User Fees a good thing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wzgrza said:
User fees would make GA flying more expensive.

This in turn would make flight training more expensive.

This in turn would yield a lower number of applicants for various licenses because of the associated costs.

This in turn would result in fewer commercial pilots, and aspiring commercial pilots due to the higher costs, as well as when they see the cost:reward ratio.

This would (maybe, hopefully) push airlines to increase incentive to new-commers to the industry by increasing wages, work rules, and benefits.

This would also give current professional pilots an edge, and hopefully lower the supply of pilots, with an increased demand for them in a post crisis, growing aviation industry.


Would be bad news for the typical weekend warrior. But for professional pilots I believe this would be a good thing.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Your first four points are correct. User fees will increase the cost of flying, which will result in less people pursuing commercial aviation as a career, thus producing less applicants for airline jobs.

Unfortunately, as I have noted before, it is amazing what people will do to fly an airplane. Some people will choose other careers, but the majority of pilots out there are thinking "I just wanna fly" and don't care about the money (either the cost, or the pay), at least until about 3 months after they get their first pilot job, but that is a different story. The upshot of this is that there always have been, and likely always will be, more pilots than there are jobs. So while qualified commercial pilots will perhaps have an easier time finding a job, that won't translate into better wages and benefits.

Also, your theory does not account for the entire macroeconomic system. Less pilots = higher wages = higher fares = less passengers = less flights = less airplanes = less need for pilots. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
 
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Remember your roots. Remember where you came from. Hoping that flying will become more expensive so that less people will enter the industry is flat out wrong. It's selfish, it's terrible, it's wrong. Have some integrity!!

If you are worried about the vast amount of pilot applicants at airlines, there are other ways to attack this issue that are much more morally sound. Educate people who are brainwashed into taking out loans and getting into $50,000 - $100,000+ of debt in order to go to a school that promises to get them from 0 time to the flight deck in under a year. If we did a better job educating prospective students about flight training, NO ONE would be going to Mesa pilot development, CAPT, RAA, and all those other scams. Very few people would be going to ATP, Pan Am, etc...

Also, educate them about the career before they get there. For me personally, I decided against being a pilot for a number of reasons. The pay is just too low (even at the upper levels), and the job stability is just not there. For some people, the pay might be right and they can put up with the inadequate job stability because they love flying so much. That is great for them. But suppress the notion that pilots work 10 days a month, get paid $300,000 a year, and are treated like king's. That is just not true.

Educate prospective pilots about the process. That, more than anything, will cut down on the number of people who get their licenses and apply for the airlines. Don't try to drive up the cost of flight training significantly to limit flight training. I honestly don't even think that will work. People are already taking out $100,000 loans with no college degrees to try and get an airline job. What makes you think this will stop them from taking out a $120,000 loan?

User fees would be terrible for aviation. It is a well known fact. Don't try to justify user fees this way!
 
Hacker15e said:
More importantly, which European "legacies" are you thinking of? Your comparison simply mentioned a couple work rules -- nothing of the overall pay and compensation scheme.

Just quickly glancing at PPJN you have BA , Aer Lingus, KLM, LH, as far as the legacies go. This is in Euros and GBP. Sure taxes are higher in many of these places and cost of living in the main cities, but it's not like you have to live in London to fly for BA.

The fact is, European airline pilots aren't significantly better or worse off than US pilots.

Depends where you look, and how you interpret "better or worse". European pilots have a much higher QOL imo, with similar or better pay... the latter being more common.


Where do you get that there are no regionals in Europe? Based on the travel distances over here, the vast majority of the airlines ARE regionals. In fact, the way that airlines are categorized in the US as legacies, majors, nationals, regionals, etc, can't be applied to European airlines to make an apples-vs-apples comparison.

I didnt say that there are no regionals. I said that there isnt a regional system similar to the one here in the U.S. There you can be hired by a "regional" and fly an ERJ, but you are apart of mainline, their payscale and seniority list. And if not, then it is usually a fully owned regional, with good pay for the position at least, and most likely a flowthrough or preferential hiring.


They also didn't have the massive hiring boom in 2007.

Maybe wasnt a boom, but airlines were hiring none-the-less. And most jobs that were going were well paying jobs on 737 A320 sized aircraft, as compared to here mostly 20k$ a year regional jobs.


Fair comparison, but that has everything to do with laws. There are a lot of other laws in Europe that I want nothing to do with -- I'd much rather have the US system.

That is just a matter of personal preferance. But the RLA is much responsible for the way things have deteriorated here for pilots in the U.S.

