Commuter airlines' underpaid pilots are plain scary!
- Thread starter CRJDriver
- Start date
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Patrick
Well-Known Member
I think all of this has it's roots in de-regulation. When the air carriers decided to compete for market share in the same manner Walmart did (on price), this is the unfortunate outcome.
However, while it is true that all carriers currently are either barely out of the red, or still in it (neither of which obviously leaves much room for higher expenses), when expressed as a percentage of revenue, pilot salaries are a small factor in what it costs to operate an airline. Laugh all you want, but I really think the only way that regional crews are going to get paid more anytime soon is if passengers start tipping.
I wholeheartedly agree that someone needs to educate the flying public as to what it actually costs to fly an airplane from point A to point B. That, I think, is the only way for carriers to have any remotely PR friendly basis with which to raise the cost of tickets.
As to the comparison of pilots and shareholders making less or losing money, there is one significant difference: pilots (and any employee at just about any company that doesn't offer a form of profit sharing or stock options) go to work, perform a service, and expect to be compensated for their service, within a reasonable amount of time, at a fair wage. Shareholders or business owners knowingly accepted the risk to get into whatever industry they are in and attempt to turn a profit. If they happen to lose money in the process, that just so happens to be the downside of accepting the risk involved in being an investor or business owner.
However, while it is true that all carriers currently are either barely out of the red, or still in it (neither of which obviously leaves much room for higher expenses), when expressed as a percentage of revenue, pilot salaries are a small factor in what it costs to operate an airline. Laugh all you want, but I really think the only way that regional crews are going to get paid more anytime soon is if passengers start tipping.
I wholeheartedly agree that someone needs to educate the flying public as to what it actually costs to fly an airplane from point A to point B. That, I think, is the only way for carriers to have any remotely PR friendly basis with which to raise the cost of tickets.
As to the comparison of pilots and shareholders making less or losing money, there is one significant difference: pilots (and any employee at just about any company that doesn't offer a form of profit sharing or stock options) go to work, perform a service, and expect to be compensated for their service, within a reasonable amount of time, at a fair wage. Shareholders or business owners knowingly accepted the risk to get into whatever industry they are in and attempt to turn a profit. If they happen to lose money in the process, that just so happens to be the downside of accepting the risk involved in being an investor or business owner.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Regional airlines unlike the majors are not losing money. If applicants stop showing up at the door airlines will be forced to pay more. No budget will have to be cut. The increased pay will cut into profits would be my guess. If it completely cut into profits I guess management will have to RAISE ticket prices in order to cover the cost of the product they provide. This is market driven environment. Supply and demand. Capitalism at its finest
Completely agree. Requiring a 121 FO to have an ATP combined with user fees will create a Perfect Storm that would create an enormous pilot shortage. The US airlines would be forced to adopt an ab initio training program a la Europe.
De-regulation is not the problem. With regulation there would be no SWA, Airtran, Frontier etc. The free-market system works. Where the problem lies is when gov't steps in and catches an airline before it falls off the cliff. Its already a ULTRA competitive market with MANY competitors competing for revenue from the same group of customers who will pick the cheapest. Prices drop below the cost of providing the service and it just becomes a game of lets lose less money than our competitor.
This results in a game of essentially "the strongest survive" Under normal circumstances when the weaker airline finally fails, the other airline(s) gain market share and can raise prices. But not in the US. Some airlines are deemed "too big to fail" and will be brought back to life to continue loosing money, keeping prices low. No other country or region in the world has the amount of competition as there is the US. That's why the Asian carriers do so well.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I don't disagree that regionals aren't losing money. I was at one that made money hand-over-fist when majors were hoping for ATSB loans and filing bankruptcies.
If you think more money (percentage wise) will go into one budget without coming out of another, you might need to go sit in on some budget meetings or something.
I'm no finance major, but you can only have 100% of 100%.
And since you brought it up, the regionals have no direct control over raising their compensation levels with their major airline partners with a capacity purchase agreement (or whatever the preferred term is). Some might have had a little wiggle room, but interestingly enough there was an article in ATW about Skywest and how Delta is pinching down on the regionals (you might find that an interesting read).
The conclusion it brings us to is that the current regional compensation structure leads to what I've termed for years as "management by spreadsheet" where the number of ASMs are bought by the mainline, whether it be the contractual minimum or the max, and all the management has to do is input their costs. If the costs are lesser than the compensation, great they are heros. If not, they lose money. It's not like they can call the marketing department and say "Hey, Paul, raise all the tickets $1.00 to help us cover this budgetary gap!" If the expenses are greater than the compensation from the big daddy, they're done.
Like wise there can be a problem if the managment's current plan is based on a higher-than-minimum contractual compensation rate.
What's always cut first? CEO Pay, interior maintenance of the aircraft or cutting in house maintenance and outsourcing heavy checks?
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
PILOT SHORTAGE!!!! Oh teh noez!!!
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Then Kit Darby can emerge from the ashes of the shattered airline industry like some kind of glorious airline career phoenix....
