Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
You hit the nail on the head. I think early on a precedence was set for high pay, and it's continued throughout the last 70-80 years. There's no such thing as "overpaid" or "underpaid" there's just "paid".
2004 v. 2006 for pilots
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
You hit the nail on the head. I think early on a precedence was set for high pay, and it's continued throughout the last 70-80 years. There's no such thing as "overpaid" or "underpaid" there's just "paid".
That's flying and pilots in general - we're talking about Part 121 passenger flying - the pilots are as safe as the passengers are, and that's pretty safe. How many fatals have we had in the past 5 years - not many - and as a percentage of the population of Part 121 pilots I'll bet it's a pretty safe number.
Driving to the airport *IS* the most dangerous part of the trip when it's a Part 121 passenger flight involved - less so if it's charter, even less so if it's self flown, and pretty hairy if it's night freight in bad equipment.
Well then you wouldn't do very well in a statistics course, and don't for heavens sake go into the insurance industry, you wouldn't stand a chance.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
Actually that is people that were working as pilots. Not pilots in general and there is more than just Part 121 flying to consider. That is kind of insulting to the CFI's, Charter, Freight, Fractional and other pilots out there.
Everything is risky - getting out of bed is risky, heck staying in bed is risky you never know what might fall on you. It's all about the level of risk, and the fact that Part 121 passenger pilots are not dieing in droves ipso facto proves that the job has low risk.
WHY it is low risk can be a different debate, sure it might well be because of the lowly paid professionals in the front office, but truth be known almost all Part 121 passenger accidents have significant pilot error as a factor - so clearly we're not doing as well as we could be. The fact is the system has managed out a lot of the risk through systems and procedures, the only thing left they can't manage out is the pilot. So since the pilots are the most significant factor in the cause of death in a Part 121 passenger aircraft explain to me again why they're worth so much money? (it's rhetorical for heaven's sake, even *I* think that's a stupid question).
Different discussion - for pilots who spent 30 years at an airline, gave up 2-3 marriages, missed their kids births, birthdays, first steps, etc. to be told at the end of that time "hey, the pension we promised you that would make it all worthwhile, yeh sorry, that's not going to happen - write and let us kow how you're making out on $30K a year from the PGBC".
That's immoral, unethical, there aren't enough words to describe just how badly those guys (and gals) got screwed, blued and tattooed.
The pay discussion is about Part 121 passenger pilots - so shouldn't we consider that group of people when we try and decide how dangerous the job is? I mean if we're going to open it up to anyone then I choose to include coal miners in the pilot profession, and they're dieing like canaries.
CFI's haven't taken a big pay cut for example, neither have Freight nor most fractionals. Doesn't stop them whining, but it's not the nexus of this conversation.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
The course of this thread moved to include all flying jobs at some point. That was what prompted me to post the article stating that the job itself IS Dangerous. Your choice to add coal miners is simply irrelevant to this discussion.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Flying in itself is not dangerous, its just very unforgiving.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I dunno man, you ever put the power up on a TIO-540 on a stall recovery and have them both try to choke out on you because the mixture was moved too far forward (which is what Piper says to do with the mixture control, BTW, full forward)? That'll get you thinking that this gig is dangerous and unforgiving.
EDIT: I know I'm not flying the same equipment as everybody else, and I also know that if I treat my engines properly they'll take care of me (in most situations), but I find the heavier, faster and more complex the equipment gets the more I don't trust it as there are more and more stupid little things you can do to piss off your airplane to the point that it stops working.
EDIT: I know I'm not flying the same equipment as everybody else, and I also know that if I treat my engines properly they'll take care of me (in most situations), but I find the heavier, faster and more complex the equipment gets the more I don't trust it as there are more and more stupid little things you can do to piss off your airplane to the point that it stops working.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Cant say that I have. Based on safety records, I'd say that it is a safe job until something goes wrong. Then, it is unforgiving.
I also think, as you mentioned, that it depends on what type of flying you're doing.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
EVERYTHING is safe until something goes wrong boss, including walking
Very true. I've taken a spill or two in my day..
skydog
New Member
It is not a sacrifice, it is a choice. In return for a million-dollar flight education, good pay and benefits, and the best flight experience you can get, you have to let the military tell you to do for a period of 11-12 years.
Seems pretty fair to me.
skydog
New Member
Because they are flight academies. They make money by selling flight training. Doesn't make good sense to sell your product by saying "Come fly with us. You'll spend a $hitload of money for $hitty paying job, lousy QOL, no job security."
Caveat Emptor
skydog
New Member
You are rich when your money works for you, not when you work for your money.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Great. But there seems to be a lack of "definition" on what rich is from a numerical view. You might think rich is $80K a year while I might think its $40K a year.