the equivalent of just over a working week for an average person per month.
They expect to be paid for training time - regardless of the fact that most professions require training/seminars/conferences for which there is no additional pay.
Benefits - such as concessionary travel - are worth many thousands of dollars (especially for a family travelling first class several times a year); yet this is apparently not taken into consideration.
The pay gap between US crews (and these three carriers in particular) and crews in the rest of the world is vast and seemingly growing out of control. It's very much to ALPA's benefit if other US majors (such as Continental, US Airways, TWA, Northwest, Southwest etc) join them - and ensures for those carriers that are paying their crews high salaries that come the recession, their competitors are in the same boat.
But can these pay levels be justified? I think not. Sure, there are some very high salaries paid to a few - very few - entrepreneurs and senior executives; but by and large almost all of the senior executives at AA, DL and UA are on lower salaries than their captains.
Is there any justification for retaining the old system of paying higher salaries for larger aircraft? An evaluation of the Delta payscales shows that a captain on the B737-200 can currently expect to be paid US$208.30 per hour; yet his colleague on a B737NG can expect US$232.59/hr. If he's on B727s he'll get US$221.83 - yet if he's on B757s he'll get US$239.41. A B767 captain has has six possible pay rates - US$243.92 for a B767-200; US$245.48 on a B767-300; US$248.27 on a B767-300ER flying domestically and US$260.27 flying the same aircraft internationally. If s/he's on the new B767-400, s/he can expect US$269.74 when flying domestically and US$281.74 when flying internationally.
Even the venerable L1011 has four rates - US$262.28 for the longbody on domestic and US$275.28 for the same aircraft internationally; and US$269.33 and US$281.33 for domestic and international operations on the -500.
Highest pay rates are for the B777 - US$285.34 per hour for domestic sectors and US$297.34 for international.
Delta pilots get a US$12 per hour override for international vs domestic operations.
Not only are these rates high; but DALPA wants them to go much higher - with increases averaging over 40%.
Insanity - pure insanity.
Surely a far better way of doing things would be to have a 'normal' level of base pay - and then profit share (perhaps in conjunction with an ESOP) so that if the company's doing well - then the employees do likewise. If it isn't - then they don't get any extra. The benefit to the company is that they can control their overhead by keeping pay at a reasonable level - and employees share in the good times.
Comments?
I've followed with much interest the pay claims of pilots at United, American and Delta - and as can be seen from the thread on take home pay, their monthly after-tax pay is, in many cases, more than the annual pay of some crews flying identical aircraft.
From a corporate standpoint, this is a fast-track to bankruptcy, especially in a recession which it is widely acknowledged we're entering at the moment. Salaries are part of overhead - and high overhead kills off companies when revenues are down.
Not only this, but their agreements limit the number of hours they have to work to ridiculously low levels - the equivalent of just over a working week for an average person per month.
They expect to be paid for training time - regardless of the fact that most professions require training/seminars/conferences for which there is no additional pay.
Benefits - such as concessionary travel - are worth many thousands of dollars (especially for a family travelling first class several times a year); yet this is apparently not taken into consideration.
The pay gap between US crews (and these three carriers in particular) and crews in the rest of the world is vast and seemingly growing out of control. It's very much to ALPA's benefit if other US majors (such as Continental, US Airways, TWA, Northwest, Southwest etc) join them - and ensures for those carriers that are paying their crews high salaries that come the recession, their competitors are in the same boat.
But can these pay levels be justified? I think not. Sure, there are some very high salaries paid to a few - very few - entrepreneurs and senior executives; but by and large almost all of the senior executives at AA, DL and UA are on lower salaries than their captains.
Is there any justification for retaining the old system of paying higher salaries for larger aircraft? An evaluation of the Delta payscales shows that a captain on the B737-200 can currently expect to be paid US$208.30 per hour; yet his colleague on a B737NG can expect US$232.59/hr. If he's on B727s he'll get US$221.83 - yet if he's on B757s he'll get US$239.41. A B767 captain has has six possible pay rates - US$243.92 for a B767-200; US$245.48 on a B767-300; US$248.27 on a B767-300ER flying domestically and US$260.27 flying the same aircraft internationally. If s/he's on the new B767-400, s/he can expect US$269.74 when flying domestically and US$281.74 when flying internationally.
