The end of aviation as we know it?

[drunkenbeagle]

And, yes, all of the notions of what you "deserve" are tedious to the point of funny. You get what you negotiate, period. No one cares what you "deserve", insofar as that's even a meaningful concept.

Truer words have never been written, at least as it pertains to compensation.

You get paid "well" when someone wants to hire you more than you want to work for them.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

That would be a VERY limited start. You need to get a job in which you have to operate in icing and thunderstorms and not just divert around them. Anybody can just fly around them.

LOL. Really?

 

[Patrick]

What a fascinating thread this has become.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Yeah this turned into a finger pointing generalization thread very quickly.

 

[juan valdez]

Try "Flying the Line" vol's. I & II, by George E. Hopkins.

Thanks. Adding it to my list of books I need to read. :beer:

 

[Killtron2000]

I know this is the wrong place to pitch this idea but the whole point of an airline is to move passengers safety and cheaply. There would be no point in it at all if it only existed to provide their pilots with the lifestyle they think they deserve. It is a really wonderful thing that me and 70 pounds of my crap can travel half way around the world and back at .8 mach for $1300. I'm conscious enough to realize what a remarkable system that is and that it would only be available at a much higher price under regulation. Sorry but your time is only worth what you can get somebody to pay you for it. If you think you just deserve an upper middle class lifestyle because you fly planes than you are a complete d-bag.

 

[ClearedToThe]

Thanks. Adding it to my list of books I need to read. :beer:

Hard Landing is another great book to read. It should be required reading for anyone entering into a 121 pilot position. If more people read it, we would not be having this poo slinging fest right now.

 

[surreal1221]

Yeah this turned into a finger pointing generalization thread very quickly.

yup, all because one user still can't figure it all out. After, hmm, what a month with us here?

:dunno:

 

[greaper007]

Nothing good can ever happen if the people at the good and not so good jobs can't get along. I understand the resentment both sides have for each other, but as long as both sides keep arguing neither wins. Just like with politics each side has more in common than they do different, if everyone realized that then maybe they really could topple Goliath. Unfortunately, it will probably never happen.

 

[rpfeif]

Why? And please include those flying corporate jets or cargo aircraft - not just one ones programming weapons systems at 200 agl.

I give you a big one that separates civilian pilots from at least Naval Aviators...ONLY NAVAL AVIATORS LAND ON THE BOAT. Show me a coporate jet or airliner with a tailhook?

Hats off to all those who have ever trapped, I only hope to find myself there some day.

 

[poser765]

I give you a big one that separates civilian pilots from at least Naval Aviators...ONLY NAVAL AVIATORS LAND ON THE BOAT. Show me a coporate jet or airliner with a tailhook?

Hats off to all those who have ever trapped, I only hope to find myself there some day.

In no way am I trying to diminish military pilots...BUT, I would imagine landing on a carrier is just another skill that can be accomplished with the appropriate training. If there was a carrier landing endorsement and facilities to train for it just as many people would have it as have a tailwheel endorsement.

 

[A-300F4-622R]

I give you a big one that separates civilian pilots from at least Naval Aviators...ONLY NAVAL AVIATORS LAND ON THE BOAT. Show me a coporate jet or airliner with a tailhook?

Hats off to all those who have ever trapped, I only hope to find myself there some day.

H-60s rock.

 

[mshunter]

Obviously the pay at the regional level is acceptable because all you guys either took jobs there are want to become regional pilots.

Back that truck up dude. Check into my posts. I am anti-airline for the simple fact of the pay, and if re-regulation fixed that, I'd consider flying for the airlines. Throw that net with a little more precision please.

 

[poser765]

Back that truck up dude. Check into my posts. I am anti-airline for the simple fact of the pay, and if re-regulation fixed that, I'd consider flying for the airlines. Throw that net with a little more precision please.

Meh, he is about spot on with me. Only in that I WOULD take a job with a regional because it would be a substantial pay raise.

I think the problem with discusions like this is that a person's current location in the industry can make change how the view something with a fair amount of subjectivity.

Lets look at a 19k a year regional job. Someone like me sees that as a step up, because it is. For me that is a raise. A big one. if you have reached the "end game" in this industry I would imagine it's kind of easy to just sit back and say pay sucks stop taking the jobs. The reality is that doesn't do us much good. That's like asking us to fall on our swords. Come on, champ, take one for the team.

Either way, we on the low end get screwed. So do I screw myself over and not have a job at all, or screw myself over with a low paying job?

 

[ChasenSFO]

So...before this thread gets locked...

