Commuter airlines' underpaid pilots are plain scary!

CRJDriver

Well-Known Member
Commuter airlines' underpaid pilots are plain scary: Connie Schultz
by Connie Schultz/Plain Dealer Columnist
Sunday May 24, 2009, 5:30 AM

Connie SchultzMost of us who fly want to rocket through the sky with well- rested pilots who are reeeeally happy with their jobs.

Maybe that's why I've never heard anyone complain that pilots make too much money. I always thought pilots' salaries were in the heart-surgeon range.

Fine with me.

To paraphrase the famously fretful flier Bob Newhart, when I'm on a plane, especially one of those little commuter thingees, I want to hear a lot of hi-ho, hi-ho coming from the cockpit. Pay them lots and lots of money, put them up at the Ritz and make me kiss their rings before I can board if it means I land with wheels down.

But judging from last week's congressional hearings on flight safety, it appears that some regional airlines are deep-discounting the value of their pilots, and our lives.

During the hearings, we heard that co-pilot Rebecca Shaw, who died with 49 others in February's fiery plane crash in Buffalo, earned less than $16,200 when she started with Colgan Airlines, a carrier that flies regionally for Continental Airlines.

A Colgan vice president said that Shaw once augmented her salary with a second job at a coffee shop.

No, no, no, another Colgan official later insisted. The 24-year-old Shaw made a whopping $23,900.

So, Shaw made a few thousand dollars more than someone working for minimum wage, but not as much as helpful clerks who sell paint -- who, to my knowledge, are never responsible for human lives.

I feel much better now.

The hearings were full of surprises. Shaw's paltry salary wasn't unusual for pilots of regional planes. Nor was her long commute unusual. Shaw and Capt. Marvin Renslow, who was 47 and made $67,000, had to travel hundreds of miles to work and probably were tired when they slid into the cockpit in New Jersey. Many pilots, we learned, violate company policy by actually napping in airport crew lounges.

Training is an issue, too. Renslow had failed flight checks in the aircraft five times before he passed. He also reportedly did not know the emergency procedures to prevent the aircraft from stalling, which is what happened during their doomed flight.

If you're a frequent flier, all this news might make you feel a little uneasy about your next commuter flight. If you were already a white-knuckled flier, you probably see a lot of road trips in your future.

As the Associated Press reported, it's hard to avoid regional airlines if you travel domestically:

"Once considered industry runts, [regional planes] are now joined at the hip with the big airlines. People who buy a ticket on a major airline often find themselves on a regional carrier for some part of a domestic trip. Passengers often don't even realize they're traveling on two airlines. Regional airlines account for half of all domestic departures and about one-quarter of passengers. They are the only scheduled service to about 440 communities."

Did you catch that last part? Regional jets are the only way to fly to nearly 440 communities.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a regional airline job is a "stepping-stone" for pilots who want to work for major carriers, where they make an average of $125,000 to fly the big jets.

What? We're practice?

Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, said all this talk about pilot pay is so beside the point.

"Compensation has nothing to do with safety," he told the AP.

He apparently said this with a straight face.

We all know that low pay attracts less-experienced workers, from table servers to schoolteachers.

What most of us didn't know was that this is a consideration for airline pilots, too.

In a lot of jobs, employees can learn from mistakes and nobody gets hurt.

If you're a pilot, though, your first mistake may be your last.

When that happens, everyone on board pays.

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/blog/index.ssf/2009/05/commuter_airlines_underpaid_pi.html
 
I must have missed the part in the article where it was discussed that higher fares should happen so pilots can make more.

Maybe that was implied. Because I know the public wouldn't mind paying another $5/ticket.....:crazy:
 
They could pay an extra $10 a ticket and that still wouldn't find its ways to regional pilot salaries. The mainline carrier would still just accept the lowest bid.
 
I must have missed the part in the article where it was discussed that higher fares should happen so pilots can make more.

Maybe that was implied. Because I know the public wouldn't mind paying another $5/ticket.....:crazy:

They could pay an extra $10 a ticket and that still wouldn't find its ways to regional pilot salaries. The mainline carrier would still just accept the lowest bid.

The public paying more money doesn't have a thing to do with it. The money is already there for pilots to be paid more. They aren't paid more because management doesn't have to pay them more. When the airlines start running out of short of applicants that's when the pay will go up. Its a supply & demand system.
 
Technically, he has a point.

We all know that low pay attracts less-experienced workers, from table servers to schoolteachers.

Realistically speaking - Compensation should have nothing to do with safety. . . at least it shouldn't if any of us truly call ourselves pilots. I fly for free, yet my standard for safety should not differ than say for a commercial or ATP pilot. The planes flown are not UAVs, so the pilot's life is on the line each time one steps into an aircraft.

Where I would think the RAA should focus is the comment made here:

"Once considered industry runts, [regional planes] are now joined at the hip with the big airlines. People who buy a ticket on a major airline often find themselves on a regional carrier for some part of a domestic trip. Passengers often don't even realize they're traveling on two airlines. Regional airlines account for half of all domestic departures and about one-quarter of passengers. They are the only scheduled service to about 440 communities."

My point? If, as the article says, you're "on par" with the big airlines, those in the cockpit should have the same training and most importantly, experience as those in the big airlines. For me, this means low timers who sit in regional left seaters should be more competitive than those low or medium time right seaters in the major airlines.

Pay then become a non-issue as it's experience that's the driving force for compensation as it should be.

Now. . .by doing so, the academies or other zero to RJ in eight months become OBE, but's is that a bad thing?