Even the venerable L1011 has four rates - US$262.28 for the longbody on domestic and US$275.28 for the same aircraft internationally; and US$269.33 and US$281.33 for domestic and international operations on the -500.
Highest pay rates are for the B777 - US$285.34 per hour for domestic sectors and US$297.34 for international.
Delta pilots get a US$12 per hour override for international vs domestic operations.
Not only are these rates high; but DALPA wants them to go much higher - with increases averaging over 40%.
Insanity - pure insanity.
Surely a far better way of doing things would be to have a 'normal' level of base pay - and then profit share (perhaps in conjunction with an ESOP) so that if the company's doing well - then the employees do likewise. If it isn't - then they don't get any extra. The benefit to the company is that they can control their overhead by keeping pay at a reasonable level - and employees share in the good times.
Comments?
...the other way (too little) seems to be the rule.... 
(and I am not even thinking of Africa...Russia...China...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely no pilot is earning too much, come on 
(just some other pilots not earning enough...)
A few points though:
- pilot market salaries are dictated by the pilots themselves, and not the market! (e.g. if you feel you don't earn enough, join the union NOW)
- if the companies cannot afford the salaries, how come they invite people to fly for peanuts (like in my company, I think we will soon have to pay the pax to come along
)
- why always moan about the high wages of pilots if companies are not even able to increase fares due to Jet A1 and US$ increase. The related increase in fares should be regulation amongst all airlines
- the positive side of the high earning folks is to have somethin' to aim for
Have a successful new Millennium you all!
------------------
* cut my wings and I'll die *
[This message has been edited by fly4fud (edited 30 December 2000).]
(just some other pilots not earning enough...)A few points though:
- pilot market salaries are dictated by the pilots themselves, and not the market! (e.g. if you feel you don't earn enough, join the union NOW)
- if the companies cannot afford the salaries, how come they invite people to fly for peanuts (like in my company, I think we will soon have to pay the pax to come along
)- why always moan about the high wages of pilots if companies are not even able to increase fares due to Jet A1 and US$ increase. The related increase in fares should be regulation amongst all airlines
- the positive side of the high earning folks is to have somethin' to aim for
Have a successful new Millennium you all!
------------------
* cut my wings and I'll die *
[This message has been edited by fly4fud (edited 30 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor
Your summary of pay rates and comment makes no consideration for the time/money/effort/sacrifice that the men and women lucky enough to fly for a major US airline exert. (In fact 99% of prospective flight crews around the World suffer likewise.)
Even you should understand that we don't just "find" our licences in lucky boxes of Crackerjack (or Jamboree bags!).
It took me TEN YEARS to make it. During those TEN YEARS my friends earned real salaries, bought nice houses, drove nice cars (and didn't have to constantly troll the car park seeking a friendly soul for a jump start).
Add to this, the CAA and it's various "friends" took pretty much all the money I had.
In reality we're just playing "catch up".
Do you have ANY IDEA how many folks have to drop out of aviation because they simply can no longer afford to participate?
Talk about pushing a pea uphill with your nose!
Roy Keane can make $70,000 (rough conversion) a WEEK. Who am I to tell him he's overpaid?
Profit sharing is all well and good but you go ahead and name the top airline execs that you'd gamble YOUR life on. Short list isn't it? My airline has 11,500 of them (pilots) and you can count on EVERY ONE!
All markets support the expenses of the best providers in their industry, whether that's for surgery, financial advice, advertising, whatever.
Sorry you have your reasons NOT to be a crew member for the US majors. That's your choice, though.
Cheers,dd.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is a different view on pilot salaries from a Miami Herald article a couple of weeks ago:
"Very few people in the United States, in any given field, have $150 million in company assets and 400 lives in their hands,'' said Frederick "Rick'' Dubinsky, chairman of the United pilots council within ALPA. "So I don't think we're paid too much. They should double or triple it. I'm not apologizing."
