Because the Internet.
A letter to X Airlines, and ALL Regionals for that matter.
- Thread starter Winglet
- Start date
Because the Internet.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
You could always be a lawyer full time. There's always that.
HVYMETALDRVR
Well-Known Member
Im sorry I should have left the sjs comment out of it. But, different strokes for different folks. All I'm saying is that declining a lesser paying job you don't want isn't a loss.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
That you have enough foresight to realize that...in theory...putting up with this BS for a few (or more) years will eventually lead something where you can make a decent living.
No offense to the OP...but as much as I enjoyed flight instructing, after about a year of doing it, I had topped out in the field financially. I could have made a little more becoming a chief flight instructor, but that involves less flying and more paperwork. Combine that with the fact that once I hit year two pay I had already almost doubled what I made as a CFI, I think it was the right move.
Winglet
Well-Known Member
No offense taken. I was in the same boat. And while I do not wish this upon you, or anyone, the realization only hit me after I hit year two pay and my airline went under and I was forced at looking at the prospect of starting over at another regional. I watched my friends who were year 4 and 5 FOs going to START as year 1 at a new regional.
Only then will you really truly understand my drive and the drive of everyone else who are passed the "wow its an airline!" phase and have moved on to the "wow, how am I supposed to make a living?" phase.
chrisreedrules
Master Blaster
I think the allure of the 121 life is that top-end earning potential. The problem (to me) with pursuing 121 is that you likely won't see that kind of meaningful return for many years. And many people (especially young people) don't look ahead to retirement. Two words: compounding interest. It is far better to make more money up front in a career and invest for retirement than it is to only make enough to scratch by for several years and not save/invest much. For this reason, 135 and 91 jobs appeal more to me. The regionals to me seem to be a young man's game... If I was 21, fresh out of college and had my ATP... Sure, I'd go for it. But I'm 26 with a house, family to take care of, and finances to manage. I don't even consider myself that old but maybe too old to jump into the 121 world now. Just something to consider guys. It is far better in the long term to make more up front but to top out sooner than it is to make very little up front but have great earnings for the last 5 to 10 years of your career. Add to that the 80 to 100K of debt most people start this career with and the numbers just don't add up. Unless they increase FO compensation for the first few years I see the pilot supply becoming smaller and smaller.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
See: Olive Branch Petition. You may like the surprise when we did say, (redacted) "Sorry, but we disagree with your policies and want to change them so as to advert a complete cluster of a war." Weird to read and fun to think about if you enjoy history.
With that said, I completely agree with your sentiment, your tone, and that you shared. While others may think it was in poor taste, I've read through that letter twice and don't see where their objections lie. I'm not reading any sarcasm into the letter, however.
HR does sometimes have to see their advertising as a sales pitch. When you get feedback from the customers you either press on or adjust strategies. If the HR gal/guy has a hardcore sales mentality, they'll simply push onto the next sucker and toss your letter halfway through. If the HR people are a little more genuine, they may express your concerns to their managers. Either way, it's your time, spend it drafting letters like that any time you wish, as far as I'm concerned.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Pesky things, licenses.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
I didn't write it, don't shoot me.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303296604577450581396602106
Updated June 6, 2012 10:23 p.m. ET
On an airplane carrying 100 passengers, how many customers does it take, on average, to cover the cost of the flight?
The Middle Seat asked US Airways and consulting firm Oliver Wyman to crunch airline expenses down to the percentages that an individual passenger pays, taking a hard look at costs of running an airline. US Airways created a hypothetical flight of 100 passengers. Each one paid the average $146 fare for a domestic flight ($292 round-trip), plus $18 each in fees and add-ons, based on a year's worth of data ending March 31. The bottom line: There is very little wiggle room on the plane for profit.
Somebody on every flight helps cover crash insurance and compensation paid for bumped passengers or lost luggage. The person beside you on your next trip may be partly paying to repair baggage carts or to buy and maintain passenger oxygen and defibrillators.
