Will the public pay for experience?

[Gonzo]

Is it possible that the consumer is as much at fault for pathetic aircrew wages as the scoundrels that run the airlines?

I will never fault the person that buys the ticket. The customer has no clue the real cost of a ticket. When you go and buy something do you ask if they are making money or selling it at a loss.

Thing is, the public doesn't give a rats ass about your wages or your working conditions.

For the most part way should they. They have no clue. They expect the government to set a baseline (FAA, NTSB) for working conditions and a company to pay a good wage to get good pilots (Next time you get a free min talk to a pax or two).

How can we ask the public to pay for experience when management will not pay for experience?

 

[Gonzo]

Agree. The ATR-72 with "American Eagle", still means "American" Airlines to them, staffed with American pilots.

Hey, I get the same pay check as a AA pilot.:crazy:

PS - That is a bad example, because for the most part Eagle is American.

 

[MikeD]

Hey, I get the same pay check as a AA pilot.:crazy:

PS - That is a bad example, because for the most part Eagle is American.

When I flew cargo back in the 90s, my check said Skywest.

But look at it from the public perspective.

I should say "from the public perspective, there are 5000 hour mainline pilots flying the ATRs". IE- the same guys flying the ATRs, also fly 777s, with the same requisite experience.

 

[CaptBill]

....the Wannabe-bomber.

I wonder how the wee wee is feeling after catching his lap on fire? The martyrdom club obviously doesn't screen for stupidity; then again, neither does the TSA.

 

[seaav8tor]

I wonder what would happen if when your looking at all the available flights on expedia.com, along with the price and departure/arrival times, it also had pictures of the airplane you will be in (interior and exterior) as well as the scheduled TT of the flight crew, also the percentage of on time arrival given the history of that flight and the rate of lost baggage. Not that I'm for that, but it would make people have to think about it before double clicking.

.......................B I N G O......................

The public WOULD pay more IF they could differentiate ANY perception of value added. The thought they will always pick the lowest cost flys in the face (no pun) of the success of Starbucks, Apple, Harley Davidson, and other goods or services that command a premium. The reason our industry cannot do it is because they spend all of their time, energy, and effort trying to make perception the service is a commodity. The minor cosmetic differences are considered by both the consumer and industry leaders (behind closed doors) to be irrelevant. One level of safety. Seamless service, etc.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Half would pay the $500, the other half would pay the $300 and pocket the rest. Why? Because some people value a quality product, while others value a cheap product. Me, I do not shop at Wal-Mart, or a few other "cheap" stores. Would I like to spend less? Yes, but I also want to ensure I'm getting something of good quality.

Case in point: I spent $500 on hockey skates, when I could have gotten skates for $150. Why did I spend the extra $350? Because I wanted the highest quality skates. That mattered to me. When I bought my hockey stick, I spent $200, when some sticks cost $50. Why? Because I liked the better quality stick, and could tell the difference. When I bought my helmet, I spent $50. There are helmets that cost $150-200, so why did I buy the "cheap" one for my noggin'? Because the $50 helmet is just as good as the expensive one.

If the general public sees an actual difference between the products, they'll go with the one that is more expensive. However, since aviation is an ultra-safe industry, what is the point in spending an extra $200 when you have a one-in-a-million chance of dying in a plane crash?

People don't always "go cheap."

 

[MikeD]

Half would pay the $500, the other half would pay the $300 and pocket the rest. Why? Because some people value a quality product, while others value a cheap product. Me, I do not shop at Wal-Mart, or a few other "cheap" stores. Would I like to spend less? Yes, but I also want to ensure I'm getting something of good quality.

Case in point: I spent $500 on hockey skates, when I could have gotten skates for $150. Why did I spend the extra $350? Because I wanted the highest quality skates. That mattered to me. When I bought my hockey stick, I spent $200, when some sticks cost $50. Why? Because I liked the better quality stick, and could tell the difference. When I bought my helmet, I spent $50. There are helmets that cost $150-200, so why did I buy the "cheap" one for my noggin'? Because the $50 helmet is just as good as the expensive one.

If the general public sees an actual difference between the products, they'll go with the one that is more expensive. However, since aviation is an ultra-safe industry, what is the point in spending an extra $200 when you have a one-in-a-million chance of dying in a plane crash?

People don't always "go cheap."

I agree that people don't always go cheap, but I think that also depends. For example, while you may not shop at WalMart, if you were (for sake of argument) renting a car on the fly, would you necessarily go to the expensive Hertz or National counter, when the Enterprise counter down the aisle has the same product for much lower? IMO this is how the public sees airlines.......pretty much all the same product-wise (I'm talking the average Joe Bag-O-Donuts traveler), therefore it now becomes "where can I get the cheapest price, since these [airlines] are all the same anyway?"