Their cost of living is also probably twice as much as yours. They also probably live in a smaller house and drive a smaller car than you...and paid a lot more for it (currency exchange value notwithstanding). How much tax do they pay compared to you? Again, not a fair comparison -- you can't work in Europe and live in America.

Depends where they live. Europe is a combination of many countries with varying economies, and currencies. It is hard to generalise. But even in my country of origin pilots in the same position I am in have better pay and working conditions then I do... and that is at a 3:1 exchange rate.

I see a lot of professional pilots lament how much better things are for the pilot profession in Europe, but most of that is based on some idea of what they think things might be like over here. There is rarely a well thought out understanding of the complete picture.

These generalisations must have a little truth in them otherwise they would not exist. Not to say that flying in elsewhere in the world doesnt have it's own problems, because it does. No place is perfect.
Click to expand...

______
 
wzgrza said:
Regardless. It works same way for corporate. More corporate jobs, less pilots available. If an employer needs employees, they will entice them with better working conditions and wages. Works the same for airlines as well as corporate.
Click to expand...

More corporate jobs? Nice dreaming, In this economy it will be all the more reason to cut more flight departments. Especially if this LASP thing goes through too.
 
skydog said:
Your first four points are correct. User fees will increase the cost of flying, which will result in less people pursuing commercial aviation as a career, thus producing less applicants for airline jobs.

Unfortunately, as I have noted before, it is amazing what people will do to fly an airplane. Some people will choose other careers, but the majority of pilots out there are thinking "I just wanna fly" and don't care about the money (either the cost, or the pay), at least until about 3 months after they get their first pilot job, but that is a different story. The upshot of this is that there always have been, and likely always will be, more pilots than there are jobs. So while qualified commercial pilots will perhaps have an easier time finding a job, that won't translate into better wages and benefits.

Also, your theory does not account for the entire macroeconomic system. Less pilots = higher wages = higher fares = less passengers = less flights = less airplanes = less need for pilots. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Unfortunently there is a lot of truth to what you say. But it would raise the value and self worth of a pilot. It would give them another bargaining chip... but what they do with it is up to the pilots.. and unfortunently you can never be sure.

As for the last paragraph, the amount airlines would have to raise fares to cover the extra pilot pay would be negligible. Also, it would be for the most part across the board.
 
OldTownPilot said:
More corporate jobs? Nice dreaming, In this economy it will be all the more reason to cut more flight departments. Especially if this LASP thing goes through too.
Click to expand...

I phrased that wrong. What I meant is more corporate jobs available for the taking, due to there being a lower supply of pilots to take these jobs.
 
aerospacepilot said:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Remember your roots. Remember where you came from. Hoping that flying will become more expensive so that less people will enter the industry is flat out wrong. It's selfish, it's terrible, it's wrong. Have some integrity!!

If you are worried about the vast amount of pilot applicants at airlines, there are other ways to attack this issue that are much more morally sound. Educate people who are brainwashed into taking out loans and getting into $50,000 - $100,000+ of debt in order to go to a school that promises to get them from 0 time to the flight deck in under a year. If we did a better job educating prospective students about flight training, NO ONE would be going to Mesa pilot development, CAPT, RAA, and all those other scams. Very few people would be going to ATP, Pan Am, etc...

Also, educate them about the career before they get there. For me personally, I decided against being a pilot for a number of reasons. The pay is just too low (even at the upper levels), and the job stability is just not there. For some people, the pay might be right and they can put up with the inadequate job stability because they love flying so much. That is great for them. But suppress the notion that pilots work 10 days a month, get paid $300,000 a year, and are treated like king's. That is just not true.

Educate prospective pilots about the process. That, more than anything, will cut down on the number of people who get their licenses and apply for the airlines. Don't try to drive up the cost of flight training significantly to limit flight training. I honestly don't even think that will work. People are already taking out $100,000 loans with no college degrees to try and get an airline job. What makes you think this will stop them from taking out a $120,000 loan?

User fees would be terrible for aviation. It is a well known fact. Don't try to justify user fees this way!
Click to expand...

I do my best to educate newbies wanting to get into the industry on how it really is, and what they can expect. Many call me pesimistic, but it isnt pesimistic, it is realistic. I am not saying user fees are bad, or good. I am saying that if they get implemented it may be a good thing, or at least a better thing for airlines.

