WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT IS EASIER????

20 YEARS AGO THEY HAD INS ,WEATHER RADAR ,AUTOPILOTS,
AUTO BRAKES,AUTO LAND,GLASS COCKPIT.

Please,you obviously have no clue about aviation.

Still you mentioned supply and demand,now every airline is in
demand,most of the airlines are growing,so what are you
talking about.

I asked a question that you did not answer,do you think a doctor
with 20 years experience is earning less now than what he used
to earn 20 years ago????

Our experience only counts if you stay with the same airline.

We are under paid,airlines sell cheap tickets because they
know they always can depend on their cheap labor,yet
when fuel prices went up they all managed to generate
more money.

NO its not easier the role has just changed and the pressures are differnet. The responsibility remains the same!

Airline pilots are not underpaid, indeed in many cases - especially where there is union representation - pilots are overpaid, as the nature of the union and collective bargaining overrides the actions of the job market to which non-unionised workers are exposed.

This eliminates competitiveness within the job market such that in times of labour shortage the employees are unable to take advantage through large pay rises that are able to fall again in times of need, since wage rates are sticky and especially so where the union does not allow wage rates to fall to the market rate prevailing at any one time.

You strike down any comparison with any other job - but unfairly so. Responsibility comes in many forms - just because you may pay with your life for your errors (and I note that not all incidents or even accidents result in the guaranteed death of all on board) - that is no reason for being paid huge danger money if there are many people willing to do the same job, and therefore driving down the price of your labour.

If anything, unions should actively market airline flying as boring tosh to dissuade youngsters from seeking to join the workforce, and hence bargain up their price of their labour.

Basically unions suck, and have no role in a competitive economy other than for preventing safety abuses and deviations by management.


You deem initially that you should be paid more as:

You however move on to later talking about the safety implications that arise when you hold responsibly for your life and that of all others - suggesting to me that you cannot pin down a reason as to why you should be paid more.

No - your fantastic union agreements ensure that airline will keep their pilots as you are so heavily penalised in changing airlines - for example in leaving BA.

Ultimately if you do not feel as though you are paid enough - is this the fault of the airline for operating in a marketplace and taking on the risk of employing you, training you and retraining you; or your fault for entering into that large loan to pay for your training in the first place?

Spoken like a true blue tory... :mad:

Airline Pilots by the sheer nature of the beast have to work for large organisations, they cannot be self employed (unless contract but thats a different matter), so there is no other way than some form of union membership, end of story.

The modern professional union is far removed from the 70's version, maybe you should research it a bit more before saying such drivel.

Modern airline 'management' makes union membership essential. :mad:


Edited to add that I have just noticed Re heat says he is a beancounter... sums it up really :yuk:
Just wait until you make it to the 'flightdeck' as you seem to aspire to, reckon your view will change... if not beaten out of you by some straight talking skippers... :p

One does not have to be Tory to be liberal in economic thinking. What I can't stand is a fairly educated bunch of - generally - Tory voting people deluding themselves into thinking that unions are anything other than a highly socialist concept. This is in a day and age where the law gives adequate protection, and then have the audacity to claim that they are somehow reformed and professional, when they primarily still negotiate on pay.

Are you so naive as to think that every other union considers itself in the same light - do you really think that the baggage handlers and drivers think any differently or have less human reasoning than you to justify their existence. Of course not.

The safety role of the union I do not challenge one iota.

As implied by my safety comment, but ultimately strengthen the CAA to sort this out.


Your concept of a nitpicking beancouter should rather be applied to penny-pinching management. We simply record what they have done. Or failed to do. Or sort out the financial mess they created.

Re-heat

You suggest that pilots should not be paid 'danger money'. I would not suggest for a second that pilots are paid because pilots are paid because a plane might crash. But pilot error often in the form of poor decision making is the biggest cause of pilot error so pilots do have reasonability to make pilots must get it right first time. Are you suggesting that this should have no influence on pay?

If it does not you are suggesting that the market is the only factor that should influence a pilots pay, and that people should be paid according to the market and not the job they do?

