Newsweek: who will pilot all those planes?

[Chris_Ford]

I beg to differ....when the prices are within a small range of one another....the consumer will move from cost to service. ie. schedule, actual service provided on flights, etc....

And services cost more, so they won't make an extra profit. Ergo: you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Pilots are a funny group. They think they know all and can solve all problems within the airline, and that THEY are the most important cog in the wheel, when in fact they're simply just another cog.

The problem is that being a pilot may be one of the few jobs that idiots can make lots of money. Lawyers and doctors need to go to lots of school, most businessmen need at the very least a college education... Pilots can be high school drop outs... and frankly, I'd say that most of them on the regional level are on the level of a high school graduate, not a college graduate (even if they have a college degree, sadly). Couple low education with a job of perceived importance (much like a police officer) and you get major entitlement and (unnecessary) hubris.

 

[MFT1Air]

If the competitions prices are $5/10/20 less? Of course.




Lots of rhetoric there from someone not even in the airline biz yet.


Why are pilots so "pilot-jingoistic"???

Sounds like what the oil industry did to jack THEIR prices up. Yea, all of our competitors each jack up the price. Sounds like collusion to me which is what the consumers are going to say. . .perilously compromising to the industry.

Seems to me as if the industry is recovering slowly but surely now given the fact there are MORE airplanes out their requiring more pilots. Now, you're talking about jacking up prices simply to pay pilots more . . .pilots who, obvious to even the most naive, are less experienced to fly? What sense does that make? Cmom now. . .make sense please?

 

[MFT1Air]

I'm not sure I can agree with you Steve. These folks might know tons about balance sheets, financial wiz-bangery and how to count beans, but the profit making equation includes us and I think that's what many pilots get pissy about, because we're often looked as simply a cost to be cut when WE are the ones that are on the front line and WILL make or break a companies bottom line. If we get treated poorly by management, as we often do, then the bottom line is going to suffer.

You give yourself too much credit. Pilots are simply part of the complexity of the industry. Flight attendents and from my perspectives, labor - as in mechanics also believe they play as integral a role in the industry as you do. They suffer the same financial issues and deal with just as many stresses as pilots, and the lives of passengers depends upon nuts and bolts they turn on a regular basis.

It's frustrating when you have so many type-A folks flying airplanes around that WANT to do things well, but are never given the opportunity, so lashing out at management makes sense. I don't see managers pretty much ever, but with the pay packages they offer and benefits that come with them, they're nothing more than a slap in the face while management pleads for the pilots to do the worst job possible, because Lord knows they're not paid enough to care.

Now here. . .I'm going to have to defer to CAs and F/Os from the legacy airlines who've earned their dues/respect flying for significant periods of time to gain their persepctive before I offer any perspective of my own. I say this because most I hear crying/complaining are those right seaters flying regional jets with less hours. Is his perspective true? Are pilots with six years + complaining about significantly low wages?

Everyone took a significant cut after 9/11. That was years ago. My perspective is the swing is starting to go up, and furloughed pilots are back making more money. Is that true for those furloughed after 9/11 that are back to flying regularly? I've not heard much, so I am curious.

 

[secretapproach]

Pilots are a funny group. They think they know all and can solve all problems within the airline, and that THEY are the most important cog in the wheel, when in fact they're simply just another cog.

The problem is that being a pilot may be one of the few jobs that idiots can make lots of money. Lawyers and doctors need to go to lots of school, most businessmen need at the very least a college education... Pilots can be high school drop outs... and frankly, I'd say that most of them on the regional level are on the level of a high school graduate, not a college graduate (even if they have a college degree, sadly). Couple low education with a job of perceived importance (much like a police officer) and you get major entitlement and (unnecessary) hubris.

I think the education level thing has changed over the last several years as pilots have increasingly become systems managers and not stick-and-rudder operators. The thing about flying is that it's a commodity job. If you have your ratings and can pass ground school, sim checks, etc, you do exactly the same job as the next pilot. I have great respect for pilots and put my life in their hands all the time. To an airline, though, one pilot is the same as another because they can both be used to fly the schedule. So a pilot's work is highly specialized but not unique so why shouldn't an airline pay him/her as little as possible? In fact it's no different than any other employment agreement. The employee tries to get as much money as possible and the employer tries to pay as little as possible. The two reach an agreement and a change requires new negotiation. Part of the reason pilots are at the mercy of management whims is that they can't change jobs without losing their seniority. That means that experienced pilots who quit their jobs because they are unhappy often end up just flying for a hobby and working in a different field. What would be wrong with doing away with seniority numbers or having a single seniority list? Then an experienced captain unhappy at Airline A could get a job with Airline B which just may be looking for an experienced captain.

