Pilot owned and operated airline

Matt13C

Well-Known Member
I was doing some yard work today and my brain was wondering. What do you think the feasibility of a pilot owned and operated airline would be. I don't mean a pilot starts an airline, I am sure that has been done.

I was thinking more along the lines of pilots are the share holders and decision makers. We vote in management and they are answerable to us. We set our pay scales, we set our routes, we decide which aircraft to fly and we have a supporting cast who run the daily operations.

I obviously have not worked out all the logistics of such an operation. I am just wondering what others think and if anything like this has been tried.
 
Damn wasn't fast enough....

On a slightly related note, I thought I heard something about some of the senior pilots at Big Sky were trying to pool money together to try to save it. Has anyone else heard this? Doesn't sound likely, but stranger things have happened in life.
 
There have been experiments with employees having a seat on the board. I don't know if that's going to be effective or not.

I'd be a little concerned over giving someone the reins of an airline, or any large company, unless they've got some serious business schooling.

You can't just take someone from the cockpit and drop him into the role of a CFO and say, here ya go!
 
There have been experiments with employees having a seat on the board. I don't know if that's going to be effective or not.

I'd be a little concerned over giving someone the reins of an airline, or any large company, unless they've got some serious business schooling.

You can't just take someone from the cockpit and drop him into the role of a CFO and say, here ya go!


No, not pilots in the CEO position, the pilots would just elect the CEO.
 
I do think all pilot groups should have a seat on the board. That can at least slow the absolute stupid moves the airline may try to do, but the mgmt outside of flight ops should not (in my opinion) be up to pilots. Too many type -A personalities in too important of a position.
 

That seemed like it was working until the pilots lost control. Before they went public it sounds like they had a great reputation and were a well run airline.

I guess one requirement would be to keep the airline private so there could not be a proxy fight.

It really can't be any worse than the current business model though. Out of all the airlines currently flying 2 are supposed to be profitable? I know this is due in large part to the current fuel price but it seems like ever few years a group of airlines go into bankruptcy.

Plus, if Sir Richard liked it, I think they were onto something at one point.
 
I was doing some yard work today and my brain was wondering. What do you think the feasibility of a pilot owned and operated airline would be. I don't mean a pilot starts an airline, I am sure that has been done.

I was thinking more along the lines of pilots are the share holders and decision makers. We vote in management and they are answerable to us. We set our pay scales, we set our routes, we decide which aircraft to fly and we have a supporting cast who run the daily operations.

I obviously have not worked out all the logistics of such an operation. I am just wondering what others think and if anything like this has been tried.

It's been tried a number of times: United, Kiwi, People's Express. All of these companies had employee-owners. They all failed. They failed because, even though the employees were the owners and the risk-takers, they still thought like line employees.

A good example is United Airlines. In 1994, the pilots, mechanics, and ground agents took wage concessions in exchange for ownership (stock), and seats on the board of directors. They hired Gerald Greenwald to run their company for them, because they thought they could control him.

Greenwald did what managers do, which is try to run a profitable company. This means he made decisions that were not necessarily employee friendly, but benefitted the company. Guess what? The employees got mad and got rid of him. They hired James Goodwin, a long time employee. Goodwin made decisions that were more employee friendly. The pilot contract of 2000 is an example. So now the employees are happy, but the company is horribly positioned to compete. I'm sure you know the rest of the story

The problem with employees calling the shots from the line is that employees think like employees. They think in terms of maximizing their pay and days off while at the same time minimizing their work. It doesn't work. Employees see only their little piece of the puzzle, and they don't see how it fits in with the bigger picture. That's what management does, or at least is supposed to do.

Consider this. Let's say you start an airline, but remain on the line as a pilot. What are you going to do when Crew Scheduling tells you that you don't have enough pilots? Hire more? What will you do when Finance tells you that your crew costs are too high? Lower their pay? Make them fly more? What about when Purchasing tells you that fuel costs too much? Tell your pilots to carry less fuel and fly slower? What do you do when Marketing tells you that your losing passengers because your flights take longer? You see the problems here?

The upshot of all this is that you can't run any kind of large business successfully from the line. There's reason you don't see that kind of business model out there. You either have to step out of the cockpit, or let someone else call the shots.
 
The upshot of all this is that you can't run any kind of large business successfully from the line. There's reason you don't see that kind of business model out there. You either have to step out of the cockpit, or let someone else call the shots.

:yeahthat:

I think things work best when everyone acts true to their nature. Management should try to sustainably squeeze the most out of the company's resources, and the employee groups should stick to maintaining professional standards and getting the most for their groups.

For the most part, let each everyone worry about their own problems, with everyone working for the same goal†: make some money. Kum-Bay-Ya!

Wouldn't that be nice? :rolleyes:
 
Anyone remember Pride Air?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_Air

I didn't think so.

I had a great-uncle who was among the founders of it. He was a CA with CAL and then when they were striking, this idea emerged. CAL ended up leasing the pilots after the strike (if I remember correctly) and he and his buddies eventually ended up back working the line for CAL.
 
I do think all pilot groups should have a seat on the board. That can at least slow the absolute stupid moves the airline may try to do, but the mgmt outside of flight ops should not (in my opinion) be up to pilots. Too many type -A personalities in too important of a position.

The type-A personalities of pilots are only exceeded by management. No one is more stereotypically type-A than a CEO.

Captain from EAL 1989? Blacklisted though.

Huh? Who, Iverson? Nope. The pilots of Kiwi were EAL strikers, not SCABs.

Goodwin made decisions that were more employee friendly. The pilot contract of 2000 is an example. So now the employees are happy, but the company is horribly positioned to compete. I'm sure you know the rest of the story

If you think UAL Contract '00 was the cause of their bankruptcy, then you need to do some more research. Pilot contracts don't bankrupt airlines, no matter what Ford & Harrison wants you to believe.
 
Back
Top