Meeb says you are a beancounter , now i don’t know anything about counting beans but lets say that you are earning 50K and all the beancounters bosses around the world decide that all beancounter salaries should be cut to 30K. What you say suggests that this is acceptable just because the entire market has allowed it even though your job has not in fact changed

Chris

Danger money of sorts is paid to get people to do a job that involves greater risk - I brought this up as it was mentioned that the greater responsiblity and life in hands of a pilot was cited as a factor justifying higher pay by another poster. I am saying that all element of this has eroded.

I am simply saying that so many people want to do it that salary has eroded as a result - you cannot justify a higher salary if many people are willing to replace you for a lower one. Hence start a campaign to convince everyone that it is a rubbish job - my tongue in cheek suggestion from above.

Absolutely. Your example would be illegal employer collusion, but the principle of the market is the same. But if so many people wanted to do it that the salaries fell then yes. That's what happened when Andersen collapsed and the market was flooded with people looking for work. Life carried on even though market rates remained static or reduced for accountancy labour.

I never used to believe in unionizing, until one day certain outspoken members (yours truly included) of the pilot body were selected for "special" treatment by management.

Suddenly they could not get any time off when it was important to be with family, like Christmas, Childrens Birthdays, vacation during school holidays etc, all because they had the audacity to speak out for what should have been their rights!

We are all unionized now!

Regarding salary, where I live, inflation in the cost of living has topped 30% in the last 10 years, our pay has increased 9.5% and our productivity has improved in excess of 20%. We didn't press for more money believing that the company couldn't handle it, but somehow they manage to continue wasting resources at an alarming rate.

Now as the market for Pilots is favoring the Pilot rather then the airline, I doubt that the members of our association will continue to pay for the mistakes of management.

For the record, when I started my aviation career, airline Pilots used to earn approximately 5 times per capita income, now it is perhaps 2.5 - 3 times.

Merry Christmas all!

This thread is very amusing.

I am an ATCO, I control in the London TMA, quite a busy and complex piece of airspace.

If I make a mistake, Tariq, I can kill many more people than you. I
do not look after just one aircraft.

Pilots ARE skilled; however as an ex military aviator, I know what is a high cockpit workload and what is not. YES you should be given pay rises to keep up with cost of living rises (at the very least).

However, you have a very elitist and pompous attitude to other careers. You say that train drivers are not skilled due to the automation in their jobs - what about the automation in yours??

btw - my take home pay is £2600 a month; I do my job because it is a challenge and I enjoy it, but I would want more pay - who in their right mind in ANY job would not??

Why should I get paid a hell of a lot less than an FO or captain when my job is infinitely more challenging and carries similar risks (Yes, I know I could not die by my actions but see above about my liability)

When I sit in the seat to control, I work continuously on most occasions, though admittedly, it can be quiet some times and the pressure is not as high. Next time you are flying, sit back and take a look at what you actually do for most of the flight - monitor the Ts and Ps.

You guys do a sterling job but elitist attitudes like yours put people off.

Attitudes like yours will NOT win you pay rises or friends!!

When I started this thread all what I wanted to say is that
pilots pay did not change for a long time,and in no way I did
imply that a pilot job is superior to any other job.

Ukatco I think the controlers of London TMA are doing
a fabulous job.

BUT I will tell you a nice story that happened to me,
In IMC over a CAT C airport.
while I was shooting a missed app,at 10500ft on a right
turn towards the airport, I saw another A/C on TECAS
same level flying towards me,ATC asked me
to climb 12500ft and asked the other traffic to des 9500
so I disconnected the autopilot and started climbing,
but the other traffic,instead of dec they climbed too,
So my TECAS ordered dec which I did,by that time
ATC saw that the other A/C climbing
and asked them to dec!!so they did,again TECAS
changed mode and asked me to climb,needless to
say what manuvers took place that day, and on
top of that we had to stay focused and continue
to our alternate A/P.

Again Iam not implying here that we are better
and your salary for what you do should be much much more.