"It's like a wristwatch. You only see the face and hands, but all the parts inside are really necessary," said former airline chief executive Gordon Bethune. "Those bags don't get downstairs by themselves. All those things that move bags have to be purchased and then they break. It never stops."
Fuel now is by far the biggest cost for airlines—greater than even airline salaries. On that 100-passenger US Airways flight, the tickets and fees of 29 people pay just for the fuel to make the trip. (Salaries are the second-highest cost, with 20 passengers covering personnel paychecks.)
Oliver Wyman's research pegs fuel costs at an even bigger percentage of costs for the airline industry as a whole. Bigger carriers with longer flights tend to spend a bigger portion of their money at the fuel pump. The industry spent more than 34% of its revenue on fuel—it takes the fares of more than one-third of passengers on a flight, on average, to pay for the gas.
Airline gas mileage has improved over the years, the result of filling more seats on each flight, replacing multiple trips on small planes with fewer trips on larger aircraft and replacing older planes with newer, more fuel-efficient jets. In 2000, U.S. airlines burned 28.6 gallons of jet fuel per passenger, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Last year, that improved to 22.5 gallons per passenger. The industry is using less fuel but carrying more passengers. But the fuel bill tripled—airlines spent $32 billion more on fuel in 2011 than in 2000.
After fuel and salaries come ownership costs—buying and leasing planes. That includes the cost of spare engines and insuring planes in case of accidents. In the hypothetical 100-passenger flight, 16 people cover these costs.
Another 14 passengers cover the collective federal taxes paid by passengers, US Airways calculated. That money helps fund the Federal Aviation Administration, plus the Sept. 11 security fees that cover much of the cost of Transportation Security Administration screening, and facility charges that most airports add to tickets. Fuel taxes paid by airlines are counted with other fuel costs. In the end, passengers pay more in government taxes and fees than they do for baggage fees and other add-ons.
Total maintenance costs equal 11 passengers on the plane of 100, according to US Airways, which built its own repair shop in Philadelphia just for the trucks, baggage carts and the tugs that haul them. That is a tiny part of all the airline's maintenance responsibilities. Planes' parts often break. Every few months they undergo routine maintenance. Every few years more intensive maintenance is performed. And once every five or six years planes literally get taken apart and put back together.
Cost of 'Free' Soft Drinks
Nine passengers cover the "other" category—everything from catering (the soft drink you get free on most, but not all, carriers) to compensating passengers for bumping them from flights and paying to deliver or replace lost baggage. Food costs—mostly for first-class meals—add up to less than 2% of airline costs, according to Oliver Wyman's research. Rental fees for airport gates and ticket counters also factor into the big "other" category. So do regular business things like advertising and legal fees.
Landing fees eat up more than 2% of airline revenue, according to Oliver Wyman, so that it takes two passengers out of 100 to cover the use of airport runways and taxiways. Airports charge airlines by the weight of the airplane.
With 99 passengers accounted for, what does that leave the airline in terms of profit? One passenger.
"It's not exactly one, but we rounded up," said Robert Isom, chief operating officer at US Airways Group Inc.
Airlines don't have some of the expenses of other industries. Research and development is virtually nonexistent—innovation tends to come from airplane makers, seat makers or other businesses that supply the carriers. While airlines have lots of inventory expense, it isn't like what Boeing Co. BA -0.10% or other manufacturers encounter.
The Weather Variable
But airline operating costs are off the charts compared with other industries. In a business where much of the work is done outside, routine storms can eat into margins. And there are many moving parts to flying people through the air, and many safety costs required by regulation.
While ticket revenue pays the bulk of these costs, "ancillary revenue" supplements the flight by another $18 per person on a 100-passenger flight. That includes fees for checked baggage, seat assignments, ticket penalties and revenue from cargo.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, baggage fees for the U.S. airline industry last year totaled a hefty $3.4 billion, or roughly $5 for every passenger boarded. Cancellation and change fees totaled $2.4 billion, or more than $3 for every passenger.