I think it's important for pilots to try to see their job not only from their own perspective, but also as others (especially the ones paying their salary) see it. Doing so will put pilots in a much better negotiating position.

 

[jtrain609]

You give yourself too much credit. Pilots are simply part of the complexity of the industry. Flight attendents and from my perspectives, labor - as in mechanics also believe they play as integral a role in the industry as you do. They suffer the same financial issues and deal with just as many stresses as pilots, and the lives of passengers depends upon nuts and bolts they turn on a regular basis.

And you're obviously not a pilot.

And you're incredibly incorrect. Pilots and mechanics make the machine run, and without those two groups, airlines come to halt. Everybody else is replaceable.

You can train somebody to be a flight attendant in six weeks. Anybody. Pick somebody off the street, give them the training and six weeks later they're FAA legal. It's not easy training, and the safety training is INCREDIBLY important, but I'd surmise most average people can hack it.

Throwing bags? Not hard! It's not like the average idiot will be the most efficient with it, but if all your baggage handlers walked off the job your luggage would still get on the plane. Heck, have the pilots and FA's do it.

CSR's? Again, less than six weeks training and they're doing their job and it could probably be reduced and they could be replaced with kiosks that the managers could manage. Problem solved.

But pilots and mechanics? These companies DO NOT OPERATE WITHOUT US. It takes a minimum of what? 2 years to get an A&P? And that's to satisfy FAA requirements. After that they might want to learn a thing or two about the specific airplanes they'll be wrenching on. Pilots? It takes a minimum of 150 days if you were to go through the ATP program (including private) to make a pilot to the FAA's minimum stndards, and then you have to go through another eight weeks of type specific training, and after that you've gotta go through IOE.

Everybody except for the pilots and mechanics could walk off the job tomorrow and the airlines would continue to operate. Sure there might be a few weeks waiting for the FA's to get up to speed, no other labor groups require extensive additional outside training.

Further sir, do you realize how much money a pilot can cost or save his company? What's a barrel of oil cost these days? What's the difference between being conservative and making it to a crossing restriction 10 miles early (which is safe) and hitting it dead on? The computers don't do it in my airplane, my brain does. What about the APU? When do you run it? When do you turn it off? What's that costing the company? We affect the bottom line and I for one am smart enough to realize just that. Call me arrogant if you will, that's fine. I'd say that I fully understand my intrinsic worth to my company, and to be real honest my company treats me pretty well for the most part and I've got tons of reasons to save them as much money as possible. Other pilots are not in the same situation.

Now here. . .I'm going to have to defer to CAs and F/Os from the legacy airlines who've earned their dues/respect flying for significant periods of time to gain their persepctive before I offer any perspective of my own. I say this because most I hear crying/complaining are those right seaters flying regional jets with less hours. Is his perspective true? Are pilots with six years + complaining about significantly low wages?

Everyone took a significant cut after 9/11. That was years ago. My perspective is the swing is starting to go up, and furloughed pilots are back making more money. Is that true for those furloughed after 9/11 that are back to flying regularly? I've not heard much, so I am curious.

What up swing are you talking about? Contracts are negotiated for YEARS and the only people currently in talks are American as I understand it (for the legacies). Air Train is also in talks right now and I hope they get a great contract. Delta locked in those 50% pay cuts while maintaining their work rules and scope as I understand it. Anybody from Delta feel free to chime in here.

 

[jtrain609]

I think the education level thing has changed over the last several years as pilots have increasingly become systems managers and not stick-and-rudder operators. The thing about flying is that it's a commodity job. If you have your ratings and can pass ground school, sim checks, etc, you do exactly the same job as the next pilot. I have great respect for pilots and put my life in their hands all the time. To an airline, though, one pilot is the same as another because they can both be used to fly the schedule. So a pilot's work is highly specialized but not unique so why shouldn't an airline pay him/her as little as possible? In fact it's no different than any other employment agreement. The employee tries to get as much money as possible and the employer tries to pay as little as possible. The two reach an agreement and a change requires new negotiation. Part of the reason pilots are at the mercy of management whims is that they can't change jobs without losing their seniority. That means that experienced pilots who quit their jobs because they are unhappy often end up just flying for a hobby and working in a different field. What would be wrong with doing away with seniority numbers or having a single seniority list? Then an experienced captain unhappy at Airline A could get a job with Airline B which just may be looking for an experienced captain.

I think it's important for pilots to try to see their job not only as they see it, but also as others (especially the ones paying their salary) see it. Doing so will put pilots in a much better negotiating position.

