Aer Lingus pilots paid €300,000($441,000)

[surreal1221]

Dispatchers, most of them, are compensated based off of their CBA with their company. Providing longevity increases in pay, much like pilots.

Dispatcher's salaries vary greatly among airlines with senior dispatchers at major airlines easily earning over $100,000 per year. In 1999, a few dispatchers were known to have earned close to $150,000 with overtime.

Senior dispatchers at one major airline work 4, 10-hours shifts a week and enjoy 4 days off each week between these 40 hour, 4 day weeks.

On the other hand, entry level positions at smaller carriers start in the $20,000 per year range and feature 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week.

http://www.dispatcher.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=86

 

[wheelsup]

To be completely honest, I have no idea how dispatchers are paid. Perhaps at mainline, they have pay scales based on aircraft size, I really don't know. I see a valid point in dispatchers being paid by weight, or productivity of the aircraft they dispatch, so there's definitely another valid metric to pay them by.

You seem hell bent though that I want to cheat someone out of money. And that is definitely not what I'm about. I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way. However, when you present compensation values to the company, you need to show that you're not getting paid more than you're producing. Pilots seem to do very poorly at that.

I never said it's "right", but it's "logical" difference. If you pay attention to what I write I try to be fair to everyone. For some reason, you seem to be on this bent that I think employees of one group or another should be slighted, and that's just not the case.

I just think its funny how "we" (pilots) justify our pay, that's all .

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So don't be thinking somehow pilots are unique to the money making ability of an airline.

Sorry, but yes, they are.

Gordon Bethune had a great analogy for this. At employee meetings, invariably an employee from one group would question the salary or bonus of another employee group, under the notion that somehow that other employee contributed less than he did. Mr Bethune would hold up his wrist watch, and ask what part of it wasn't needed.

Gordon Bethune is a very intelligent individual, and this is a perfect example of why. He came up with an analogy that, at first blush, sounds beautifully accurate in its simplicity, but on further review is actually a bunch of hogwash designed to make higher-paying employees feel less important and less worthy of their higher salaries.

The truth is that although the watch requires every component to operate, many components are more valuable than others. He may have a hand-crafted watch that took thousands of man-hours to assemble into a work of art, but he may have it attached to a cheap rubber wrist strap. The strap can be replaced with $5 and a trip to Target, but the intricate workings of the watch that were designed over thousands of hours of hand-crafting are practically irreplaceable, and are worth perhaps $100,000, or more.

In much the same way, many employees are more valuable (unique) than others. A ramp service worker can replaced in a few days with an interview, background check, and few hours of on-the-job training, but the 747 captain that is taxiing in the airplane that the ramper is marshaling took 30 years to achieve the experience necessary to do his job. Which is more valuable? Seems pretty simple to me.

How did you NC come to the single scale? Was the methodology a blended-style to come up with the actual number, or was it "this is the rate"?

It's always been based on a 757/767 scale.

 

[wheelsup]

In much the same way, many employees are more valuable (unique) than others. A ramp service worker can replaced in a few days with an interview, background check, and few hours of on-the-job training, but the 747 captain that is taxiing in the airplane that the ramper is marshaling took 30 years to achieve the experience necessary to do his job. Which is more valuable? Seems pretty simple to me.

Seems simple to you because you leave out the details. What about the 747 CA who upgraded in 5 years because they were hired on at the right time, who took only 5 years to get the "experience" (read: seniority) to do his job?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Seems simple to you because you leave out the details. What about the 747 CA who upgraded in 5 years because they were hired on at the right time, who took only 5 years to get the "experience" (read: seniority) to do his job?

It amazes me that an air line pilot could even make this argument. Before he would even qualify to get to that airline to get his five years of seniority, it would have taken him 18 months to get his ratings and certificates, and four years to get a degree. So, we're looking at 5.5 years just to get hired (which in reality is more like 10 years, because he would have worked at the regionals or 135 carriers first). By comparison, the ramper rolled out of bed one morning and read the classifieds, got an interview the following week, and was on the job the week after that.