Just a small point but one I feel needs to be raised nonetheless. Please define "!!!!! money" Junior doctors earn maybe 22k-26k a year (pounds). What do they have to work to get this you ask? How about regular 80hr working weeks? How about working weekends from Friday night at 7pm to Monday morning at 8am with an hours rest grabbed whenever possible? How about putting up with drunken and abusive patients who have just been rolled in from pub fights, street brawls etc etc. Not just having to listen to their abusive and threatening language but some of them even being physically assaulted? For me 100k a year would be "!!!!! money" in those conditions! And I'm sure many people would want much, much more before they even entertained the thought of working in those conditions! I frankly can't be ar$ed looking back to see who made the above statement, but whoever it is needs to remove their head from their ar$e, come back down to earth and realise what a pretty good deal the vast majority of aviation people are on compared to people in the real world! :mad: :mad: :mad:

(ATCO who's take home is around k2.5 a month.......and guess what, I'm HAPPY with that!)

Page 14:

http://www.bmjcareers.com/pdf/doctorspay.pdf

That looks like fairly reasonable money for a doctor to me! By the way, 80 hours weeks for doctors are now banned by the EU, hence the shortage. All the talk about working whole weekends with an hours sleep and doing hand to hand combat with drunken patients is a bit like talking about the heroic pilots wrestling with the controls. Sounds good and makes great TV but the reality is rather more mundane, as a doctor I know told me when he was working at A&E in a well known televised hospital in a rough part of the north.

ukatco
Guilty of a little exaggeration there perhaps? Infinitely more challenging? Which part of your desk is in coffin corner for half the day?

Seems deathly quiet when I pass through Europe at 2am. I presume the UK is much the same. Anyway I was told you have a break every two hours at LTMA.

The voice of wisdom from a man who has clearly never flown in Africa or the Indian sub-continent.

wow, those are some superhuman HO's you're describing - 50+ hours work with the odd hour break - hope they're keeping a clear head throughout as it's not a good idea for them to make a mistake!

having just left uni the HO's i know work damn hard and take a big hike in responsibility for the money they earn. However they all also enjoy a fair social life and more importantly enjoy their work. Being an HO isn't as bad as it used to be - EU rules ensure that! They do quite alright for cash, but that doesn't imply this is the olny reason they do it.

You can't really compare occupations - as you said, catheters and needles wouldn't be my cup of tea, and perhaps flying an airbus wouldn't be theirs.

most pilots are not on sh!t money, however in the current climate of a low supply and high demand (which is likely to worsen with the high average age of British pilots and growth of the industry) it is below where it should be - pilots don't get it that easy(apart from those guys in orange who i'm told are spoilt :rolleyes: )!

Is the time at which your services are most highly valued not a good time to ask for a pay rise?

mo - not a pilot or a doctor! :p

ps you don't sound that happy vamp :)

Working 80 hrs per week is not illegal, the EWTD currently says a maximum of 56 hrs over a period of time.The period not specified.

Ther is no shortage of doctors in this country with unemployment in doctors increasing.

As to being paid danger money- be a surgeon. The risk of being exposed to HIV, Hep B and Hep C is there constantly and there is no insurance to cover that.

As to the figures being shown on the bmj website - remember 6 yrs at med school and then upwards of 8-12 yrs to qualify as a consultant and then you start on £65K and after 20 further years you might get £95K. Couple that with most doctors ending up with £20-25K in loans to get through med school and then further on going training costs not paid for by the NHS - totalling £2-3K and malpractice insurance and registration, the moeny does not go far.

Also, if you get on a plane every sodding airline in the world expects you to give your services free and not complain because you are a doctor, no I would be a pilot any day.

Pilots would like many people to be paid more but as I said before market forces dictate what you get. If you want more - strike but do not just whinge about it and if you want to compare yourself to a comparable proper profession then do a correct comparision

Sooooo predictable that every time this subject comes up we end up with a bunch of people who aren't actually airline pilots telling us why we don't deserve any more pay and that anyway we're all just a load of old whingers........