I'm going to look at this from a buisness perspective, not looking at it the way I'd like to see it for the sake of my flying career. If we go back to the first post in this thread about why should we have 5 ERJs doing a flight that 2 MD-80s can do while carrying the same ammount of people, theres a good reason behind it. There are pretty much TWO types of travelers. Buisness travelers who travel at least once or twice a month, or more. Then there are leisure travelers who travel once or twice a year, maybe a little more or less. I'd say "Buisness travelers" account for at least 70-75% of the flying public each day, if not more. Meaning "Leisure travelers" account for only 25-30% of the people who step on a plane each day(other than maybe the holidays and spring/winter break). The two biggest differences between these groups? One picks flights to get from point A to point B most direct and at the most convienient time, the other picks flights that get them from point A to point B the cheapest, even if it means stopping in points C and D.

Here is an example. Right now Skywest has 5 daily CRJ-200/700 flights from SFO-BUR. Lets say every flight went out full, the 4 CRJ-200s would carry 200 pax while the daily CR7 would carry 66, thats 266 pax. United's A319s carry 118 people or so. Lets say they switch the flight to 2 daily A319s, one in the morning and one in the evening, to carry 236 passangers a day. What we would probably see happen is both flights take a huge hit and maybe go out half empty everyday. United may now sell 110 seats a day when they were selling 266 with the RJs. Why? The buisness travelers now have only 2 ways to get to Burbank, take it or leave it. If that schedual works for them on that day, great, if it doesn't, they're going to SNA or LAX on Southwest instead or driving to OAK or SJC and getting to BUR that way. The leisure travelers don't care, they can still make it to SFO from MFR, RNO, SMF, ect in time to catch the flight, whats a longer layover if its cheaper than flying MFR-LAX nonstop on Horizion? But as I said before, the leisure travelers aren't (usually) what fills a plane. And reducing the frequency from 5 flights to 2, regardless of the size of the aircraft, isn't going to appeal to MOST flyers.

And when you DO have 5 flights a day, you probably won't fill 5 A319s on SFO-BUR, but an RJ will fill up. Infact, United used to have 5 or 6 flights a day on the route with 737s back in the "Shuttle by United" days, and they figured this out. It makes sense and it makes money.

Like I said, I'm not supporting regionals taking all the mainline routes, I'm just shedding some light as to why this is not an ideal solution in most cases.

 

[tonyw]

If you want the government to tell various airlines where they can fly, when they can fly, and what they can fly, why don't we just shut the airlines down, and let the government run the whole show?

Worked just fine for the first, oh, 50-60 years. You had airlines making money and relatively stable employment.

Run the airlines like the utilities. Air transport is as vital to the economy as electricity or water. Hell, man, it'd be better for the investors, too. Utilities have a profit margin of around eight percent. What airline can boast of that kind of margin?

 

[MikeD]

In no way am I trying to diminish military pilots...BUT, I would imagine landing on a carrier is just another skill that can be accomplished with the appropriate training. If there was a carrier landing endorsement and facilities to train for it just as many people would have it as have a tailwheel endorsement.

One big however, with your post here........

Carrier flying isn't something just anyone can do with simple "training" (neither is military tactical flying). And I'd say it's a little more than teaching a simple short-field landing, and there's reason why not everyone can just do it......so to say "just as many people would have it" in the same way as a tailwheel endorsement, is a really big stretch there. Just as a night carrier landing is nothing like a night runway landing. The carrier has washed out and been witness to the death of many a great aviator in its time.

 

[rpfeif]

H-60s rock.

Or H-60s landing on a small boy at night and bad weather. Seen the videos and read the stories in Approach, sounds just as tough. Sorry I am wanna-be tailhook guy.

In no way am I trying to diminish military pilots...BUT, I would imagine landing on a carrier is just another skill that can be accomplished with the appropriate training. If there was a carrier landing endorsement and facilities to train for it just as many people would have it as have a tailwheel endorsement.

YEEEEEAAH...I think 100 years of naval aviation would be highly critical of that statement.

 

[poser765]

You guys are probably right. I think my point is that it IS a trained skill. A hard skill, yes, but still one that could be acquired through training. It is not required to have some mythical jedi like trait that makes you something more than human but less than god.

I'm not saying military pilots aren't talented, i'm just trying to imply that have different skill sets that don't really translate over to a civilian counterpart. I get kind of irked when people imply that military pilots are somehow a finer product than a civilian pilot. Hell, I remember reading an article shortly after the hudson landing that was talking about how the decline in greatness of the airlines was due to the hiring of more civilian pilots than former military.

 

[azfsi60]

The problem is you guys want it both ways. You expect to get on at a regional with little flight time and no experience. You expect to upgrade as soon as you hit 1500hrs and you expect to get on with a major as soon as you get 1000hrs turbine PIC. In order to do that, the regionals must be a stepping stone..... but if you don't make it to a major, you expect the regionals to become a career and have career pay and benefits.

Very Well said.