Anyone who doesn't see the difference must have killed a whole hell of a lot of brain cells.

 

[wheelsup]

My point is you try to trump the fact that the guy took 30 years to train when in reality it takes 6 months do to private-ATP and your career progression from there is based upon industry movement and nothing else.

I *never* said ramper pay should be on par with what a 747 CA makes, did I? No brain cells killed here.

That being said most rampers start out making more than commuter pilots do.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

My point is you try to trump the fact that the guy took 30 years to train when in reality it takes 6 months do to private-ATP and your career progression from there is based upon industry movement and nothing else.

Six months to an ATP is pretty much impossible. It takes most people 18 months to finish everything up through MEI, and at least another year to get an ATP. Lots of flight schools advertise the "6 months zero-to-hero" concept, but they fail to tell you that only 1 out of 100 pilots finish in that amount of time, and it certainly doesn't get you all the way to an ATP, it's usually just to a Comm-Multi-Inst. The average pilots takes three times as long.

I *never* said ramper pay should be on par with what a 747 CA makes, did I? No brain cells killed here.

You really shouldn't be quoting uncle Gordon if you don't understand what he's trying to say. That kind of quote is intended by people like him to depress career earnings expectations and diminish your view of your own profession. Our company's EVP is famous for being quoted in the Atlanta Journal saying "pilots like to think they're special....they're not." That's the mentality that management is trying to spread, and you're practically buying into it, it seems.

That being said most rampers start out making more than commuter pilots do.

Don't exaggerate. Some rampers start out making more than first year commuter pilots do. Most commuter pilots are topping $30k second year, and many are topping $45k. It's not good, but it's better than most rampers.

 

[wheelsup]

Six months to an ATP is pretty much impossible. It takes most people 18 months to finish everything up through MEI, and at least another year to get an ATP. Lots of flight schools advertise the "6 months zero-to-hero" concept, but they fail to tell you that only 1 out of 100 pilots finish in that amount of time, and it certainly doesn't get you all the way to an ATP, it's usually just to a Comm-Multi-Inst. The average pilots takes three times as long.

You are right I meant private-MEI.

*most people* Well only if you're an average pilot maybe. Should average pilots make the same as above average pilots that are quick learners and able to excel quickly?

You really shouldn't be quoting uncle Gordon if you don't understand what he's trying to say. That kind of quote is intended by people like him to depress career earnings expectations and diminish your view of your own profession. Our company's EVP is famous for being quoted in the Atlanta Journal saying "pilots like to think they're special....they're not." That's the mentality that management is trying to spread, and you're practically buying into it, it seems.

I'm buying into it because I'm not a fool who thinks my job is not easily replaceable.

Don't exaggerate. Some rampers start out making more than first year commuter pilots do. Most commuter pilots are topping $30k second year, and many are topping $45k. It's not good, but it's better than most rampers.

Fact remains, rampers make more than pilots. Why is that, if pilots are so "special"? Here's another tidbit even on the new contract starting UAW workers make more screwing cars together than commuter pilots do. Sad thing is we're union too! I thought the point of a union was to increase wages?

The *entire* salary structure that has been devised is completely outdated and geared toward a pre-deregulation era. There is no reason a 20 year guy should be paid more than a 1 year guy doing the same job. None what so ever.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

*most people* Well only if you're an average pilot maybe. Should average pilots make the same as above average pilots that are quick learners and able to excel quickly?

There's no such thing as an "average pilot" or an "above average pilot." Everybody gets metal and people from Point A to Point B safely. The only difference in compensation should come from aircraft size (revenue generation), seat position (responsibility), and longevity (reward for continuous service). Everything else is too subjective.

I'm buying into it because I'm not a fool who thinks my job is not easily replaceable.

Your job is not easily replaceable. This fallacy is why so many regional pilots have watched their careers get pissed away into nothingness in the past 10 years. The Comair pilots in 2001 had the balls and the intelligence to realize that they were NOT easily replaceable, and they were right. Unfortunately, the many other pilot groups that followed did not share their balls or intelligence, and they all fell into the trap of believing that they could be replaced at a moment's notice. The result was a decade of declining standards, and the CMR pilots were rewarded for their courage by having to take pay cuts to match what the cowards at the other regionals accepted. If everyone had been smart enough to realize that they weren't replaceable, then the gains that the CMR pilots realized would have only been built upon rather than torn apart.