As I know the thread relates to underpaid pilots (which I'll agree wholeheartedly), the more systemic problem for me is the experience factor in the cockpit. Seems to me the public is not aware of the level of experience in the cockpit. When did the transition occur where there was such a pilot shortage, the hours dropped to the point where pilots with less than ATP hours could fly for regionals?
 
The public paying more money doesn't have a thing to do with it. The money is already there for pilots to be paid more. They aren't paid more because management doesn't have to pay them more. When the airlines start running out of short of applicants that's when the pay will go up. Its a supply & demand system.

So what part of the budget would you expect to be cut?

Marketing, Maintenance, Ground Ops, or Flight support (dispatch, scheduling blah blah blah), because we know no VPs will lose a job.

They still have a responsibility to make money for the share holders, if they are publicly held or privately held shares.
 
The public paying more money doesn't have a thing to do with it. The money is already there for pilots to be paid more. They aren't paid more because management doesn't have to pay them more. When the airlines start running out of short of applicants that's when the pay will go up. Its a supply & demand system.

I agree. Since there is no reliable way to influence demand the only solution is to find some way to influence supply. Requiring an ATP to serve as a first officer in any 121 operation or 135 operation in a turbofan/turbojet would help, I think.

I think user fees are probably going to happen, as well. It may increase the costs associated with getting ones ratings, unless you can do all of it from a class-G airport. Sallie Mae getting out of the pilot financing business may also help.
 
So what part of the budget would you expect to be cut?

Marketing, Maintenance, Ground Ops, or Flight support (dispatch, scheduling blah blah blah), because we know no VPs will lose a job.

They still have a responsibility to make money for the share holders, if they are publicly held or privately held shares.

Polar,

Your post here reminds me of a post username Skydog made a good few months ago, and seems to hold true. In order to get paid more, where is that money going to come from?:

If it makes you feel good to call me anti-pilot, anti-labor, pro-management, whatever, then you go right ahead. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me; I'm happily out of this profession.

But none of that is going to change the basic truth of what I've repeatedly said: that as long as airlines are not making money, then there will not be any sustantial improvements in working conditions for pilots. Why would you expect that there would be? Airlines can't pay the bills they have now. They're dipping into their cash reserves to make the payroll and the payables. Their revenues aren't sufficient to sustain their cost structures. Why do you think we had all the bankruptices? They were trying to lower costs and bring them in line with their revenues. They're still trying to. So where exactly do you think the money for better pilot wages and working conditions is going to come from?

Time and time again, I have seen posts from people saying how pilots have to "fight" to improve wages and working conditons. My question is: fight whom? Management? They're not the "enemy." They're just the middle man. They take the money from the customer, and pass a portion of it along to you in the form of wages. The rest of it goes to pay the other bills. But the problem is, for several years now, they have not taken in enough money to pay the other bills. They're having to pay the bills out of their savings accounts (cash reserves). Why do you think just about every airline declared bankruptcy.

If there is an "enemy" (I don't believe that there is, but whatever, we'll go with it), it is the customer. Your wages are a direct reflection of what an airline customer is able and willing to pay. It doesn't matter what YOU think you're worth. It matters what the guy who is buying your product thinks. You may think you're worth 500K a year, and set your prices accordingly, but if the average customer can't afford the fare that supports that kind of salary, you're not going to get it, at least not very long.

Maybe someday you will realize that nothing operates in a vaccuum. Your actions, the actions of management, the buying habits of the customer (in short, the economy), are all inextricably interwoven. Nothing can be changed without affecting everything around it. You want to demand 300K salaries? Fine, but don't be surprised when no one is buying tickets on your airline.

What kills me about all this is that, throughout all of this bankruptcy nonsense, every single airline employee continued collecting a paycheck for the work they have done. Not one airline employee has gone unpaid. Airline profits or losses not withstanding, you took home a paycheck every two weeks. Contrast that with the owners and investors; people who put their money into the airline in the hopes of making a return on their investment. These people have not seen a payday in years, and yet you think you are suffering? There's a huge difference taking a pay cut, and losing your money.

But all that is beside the point. My point in responding to the original poster is that this is the way the airlines are. You can argue with it all you want to, but nothing is going to change because you are "fighting" management. It's only gonna change when someone figures out how to make money flying airplanes. In the meantime, you, the original poster, and everyone reading this has a choice: deal with things as they are, or find another way to make a living.

By the way, I was in the airline business for 13 years. scheduler, dispatcher, instructor, supervisor and, for my final seven years, pilot.
 
I must have missed the part in the article where it was discussed that higher fares should happen so pilots can make more.

Maybe that was implied. Because I know the public wouldn't mind paying another $5/ticket.....:crazy:


Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Apparently, the customers still want their cake, and they want to eat it too. As for what Trip 7 ias saying, I'm not sure the money is there to pay more to the pilots. When the airlines are operating just barely out of the red, where wil it come from? Supply and demand I definatly agree with, but I don't see the extra money at this point. If they did increase the pay w/out increasing the fares, it would for sure put them back into the red, and into BK.
 
I must have missed the part in the article where it was discussed that higher fares should happen so pilots can make more.

Maybe that was implied. Because I know the public wouldn't mind paying another $5/ticket.....:crazy:
Exactly what I was thinking. Its the same NIMBY mentality that we see everywhere. Everyone wants lots of well funded prisons. But they don't want them in their town and they don't want their taxes to go up because of them. Everyone wants pilots who are well paid and well rested. But they don't want to have to pay more than $99 for a ticket. :banghead:
 
This same discussion was going on in the early 90's. Little was done, except to make the lives of pilots more difficult. And of course "commuter" planes started flying mainline routes. What happened to pay?
 
Back
Top