All the more reason for a single list. It'll hurt now but if done properly will provide MUCH more leverage for the pilots. If we are in a true free market system then I'll try to leverage AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE out of my company, because their role is to do the same to me. The second I say, "Oh, this is good enough" the company *should* move to take something away.

 

[MFT1Air]

Some interesting posts here. I think the both of you are right (Jtrain and Steve). There is certainly an over-abundance of disdain towards industry management coupled with a high level of ignorance regarding the complexity of the industry's economics among flight crews. And all that leads to a lot of sophistry and mud slinging. But I also think that there is indeed a good deal of mismanagement happening as well.

The problem as I see it is that there is an ever growing division between management and the operations side of an airline. Two decades ago many in management started out flying the line, wrenching on engines, or tossing bags. Now we see people coming starting out of business school going into management without any true understanding of actual conditions on the ops side of the fence. And those people, have nothing but spread sheets to fall back on to give them a model to base how to steer an airline with. And big surprise...it isn't working!

That's kinda my perspective as well, but it's only to a small degree. Decades ago, many of the airline industry management started out doing the things you mentioned previously, but now even with some of those same persons in management, the issue of oil and terrorism severely disrupted the financial stability of the airline industry. It hasn't come to being recovered, but it is making progress. That progress involves increasing pay for everyone. . .not simply the pilots. As passengers will attest, customer service has declined sharply as well, and their dollars affect wages. Now, if you're flying for FEDEX/DHL or UPS, you're the ONLY persons who can claim your wages aren't directly affected by passenger satisfaction.

That first step is with knowledge of the financial solvency of the airline to contradict with numbers and facts why all can't be paid more.

. . .although I'm still confused by the perception of the problem. What problem? Pilots as a whole or new pilots into the industry?

 

[MFT1Air]

What would be wrong with doing away with seniority numbers or having a single seniority list? Then an experienced captain unhappy at Airline A could get a job with Airline B which just may be looking for an experienced captain.

I think it's important for pilots to try to see their job not only from their own perspective, but also as others (especially the ones paying their salary) see it. Doing so will put pilots in a much better negotiating position.

Good point. Hmmm. . .I'm curious as well. Does the scope include perhaps internationally as well? Take a lot of negotiating powers, but I'm curious what the cons are, if any other than transitioning into a different company culture?

 

[RightSeatGirl]

Good point. Hmmm. . .I'm curious as well. Does the scope include perhaps internationally as well? Take a lot of negotiating powers, but I'm curious what the cons are, if any other than transitioning into a different company culture?

I too have always wondered about the logic of automatic promotion based only on seniority. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other industry that works that way. Merit, ability, skill, attitude, performance record, ability to handle supervisory authority all should be considered before putting a pilot in the left seat. Now I got not issue with seniority making one eligible for upgrade in a basic sense...but I think unions have put too much of a strangle hold an a company's ability to be more stringent on who upgrades and who does not. There are a lot of c/a's out there that have no business in the left seat. They got there due only to seniority. Why is it such taboo for this industry to be more selective when it comes to upgrade?

 

[jtrain609]

Because then you have to bring politics into upgrade. I've been at a company where that's how it works and it's not as elegant as you think it might be.

What happens if you're safe, but you delayed too many flights, pissed off a manager, slept with his daughter or any number of things that are prevalent in the model you're talking about? Now you bring the human element into who will upgrade and that's a guaranteed failure point.

I saw one guy not upgrade to the next piece of equipment because he asked too many questions and wouldn't break a few rules and almost got driven out because of it.

 

[Velocipede]

There are a lot of c/a's out there that have no business in the left seat. They got there due only to seniority. Why is it such taboo for this industry to be more selective when it comes to upgrade?

This was the first battle ALPA fought in the '20s. Favoritism promotion. And, merit promotion has raised its ugly head again at Virgin.

On the face of it, it sounds good. But, what is the promotion metric, RSG? How many MELs you carry? Your on time performance. How few discrepancies you write up at outstations?

Who kisses the Chief Pilot's butt best?

Remember, if you've got incompetent CAs, you have recourse (if Unionized). Its called the Professional Standards Committee. If, after counseling, the miscreants don't fall into line, then the Company's disciplinary structure comes into play.

But, merit promotion was a BAD idea in the '20s and is a WORSE idea now.

Have you read Flying the Line and Flying the Line II? They're a little dry, but well worth the read, especially if you're a relatively new airline pilot. Remember:

Those who will not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[RightSeatGirl]

Because then you have to bring politics into upgrade. I've been at a company where that's how it works and it's not as elegant as you think it might be.