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Half would pay the $500, the other half would pay the $300 and pocket the rest. Why? Because some people value a quality product, while others value a cheap product. Me, I do not shop at Wal-Mart, or a few other "cheap" stores. Would I like to spend less? Yes, but I also want to ensure I'm getting something of good quality.

Case in point: I spent $500 on hockey skates, when I could have gotten skates for $150. Why did I spend the extra $350? Because I wanted the highest quality skates. That mattered to me. When I bought my hockey stick, I spent $200, when some sticks cost $50. Why? Because I liked the better quality stick, and could tell the difference. When I bought my helmet, I spent $50. There are helmets that cost $150-200, so why did I buy the "cheap" one for my noggin'? Because the $50 helmet is just as good as the expensive one.

If the general public sees an actual difference between the products, they'll go with the one that is more expensive. However, since aviation is an ultra-safe industry, what is the point in spending an extra $200 when you have a one-in-a-million chance of dying in a plane crash?

People don't always "go cheap."

I find it somewhat humorous that you spent the least money on the most important piece of equipment. Must be this cold gettin' to your brain! If I were in your shoes, I probably would have gotten good skates, a good helmet, and decent stick. Isn't stick tech maxed out by now?

 

[OhioStatePilot]

I find it somewhat humorous that you spent the least money on the most important piece of equipment. Must be this cold gettin' to your brain! If I were in your shoes, I probably would have gotten good skates, a good helmet, and decent stick. Isn't stick tech maxed out by now?

Heh, I was thinkin the same thing. I actually prefer an old school wooden stick, but my helmet? I'll pay the price for the one I find that fits just right and offers the most protection!

 

[tonyw]

You've got to stop worrying about what the public thinks, folks. News flash -- Joe Twelvepack working the night shift at Kwik-E-Mart thinks anyone making more than he does is overpaid and underworked, and he's getting the shaft from da man.

What you need to do is take the attitude of professional athletes and Wall Street bankers.

They don't give a rat's ass what the public thinks they should make. They only give a damn about forcing their employer to cough up more money. How their employer makes a profit isn't seen as their problem. They just demand more pay, and because they have skills their employer is wiling to pay for, they get it.

That's the attitude any employee should take. How can I force my employer to pay me more? None of this Office Space crap about "think about the good of the company." The company generally isn't thinking about the good of you, so why should you worry about the good of the company?

Get as much as you can as quick as you can. You are a hired gun, nothing more, nothing less.

You'll probably get laid off or fired sooner or later anyway due to something that you had no power to influence, so why worry?

 

[Polar742]

I submit the following.The vast majority of the sheeple are not brand/aviation aware.There are instances that change the game for a bit. For example the RJ paradigm. People would book a conection on an ERJ to avoid riding a SAAB direct and arriving later on a jet. This effect seemed to last about 3 years when people boarding from outside would ask if it's a prop because it's so small.Those "early adopters" buy the "A model" of everything to have it.I'll liken the normal mode though to a scenrio my high school economics teacher used: It's like pens. You can have a bic the costs you 10 cents, and you'll sell a lot. You'll need to to make any money. Then you have a nice pen like a Monte Blanc. They are very expensive, but they don't need to sell that many. There is a market for both.That being said bends my thought in another direction. Airlines try to be everything to everyone, and they do a pretty poor job probably because they can't focus on exactly what service they want.

 

[Low&Slow]

Be careful not to confuse cost with quality. More expensive doesn't necessarily always mean better.

FlyChicaga said his helmet is just as good as the expensive one and I believe it probably is. I used to ride bulls and couldn't understand why some cowboys would spend $500 on a helmet marketed at bullriders when a $90 Bauer helmet provided the same level of protection. In fact, I have always suspected that these "bullriding helmets" are nothing more than a hockey helmet with a different sticker (same flavor, different label).

Likewise, learning to fly at an FBO is usually much cheaper than going to ERAU, DCA, Gulfstream Academy, or many other pilot mills, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the FBO training program isn't just as safe, productive, and competent as the high-priced (overpriced?) school's program.

 

[MikeD]

Likewise, learning to fly at an FBO is usually much cheaper than going to ERAU, DCA, Gulfstream Academy, or many other pilot mills, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the FBO training program isn't just as safe, productive, and competent as the high-priced (overpriced?) school's program.

So, FBO or Academy then? Which is better.....?

 

[Low&Slow]

I'm going with most FBOs. Do your research first though, buyer beware.

 

[Barty]

If the general public sees an actual difference between the products, they'll go with the one that is more expensive. However, since aviation is an ultra-safe industry, what is the point in spending an extra $200 when you have a one-in-a-million chance of dying in a plane crash?

People don't always "go cheap."

