Airline Pilot

[ QUOTE ]
So why'd you stick with flying the line for so long and not get into the management side of things, flyover?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not my bag. But I did always love studying the industry and the mystery of how to make money with airplanes. Couldn't believe things went as well as they did for so long after deregulation.

I haven't "quit" the industry yet, just haven't got a new job yet.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, a burger flipper makes more than that. A higher minimum that's livable is something that we should shoot for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to split hairs, but burger flippers make about $15K a year. More than a CFI but less than a first year FO, plus they can have the "accident orders." Wonder why so many CFIs work at restaurants.....
 
[ QUOTE ]

Definitely not my bag. But I did always love studying the industry and the mystery of how to make money with airplanes. Couldn't believe things went as well as they did for so long after deregulation.

I haven't "quit" the industry yet, just haven't got a new job yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your insights. In general I have to say that I think your analysis are (is?) spot-on.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I say that every employee ought to get every single penny they can from their employer for as long as they can. Why? Because to them, you're just like a paper clip or a stapler. As soon as they can find someone who will do it for cheaper -- even though it may not be better -- you're gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I agree with you. First of all I never said all managements were geniuses. Smart ones pay their good salesmen really well and some of the wealthiest people I know personally are salesman whose companies rewarded them for what they produced. (I am not saying all salesman are paid what they are worth, I'm just saying I know some that have done right well.) I thought you had made a dig at salesman so I was kind of defending them.

As to my other comment about the supply and demand side of employment I just think it goes without saying really. "Deserve" just doesn't work in a laissez-faire system. If the argument is that free market economic systems somehow cheat people (relative to any other system) I just can't go with that. History is pretty clear on that one. The fastest way to the bottom of the barrel for all is to have someone else trying to decide who "deserves" what.

Airline pilots managed to hold onto what they had from before deregulation by being organized well enough to keep their employers from going to the supply pool. I mean airlines were still signing pretty good contracts right up until the time they were hopelessly and utterly bankrupt.

Then you get into the whole thing about complaining what others are willing to work for. I just don't see that being any more practical than complaining about those dumb customers who won't pay enough. I think there will always be people, like me, that are drawn to flying. In my defense I've always told anyone that asked my advice to not get into flying for the money. I just never thought operating someone else's heavy equipment for a paycheck was the most stable career path. But I knew more TWA, Braniff, Frontier and Eastern people than I did from any other airline.

One of the ways that the job will be a good one in the future is if ALPA can survive. That's why I was so upset when they dreamed up Scope clauses. But anyone that thinks ALPA should make some suicide stand by demanding a level of pay that an insolvent industry can't support, is really asking for the end of the airline pilot career imho. I support what the leadership is doing, including lobbying for the government to step aside and allow consolidation. It's the smart play. Only a viable industry can pay the salary and benefits that everyone wants to see. Profits are our friend.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I was so upset when they dreamed up Scope clauses.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I will ask.. What is the Scope clauses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, restrictions to regionals as to how big of aircraft they can fly.
 
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I will ask.. What is the Scope clauses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, restrictions to regionals as to how big of aircraft they can fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or put another way: Provisions by which pilots from another pilot group can fly flights on your company's schedule.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought you had made a dig at salesman so I was kind of defending them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I do, so I guess I'd be picking on myself. So I guess that's allowed?

No, trust me, I know plenty of salespeople who are total slackers. They'll do just enough to not get fired, and complain about how they're not making enough money.

Nice thing about sales is that you can always give yourself a raise. Just go sell something to someone.

[ QUOTE ]
The fastest way to the bottom of the barrel for all is to have someone else trying to decide who "deserves" what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules ought to have a decent life. Yeah, I know, creeping socialism, but if you're willing to bust your butt and work hard, ain't no reason that I can think of why you shouldn't be able to put a roof over your head, have a little piece of the American dream, and so on without guys getting ten times what you're making saying you're overcompensated!