What's up? If you're happy with what you get in your job, then fine.

To the ATCO's above and others who say or imply we're somehow being elitist - what a strange attitude to take. As I've said, if you're happy with your money, then leave it at that. Great. But why would you not want us to get a pay rise if we could? What's your motivation?

Tarik, you speak the truth.

Actually vampy if you read that document a junior doctor (House Officer) earns £19,700 in their first year for a 40 hour week (two thirds of a tube drivers salary and after 3 years of university-at that stage, as you say they still have a lot further to go)!

There are lots of higher figures in that document Re-Heat posted - but (as a parallel) for some reason if you ask anyone what a pilot earns the most common answer is £60K. Many do earn that - but many more do not, no-one quotes £20k for a turboprop FO. Doctors have the potential to earn more - so do we and we don't kill people the first day we start work, we sit in a classroom for weeks, then are closely supervised on an aircraft then work under a Capt for years.

Doctors hours and salaries have been changed recently (NHS trusts are still ordering doctors to lie about how many hours they work though since following the 'proper pay' for hours worked they have found that they are all going bankrupt) but it is still only a few years since my spouse worked 120 hour weeks as a junior doctor (not always but certainly not rare) and those weren't spent reading the paper either. And before recent legislation came in that worked out as about two thirds of minimum wage! The only reason a doctor earned more that a waiter/ress (and that is before tips) was that the food employees hours were protected by law!

I am a pilot and I sit in the right seat of a jet. I would love to earn more (who wouldn't). But do we deserve it? During my ATPL exams I met many people who would not pass GCSE maths by a country mile but scraped through the exams (and kept quoting how they were an equivalent to a degree! - see wannabees forum several months ago for further if you wish). If you have the co-ordination to drive a car you can pass your ATPL and if you are lucky you can get a job. Does that merit 100K a year - I don't think it doea. Do I want that 100K because I stuck at it and went through the system - you betya. Do (or should) the earnings of other professions affect our own - no.

So if you came across somebody dying in the street would you assist them or check their ability to pay first? If its the former then whats the difference between that scenario and being on an aircraft, apart from the perception that it's easier to bill an airline?

and...
Hang on until I have stopped laughing.... :p

There... now that has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard on PPRuNe... and thats saying something.... :rolleyes:

BTW Ropey Pilot (and I am sure you are), how you can be is interesting as your profile says you only have a PPL... :confused:

Ropey Pilot, you're aptly named.

What you say may or may not be true if you're talking about someone scraping through the licencing requirements.

But to imply that this is all it takes to get into the right hand seat of a jet and ultimately become an airline Captain is an absolute slur on the profession.

And what a strange character you must be if you would denigrate your profession, and therefore yourself, in this way.

What a load of old twaddle.

And I'd still love to know what all this has to do with pilots' getting more money.

apologies meeb - I haven't updated my profile since I first got a PPRUNE username. I shall do so forthwith...

I also stand by my belief that if you have the co-ordination to drive a manual car you have the co-ordination to fly an aircraft; some may find it easier or more natural but I would say that there are very few who cannot achieve it in the end. There are a lot of pilots out there who seem to believe that they are God's gift because they have learned to fly a plane. As a pilot I am not one of them.

And Maximum I do believe that the ATPL exams (I must admit I was thinking more about the thoery) are a lot easier than a lot of people seem to claim. I do not wish to belittle those who struggle (I find the theory a lot easier than the stick and pedals) but some people find academia difficult at any given level - there are plenty who cannot pass GCSEs and there are those who find it a breeze till they get to PhD level.

The bottom line is that those exams, the skills training and flight tests and then a large dose of luck (the last being the most important - although with regard to CVs etc you can make your own luck) is entirely what it takes to be an airline pilot. (as the legal minimum - I don't intend to start listing the required personal qualities) I accept that lots of people make huge sacrifices to go down this route but for a lot of them this is because of finances. From an integrated course you can achieve an ATPL pretty quickly as long as you have the money.