I think he makes a lot of sense!
"Very few people in the United States, in any given field, have $150 million in company assets and 400 lives in their hands,'' said Frederick "Rick'' Dubinsky, chairman of the United pilots council within ALPA. "So I don't think we're paid too much. They should double or triple it. I'm not apologizing."
I think he makes a lot of sense!
Guest
Posts: n/a
dallas dude;
That was something I think most of us have in mind. Our time/money/effort/risk to be in the cockpit.
Time - You can be "lucky" , and do a fast track...that is on the house of 1,5 to 2 years from nothing to "Frozen" ATPL.(I mean really working for an airliner or a decent biz outfit.) But that if you are lucky.And aside from EU and some countries in Asia ,there isn't the "sponsor" program in the rest of the world (that I know of anyway - someone correct-me if I am wrong , please). So it can be 2 to 10 years..who knows.
Money - No need to be explaining much here.Most fo us know how aviation likes our money...and I mean really likes money.And its getting more and more expensive.Again , some are lucky to be accepeted in sponsor schemes and have some "certainty" in the future , others do not and get real problems with that. And there is the difference in training methods(how to suck our money out).I was a little surprised that here in the EU (at least here in Holland) you need to pay landing fee (and that includes Touch&Go's) and sometimes a lot of others hidden fees. To use Brazil for comparsion (I know the US too), there the plane from a school don't pay landing fees and radio/nav fees , to stimulate low prices and therefore atracting people in to flying(and make an already expensive career a little more affordable). I think I have no need to speak about the US as there is widely known to each one how it works there.
Effort - It's the sum of all.Your effort is great , and so it remains during your "hunt" for the ultimate goal - a "real" job (read an Airline- or a good biz outfit to others).You know what you have been trough till now and what maybe you still have to go.
Risk - Life is risks ,but then we are being constantly reminded how our careers can end without even getting started sometimes. You start with the Medicals. Each year (and after twice a year) you go to the AME to see if they let you go another round. I have seen people been kicked out rightfully (and sometimes not) , and bam...from one day to another bye flying.And if you are in your mid-forty's (i.e.), you have a problem ,what will you do/learn at this stage of life?Not to speak how your body will be suffering with non-routine , changing day-by-night and vice-versa(I know that that was in the profession when I started - but you can't not feel it - is there so we need to cope with it) and jet-lags for some others crews.
After that , are those wonderful check-rides (exams here). Fail there , and get in trouble too. Always hoping not to get an instructor/examiner that hasn't had a good night so you're the guilty one...and therefore you should pay the price....with your career if necessary.
And to sum to all that , an Airline is nothing more than business , pure and simple.So the "boss" always thinks you're gaining too much and he is profiting too less...so you should pay the price to get the company (and the dozens of executives) more wealthy.Or worse , they can decide that you won't be necessary and show you the way to the street.(If the the company don't go to bottom too - then is even worser).
And I did not even talk about the loss of life ,as I think this can happen when we are flying or having dinner at home.
So Guv , nothing personal , but I think that we think execs are paid too much as execs think pilots gain too much.There will always be this discussion.
And I bet it won't be long for someone to come in here and say that pilots complain too much and work too little , that we should look at another professions and be grateful etc.etc... Sorry , but as much as we (most of us anyway) love flying, everybody needs to have a life too...eat/drink have a house..those sort of things (and pay the training back!). I wonder what would be the argument ,let's say , from a football(soccer) player when someone said he earn too much (millions for some "blokes")??
[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 31 December 2000).]
That was something I think most of us have in mind. Our time/money/effort/risk to be in the cockpit.
Time - You can be "lucky" , and do a fast track...that is on the house of 1,5 to 2 years from nothing to "Frozen" ATPL.(I mean really working for an airliner or a decent biz outfit.) But that if you are lucky.And aside from EU and some countries in Asia ,there isn't the "sponsor" program in the rest of the world (that I know of anyway - someone correct-me if I am wrong , please). So it can be 2 to 10 years..who knows.