I also agree that just educating any would be students on the realities of airline flying, pay, working conditions etc. would do wonders. Many have no idea of the realities of the aviation industry until they already have 20,000$ invested into their flight training, and then it is too late for them to turn back, because they can't justify all that money going to waste.
 
kellwolf said:
FYI, unless you're inside the marker doing 160, a CRJ is still looking at a 20-40 kt overtake on you. Approach speed at max weight is 142. Flaps 30 speed is 160, so a CRJ is flying flaps 30 just to maintain separation on a 160 kt Pilatus.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly my point. Only 20-40kts and we were one of the smallest and slowest things that flies in there. Remember a G5 or 777 is also GA if operated under say 91 sub K or something. So not everything in GA is slow so why make GA pay for pay for problems mostly made only by smaller aircraft which easily be Part 135 or 121 as well. It doesn't make any sense.

I mean if the government is unable to afford keeping up with ATCs high load and equipment requirements so be it. Just charge everyone for the airspace they use equally, not just focus on one aspect of aviation.:whatever:
 
joliet said:
Multi-Crew is such a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is but when user fees squash "traditional" training and the airlines can't hire cheap pilots, they won't raise the wages to make it a viable career. They will scream for Multi-Crew or other alternatives to cheapen the profession. Supply and demand will only go so far and user fees will do more long term damage to our careers than not...
 
little_cricket said:
Yes, it is but when user fees squash "traditional" training and the airlines can't hire cheap pilots, they won't raise the wages to make it a viable career. They will scream for Multi-Crew or other alternatives to cheapen the profession. Supply and demand will only go so far and user fees will do more long term damage to our careers than not...
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is, that those who are in favor of user fees in order to raise their QOL, are shortsighted.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Many places. One example Vail, CO. An airliner with 200+ people in it waiting #20 in line behind GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

........ and the solution to that would be charging a fee to file a VFR flight plan in Kansas, tack on a filing fee for a student pilot certificate in Wyoming, and the other user fees that have been proposed as opposed to a gate hold.
 
Velocipede said:
Anything that reduces the pilot pool, in the long run, is a good thing. The law of supply and demand, remember?
Click to expand...
Wrong, not just wrong, but galactically wrong.

EVERY single guy on these boards that champions ALPA as the end all be all for pilots plays the same double standard.

Sure, "flying an ILS is the same" to just about any pilot but in the same sentence you will ALL rail against people who take out loans for flight training for have "mommy and daddy" pay for all their ratings.

User fees will cause a significant drop in the quality of applicants because instead of relying on natural selection to trim the fat we'll have to just hope and pray that the ones who can afford to have their flight training paid for aren't three-towed jerkweeds.

Like it or not our system of throwing e at the walls and seeing what sticks is a dang good way to do things.

Apparently the door only swings both ways if you get one of those sweet lanyards.
 
Hacker15e said:
Or, maybe requiring an ATP for any 121 operation?
Click to expand...

That I would actually like to see.

This last hireing boom saw the regional airlines holding fast on pay, but they were forced to scrape the bottom of the experiance barrell to get warm bodies to sit in the right seat. Pilots with 1500TT would not be as likely to tollerate the pathetic 1st year pay that the regionals offer, they would have other options like 135 or corprate.
 
esa17 said:
Wrong, not just wrong, but galactically wrong.

EVERY single guy on these boards that champions ALPA as the end all be all for pilots plays the same double standard.

Sure, "flying an ILS is the same" to just about any pilot but in the same sentence you will ALL rail against people who take out loans for flight training for have "mommy and daddy" pay for all their ratings.

User fees will cause a significant drop in the quality of applicants because instead of relying on natural selection to trim the fat we'll have to just hope and pray that the ones who can afford to have their flight training paid for aren't three-towed jerkweeds.

Like it or not our system of throwing e at the walls and seeing what sticks is a dang good way to do things.

Apparently the door only swings both ways if you get one of those sweet lanyards.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody cares about the "quality of the applicants" they just care that there should be less of them. Not how much experience you have or your morals. There are currently pilots with thounsads of hours around the country that will fly for food to stay current. Like it or not the law of supply and demand rules over all. And even then who is to say that the airlines will up their benefits? Remember airlines operate in another dimension. They'll just lower mins like they did the last few years or make their own ab intio pilots before they'll raise any salary, we are all just numbers to them. The real solution lies at training, there are currently 600000 licensend pilots in the states. Aviaiton is too accessible, it's only a matter of time before the gov will find a way to tax the skies.
 
Velocipede said:
Yeah, it hasn't been working for the Germans for 60 years.

Oh yeah, it has. Oops!
Click to expand...
You know the Germans make good stuff...

shamwow-snuggie-slanket.jpg


-mini
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top