I love my job but I am amused when people keep comparing it to others whith which (in my opinion) it does not compare. I do not wish to denigrade myself or others but there seems to be a lot of people who put themselves on a par with brain surgeons because they can fly a plane.

You obviously are not and have never been involved in any training role... :rolleyes:

I have young Ropey, spent quite a few years teaching PPL's and CPL's and I can tell you this... your statement is utter :mad:

and
And why do you keep going on about woodworking tools...?? :confused:

So why is it that most of the people who failed the flying exams at my school could drive a car?

Ropey, it's lovely to hear from you that flying an airliner is so easy, and yet you cannot even spell. I think you'll find it's denigrate.

As Meeb says, you've obviously never been involved in any training role. As an airline trainer, who's also involved in recruitment, take it from me, there are plenty of people out there who not only can drive a car, wow! and who can also fly a light aircraft, wow! again, but who absolutely cannot and will never be able to fly a jet airliner. You're talking complete hogwash.

If anything, you simply show a disappointing trend in modern aviation. You appear to have no respect for the job, or pride in what you're doing. You're certainly not what I would class as an airman or fellow aviator. God only knows where you get your ideas from or why you're doing the job in the first place.

When I dreamed of flying as a child, there's no way I could have imagined professional pilots talking about the job the way you do. How sad.........

I think we are getting away from the topic here and turning into a slagging match - I have an opinion and you obviously disagree but anyway...

Carnage, yes people who fail flight tests can drive a car. Some people can pass a driving test after 3 lessons, some will take many months and many attempts but they will still pass and a few will never learn. I believe that the same is true in aviation - some are naturals and learn quickly some will take a lot longer and fail more often and there are a few who will never pass. I believe there is nothing magical about aviation - if you can accelerate a car round a corner while changing gear, swithching to full beam, chat on your handfree mobile phone while looking out for hazards the whole time you have the co-ordination to use both hands and feet for different tasks at the same time and could probably be taught to fly - how quickly is a different matter, especially with the lack of continuity some people have due to time/financial reastraints.

maximum - I apologise for my poor spelling but I had been sniffing a few wine gums last night - I had also never heard of the word in question so I actually thought I has cut and pasted it from the earlier post, so how it ended up mispelt I don't know:\

And you are right - I have never been involved in a training role I have only been trained alongide others of varying abilities. If that precludes me from offering an opinion on the subject then quite a few posts on this entire website will have to be removed. You obviously have greater knowledge of training and feel that your point is more vailid - fine but it is only your point and I do not have to agree with it. If you could come up with some slightly more persuasive arguements than "your statement is utter :mad: " then I might change my point of view (learning from other people is how statements are formed and changed all of us have done nothing more than state our position - I am aware that I have no triumphant story to back mine up with but yours would be more persuasive with some backing too for example how many people drop out of a £70,000 integrated course having spent £50,000 already would be an exmple of someone who really can't complete the course. Those who cease training at PPL level wouldn't really prove the point either way because I would state they gave up too soon and you would stse that they were untrainable).

And I do respect my job, it is a very responsible role and I have worked hard to get there. That doesn't change the fact that I think that the minimum legal standards required to get there could be achieved by most people with enough time, effort and money. Most people could also be a doctor - medical school is predominantly a memory test, it just takes a lot longer and (in my opinion) more effort. It doesn't mean in either case that the individuals temprament is ideally suited to the job or that they will be the best person for it I just think that flying isn't the unachieveable skill that many holders seem to believe it is. During my training I noticed that those in my crammer groups who thought that the ATPL exams were a pinnacle of achievement (and equal to a degree I've had that discussion - they are 14 multiple choice exams that can be finished in 6 months or less if you can devote the time to it!) tended to be those who had not worked at school and for the first time were working hard and regularly at an academic subject. Well done (and I don't mean that sarcastically) but the fact that one person may have struggled doesn't mean that the exams are either unachievable or too hard it just means that one person had to devote more time to passing.

If you want to add some constructive backing to the points raised in the previous posts then please feel free - otherwise can we agree to differ and get back to the question in hand with differing points of view as I am sure this is getting very tedious for everyone else!