It's these myriad fees that can be most maddening to passengers—customers who now pay higher fares yet feel like they're getting less service. But these fees, in part, offset the expense of operating an airline.
"It's a crazy business," Mr. Bethune said. "There are so many costs you could never articulate it all."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/10/17/american-profits/3001749/
American Airlines posts third quarter profit
Charisse Jones, USA TODAY 3:55 p.m. EDT October 17, 2013
American is in the midst of a lawsuit trying to block its proposed merger.
(Photo: Wilfredo Lee, AP)
Story Highlights
- Company posts profit of $289 million
- Airline is fighting Justice Department over planned merger with US Airways
- It is the airline's second profitable quarter in a row
The parent company of American Airlines, which is in the midst of a federal lawsuit seeking to block its proposed merger with US Airways, posted a profit of $289 million in the third quarter, the second profitable quarter in a row for the airline.
AMR said Thursday that the quarterly profit was $527 million more than what it brought in during the same three-month period in 2012, when the airline operated at a loss.
The airline company, which has been under bankruptcy protection, said that without the costs of reorganization and other special items, it would have seen a profit of $530 million. That would have made this most recent fiscal period the most profitable quarter in American's history.
I don't know, by my math people must be paying a couple of million dollars each to ride in that 100th seat. It doesn't look like the mainlines are hurting too bad.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
For the same period, AMR carried $34.7 Billion in debt and had, over it's lifetime, delivered a $-9.3 Billion loss to the shareholders (think of that as a reverse dividend).
Yes...AMR was hurting...hurting very very badly. It was hurting so badly that bankruptcy or merger were its only real options.
ghoster
Onward Thru the Fog
I agree with Ben and think it should be sent to all aviation outlets.
Ash Williams
Well-Known Member
Hopefully more people will send emails like that. Here's mine from September. It was exciting to get an email from an airline after all these years of hard work. (I got my private in 1998) However, when it became reality, it was time to check our budget- Not even close! Back then I could afford to go but didn't have the time. Now, I have the time but can't afford to go. And by the way- My wife and I are completely debt free. Both cars are paid off, no credit cards, nothing! I'm in my mid 30's but, because of the sacrifices made to pay for training, we haven't even been able to buy a house yet. So completely debt free and not going. We might be able to make first year pay by selling my car, all our stuff, and having my wife and kids live with her parents. However, I kinda feel that would be selling my soul to the devil. What happens if I'm furloughed a year or two after being hired on? Will the next airline start me at 3rd year pay for having a nice smile? Good luck to those that make it work. I just don't want to do it.
I like Ben's email better but here's my email exchange with a "popular" regional airline...
_________________________________________________________________
On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:48 PM,
Dear Ash Williams ,
We are pleased to invite you to a pilot interview with XYZ Airlines on 13 September 2013. The purpose of this interview is to select candidates for upcoming classes at XYZ Airlines.
If you are traveling from outside of Atlanta, you will be provided round-trip flight reservations on United Airlines. Your travel information will arrive in a separate...
____________________________________________________________________________
Captain McHiring,
Thank you for the opportunity to interview with XYZ Airlines. Unfortunately, due to first year pay, I am not able to pursue a First Officer position at this time.
Thank you,
Ash Williams
555-555-1212
____________________________________________________________
On Sep 4, 2013, at 7:35 AM, McHiring wrote:
____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for the opportunity. I'm sorry I couldn't make the budget work at this time. I hope that will change in the future. Good luck with the contract. I hope things go well.
-Ash
I like Ben's email better but here's my email exchange with a "popular" regional airline...
_________________________________________________________________
On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:48 PM,
Dear Ash Williams ,
We are pleased to invite you to a pilot interview with XYZ Airlines on 13 September 2013. The purpose of this interview is to select candidates for upcoming classes at XYZ Airlines.