Money - No need to be explaining much here.Most fo us know how aviation likes our money...and I mean really likes money.And its getting more and more expensive.Again , some are lucky to be accepeted in sponsor schemes and have some "certainty" in the future , others do not and get real problems with that. And there is the difference in training methods(how to suck our money out).I was a little surprised that here in the EU (at least here in Holland) you need to pay landing fee (and that includes Touch&Go's) and sometimes a lot of others hidden fees. To use Brazil for comparsion (I know the US too), there the plane from a school don't pay landing fees and radio/nav fees , to stimulate low prices and therefore atracting people in to flying(and make an already expensive career a little more affordable). I think I have no need to speak about the US as there is widely known to each one how it works there.
Effort - It's the sum of all.Your effort is great , and so it remains during your "hunt" for the ultimate goal - a "real" job (read an Airline- or a good biz outfit to others).You know what you have been trough till now and what maybe you still have to go.
Risk - Life is risks ,but then we are being constantly reminded how our careers can end without even getting started sometimes. You start with the Medicals. Each year (and after twice a year) you go to the AME to see if they let you go another round. I have seen people been kicked out rightfully (and sometimes not) , and bam...from one day to another bye flying.And if you are in your mid-forty's (i.e.), you have a problem ,what will you do/learn at this stage of life?Not to speak how your body will be suffering with non-routine , changing day-by-night and vice-versa(I know that that was in the profession when I started - but you can't not feel it - is there so we need to cope with it) and jet-lags for some others crews.
After that , are those wonderful check-rides (exams here). Fail there , and get in trouble too. Always hoping not to get an instructor/examiner that hasn't had a good night so you're the guilty one...and therefore you should pay the price....with your career if necessary.
And to sum to all that , an Airline is nothing more than business , pure and simple.So the "boss" always thinks you're gaining too much and he is profiting too less...so you should pay the price to get the company (and the dozens of executives) more wealthy.Or worse , they can decide that you won't be necessary and show you the way to the street.(If the the company don't go to bottom too - then is even worser).
And I did not even talk about the loss of life ,as I think this can happen when we are flying or having dinner at home.
So Guv , nothing personal , but I think that we think execs are paid too much as execs think pilots gain too much.There will always be this discussion.
And I bet it won't be long for someone to come in here and say that pilots complain too much and work too little , that we should look at another professions and be grateful etc.etc... Sorry , but as much as we (most of us anyway) love flying, everybody needs to have a life too...eat/drink have a house..those sort of things (and pay the training back!). I wonder what would be the argument ,let's say , from a football(soccer) player when someone said he earn too much (millions for some "blokes")??
[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 31 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some excellent responses there!
Aeroboero is right. Why should he in Brazil, earn less than his counterparts in North America or Western Europe? He's presumably gone through similar training and hour building as people here - yet a Brazilian pilot probably earns less in a year than a DL captain earns in a month, flying the same aircraft.
Whilst, as Fly4fud says, at certain companies the pilots have tried to dictate to the market (rather than the other way round) this is a short term plan that generally ends up in tears. It wasn't that long ago that AA stood up to their pilots - and they backed down.
The reason that fares are so low is because of competition. There are a lot of seats chasing not all that many bums - and the only way the market can be stimulated to create higher demand (and thus more bums) is to reduce fares. This can only be done effectively if costs are also low - we've seen what happened when high cost carriers attempted to create low cost operations. The moment an airline increases its fares, demand falls away - this is basic economics.
High overhead + low yields = bankrupcy.
dallas dude - there are an awful lot of other professions where people have to go through similar amounts of training and low pay. A doctor/surgeon would be one such example - and the pay rates in the UK for NHS surgeons are certainly nothing to write home about! Accountants, lawyers, dentists, vets, scientists, professors ... really all the true 'professions' involve long periods of training/indenture and much sacrifice. What makes pilots any different?
As for your analogy of putting your life in other people's hands - what about train or bus drivers? Ships captains? Taxi drivers? A cruise liner captain has responsibility for considerably more people - and a much more valuable asset - than an A380 pilot ever will! On the ALPA formula of bigger + more pax = more pay, the captains of the new cruise leviathans should be earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a month!