What happens if you're safe, but you delayed too many flights, pissed off a manager, slept with his daughter or any number of things that are prevalent in the model you're talking about? Now you bring the human element into who will upgrade and that's a guaranteed failure point.

I saw one guy not upgrade to the next piece of equipment because he asked too many questions and wouldn't break a few rules and almost got driven out because of it.

This was the first battle ALPA fought in the '20s. Favoritism promotion. And, merit promotion has raised its ugly head again at Virgin.

On the face of it, it sounds good. But, what is the promotion metric, RSG? How many MELs you carry? Your on time performance. How few discrepancies you write up at outstations?

Who kisses the Chief Pilot's butt best?

Remember, if you've got incompetent CAs, you have recourse (if Unionized). Its called the Professional Standards Committee. If, after counseling, the miscreants don't fall into line, then the Company's disciplinary structure comes into play.

But, merit promotion was a BAD idea in the '20s and is a WORSE idea now.

Have you read Flying the Line and Flying the Line II? They're a little dry, but well worth the read, especially if you're a relatively new airline pilot. Remember:

Those who will not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Both valid points. But @ Velo, that is how it is supposed to work..Not the way it goes down often. Many times the union comes to the rescue of a c/a that should have been canned as an f/o just to stick it to the company. And @ Jtrain, what about those guys that are unsafe that no one will rat on due to the whole pilot brotherhood factor because everybody likes him/her?

And yes politics would come into play..but that is how it's down in every other industry...What makes this one so different in that regard. A little bit of politics with a promotion process can do a lot for quality control. I think the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. Neither system is without flaws and issues. But automatic promotion from seniority is just too unrestrictive. Face it, there are just some guys/gals that should just never be in the left seat.

 

[jtrain609]

What makes this one different is the number of lives at stake. WE are not here to make money, we're here to provide a safe operating environment no matter what.

And you're right, some people shouldn't be in the left seat; they fail upgrade and are fired. then.

 

[RightSeatGirl]

Nope, most companies just let em go back to being f/o's. And also, getting through upgrade training is far from foolproof. The training environment is a different place then flying the line. Lot's of peeps make it through upgrade. Doesn't mean they are going to be competent captains. All I'm saying is that airlines should have the ability to deny upgrade to candidates that are just not a person that needs to be PIC of a transport category aircraft. Some just don't know what to do with the authority even if they make it through upgrade training.

 

[jtrain609]

They do, by failing them in upgrade.

You don't think it happens if enough pilots complain about a certain FO that's about to go through upgrade?

 

[surreal1221]

Nope, most companies just let em go back to being f/o's. And also, getting through upgrade training is far from foolproof. The training environment is a different place then flying the line. Lot's of peeps make it through upgrade. Doesn't mean they are going to be competent captains. All I'm saying is that airlines should have the ability to deny upgrade to candidates that are just not a person that needs to be PIC of a transport category aircraft. Some just don't know what to do with the authority even if they make it through upgrade training.

And I swore airlines HIRE Captains, not first officers.

Hopefully that's not too confusing for you.

 

[RightSeatGirl]

They do, by failing them in upgrade.

You don't think it happens if enough pilots complain about a certain FO that's about to go through upgrade?

Very good point.

And I swore airlines HIRE Captains, not first officers.

Hopefully that's not too confusing for you.

Oh I'm sorry..I just fail to grasp your cryptic idiom because I have no grey hair and less then 1000 hours. No , I couldn't possibly know what that remark meant. How dare I offer an opinion, disagree with a more senior pilot or actually...*gasp*, think.... outside the box! Does your ego get stoked by insulting another person's ability to decipher old school and overdone archaic cliches?

Or was that question too complicated for you?

Excuse me...I need to don my white armor and blindly follow my Emperor over the chasm after he gets thrown in by his own protege.

 

[MFT1Air]

And I swore airlines HIRE Captains, not first officers.

Hopefully that's not too confusing for you.

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm a tad bit naive, so enlighten me.

Is your statement synonymous to the military hiring generals and not lieutenants, or E9s and not E1s?

Just trying to get a perspective.

 

[Velocipede]

Airlines don't hire guys they think will be permanent F/Os. They hire people with the potential to upgrade. There are some who try and fail to upgrade. They become permanent F/Os. But, they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[MFT1Air]

Airlines don't hire guys they think will be permanent F/Os. They hire people with the potential to upgrade. There are some who try and fail to upgrade. They become permanent F/Os. But, they are the exception rather than the rule.

Just checking. . .but we all know many don't make it. So, am I to assume the system is broke perhaps, for it allows a few/many F/Os to upgrade with having all the "right" tools to be stellar captains? Should the industry be more stringent in their selection?