Fact remains, rampers make more than pilots.

Not really.

Why is that, if pilots are so "special"? Here's another tidbit even on the new contract starting UAW workers make more screwing cars together than commuter pilots do. Sad thing is we're union too! I thought the point of a union was to increase wages?

UAW workers had balls and intelligence. When you get both, maybe you can make as much as they do. Until then, keep listening to Uncle Gordy telling you that you're not special.

The *entire* salary structure that has been devised is completely outdated and geared toward a pre-deregulation era. There is no reason a 20 year guy should be paid more than a 1 year guy doing the same job. None what so ever.

Of course there is. The 20 year guy is likely in the left seat (more responsibility), flying a bigger plane (more revenue generation), with more experience, and has demonstrated 20 years of loyalty to his company. There are many reasons that he deserves more.

 

[kellwolf]

That being said most rampers start out making more than commuter pilots do.

Where? MOST rampers are outsourced now, and they're starting out in the $6-8 range. If you base it off of no OT, then even SWA is less than $19K a year to start. Now, after a couple of years, yeah, rampers are making more than first year FOs. In some places, more than second year FOs. But I don't know of many ramper positions (which only require a GED in most cases, and a high school diploma in the others) that START at more than first year FO.

Air Wisconsin posting on Career Builder has them starting at $9.03 and all the way up to $9.51 after year one. That's $18,782 assuming a 40 hour work week for a year. It's a part time position, though, so I wouldn't think that would be accurate. Hardly more than most commuter pilots.

 

[derg]

The *entire* salary structure that has been devised is completely outdated and geared toward a pre-deregulation era. There is no reason a 20 year guy should be paid more than a 1 year guy doing the same job. None what so ever.

I guess I don't see there being any reason why a first year employee should make what a dedicated 30 year employee does.

Voila! Here we have balance!

No worries, I wanted "Mine, and NOW!!" when I was a neophyte in the career as well.

 

[wheelsup]

There's no such thing as an "average pilot" or an "above average pilot." Everybody gets metal and people from Point A to Point B safely. The only difference in compensation should come from aircraft size (revenue generation), seat position (responsibility), and longevity (reward for continuous service). Everything else is too subjective.

OK, safety is the dictating point. Great. I wonder if those Delta pilots got their checks docked for landing on the taxiway. That to me seems kinda unsafe (just a bit). How about pilots who file an ASAP for an altitude deviation?

The result was a decade of declining standards, and the CMR pilots were rewarded for their courage by having to take pay cuts to match what the cowards at the other regionals accepted. If everyone had been smart enough to realize that they weren't replaceable, then the gains that the CMR pilots realized would have only been built upon rather than torn apart.

UAW workers had balls and intelligence. When you get both, maybe you can make as much as they do. Until then, keep listening to Uncle Gordy telling you that you're not special.

That's cool, I can take the heat. You like to point fingers at me, go ahead this is fun. Just let me ask you, as someone who not only accepted those conditions working for pretty much the worst paying commuter out there, AND someone who PAID to take someones job away, just how big are your balls, and how much intelligence do you have? They must be muy pequeno!

Of course there is. The 20 year guy is likely in the left seat (more responsibility), flying a bigger plane (more revenue generation), with more experience, and has demonstrated 20 years of loyalty to his company. There are many reasons that he deserves more.

CA/FO pay rates are understandable, after all managers are paid more than the regular employees.

If pilots all move the aircraft from A to B safely, why does experience pay more? After all they must all be safe, and experience obviously does not and should not translate into higher pay. And if experience should translate into higher pay, why are experienced pilots not paid more when hired on with the company?