If you are traveling from outside of Atlanta, you will be provided round-trip flight reservations on United Airlines. Your travel information will arrive in a separate...
____________________________________________________________________________
Captain McHiring,
Thank you for the opportunity to interview with XYZ Airlines. Unfortunately, due to first year pay, I am not able to pursue a First Officer position at this time.
Thank you,
Ash Williams
555-555-1212
____________________________________________________________
On Sep 4, 2013, at 7:35 AM, McHiring wrote:
Ash,
Thanks for responding to my email. We’re hoping that better 1st year pay will be included in the contract that’s still being negotiated.
McHiring
Thanks for responding to my email. We’re hoping that better 1st year pay will be included in the contract that’s still being negotiated.
McHiring
____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for the opportunity. I'm sorry I couldn't make the budget work at this time. I hope that will change in the future. Good luck with the contract. I hope things go well.
-Ash
KLB
Well-Known Member
I agree also. I don't think many of the outlets would give it a honest look though. They are too big into advertising for the big flight schools and it would be a conflict of interest. The USA today or WSJ would be the way to go.
Ash Williams
Well-Known Member
As somebody that has been working at a large 141 school, I can speak for the more experienced instructors that don't have very wealthy parents.--- Lower 1st- 2nd-3rd year pay, poor pay during training, no hiring bonus, no cancellation pay, a bad reputation for stability? We don't want to go.
One of the biggest regionals told us for ERJ training, they only give you two checks for 700 dollars which might last up to 80 days. Really? 1,400 bucks for almost 3 months! Is that some kind of sick joke?
One of the biggest regionals told us for ERJ training, they only give you two checks for 700 dollars which might last up to 80 days. Really? 1,400 bucks for almost 3 months! Is that some kind of sick joke?
🦈💜
All dragon~
I didn't read any snark at all. The HR person-who contacted HIM, mind you-is exactly the person to reply to in a rational capacity about it. They're paid to pretend to care, unlike management.
-Fox
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Ok, maybe "snark" isn't the right adjective. The HR team doesn't need a white-paper on Ben Z's household finances...they just need feedback on why they're not getting a quality applicant. A simple "We disagree on compensation" does that.
I've said "No thanks" to several positions due to compensation over the last two years.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Source? AMR was nearly 4 billion liquid at bankruptcy entry. While I have not verified this, I believe most standing debt was for new aircraft purchases or mortgages on several existing airframes.
More to the point- did AMR not conceive a strategy where, once labor had been squeezed, all standing debts otherwise would still be paid?
Advantageous to future plans for AMR? Most certainly. But absolutely essential?
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
The AMR quarterly report: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/6201/000000620113000089/amr-10qx2013930.htm
It doesn't obviously state that AMR owed the world $34B. If you add up all the liabilities (page 5), you get $34B. The AMR asset base was $26B. Shockingly, AMR had $-8B in equity from a $4.4B initial float. It's extremely rare to see negative equity....much less double the size of the initial investment.
I'll go look this one up an report back. I suspect AMR had $4B in short-term assets, but still had a massive debt load. They had $10B in current assets at the close of the last quarter, but it was still bloody ugly because they also had $34B in debt. The debt-holders were looking at 29 cents on the dollar ($10B/$34B) at best had the company been liquidated in chapter 11 on 30 Sept, 2013.
Not exactly... the debt-holders, in exchange for agreeing to concessions (i.e..debt reduction) during the bankruptcy process, will become share-holders in the new merged airline. Here's who really got screwed: previous share-holders in AMR. They're set to get 3.5% of the new company because the debt-to-equity deal completely diluted them (of course, they would have gotten nothing had AMR been liquidated ...so they probably got more than they expected). The debt-holders will get a 68.5% equity stake in the new company.
This is straying far from the initial discussion... I can take a walk through AMRs quarterly report and post that somewhere if folks find that valuable. I believe strongly that most pilots don't understand the macro business side of their operation well enough.
Last edited:
Similar threads