Ropey, there you go again. And you don't say to what standard of flying you're referring - I'm interested - first solo? PPL? single? twin? turboprop? jet? CPL? IMC? IR? And remember, coming out of training with a shiny new F-ATPL/IR puts you on the absolute bottom rung of the commercial aviation ladder. No proof that someone has what it takes to actually be a competent airline Captain at some point in the future.

I base my argument on my experience of seeing plenty of people fall by the wayside all along the career path. For example, even some experienced first-officers fail to become Captains. Just one example.

And I'm not talking about the ATPL groundschool here - you seem to focus on that more than the flying. The ATPL groundschool has so little to do with the real world.

Your contention that the ability to drive a car is on a par with being a professional airline pilot remains, in my opinion, invalid.

How can you hope to have decent terms and conditions throughout your career with an attitude like that? Airline bosses will be laughing all the way to the bank....................

I have never mentioned Captaincy (nor, I believe, has anyone else on this thread) - this is about whether pilots deserve more money(and also why discussions amongst people with differing points of view are much harder on t'internet than face to face as you cannot see if the other party is getting the point you are making and it is a very long and tedious process to do this online as we are seeing - not that I think we will ever agree, but it is always nice to be sure what we disagree over).

In answer to your question the level I am referring to is a shiny new fATPL/IR because that is the point up to which you can do as much time as you like to get up to standard.

To get to the LHS is an entirely different case from that mentioned above since an airline will be able to see your performance daily and know you and your strengths/weaknesses and trainability. Also, unlike the CPL/IR if you are a bit weak in certain aspects of 737 handling (as an example) you cannot put the time in to make it up outside that which is allocated to you by the company - so from this point on the fact that everyone can do it but will learn at different speeds becomes supremely important because if you cannot do it with the time allocated then you can't put in any extra.

I also agree with you that many will not make this jump - I hope I am not one of them when my time comes but I will just have to wait and see.

A CPL or IR skills test is a one off deal. The standards in these tests are very high but that does not mean that they can't be passed by a weak pilot on a good day (or conversely failed by a strong pilot on a bad day) but your school should have given you sufficient training to reach that stage. Unless I am mistaken (and I may well be - that is my entire point about forming opinions based on things more knowledgable people can tell you ) there is a min number of hours required before attempting skills tests but no maximum (and even if there is a max you could fly every day for a year with a mate and not log it). But the bottom line is that if you have enough money you can fly regularly for years in order to get up to the standard and I believe that most people could do that.

My point is that many people seem to think that they are something special because they have made it to the RHS of a transport aircraft - and it is that which I disagree with. It is laudable achievement, yes but in my opinion not any more so than many other jobs with greatly varying financial rewards and demands on one's time. It is also a notion held by a large proportion of the population - as evidenced by the fact that people will go into bars pretending to be a pilot in order to 'tap off'! (and also on anonymous chat forums - that I can't understand; it is not as if that will help you pull!)

And I am aware that I am focussing on written exams - purely because they have a very easily definable score at the end of it - flying skills tests are much harder to quantify and the standards achieved by the same individual will vary much more widely in this aspect than in written exams and hence are much more subjective (but then again being subjective about skill and co-ordination is the main thrust of my arguement, so touche.)

My contention is not that the ability to drive a car is on a par with being a professional airline pilot. it is that if you have the ability to be trained to drive a car (which in the discussion you have) then you also have the ability to be trained as a professional airline pilot. You also need dedication, time and money amongst other things which many people do not have and hence they shall never fly - but it doesn't mean that they couldn't - we will probably always disagree on this but I won't be losing any sleep over it and neither should you!
I think the problem is that many believe as pilots they are a special case and so do not realise that they are simply qualified professionals at a cost to their employer. While many sit and complain that they are not treated specially enough they need to bargain as employees with skills - nothing more and nothing less. Briefly going back to the doctors case - that is why they were screwed over years ago, they thought their special training status would ensure special treatment - it didn't. Recently they have negotiated as highly trained employees and guess what - they have got paid more money and now work fewer hours! Do we have something to learn from this?