Loyalty to the company? Ha. I wonder who started that, unions maybe? Let's think about the commuters. People go there to make a career...wait. No they don't. Longevity pay means nothing to a commuter pilot because they want to be gone ASAP. I wonder how much longevity pay means to an Eastern, Pan Am, or TWA pilot these days? :dunno:

 

[wheelsup]

I guess I don't see there being any reason why a first year employee should make what a dedicated 30 year employee does.

Voila! Here we have balance!

No worries, I wanted "Mine, and NOW!!" when I was a neophyte in the career as well.

IMO this longevity pay structure actually contributes to a lowering of wages because we can't take our ball and go elsewhere. It was dreamed up in an era where airlines simply did not fail. It's outdated.

 

[Polar742]

IMO this longevity pay structure actually contributes to a lowering of wages because we can't take our ball and go elsewhere. It was dreamed up in an era where airlines simply did not fail. It's outdated.

I believe airlines did fail. There have been several cycles already, so to say it's a new phenomenon is disingenuous.

 

[wheelsup]

I believe airlines did fail. There have been several cycles already, so to say it's a new phenomenon is disingenuous.

There probably were failures. My words were too strong. My internet connection is too slow for any general research but I am curious, did the legacy carriers (UAL, AA, DAL, LCC, CAL, and any others such as TWA, Braniff, and Eastern) file for bankruptcy any during the period before deregulation? I suspect no.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

OK, safety is the dictating point. Great. I wonder if those Delta pilots got their checks docked for landing on the taxiway. That to me seems kinda unsafe (just a bit). How about pilots who file an ASAP for an altitude deviation?

No, I'm sure they didn't get their checks docked, nor should they.

That's cool, I can take the heat. You like to point fingers at me, go ahead this is fun. Just let me ask you, as someone who not only accepted those conditions working for pretty much the worst paying commuter out there, AND someone who PAID to take someones job away, just how big are your balls, and how much intelligence do you have? They must be muy pequeno!

It's not about someone accepting the pay and working conditions. It's about whether you're willing to fight to make it better. Will you strike to improve conditions at your carrier? Or will you back down like most other regional pilots have?

If pilots all move the aircraft from A to B safely, why does experience pay more?

Because experience has value.

And if experience should translate into higher pay, why are experienced pilots not paid more when hired on with the company?

As you know, portable longevity is something that we're working on. Experience should count for something when moving on to a new company. However, there's also the question of whether company loyalty factors into the equation, and I think it should. Longevity should not transfer on a one-for-one basis, in my opinion.

 

[wheelsup]

No, I'm sure they didn't get their checks docked, nor should they.

But they were unsafe!?! So now not only are safe average pilots paid the same, but also unsafe ones? Wow! What a great deal!

(let me add, I'm glad this is the case, for my sake!!)

It's not about someone accepting the pay and working conditions. It's about whether you're willing to fight to make it better. Will you strike to improve conditions at your carrier? Or will you back down like most other regional pilots have?

Oh I see. OK buddy.

Let's look at reality.

Step 1...strike. Step 2...lose flying. Step 3...go out of business, start over as first year F/O somewhere else (if you're lucky).

ALPA has a horrible reputation when it comes to striking at commuters.

Comair. ACA. AWAC. XJT. All have ceased to exist or lost significant amounts of flying after making strides in their contract. What incentive does ALPA give for striking these days?

Here's the deal at my commuter. Except for the top 10% or so, we all hope to be able to jump ship before our contract ends with our major partner. We know we are much more expensive than other carriers and this will translate into a non-renewal of our contract. Pinnacle alone is on the order of $60/hr per crew or $30/hr per pilot cheaper than we are. Replacing our flying with Pinnacle aircraft will save $21 million a year to the mainline partner, and that is just accounting for pilot costs. F/A costs will be less, mx costs will be less (mechanics here make decent money, I have to assume more than Pinnacle) etc. etc.

There is simply *no* possible way under our current system to continually "jack up the house" as you call it. Short term gain turns into unemployment. I would love to do it but I also like getting paid. If others will do my job I might as well keep doing it without going back to first year pay at a commuter. There will always be another Gulfstream FO willing to pay for some flight time (it is, after all, cheaper than renting!) or a Pinnacle F/O looking at that short upgrade time and not caring about the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year FO pay or not getting block or better or having no duty or trip rigs.