As you say, the top of the crop in any profession can expect to earn more than their less able colleagues. Does this mean that you're saying that AA, DL, UA etc employ the best of the best - and that there are no second rate pilots in there? If so, that's incredibly naive - and arrogant. I have no doubt that there are many pilots around the world who are at least as good as the best at the US majors - in many cases, probably better; yet they get paid a lot less.
Of course, at the other end of the scale one has the sports players, actors and pop stars earning millions. And you've got merchant bankers (investment bankers for our US friends) and attorneys earning truly staggering sums of money - the value that they are putting into society and the economy can well be debated!
Aeroboero is right. Why should he in Brazil, earn less than his counterparts in North America or Western Europe? He's presumably gone through similar training and hour building as people here - yet a Brazilian pilot probably earns less in a year than a DL captain earns in a month, flying the same aircraft.
Whilst, as Fly4fud says, at certain companies the pilots have tried to dictate to the market (rather than the other way round) this is a short term plan that generally ends up in tears. It wasn't that long ago that AA stood up to their pilots - and they backed down.
The reason that fares are so low is because of competition. There are a lot of seats chasing not all that many bums - and the only way the market can be stimulated to create higher demand (and thus more bums) is to reduce fares. This can only be done effectively if costs are also low - we've seen what happened when high cost carriers attempted to create low cost operations. The moment an airline increases its fares, demand falls away - this is basic economics.
High overhead + low yields = bankrupcy.
dallas dude - there are an awful lot of other professions where people have to go through similar amounts of training and low pay. A doctor/surgeon would be one such example - and the pay rates in the UK for NHS surgeons are certainly nothing to write home about! Accountants, lawyers, dentists, vets, scientists, professors ... really all the true 'professions' involve long periods of training/indenture and much sacrifice. What makes pilots any different?
As for your analogy of putting your life in other people's hands - what about train or bus drivers? Ships captains? Taxi drivers? A cruise liner captain has responsibility for considerably more people - and a much more valuable asset - than an A380 pilot ever will! On the ALPA formula of bigger + more pax = more pay, the captains of the new cruise leviathans should be earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a month!
As you say, the top of the crop in any profession can expect to earn more than their less able colleagues. Does this mean that you're saying that AA, DL, UA etc employ the best of the best - and that there are no second rate pilots in there? If so, that's incredibly naive - and arrogant. I have no doubt that there are many pilots around the world who are at least as good as the best at the US majors - in many cases, probably better; yet they get paid a lot less.
Of course, at the other end of the scale one has the sports players, actors and pop stars earning millions. And you've got merchant bankers (investment bankers for our US friends) and attorneys earning truly staggering sums of money - the value that they are putting into society and the economy can well be debated!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very well said guvnor! Can`t agree more to what you`ve written. It really anoys me everytime I hear that crab from someone in a major, about how he deserves the high salary because he put such effort in getting the job. I also spent several tough years to get the good job(in a major) I have now. It is always a big matter of luck where you end in and everyone on the bright side should be a bit more grateful for what he achieved.
It is not(only) a matter of talent!
It is not(only) a matter of talent!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor
Let's both understand something from the get-go. I get paid well not because of what I "do". I make good money because years ago union folks fought for decent pay and working conditions. I have the good fortune to have inherited the spoils from their hard won battles. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not about to return part of my check beacause of guilt pains. I'm no Red Robbo but it's my (and the other 11,500+) union affiliation that will leave this place better for my successors than even I found it! My company is making near record profits (and I hope they kick everyone elses' butt doing it!) but pilot salary's are small potatoes to other expenses in this industry. I have figures available and know exactly how much it costs my airline to get a pax from A to B.
They are not a charity and you and I wouldn't expect them to be.
I think you make a mistake comparing Europe to the US regards air travel or even general transportation for that matter. You "claim" that more bums on seats equals more money. Not necessarily true, otherwise why would American REMOVE rows of seats?