You hit it right on the head. I can go from one airline to another, and unless I want to fly first class, there generally is no difference between the way they get me from point A to point B, except perhaps the number of stops.

Flying has become a commodity, so therefore it is being priced like a commodity. It is just taking some time for everyone in the industry to accept that fact.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The public WOULD pay more IF they could differentiate ANY perception of value added.

One thing though, the public hasn't really ever bought full fare airline tickets. My company travel agent is really what you care about. 10 years ago, I was always booked on non-stop full fare tickets. Now I get the cheapest flight, period.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

You want the general public to pay 1/3 more for experience? Yeah I am going to go with the "not a chance in hell" option.

While travelling this holiday season, and then staying with my in-laws and seeing alot of relatives who have not seen me since I started working in avaition, I listened to many a complaint about the airlines. The main thing was baggage check fees and holiday surcharges.

I passionately argued to these people that an extra $10 was not going to kill them, but it is probably the big difference in profitability for an airline. In the long run, airlines failing is going to mean even higher fares in the future. I would also explain to them what pilots make, what kind of pilot they could expect to find in the seat of plane they just paid bottom dollar for on Orbitz.

I guess most of you professional guys have already tried all this when you were new and are now laughing at me for putting so much effort in vain. Yup, most of the people I spoke with just shut up and realized it was worthless to argue with me. A few actually agreed that I was right and they had not thought of it that way before. Probably 10% of those actually meant it I am guessing.

 

[Cav]

I agree that people don't always go cheap, but I think that also depends. For example, while you may not shop at WalMart, if you were (for sake of argument) renting a car on the fly, would you necessarily go to the expensive Hertz or National counter, when the Enterprise counter down the aisle has the same product for much lower? IMO this is how the public sees airlines.......pretty much all the same product-wise (I'm talking the average Joe Bag-O-Donuts traveler), therefore it now becomes "where can I get the cheapest price, since these [airlines] are all the same anyway?"

Agree with this 100%. This is the reason there is little brand loyalty among the traveling public. Everything is perceived to be the same so why bother? Like Chicaga showed, in some areas people pay more because of a noticeable difference in quality. When it comes to air travel, the quality of the product (rightly or wrongly) is thought to be so low that people pay the least amount of money they can to acquire it. Why do you think it almost seems trendy to endlessly complain about your last bad flight experience?

Tonyw is on to something as well. We can't control public opinion beyond doing our jobs safely and carrying ourselves in the most professional manner possible. Like it or not image is important. We need to start advocating for ourselves again first. Somewhere along the way some among our ranks quit thinking we have significant value. We can't blame the public for that.

 

[Mark815]

I don't have much more to add. I agree with the 'public won't pay extra for experience' crowd. But this is something that I found on kayak.com last week while searching for tickets. Here is what the public is looking to avoid....

That's an actual option to narrow your results! I'd love to be on a new Q400 but we all know props are bad. God give me a break!

 

[Cav]

I don't have much more to add. I agree with the 'public won't pay extra for experience' crowd. But this is something that I found on kayak.com last week while searching for tickets. Here is what the public is looking to avoid....

That's an actual option to narrow your results! I'd love to be on a new Q400 but we all know props are bad. God give me a break!

I don't see a problem with it whatsoever. If I were a paying passenger I'd avoid TPs and RJs too if possible. For one thing they cancel more and get delayed longer than mainline flights...not to mention weight restrictions.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

What you need to do is take the attitude of professional athletes and Wall Street bankers.

They don't give a rat's ass what the public thinks they should make. They only give a damn about forcing their employer to cough up more money. How their employer makes a profit isn't seen as their problem. They just demand more pay, and because they have skills their employer is wiling to pay for, they get it.

That's the attitude any employee should take. How can I force my employer to pay me more? None of this Office Space crap about "think about the good of the company." The company generally isn't thinking about the good of you, so why should you worry about the good of the company?

Get as much as you can as quick as you can. You are a hired gun, nothing more, nothing less.

You'll probably get laid off or fired sooner or later anyway due to something that you had no power to influence, so why worry?

Somebody have a case of the Mondays???

Hey, that's the way the world works. I spent 6 months haggling with my current employer over pay and benefits. They finally caved when I gave them 24 hours to make a deal, or I would sign with someone else. They beat my asking price by $1 / year. If you want to get paid a lot, do a job where the employer needs you more than you need or want the job.

They airline flying business doesn't work that way though. Tying pay to seniority means that there is very little risk of someone quiting their job to go elsewhere for more pay. The reason for low pay isn't the airline's fault. Pay is low because there is a large supply of pilots willing to work for pretty much whatever is offered to them. If a large enough number of pilots voted with their feet (quiting their jobs), guess what would eventually happen to pay?