Because experience has value.

It certainly does, but the only people that care are the flying public. See below.

As you know, portable longevity is something that we're working on. Experience should count for something when moving on to a new company. However, there's also the question of whether company loyalty factors into the equation, and I think it should. Longevity should not transfer on a one-for-one basis, in my opinion.

But *forcing* a company to pay based on past experience due to union bargaining proves my point. The company doesn't care about experience. outside of their required mins. What experience will get you is an interview, but that doesn't translate into higher pay which goes against everything the free market stands for.

And I hate to tell you this, but if the company can hire 500 TT pilots that get thru training and in the same class hire high time CFI's and current 121 pilots that don't make it thru training, (this happened in my class) the experience card has zero merit.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But they were unsafe!?! So now not only are safe average pilots paid the same, but also unsafe ones? Wow! What a great deal!

I have no idea whether these pilots are unsafe or not. A formal investigation will take place to determine whether they need additional training, whether procedures need to be modified, etc. Rendering a judgement as to the safety of these fellow pilots without having all of the facts doesn't make you much of a professional.

Oh I see. OK buddy.

Let's look at reality.

Step 1...strike. Step 2...lose flying. Step 3...go out of business, start over as first year F/O somewhere else (if you're lucky).

yada, yada, yada.....

You've just proven my point. None of you are willing to step up and fight for what you deserve. Reward does not come without risk. If regional pilots finally rise up and demand what they are worth, they will get it without losing their flying, because their fellow pilots at other carriers will do the same and there won't be a huge disparity in wages. But if you refuse to grow a pair, then your lot in life is already determined.

But *forcing* a company to pay based on past experience due to union bargaining proves my point. The company doesn't care about experience.

The company doesn't care about the amount of revenue you generate, loyalty to the company, or anything else, either. The only thing they care about it supply and demand. That's why we have unions to protect us. Unions fight to make sure that we are paid appropriately, and part of that is higher compensation for more longevity.

And I hate to tell you this, but if the company can hire 500 TT pilots that get thru training and in the same class hire high time CFI's and current 121 pilots that don't make it thru training, (this happened in my class) the experience card has zero merit.

Whether someone can fly by numbers in a simulator is very different than whether they can be a competent pilot in a real-world airliner. You should know this. Experience matters.

 

[kellwolf]

And I hate to tell you this, but if the company can hire 500 TT pilots that get thru training and in the same class hire high time CFI's and current 121 pilots that don't make it thru training, (this happened in my class) the experience card has zero merit.

I disagree. It's all subjective. Some people (like Todd said) might be better at playing video games than others. Trust me, I've seen plenty of people that can fly the bejeesus out of the sim, but when it comes to flying the actual airplane.....damn. Heck, half of them are even instructors. I'm really happy that the 500TT can read a QRH real fast and follow a profile. However, how many times a day does that happen? I'd rather have the guy that's got a few emergencies as PIC without an instructor on board under his belt or the guy that's had to figure out if he's got enough fuel to make a different alternate if his original one goes south. Then again, maybe I'm just jaded because of some of the unbelievable things I've heard and seen out of FOs in a year and a half.

 

[wheelsup]

You've just proven my point. None of you are willing to step up and fight for what you deserve. Reward does not come without risk. If regional pilots finally rise up and demand what they are worth, they will get it without losing their flying, because their fellow pilots at other carriers will do the same and there won't be a huge disparity in wages. But if you refuse to grow a pair, then your lot in life is already determined.

This is just getting stupid. History hasn't treated those who received much better contracts well. If I grow a pair as you say ATN_Pilot_Jr. will buy my seat or take a job at QuickUpgrade Airlines for 30% less pay, or worse yet a GoJet type carrier.

No leverage...

Whether someone can fly by numbers in a simulator is very different than whether they can be a competent pilot in a real-world airliner. You should know this. Experience matters.

Too bad they can't use their experience on the line...if they don't make it thru training....