Well, I mention it because ultimately that's what it's all about - airlines don't want career first-officers, they want potential Captains. And it's these people who are the whole subject of the discussion about getting more money in the first place.
I'll let that one stand for others to judge.
Well, I believe that the job we do has many unique aspects to it which tend to make it a special case. Not the only special case, but special nevertheless. This doesn't mean I think I'm superior to anyone else because of the job I do. But I do think the skills necessary to be a safe and effective airline Captain warrant a certain level of remuneration or terms and conditions than is generally offered at present.

Airlines don't want career First Officers and no-one wants to be one, but they exist and all those involved started at the bottom. As no-one seems to have specified that this thread is that Captains should be paid more as opposed to all pilots I didn't assume that in my discussion. (wheras it looks like you have- hence my point about discussing face-to-face being much easier. Actually re-reading the posts you did mention Captaincy earlier while I thoughtI was pretty obviously talking about the RHS; it seems we were talking slightly at cross purposes).

With neither of us having any hard evidence about the trainability of candidates I am glad we can now simply agree to disagree.

And with reference to your final point I would love to be the captain of the 60s and 70s on footballers wages and living like a rock star (ahem...:O ). But the sad fact of the matter is that market forces are at work. It does not matter how responsible we are (or think we are - more subjective arguements) no-one is going to give us a chunk of their profits because they think we deserve it no matter how much you want them to!

Unfortunately because, with all the factors listed before, the fATPL is achievable by most (the opinion of this author does not constitue the collective opinion of this or any other thread:p ) there are a lot of unemployed pilots. This has driven down Ts & Cs (especially with regards to type ratings - my flight school was telling me about the good old days where an airline recruiter came to the school and offered to pay for you IR if you had a CPL!). It is also those who look skywards and dream but cannot be dispassionate about their employment who have affected the market too (I would live in a shoebox and fly for free if someone would let me - which payroll dept would turn that offer down?). I suppose it boils down to whether you approach this discussion from a standpoint that has nothing to do with achievability (I think our job is infinitely more responsible than that of a professional footballer and hence we should be paid more; which I agree with I just don't think upping our salaries to match theirs will work!) or realism (we will only ever be paid the lowest salary required to fill the seats with suitably qualifed personnel - and we are the ones who determine that price, not the beancounters, they simply start the offers low and up it till it works!)

Cor blimey Ropey, maybe it's my age or something! (and I'm actually not that old).:}

I just feel that you're like a defence attorney arguing the case for the prosecution as well.:confused:

If we as professional pilots don't put our case forward in the strongest possible terms, who will?

How do you see your future in flying?

Max (we seem to have calmed down a bit so I'll be a bit casual)

I think my point is that this thread ultimately has no point and last night I was looking a a way to fill some time having had a few. I have subsequently spent my time responding to direct attacks/discussion from those who didn't fully get my point/disagree:)
What case are you putting forward and to who?

Do you intend to cherry pick the best points from this thread, go to your Ops director and say look we deserve more money because of x? It won't make any difference I can assure you.

Or is this thread simply for pilots to complain about the fact they aren't paid as much as they would like - in which case I would join in - sounds like a night down the pub; a group of pilots, a few beers and several hours of whinging and I'm there with the best of them.

As it is I am simply trying to offer another point of view but I feel as if I have 'defected' to the non-pilots side for not toeing tha party line!Our Ts & Cs will only improve if companies have no choice but to pay them. If an entire fleet rejects a pay deal and proposes industrial action people have to take notice! They cannot simply take on newcomers on worse Ts & Cs as has been happening steadily now for some time. As has been said by myself (and others) market forces rule - what you think you are worth depends only on how replaceable you are - not by how responsible/skillful you are or believe yourself to be. Pay can be improved if we all agree and take steps to ensure it. Dreamily opining that we are worth more than this is merely a waste of pixels.

I have an idea and would like your feedback please.