And the answer isn't just pilot salaries. Southwest's guys top out higher than 737 pilots do at a host of legacy carriers post concessions, but those guys still aren't making money and Southwest is.

Wage concessions are the low hanging fruit, to use one of those buzzwords. Now the execs have got to think outside the box and create a paradigm shift for real, because in this environment, they simply cannot cut their way to profitability.
 
70 will never be enough if you live on a 71 bugdet.

Pissed if you're not making 100 by age 40? At 40 when you get 100, you'll be pissed that you're not getting 200 and can't afford you're 101k lifestyle.

Am I really bringing down the whole industry in being content with my 18k?

Grr
argue.gif
 
I don't believe in living beyond my means. I like to save and have a nest egg. I learned from my parents. Look, my dad came here with a grand in his pocket, and got an education and was able to put three kids through college and two of them through med/law school.

He did this by living within his means, not taking on any debt other than for his house and his cars, and being smart with his money.

But by the same token, due to his hard work, he is compensated well.

And I feel that EVERYONE who is willing to work hard ought to be compensated well also.

That includes first year regional FOs. Come on, man. Doesn't it chafe your hide when some Wall Street joker talks about how you're overpaid when you're making $18K a year?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know, creeping socialism, but if you're willing to bust your butt and work hard, ain't no reason that I can think of why you shouldn't be able to put a roof over your head, have a little piece of the American dream, and so on without guys getting ten times what you're making saying you're overcompensated!

And the answer isn't just pilot salaries. Southwest's guys top out higher than 737 pilots do at a host of legacy carriers post concessions, but those guys still aren't making money and Southwest is.

Wage concessions are the low hanging fruit, to use one of those buzzwords. Now the execs have got to think outside the box and create a paradigm shift for real, because in this environment, they simply cannot cut their way to profitability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree pretty much with all. I think where we differ is you seem to see everything in terms of evil management devoting all their energy to raping workers. I just don't buy that. First of all the airline industry has been a workers dream for many decades. Sure management pushed back against labor, but it was important from their perspective to at least try to contain costs. Remember, the airline industry has never been particuarly profitable and labor has been, by far, the highest expense.

I think management and labor have one very big thing in common. Both need their company and industry to succeed and be viable. Right now, instead of arguing about how to slice the pie, both sides are looking at an empty pie plate and trying to figure out how to bake more pie. I don't think it's at all helpful to point fingers, and I don't see that management has been doing that. Management makes the obvious point that "we are broke and have to cut expenses" and this is characterized as "you are overcompensated and it's all your fault".

SWA has low costs. They have had low costs. They don't have billions of dollars in future pension obligations. There are many reasons why their cockpit costs are lower than other airlines that don't strictly go to pay rates. It's not the only reason for their success, but it's fair to say that if they did have the seat mile costs of a legacy carrier they would have exited the scene years ago instead of being the most profitable airline in history. So costs matter.

Agree that cutting costs is not the only way to prosperity. But the way to profitability is going to be very painful. That's why the head of ALPA has been campaigning for the government to stand aside and let consolidation take place. He knows it means more pilots on the street, but there is no other alternative to getting this industry back on track. It's over-hubbed and as long as it is profits and stability are going to be hard to come by.
 
I think we all understand that airlines are not making money right now, but who made those financial decisions? It wasn't the pilots. The people that have put the airlines in the crapper is the guys at the top calling the shots. It's obvious that there are ways to make money in this industry, you only have to look at Southwest. People can bark all they want about how they have a different cost structure, but there is a way make money and the guys that run Southwest were smart enough make themselve a business model that is lean. The rest of the legacy carriers did not follow the route, and now we're in a really bad situation for a lot of people.

But the fact of the matter remains that it was not the pilots the put the airlines into the red. It was the folks at the top that had bad business plans, but are still taking down loads of cash themselves even though their business model has failed. At most jobs, you get fired for stuff like that.

