Only if you're sellin' meth on the side to pay for little Jimmy's college fund!
Here goes my input. Pay in aviation does not follow or equate to pay progression in other industries. While the starting salaries are absurdly low...by the time you reach the ten to twelve year point in the industry you will probably be earning more than the average engineer or businessman...even at the regionals. My own pay pay progression per year went from $8000 to $16,000 to $23,000 to $35,000 to $48,000 to $85,000 to $120,000 to $150,000 over a twelve year span of time.
One of the reasons starting pay is so low...even at the regional first officer level...is that the pilot is not sufficiently qualified and experienced to command higher pay. The pilot is in essence "still in school" as an apprentice...learning the ropes and gaining experience to eventually serve as captain. In aviation...you cannot graduate from college with 500hrs and be qualifed to fly much of anything. The real education comes from years and years of "apprenticeship" as a first officer. As the pilot becomes an experienced apprentice...his ability to serve in command increases...his stock rises...and his pay accordingly.
When the pilot becomes sufficiently experienced to serve in command then his ability to earn a decent wage improves. Until that experience level is attained, however, the pilot is more of an "apprentice" than a pilot. In my opinion, the regional airlines do not put much importance on the first officer position. Otherwise they would hire more experienced pilots into that role. They view this position as an "apprenticeship" and rely on the captain to coach, mentor and conduct the flight in a safe manner.
Low pay is probably a good thing for young, low time pilots. Without it...it would be much more difficult to find a quality flying job...as much more experienced pilots would be more willing to accept the role.
Interesting concept. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that skill, knowledge and experience, while important from a pilot's standpoint, have no intrinsic value to the airline? Then why do pay scales increase with years of service (note that the increases are typically much higher than the average C.O.L. increase would call for)?In terms of the value a pilot brings to his employer, a first year pilot is worth no less than a 10 year pilot and vice versa. Therefore, they should be paid exactly the same.
I call ######## on that. In my opinion a pilot has a skill; a skill that took a lot of effort, time and money to develop. A pilot utilizing that skill with an airline, brings value to that airline. The airline makes money by employing that pilot. They don't make less money because the pilot in question only has 1 or 2 years of experience. They sure has hell don't sell tickets based on the experience level of the pilot flying that flight.
In terms of the value a pilot brings to his employer, a first year pilot is worth no less than a 10 year pilot and vice versa. Therefore, they should be paid exactly the same.
Pilots should be paid a wage based on equipment and position. Years of experience should have nothing to do with it. That wage should be adjusted each year for cost of living. Pilots who take on additonal responsibilties (check airman, ground instructor, etc) should make additional money because they bring added value to the company.
You guys are right. It's my life to live and I'm going to do what I love to do, instead of going with what "makes sense" and sitting behind a desk 10 years later wondering about what could have been. I'm still going to get the degree (something to fall back on,) but I'm going to continue the flight training at college and keep building those hours.
Interesting concept. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that skill, knowledge and experience, while important from a pilot's standpoint, have no intrinsic value to the airline? Then why do pay scales increase with years of service (note that the increases are typically much higher than the average C.O.L. increase would call for)?
![]()
Contrast that with airline flying. People want to get from point A to B. They don't give a damn whether the guy up front has 500 or 5000 hours. "Just get me where I want to go, and don't crash the plane" Oh sure, if you ask them, they will tell you that they would rather have a high time pilot than a low time pilot. But if you asked them to pay an extra $20 on their ticket to get that experienced pilot, they will say no, or fly a cheaper airline.
This is why I say all pilots with a given airline should be paid the same wage, based on position and equipment, regardless of seniority, longevity, or qualifications. If you are sitting in that seat than you are obviously as qualified as you need to be, from the company's point of view.
To answer your question, airline pay scales increase with years of service because that is how the company and the union have negotiated them. The only reason it is important from a pilot's point of view is because you need the hours and experience to get a better paying job.
To answer your question, airline pay scales increase with years of service because that is how the company and the union have negotiated them. The only reason it is important from a pilot's point of view is because you need the hours and experience to get a better paying job.
Contrast that with airline flying. People want to get from point A to B. They don't give a damn whether the guy up front has 500 or 5000 hours. "Just get me where I want to go, and don't crash the plane" Oh sure, if you ask them, they will tell you that they would rather have a high time pilot than a low time pilot. But if you asked them to pay an extra $20 on their ticket to get that experienced pilot, they will say no, or fly a cheaper airline.
.
I had to look up the word intrinsic, and I'm still not sure I know what it means, but I'll have a go.
Yes that's what I am saying. It may be generally true and accepted that a 2000 hour pilot is "better" than a 1000 pilot, but how do you translate that to worth? What does that 2000 hour pilot do to bring more value to the company than the 1000 hour pilot? Certainly nothing you can quantify, or put a price tag on.
Consider an athlete like Michael Jordan. There was a period of time when you could not beg, borrow, or steal a Chicago Bulls ticket, because he was on the team. People paid to see him play basketball. His presence on the team had a direct effect on the value of ticket. Thus his salary was a lot higher than some third-stringer no-name player.
Contrast that with airline flying. People want to get from point A to B. They don't give a damn whether the guy up front has 500 or 5000 hours. "Just get me where I want to go, and don't crash the plane" Oh sure, if you ask them, they will tell you that they would rather have a high time pilot than a low time pilot. But if you asked them to pay an extra $20 on their ticket to get that experienced pilot, they will say no, or fly a cheaper airline.
This is why I say all pilots with a given airline should be paid the same wage, based on position and equipment, regardless of seniority, longevity, or qualifications. If you are sitting in that seat than you are obviously as qualified as you need to be, from the company's point of view.
To answer your question, airline pay scales increase with years of service because that is how the company and the union have negotiated them. The only reason it is important from a pilot's point of view is because you need the hours and experience to get a better paying job.
One point to bring up, however, is that your typical person, outside of aviation, will not make over $80K per year. VERY FEW jobs pay above that, and those that do, require MANY years of experience to reach that level.