How about we are paid per block hour instead
of a fixed salary???

Iam going to use USD as an example.

Lets say we start with 50USD/hr for every pilot.
10 usd increment for every 1000 hrs aquired
for a captain, and 7 usd for F/O.

So a captain with 10000hrs will cash 150/hr
and F/O with 10000hrs will cash 120/hr.

Not to forget ofcourse duty hrs ,lets say 15 usd/hr.

The pay increment should be for the total hrs flown.
Example: F/O with 5000hrs will be making 85usd/hr
and when he is upgraded he will make 100/hr.

With this system pay is based on experience and
not on a company seniority.

Ofcourse somebody might argue that airlines
will not hire F/Os with lots of hrs. maybe but
if they do then they are forced to spend on training
new pilots, so we solve the problem of young pilots
who must borrow money to pay for their own typerating.

If airlines stop or delay upgrades they will run out of
captains.

Airlines must pay for experience,especially when sometimes
they put ridiculous requirements in their recruitment ads.


After all lots of professions are paid per hour.

Not sure that would work tarik:

Lots of professions are paid by the hour with differing fees depending on experience.

As an example I will use a Lawyer. I want a lawyer so go and find one that I can afford with appropriate experience - fine.

Problem is that aviation doesn't work like that - hundreds of people are hiring you simultaneously and the ticket price is fixed - so it is not the customer that has a say in the price they pay for the pilot. That is where the problem occurs - with those whose say it is, ie the beancounters.

They don't care how much experience you have, just that you are legal - they are lots of safeguards to ensure that even a junior FO with a junior Capt don't crash and put passgeners off flying with them. So what they will do is hire an entire fleet of 250 hour FOs and 1500 hour Capts. If you are working with the company and you accrue too many hours (and become too expensive) they cease to use you - effectively sacking you for gaining too much experience.

So it is because of people like Ropey that pilots are rated equivalent to car drivers.

Proves my post about some pilots... and why the majority get shafted before the argument can be pushed in any way.

I often wonder if people genuinely misunderstand points made in a discussion or if they choose to misunderstand them so they can get upset:rolleyes:

When have I (or anyone else) said that?

I say that if you can be trained to do one you can be trained to do the other - very different. You can learn to drive a car in 3 days (I took my test after a 3 day intensive course with a driving school - I failed though:} ) but it was only on one item, a mistake which equally I - or someone better - may not have made.

No one, whether it is Chuck Yeager or Joe Bloggs, can physically complete an ATPL in anywhere like that time or with anywhere near as little work - it will be much more on both counts and much much more in some cases (all depends on the individual).

And I ask you as I aked maximum -what argument are you pushing to whom with the hope of a pay rise? If the number of people in the world who have the ability to ever pass the ATPL is strictly limited - and no amount of training will ever help these poor souls improve to the point there they could pass the CPL skills test (and I am assuming your disagreement with me gives you this standpoint) then the upcoming pilot shortage will sort our terms and conditions out for itself.

Even if you could convince management and the entire world that we are some sort of uber-Gods with special powers no-one will say great, have a pay rise - they will say great, are there any uber-Gods willing to work for less; and while there are the pay will not increase!

Ropey pilot- To be in charge of a plane takes more than
just coordination or good ATPL score.

I do not know what machine do you fly or how
many hours you do have,and what destinations
you go to??? but to me you sound very very inexperienced
and need lot to learn.

To be in charge of a jet worth more than 100 million
and the lives of 200+ passengers you need much
more than 1500 hrs. remember the pilot is the last
line of defence.

As for the main topic of this thread, I believe that
we deserve more, a good start is to stop
accepting jobs that pay less than the average market price,
and pilot unions should start talking.

Most of the airlines are short of pilots,to prove my
point 2 weeks ago I did apply to a couple of agencies,
I have till now 5 job offers,all want me to start immediately.

I think we should be paid by hour,and the 1000hrs increment
might be a good system,a 15000hrs capt would make 200usd
per hr,this amount is not much for somebody who is been
flying for more than 20 years.