Furthermore, I don't see why the pilots have to pay up for someone elses mistakes. I thought you were into personal responsibility? As far as I can see, there is none in this industry. There is only spend spend spend, oops! Can't pay the bills. Lay people off to cut costs, but keep your salary if you're on the board. That's BS, espically when the peole that are taking the cuts are the people that had no say in these bad business decisions. And you can't say that the pilots have a role because they are paid so much. They leveraged for what they could get, and managment agreed to it. If managment couldn't pay the bills, then you tell them what you tell your kids: "Sorry Billy, but we don't have the money for a new BMW M5. I know we'd all like one, but it's not possible right now." Again, responsility. I personally see none in this industry, only people passing the buck and the grunts getting nailed to the wall for other people's mistakes.
 
I understand what you are saying. I've written before that I thought all of the industry's problems were forseeable, but I don't know what could have been done about it.

If, say in the mid 90s an airline had set out to get ready for this it would have meant being relentless on costs (including labor) and cleaning up the balance sheet to the exclusion of expanding during booming times. I'd say that no management would survive that and that labor would have crucifed them as evil incarnate. It's not even a guess, we lived it. So to an extent everyone in the industry kind of agreed to put blinders on and go forward together.

You said: [ QUOTE ]
People can bark all they want about how they have a different cost structure, but there is a way make money and the guys that run Southwest were smart enough make themselve a business model that is lean. The rest of the legacy carriers did not follow the route, and now we're in a really bad situation for a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worked at an airline where management tried to do just what you are saying. It was not well received. I talked to one of the Senior VPs during those days. He told me what they tried to tell us in memoes. "We know it's ugly out there. But if we don't do this, this airline won't survive what's coming." I can't even describe the derision and vitriol that was directed at these people. Their spot-on predictions were called stupid and excuses to attack labor. Since you just made that same point that they tried to make, I hope you'll at least acknowledge the tough position that managers were in if they were "smart enough (to even try) to make themselves a business model that is lean."

In this industry, apparently, you get fired for making the tough calls.

And I agree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I don't see why the pilots have to pay up for someone elses mistakes. I thought you were into personal responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have any kind of plan that insulates pilots from being effected by a bankrupt industry I'd like to hear it. Having had friends who lost everything in bankrupt, shutdown carriers, a strategy that makes money suddenly appear to set it all right would be welcome.

With this industry having careened into insolvency I just think the solutions lie in looking forward instead of trying to fight old battles or laying blame on people that long ago exited the scene. Solving real problems will get this industry on track.
 
Can't say I've got much of a solution. I'm honestly of the opinion that you don't make big money unless you're willing to make bold moves and accept the consequences of those actions. They can pay off big or you can get left on your butt. It seems like the airlines have been trying to do that, but no one has seen a pay off yet. It seems to me like if you want to make any money in this business, you do it slowly and you do it VERY conservativly. That's what Southwest has done, and they're in a pretty good position over the long run and I believe they will continue to be in a good position.

If I did have a solution, though, it would be to fire everyone in management. Get rid of them all and ask questions later. The guys that are up there right now don't have good track records with this business and they obviously can't handle it. I know if I do a piss poor job where I work, I get fired. That's pretty simple. What I think that would really do, though, is get the pilots behind the guys at the top. If someone were to say "Listen, we know you're hurting. The guys that put you in this position are hurting even more now. They lost this company millions of dollars so they lost their jobs and their serverance packages. We've got a new team of people with new ideas on how to save all of our jobs and we need your help."

That, I feel, would go a long way to getting people to come along on what's happening in the industry right now. You can either fire management, or you can fire the pilots. It's probably easier to fire management, and as I said they suck at their jobs anyways.

Furthermore, and I'm not really into this industry yet so this might be a little off base, but I'll bet it's possible to pull a lot more pilots along by hanging a better QOL in front of them. Tell them that they're going to take a pay cut but they schedule won't suck as much anymore, the company will write new rules that won't put pilots in positions where they might get themselves killed as often and write in profit sharing with the pilots for when the good times return.

What's that sound like? Oh yeah, Southwest...
 
"First of all the airline industry has been a workers dream for many decades."

I guess it depends on your perspective and point of view, but I've been in this industry for two decades and wouldn't call any of it a workers dream (not that I'm complaining). Now, I know your career was a Delta, and I'm just a freight dawg, but that's the way I see it. Things at Delta must have really been good all those years for you to say that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I see much work must be done to educate young pilots this is a career, not a hobby for some people. Yes, we all love to fly airplanes. Me as much as the next person. But $20K, and even $70K, doesn't cut it in the year 2005. It won't cut it in 2010. And it sure won't cut it in 2030 and later. This is a CAREER. Pilots have families to support just as much as the next person.

banghead.gif
banghead.gif
banghead.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

...says the guy who took a 22K a year job when it was offered.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought lots of progress was being made until I've seen some of the posts in this thread. "I'd love to fly a jet for $70K!" "I'd flying a Boeing for anything, $70K is reasonable!" "It's ok to make $20K a year, gotta start somewhere!"

I see much work must be done to educate young pilots this is a career, not a hobby for some people. Yes, we all love to fly airplanes. Me as much as the next person. But $20K, and even $70K, doesn't cut it in the year 2005. It won't cut it in 2010. And it sure won't cut it in 2030 and later. This is a CAREER. Pilots have families to support just as much as the next person.

banghead.gif
banghead.gif
banghead.gif


[/ QUOTE ]FlyChicaga, this is not meant as a flame. But, have you ever refused a FO position because it wasn't paying more than $70K? I gotta agree with Kell and Lloyd, yes pilots deserve better pay, but to me as a lowly commercial student $70K for a regional FO job considering the state of the industry right now doesn't sound too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. $70K as a regional FO isn't bad at all, but then again it doesn't exist. And I'm not even saying it should exist. I think we are all getting caught up on $70k this, $20k that. The problem is low time pilots taking jobs that are undercutting the industry.

IMO, a fair starting regional salary should be ~$30k, and captains topping out in the low $100k range. On the other hand, major/legacy starting salary ~$50k and topping out in the low to mid ~$200k range. But then again, this is my opinion.

Those demanding airline capts be paid $300-400k/yr better change professions if this is what you expect, and those willing to fly the heavies for $70k/yr better change professions for the better of the industry :-)

Fly safe guys.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...says the guy who took a 22K a year job when it was offered.

[/ QUOTE ]

...says the guy who took regional concessions.

Did you not take a job at Air Wisconsin for less than $22K a year? I do see their hourly rate is $23 for all equipment for FOs.

There is no way to affect change from the outside. The only way to affect change is from the inside. The problem is, when people get hired, they lose the drive to get better pay. They just play for No. 1 and will vote in concessions to keep from losing their job. What would you do? Vote in concessions, or fight it and get furloughed?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Did you not take a job at Air Wisconsin for less than $22K a year? I do see their hourly rate is $23 for all equipment for FOs.

There is no way to affect change from the outside. The only way to affect change is from the inside. The problem is, when people get hired, they lose the drive to get better pay. They just play for No. 1 and will vote in concessions to keep from losing their job. What would you do? Vote in concessions, or fight it and get furloughed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am, however I am not the one who is sitting here complaining about his pay.

I haven't lost my drive to get better pay. But I recognize that a regional job is what it is and it pays what it pays. I knew that. So did you. The difference between you and me is I want to earn to earn that money by increasing my skills and qualifications and move up to more valuable and higher paying jobs. You want to get paid more for doing the same job. It just doesn't work that way. And one need look no further than our industry to see proof of that. Ask yourself a question. In all the years of this industry, has anyone ever gotten a huge raise for doing the same job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top