Trip7
Well-Known Member
You're right that if pilot pay increases, the budgets have to be rearranged. Make no doubt about it, entry level pilot pay will have to increase with the next big wave coming. How they rearrange their budget will be up to the execs. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
As far as Delta cracking down on the regionals, that's because SKW was making a very nice profit off of Delta.
Regional airlines unlike the majors are not losing money. If applicants stop showing up at the door airlines will be forced to pay more. No budget will have to be cut. The increased pay will cut into profits would be my guess. If it completely cut into profits I guess management will have to RAISE ticket prices in order to cover the cost of the product they provide. This is market driven environment. Supply and demand. Capitalism at its finest
Completely agree. Requiring a 121 FO to have an ATP combined with user fees will create a Perfect Storm that would create an enormous pilot shortage. The US airlines would be forced to adopt an ab initio training program a la Europe.
De-regulation is not the problem. With regulation there would be no SWA, Airtran, Frontier etc. The free-market system works. Where the problem lies is when gov't steps in and catches an airline before it falls off the cliff. Its already a ULTRA competitive market with MANY competitors competing for revenue from the same group of customers who will pick the cheapest. Prices drop below the cost of providing the service and it just becomes a game of lets lose less money than our competitor.
This results in a game of essentially "the strongest survive" Under normal circumstances when the weaker airline finally fails, the other airline(s) gain market share and can raise prices. But not in the US. Some airlines are deemed "too big to fail" and will be brought back to life to continue loosing money, keeping prices low. No other country or region in the world has the amount of competition as there is the US. That's why the Asian carriers do so well.
Hmmm, kinda agree with your argument. . .all except for the government intervention part being the reason for the problem. The problem is the business aspect of companies operating in the negative. Don't understand why. Need further rationale for that. . .
tonyw
Well-Known Member
They don't care.
They think it's "outrageous" to have to pay $500 to fly from New York to LA.
According to Mapquest, it's 2,784 miles to drive from New York to LA. That's a round trip of 5,568 miles.
Let's say you drive a vehicle that gets 40 mpg. You'll need 139 gallons of gas to make the trip. At $2.50 a gallon, that means for gas alone you need to pay $348.
So, for $152 more, you get from New York to LA and back in nine hours instead of 84 hours.
And that $152 assumes you don't eat on the road, or stay in a hotel room. Add in two nights in a hotel each way and you're going to eat up that $152 real quick.
But let's toss that out for a minute.
If your time is worth more than $2.03 an hour, you come out ahead flying.
And yet, it's still "outrageous?"
Let's do it another way. The IRS lets you deduct $0.55 per mile for business driving, $0.24 for driving related to moving, and $0.14 for driving you do for charity.
Let's use the charity rate of $0.14.
That would mean the driving would be worth $780.
And yet, a $500 round trip fare is "outrageous."
As H.L. Mencken said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American population.
Cohen is the RAA's "Flava Flav".
The RAA wants status quo and for the whole drama around the accident to go away.
They do not have your best interests in mind whatsoever.
Patrick
Well-Known Member
Trip7; said:
Completely agree. The free market system WOULD work if Uncle Sam could keep his hands out of the cookie jar by bailing out the various companies once they go BK. In any other industry (well, almost, the US Auto industry seems to fall into a similar boat), when company A kills off company B, company A is free to pick up company B's share of the market. In the airline business, things are, arguably, too competitive since each and every time a competitor goes BK and gets bailed out, they then emerge as a STRONGER competitor, due to a likely reduction of financial liabilities as part of their re-organization.
The way I see it, it should either be a regulated system, or allow the free market to truly operate free market and let's stop by the bailouts.
questionforpilots
New Member
Does anyone have any stories to share with a mainstream media outlet on pilot fatigue, effects of low salaries in regional airlines, concerns with regional airline management? If so, please email me at dcchamplain@gmail.com.
Cheers.
Cheers.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Help me, please? What is a "mainstream media outlet" mean exactly? Just asking.
Goonie
Never say die
I agree with an ATP being required to be in a 121 cockpit. It would be a HUGE benefit to the industry, and that includes 135 and 91 ops.
BUT, that is not how most of Europe does it at all. Most new hire in the UK are 250 hour guys in the right seat of a Airbus or Boeing. The only two differences is the person in the right seat paid 25K for their type rating, and they have to have (I think) a frozen ATPL. You're talking about months of all day ground school and 13 test over stuff you have never heard of.
I would personally love for the US to adopt the JAA system for the ATP. It would weed out a lot of dumbasses that buy their way to an airline.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
At least you are upfront about what you want. I give you credit for that. I am a little dubious of the press, because many seem to slap a few quotes together, without really researching the issue in the rush to meet a deadline. Perhaps for some background reading you look under the Airline pilot section of the site... Your eyes will be opened.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
14 tests, 6 month minimum in residence course, heavy aptitude screening process and the type. But at least most european guys have had a base check in their type ride, so the first time they land, it ain't with a boat load of pax. You're correct, they have a commercial license with the written exams done, what is know as a "frozen atp"
aloft
New Member
Good first post buddy.
:sitaware:
