Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000 yr

[derg]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Question,
So what if a pilot said, hey, I'm tired as crap, I can't go on anymore today... repercussions?

We made a call light that during my freshman year here at Southern Fried after a reroute. Got a hotel, never heard another thing about it.

 

[mjg407]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

I have not heard of an occasion where there were repercussions from a Chief pilot for being unfit due to fatigue. Crew Scheduling will try to intimidate people into continuing (the trip) by saying you need to talk to the MOD, but there has not been disciplinary action (to my knowledge) for refusal due to fatigue. Now you've got me curious, I am going to ask the disciplinary chair if he is aware.

Interesting because the same is true here. The dispatch/buffons who never fly will try and get crews to "push it". You already know where I stand on that one.

 

[BobDDuck]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

I have not heard of an occasion where there were repercussions from a Chief pilot for being unfit due to fatigue. Crew Scheduling will try to intimidate people into continuing (the trip) by saying you need to talk to the MOD, but there has not been disciplinary action (to my knowledge) for refusal due to fatigue. Now you've got me curious, I am going to ask the disciplinary chair if he is aware.

Our local FO rep has been grounded for over 3 months now because he called in fatigued.

It most certainly happens.

 

[mjg407]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

We made a call light that during my freshman year here at Southern Fried after a reroute. Got a hotel, never heard another thing about it.

So I imagine as like this industry, pilots are type A, so the hardest thing is the pilot actually saying... hey I've had enough?

 

[bafanguy]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

No one's going to save us or do the hard work for us. It starts with the man in the mirror and it's going to hurt.

There you go. The most succinct and accurate statement of this whole issue...condensed to two sentences. Well said, Sir.

 

[pullup]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Just curious why pilots consistently throw the general public under the bus when talking about their lack of working conditions/pay? You really think people want to pay more for anything? Of course people are going to open priceline, et al and punch in their data and see what it spits out. I sure as hell do this. One date/time is $400 and one is $200. If I can make the $200 trip work I will definitely go for it. This is nothing new and goes on in every industry. How many of us have haggled with a car dealer? It is the companies fault and the unions fault for not setting a minimum limit on ticket prices. It is a cut-throat industry and until there is some common, unwritten rule to ticket prices then things won't change.

 

[mpenguin1]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Indeed. But Americans just want to open up two browser windows, one on SWA.com and the other on Orbitz and will choose the cheapest ticket. At least at SWA you're guaranteed an experienced crew and on Orbitz, who knows.

Not always, people fly on airlines to accumulate mileage points, I think cost is the #2 reason why people choose an airline.

 

[mpenguin1]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Just curious why pilots consistently throw the general public under the bus when talking about their lack of working conditions/pay? You really think people want to pay more for anything? Of course people are going to open priceline, et al and punch in their data and see what it spits out. I sure as hell do this. One date/time is $400 and one is $200. If I can make the $200 trip work I will definitely go for it. This is nothing new and goes on in every industry. How many of us have haggled with a car dealer? It is the companies fault and the unions fault for not setting a minimum limit on ticket prices. It is a cut-throat industry and until there is some common, unwritten rule to ticket prices then things won't change.

Who are you kidding!:rawk: You should see when it is time to go to Vegas and the pilots on this website start shopping for the cheapest ticket:nana2:

 

[MFT1Air]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

As I sit here as a layperson reading the posts on this thread, a couple of things come to mind. Firstly, what exactly is "experience" as it relates to these two pilots? From a layperson viewpoint, both appear to have "flying" experience. Bad weather "flying" experience? OK. . .no.

Appears to me from the video presentation, things happened fast. After the gear went down, activities went to hell fast. Is there more CRM that an experience right seater have done? Hmmm. . .

. . .so, the idea of low pay really isn't an issue as it relates to this thread unless someone has concluded a higher paid, more experienced right seater could have done something to overcome what the left seater did.

I guess my additional question is, based upon the limited indications presented, is someone also believing the crew should have foreseen this? NTSB is speaking negatively about the pilot's past checkride failures and the co-pilot's jumpseating to her home base. My specific thoughts relate to that final approach turn and what happened afterwards.

 

[ChrisH]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Who are you kidding!:rawk: You should see when it is time to go to Vegas and the pilots on this website start shopping for the cheapest ticket:nana2:

Or the cheapest hotel room. pullup is correct. This happens in any industry. People look for the best deal. People look for the best deal on a car, house, hotel rooms, airplane tickets, etc. If someone can spend $200 instead of $500 on a ticket, why wouldn't they? It isn't the general public's fault, it is the airline's fault for pricing the tickets as they do, and allowing the industry to become what it is.

If the general public shouldn't look for the best airfare deal, than next time anybody buys a car, pay full sticker price, pay full asking price for a home, buy the most expensive name brand products, and go with that hotel room at $300 per night, rather than the one that is $59 per night. It goes many ways.

One thing I notice about human beings, as a whole, is we are all huge hypocrites, and I'll include myself in that statement. It isn't fair to blame the general public for looking for a good deal on an airplane ticket, when everyone of us have looks for deals everyday.

 

[ChrisH]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

. . .so, the idea of low pay really isn't an issue as it relates to this thread unless someone has concluded a higher paid, more experienced right seater could have done something to overcome what the left seater did.

As a layperson, like yourself, I'll offer my opinion.

I don't think pay DIRECTLY played a part in the crash. One can argue, however, that if pay were higher, there would be more qualified pilots, who do have more experience in various weather, etc., vying for these jobs, at the regional airlines, potentially making them "safer". One can also say that if both pilots were making more money, especially the FO, they may not have been commuting, as they would be able to afford to live in the NYC area, rather that commute across country, to make ends meet, while living with parents.

 

[400A]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

As I sit here as a layperson reading the posts on this thread, a couple of things come to mind. Firstly, what exactly is "experience" as it relates to these two pilots? From a layperson viewpoint, both appear to have "flying" experience. Bad weather "flying" experience? OK. . .no.

Appears to me from the video presentation, things happened fast. After the gear went down, activities went to hell fast. Is there more CRM that an experience right seater have done? Hmmm. . .

. . .so, the idea of low pay really isn't an issue as it relates to this thread unless someone has concluded a higher paid, more experienced right seater could have done something to overcome what the left seater did.

It is a complicated, twisty road to answer those questions. My personal opinion is that the size of the their respective numbers in the total time column had very little, if anything, to do with this. The quality of those hours in the total time column, does.

Anyone can fly an airplane in normal conditions, even in some low weather. It is the little bits and pieces you pick up as an instructor, freight pilot, etc that give you those tools that you can use when things start going outside the training envelope.

As for pay. It is really this simple, if you could make 60 to 70 grand a year as an FO at Colgan on the Q400, you would have much higher time people and most likely people with much more varied backgrounds applying for and getting that job. That doesn't necessarily mean that a higher time or more varied background pilot would have not done the same thing, but I would be willing to bet the outcome would have been different.

That isn't a knock against the FO however. For all intents and purposes she met and probably exceeded the standards required of her by Colgan AND the FAA. What happened was she was lead down, and she allowed herself to be lead down, a path that she didn't have the experience or background to get herself out of in a timely manner. It seems to me she reverted back to her training and did what she had probably done over and over again in the sim(s). Max power, up come the flaps. Primacy at work.


note: I am not saying her raising of the flaps contributed or worsened the situation, just an observation as to what may have happened.

 

[JaceTheAce'sDad]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

I'm 57 years old and decided to get back into aviation a year ago and please don't flame me for that. I've been flight instructing so far. I've also been involved in the dental lab field since 1972 and would like to share my experiences there with all of you since they say something about the current economics of the aviation industry. As a dental lab technician I've always taken a fiscal back seat to the dentists that my job basically served. Of course it was the patients that were the final beneficiaries of my services, but it was the dentist that I worked directly with. What set me apart from my dentist clients in the fiscal sense was their professionalism and my lack thereof. Any of you can legally open up a dental lab tomorrow and solicit business in the dental community. In contrast, a dentist must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in schooling, pass a rigorous state mandated test and either work as an associate of an established dentist or go into business for themselves at a great cost and its attendant risk. What this accomplishes in the economic sense is to limit the number of dentists in the marketplace. As most of you know, this is a mandated by law lowering of the supply of dentists and that, in and of itself, raises the cost of buying the commodity of dental care as it does in any supply/demand/price market. Dentists have political lobbyists that ensure this supply limit stays in place.

Someone on this thread brought up the idea of changing the law (I imagine that would be Part 121) to require all flight crew members to possess an ATP certificate. To me, this would easily accomplish the goals of getting more experienced, well rested crew members into the cockpit and raising the price (wages) of those crew members. It would do so with a single, simple change in the law. As I ponder this, I realize that it is not without its negative results. Ticket prices would have to rise to pay for these more experienced pilots thus lessening demand by passengers for the service. Some airlines would be forced out of the market as a result. More pilots would be involved in the entry level jobs such as instructing, Part 135 operations, etc. for longer periods of time. There would be slower movement within the industry as new pilots gained the required 1500 hours altering the business strategy of the airlines to fill openings due to fluctuations in demand. However, this would allow the market to adjust to the new reality we face in aviation today without ineffective (in my view) solutions like wage controls that some pilots are advocating.

My son JacetheAce (whom I'm very proud of) would have been instructing for his first experience most likely, instead of flying for Piedmont right out of school. However, he would probably be making a lot more money once he landed the airline job and would have a lot less competition, as would we all, in finding said job. This would allow for a stronger pilot's union as well since there would be a lot less pilots out there clamoring for the right to fly for next to nothing in compensation. In short, there would be less of us. But those with the discipline to work the low end jobs at first would have the reward of making a decent living once through to the other side. Ask any medical doctor about residency. They work long, hard hours for low pay (like flight instructing) but have a reward at the end of the tunnel. Aviation has lost its reward for most of its pilots putting too many lives at risk. If the overworked, sleep deprived doctor screws up he only kills one person, but the pilot working under similar conditions can kill a lot more, including themselves as we know all too well.

I'm sorry this is so long. If you've read it all I thank you for your tenacity.
Tim

 

[killbilly]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

If the general public shouldn't look for the best airfare deal, than next time anybody buys a car, pay full sticker price, pay full asking price for a home, buy the most expensive name brand products, and go with that hotel room at $300 per night, rather than the one that is $59 per night. It goes many ways.

One thing I notice about human beings, as a whole, is we are all huge hypocrites, and I'll include myself in that statement. It isn't fair to blame the general public for looking for a good deal on an airplane ticket, when everyone of us have looks for deals everyday.

Your point is valid Chris, but I still think the onus is somewhat on the public.

If I have $69 in my pocket, it is wholly unreasonable for me to expect to be able to buy a car for that $69. Why? Because the cost to produce and sell that car far exceeds my purchasing power. Thus, I will not be able to buy the car.

Let's say I have $690 in my pocket. Won't be able to buy most cars, but there are some junkers out there which might even sort of run that I could buy, but I won't be able to insure it, it will probably, at best, strand me. At worst, kill me.

Airlines, however, will produce a product (a seat) which they sell for less than it costs them to produce. And that's just utterly ridiculous. If consumers (like myself) want a quality, safe, flying experience, then they damn well oughta pony up and pay for it. I routinely pay MORE to fly SWA because of fare flexibility and prior faith that I will receive adequate value for my travel dollar.

 

[Bumblebee]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Ask any medical doctor about residency. They work long, hard hours for low pay (like flight instructing) but have a reward at the end of the tunnel. Aviation has lost its reward for most of its pilots putting too many lives at risk. If the overworked, sleep deprived doctor screws up he only kills one person, but the pilot working under similar conditions can kill a lot more, including themselves as we know all too well.

I'm sorry this is so long. If you've read it all I thank you for your tenacity.
Tim

I used this same analogy.

 

[ChrisH]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

Your point is valid Chris, but I still think the onus is somewhat on the public.

If I have $69 in my pocket, it is wholly unreasonable for me to expect to be able to buy a car for that $69. Why? Because the cost to produce and sell that car far exceeds my purchasing power. Thus, I will not be able to buy the car.

Let's say I have $690 in my pocket. Won't be able to buy most cars, but there are some junkers out there which might even sort of run that I could buy, but I won't be able to insure it, it will probably, at best, strand me. At worst, kill me.

Airlines, however, will produce a product (a seat) which they sell for less than it costs them to produce. And that's just utterly ridiculous. If consumers (like myself) want a quality, safe, flying experience, then they damn well oughta pony up and pay for it. I routinely pay MORE to fly SWA because of fare flexibility and prior faith that I will receive adequate value for my travel dollar.

You are right, but the general public does not understand this. Maybe that will soon change. The general public does not know what the cost is for the airline to produce that product (the seat). They just know that when they sign on to Orbitz, they can get to where they want to go, for $150, round trip. They have become accustomed to the current pricing, and as far as they are concerned, that pricing is allowing the airline to make money, on that seat, from them, the same as that car dealership just made money off of the car they bought last week.

Because the general public has become assustomed to the current pricing of airline tickets, one can say that it would be hard for the airlines to begin raising prices. This could be said to be the fault of the general public, because they will not buy the higher priced tickets, and then said to be the public, "demanding cheap fares". While some blame can be places on the consumer, I still think ultimately it falls on the airlines, for allowing this to happen, in the first place.

I just think that as long as the airlines allow pricing to continue, as is, we can't blame the consumer, especially in the current economy, for looking for a good deal.

With that said, I think I remember once reading that giving pilots, even a pretty significant raise, wouldn't effect the price of fares, drastically, and in fact, wouldn't even effect the airlines overall costs, to in large degree. I don't think fares will need to go from $150 to $500, to give pilots a decent raise, and yet, still offer consumers a good deal on their travel.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

The saddest thing I ever did was to leave Piedmont Airlines back in 2006. I gave up on 121 flying. Once the newness wore off I realized what I had gotten myself into. I was always tired, especially on those days with a 0440 report time. I felt like I could never catch up on sleep when on a 3-4 day trip. The 5 day trips while on reserve were brutal and I felt exhausted at the end of them. There never seemed to be enough time to eat decent food, it was always grab some bad-for-you airport food when you can. Away from home for 2 weeks at a time while on reserve because it wasn't worth it to commute home on your 2 days off because you had to be back in base by 0600, so your 2nd day off was spent commuting back to work. So many sacrafices had to be made, and all of that on $24K a year. I understand paying your dues. I understand the schedule sucks until you get a line. I knew all of this going in.

But for $20-$30K a year? For me it wasn't worth it. If the pay was what I make as an air conditioning repair guy ($70K+ a year) then I would probably still be there. For now I'm home every night, holiday and weekend. I work 0800 to 1630. I have a pension which is unheard of in the airlines today. My employer payed for my uniforms and tools. I feel no stress in trying to deal with the weather, be on time, deal with line checks, or worry that if I bust a checkride I'm going to lose my job.

If the pay and conditions were better, the airlines would attract better pilots.

 

[killbilly]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

You are right, but the general public does not understand this. Maybe that will soon change. The general public does not know what the cost is for the airline to produce that product (the seat). They just know that when they sign on to Orbitz, they can get to where they want to go, for $150, round trip. They have become accustomed to the current pricing, and as far as they are concerned, that pricing is allowing the airline to make money, on that seat, from them, the same as that car dealership just made money off of the car they bought last week.

They don't need to. Orbitz isn't making those fares up - they're getting them from the airlines. If the airlines raise the fares $10-$20 per round trip ticket, then that cost will be passed along to the consumer. They can always take Greyhound if they want. Me, I'll happily pay. So will every other business traveler I know.

 

[Bumblebee]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

They don't need to. Orbitz isn't making those fares up - they're getting them from the airlines. If the airlines raise the fares $10-$20 per round trip ticket, then that cost will be passed along to the consumer. They can always take Greyhound if they want. Me, I'll happily pay. So will every other business traveler I know.

and the airlines will keep it and it will go to the shareholders . . .

 

[dcramer16]

Re: Co-pilot of doomed Buffalo Flight 3407, was paid $16,000

It isn't the general public's fault, it is the airline's fault for pricing the tickets as they do, and allowing the industry to become what it is.

Ok, I know nothing about what I'm talking about, but this gave me an idea. What if there was some sort of government action out there to make the airlines price things about the same. So it wouldn't matter if you flew Continental, Colgan, Delta, Southwest or US, a ticket from New York to Orlando would cost $350, a ticket from San Diego to Chicago cost $500, etc...What would happen if expedia, travelocity and the like were no more. Or is that a Commie thought, making the airlines charge about the same price.

Edit: P.S. I remember 20 years ago it was darn expensive to fly anywhere, and there were still plenty of passengers. Going on an airplane was a big deal, people even used to dress up for it. My point is, if people could afford to pay a "reasonable" price for a ticket back then, why shouldn't they have to now?