Here in the US there is such a huge market for the flying public that niche carriers (and I mean no offense) like Southwest or Spirit Airlines etc will always find plane loads of folks who don't mind paying for their type of service. Conversely, there are folks who want/expect a little bit more and they have their airlines of choice. (Please note as far as I'm concerned what we do up front is equitable no matter what symbol is painted on the tail !)
I appreciate your twisting the point of my previous post regarding "making it after 10 years". If you or anyone thought that after 6 or 7 years of crappy paying flying jobs I suddenly became Jesus in flying boots when I joined AA you're going to be disappointed.
The best flying I ever did was in ragged out freighters with multiple MEL items, VERY questionable weather radar and a couple of owners who'd lie to your face if they could screw you out of a dollar. Oh and if you got hurt in the process no problem - the POS aeroplane's insured ! Like all owners who are happy to take advantage of the fact that folks like me are/were building a career and use these experiences as stepping stones you don't see people, you see dollar or pound signs. The salary you offer HAS NOTHING to do with ability. You do it because you can get away with it!
All those who've been there/done that (and those that still are) - nod your heads.
In closing, you mention American and ALPA in the same breath. American has not been part of ALPA since 1963.
You also mentioned that "American got tough with its pilot group". Please explain this comment. I'll be happy to share the facts with you.
Cheers,dd.
Guest
Posts: n/a
dallas dude - I have the DOT figures as published for each airline in the States. As a proportion of overall costs, salaries make up by far the greatest amount - anywhere between 30% and 50% of overall costs. If, as DALPA wants, those costs are increased by a further 40%, you'll have up to 70% of all costs attributable to employment.
And that's just (plane) crazy!
If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I'd see hard times ahead for UAL and any carrier (such as DL and AA) that emulates their insane pay scales. I see major layoffs - and probably industrial action - which will devastate once fine carriers.
We've seen it this past summer at UA - and a couple of years back at your own employer, AA - where the damage caused by such action is both severe and long term. I'd hate to think how many tens of thousands of once loyal customers United has lost over the actions of its pilots (and intransigence of management, to be fair).
You're quite right about more bums on seats not necessarily making more money - I was responding to Fly4fud's posting when I said that.
AA, and its OneWorld partner BA, have (in my view correctly) opted to concentrate on the high yield market rather than simply playing a numbers game. This means that they will fly fewer pax - and have got themselves smaller aircraft as a result - but will charge higher fares to pax for a quality service.
That's fine as long as the pax are prepared to pay - but as we saw in the last recession, corporate travel budgets are one of the first areas to be cut. This leaves carriers - such as AA, UA and DL - with very high overheads (new aircraft, high salaries)in a very precarious situation.
Live it up for now, dd - but at the same time, think of the hundreds of (formerly highly paid) pilots who have never returned to the air after the bankruptcies of carriers such as EA and PA.
And that's just (plane) crazy!
If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I'd see hard times ahead for UAL and any carrier (such as DL and AA) that emulates their insane pay scales. I see major layoffs - and probably industrial action - which will devastate once fine carriers.
We've seen it this past summer at UA - and a couple of years back at your own employer, AA - where the damage caused by such action is both severe and long term. I'd hate to think how many tens of thousands of once loyal customers United has lost over the actions of its pilots (and intransigence of management, to be fair).
You're quite right about more bums on seats not necessarily making more money - I was responding to Fly4fud's posting when I said that.
AA, and its OneWorld partner BA, have (in my view correctly) opted to concentrate on the high yield market rather than simply playing a numbers game. This means that they will fly fewer pax - and have got themselves smaller aircraft as a result - but will charge higher fares to pax for a quality service.
That's fine as long as the pax are prepared to pay - but as we saw in the last recession, corporate travel budgets are one of the first areas to be cut. This leaves carriers - such as AA, UA and DL - with very high overheads (new aircraft, high salaries)in a very precarious situation.
Live it up for now, dd - but at the same time, think of the hundreds of (formerly highly paid) pilots who have never returned to the air after the bankruptcies of carriers such as EA and PA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor - I am a little puzzled at excactly what you think is proper compensation in any given profession.
Do we use third world countries as a base line? Do we use rate of inflation -
that is what United got (3.8% per year from 1993) and that is after taking a 23,8% CUT for 6 years?
If being competitive means getting paid less than your competitors we all will be looking at African/Russian/South-American salaries before long.
As for PanAm and Eastern - I think you know that their demise was caused by a multitude of factors - the least of which was pilot wages.
Look at TWA - they are among the lowest paid pilots of any sizable carrier.
I am continually astonished at how airline managers look to their employees to subsidize their poor management skills. And yes - those skills do matter. While the USA is being poo-poo'd for paying the pilots too much, the US ticket prices are on average much lower than, say, in Europe.....
Do we use third world countries as a base line? Do we use rate of inflation -
that is what United got (3.8% per year from 1993) and that is after taking a 23,8% CUT for 6 years?
If being competitive means getting paid less than your competitors we all will be looking at African/Russian/South-American salaries before long.
As for PanAm and Eastern - I think you know that their demise was caused by a multitude of factors - the least of which was pilot wages.
Look at TWA - they are among the lowest paid pilots of any sizable carrier.
I am continually astonished at how airline managers look to their employees to subsidize their poor management skills. And yes - those skills do matter. While the USA is being poo-poo'd for paying the pilots too much, the US ticket prices are on average much lower than, say, in Europe.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor
Your point about passengers being treated as pawns is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, over the years the pilot group has done such a good job of telling the travelling public how great aviation is and projecting the image that pilots are on a par with Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers etc., that few members of the public have (and fair enough) ANY sympathy for us "poor" hourly paid employees.
What you fail to take in to consideration is the fact that in UAL's case, UAL sold tickets on flights that it KNEW it could not operate because the pilot group had been telling management for EIGHTEEN months that they weren't hiring enough pilots to work these flights. UAL management, in its arrogance, ignored these warnings and as a result the pax lost out and once again it's the greedy pilots' fault ( I don't write a letter of this for sympathy, I write it because it's the TRUTH). How could you expect to run an airline (or any business)properly if your published schedule is totally reliant on employees working mandatory overtime? As usual incompetent management runs to their friends in the press
and the Government ( they make HUGE political contibutions-wonder why ?) and make everyone but themselves out to be responsible for the debacle! If I ran a business like this I'd be accused of fraud!
Ok that's got me warmed up. Would you like the lesson on EAL now?
Ever heard of a guy named Francisco Lorenzo ?
This piece of work ran rings around the labor laws (with considerable skill I might add) and picked off the carcass of EAL to add to his considerable fortune. The pilots at EAL could have worked for $2.50 an hour and Lorenzo would have tried to reduce that to $2.49 etc. The staff at EAL ,many of whom saw their life's work ruined, were left with nothing except the prospect of starting over.
The low cost/low paid carriers Lorenzo started (helped I might add by fools who did not see the big picture) only made a select few VERY WEALTHY. Clue, it wasn't the "greedy" pilots.
Pan Am ,sadly, were victims of US de-regulation rather than any "greedy" group of pilots. In effect,for years Pan Am was happy to have the domestic carriers provide feed to their international operation. When the 'cuffs came off in 1978 and the Delta's, United's, American's etc were able to compete for routes with Pan Am as well, the passengers' were ALREADY on their aeroplanes so why hand them over to Pan Am ? Very weak domestic feed = bye,bye Pan Am.
You claim WHEN Delta (go boys and girls!) attain their new pay-rates that 70 % of the expenses will go to labor costs. Nonsense.
Simple math here, let's use a two hour (600 mile to be conservative) domestic flight for example. We'll say the aeroplane seats 89 passengers. The Captain makes $ 200/hr, I make $100/hr = $600 (We don't, these rates are inflated for the purpose of this example). Three flight attendants (highly underpaid!) add $150 for a crew total of $750. The aeroplane we fly costs $6400/hr to operate. This allows for every other employee who is "touched" by the flight and the gas, amortization, etc so right now our 2 hour flight has expenses of $12,800, plus $750 for the crew. NOTE, $600 for us is not even close to the percentages you claim.
The aeroplane has an average load factor of 70% so we'll say there are 6 folks in first class (@ $550 per seat) and 57 folks in coach (@ $350 per seat). First class contributes $3300, coach adds another $19950 for a total revenue of $23250. Just to be fair let's say there are 10 non-revs aboard filling up 10 more seats. The cost per seat mile to the airline is 9 cents/mile. So, as we said the 2 hour distance is 600 miles, these seats "cost" the company $540. $23250 less $540 is $22710.
I believe the above figures I've used for seats are reasonable averages at AA. I've used the F100 at AA.
As anyone can see, these are MONEY MAKING MACHINES ! This trip generated over $9000 profit. Now imagine that multiplied by over TWO THOUSAND departures per day! Then explain me why the company can't afford its pilots?
I suppose Bob Ayling is worth the money he was paid, eh? Now that MAY be worth complaining about!
Cheers,dd.
Guest
Posts: n/a
dallas dude;
I agree with all that you've said.
On my above post, I mentioned about getting the "real" job. I use an airline as example , as from where I came from , this was viewed like a "real" job. You got more "security" and other benefits. But I know very well that being in a airline doesn't necessarily mean a dream job.
Also it is difficult when the Union don't work that well.In the US and EU is more "easy" to have Union taking care of the matters. That's not so simple out that axis (aviation side).And some people up here don't understand that too. Let me give an example ; last year the then second or third major in Brazil , to avoid trouble, fired all the crew that were in the head of the pilots union. A "simple" way to get a message through.
And just to add to your example in the above post. I think you should have included paying cargo.
Guv;
Normally if the crew isn't the cheapiest part of the flight , they are very close to it. And as I said before , is easy to say pilot's "gain" too much. But is that really the case?
[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 01 January 2001).]
I agree with all that you've said.
On my above post, I mentioned about getting the "real" job. I use an airline as example , as from where I came from , this was viewed like a "real" job. You got more "security" and other benefits. But I know very well that being in a airline doesn't necessarily mean a dream job.
Also it is difficult when the Union don't work that well.In the US and EU is more "easy" to have Union taking care of the matters. That's not so simple out that axis (aviation side).And some people up here don't understand that too. Let me give an example ; last year the then second or third major in Brazil , to avoid trouble, fired all the crew that were in the head of the pilots union. A "simple" way to get a message through.
And just to add to your example in the above post. I think you should have included paying cargo.
Guv;
Normally if the crew isn't the cheapiest part of the flight , they are very close to it. And as I said before , is easy to say pilot's "gain" too much. But is that really the case?
[This message has been edited by AeroBoero (edited 01 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guvnor,
Are you trying to get into the management's good book ?
Or are you in management ?
We all know that for every share option that the pilot gets, the managements will get many times more, so ESOP is just window dressing for all I care.
I prefer the cold hard cash anyday.
Are you trying to get into the management's good book ?
Or are you in management ?
We all know that for every share option that the pilot gets, the managements will get many times more, so ESOP is just window dressing for all I care.
I prefer the cold hard cash anyday.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said Dallas Dude.
Guv - Crew costs don't kill airlines. Incompetent managment, bad leadership, and fuel costs do. Do the math and don't rely on some bogus opinions. The idea that captains are making more than senior execs is laughable.
You're worth what you negotiate. Do you think the senior managers at the major airlines don't negotiate for their salaries and working conditions???? Maybe some people have some sort of socialist idea compensation, but it usually only applies to other people, not themselves. By the way Guv, are you going to publish your real compensation level to your employees when your airline starts up??
Guv - Crew costs don't kill airlines. Incompetent managment, bad leadership, and fuel costs do. Do the math and don't rely on some bogus opinions. The idea that captains are making more than senior execs is laughable.
You're worth what you negotiate. Do you think the senior managers at the major airlines don't negotiate for their salaries and working conditions???? Maybe some people have some sort of socialist idea compensation, but it usually only applies to other people, not themselves. By the way Guv, are you going to publish your real compensation level to your employees when your airline starts up??