BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I was so sure the filter was going to catch it. Score one for adult words!
I was so sure the filter was going to catch it. Score one for adult words!
Except that eliminates the whipsaw effect which is what is keeping pay lower to begin with. Vicious circle.
If you are a Captain, are you still a Captain at your new airline? Or an FO but making the same Captain pay from your last place?
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
As I envisioned it, a pilot with 7 years of experience starts at year 7 (8?) on the payscale. Whether you start as a First Officer or Captain would depend on the individual company.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
This would actually probably not incentivize companies to hire the "best and most experienced" pilots to be honest. If this were the case, I'd fully suspect that companies would actively try to not hire guys with too much time, which might actually make aviation less safe. Just a thought.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's okay. They'd never agree to it in the first place.
pete2800
'Member?
The root of the issue of the lack of ability for lateral movement is generated by our extended pay scales. Going from $118 to $29 per hour just isn't a realistic option for pretty much anybody. If the company begins making decisions that are detrimental to a pilot's life, generally the only real option is to ride it out and hope it doesn't ruin your life.
Compress pay scales, and people can move between jobs with significantly less loss. When people can move between jobs, management has to pay for training cycles and deal with ungodly attrition numbers. When management has to pay for training cycles and catastrophic attrition, they have to actually pay attention to how their decisions are effecting their employees.
I understand the idea that at a major airline, people will spend far more time at the top of the pay scale than at any other spot, which is why it's important. That doesn't even remotely apply to 90% of pilots at regionals. For these airlines, it would behoove us to negotiate flat dollar-amount pay increases rather than percentages, and begin negotiating away the bottom years of the pay scale. If you have to give up a year at the top for 2 years at the bottom, so be it. I can tell you that I'd rather make 80k and have the opportunity to go to a new company and make 55k, rather than make 100k and be looking at 25k if I change jobs.
Compress pay scales, and people can move between jobs with significantly less loss. When people can move between jobs, management has to pay for training cycles and deal with ungodly attrition numbers. When management has to pay for training cycles and catastrophic attrition, they have to actually pay attention to how their decisions are effecting their employees.
I understand the idea that at a major airline, people will spend far more time at the top of the pay scale than at any other spot, which is why it's important. That doesn't even remotely apply to 90% of pilots at regionals. For these airlines, it would behoove us to negotiate flat dollar-amount pay increases rather than percentages, and begin negotiating away the bottom years of the pay scale. If you have to give up a year at the top for 2 years at the bottom, so be it. I can tell you that I'd rather make 80k and have the opportunity to go to a new company and make 55k, rather than make 100k and be looking at 25k if I change jobs.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Lol, well, this is likely true.
With a lot of this stuff, I don't think a lot of people really think about the larger ramifications of platforms like this. You cannot just think about what would be good for us but also what effect it will have on the bigger picture. Unfortunately, this is by and large impossible to do in any way that is good for predictions; everything is too interconnected and the signal to noise ratio is too low. My theory is that wages will only rise at the rate that the regionals lose money due to staffing issues, but I suspect that even that is likely somewhat of a copout and certainly doesn't help anyone make any decisions about what to do with themselves.
@Flying Saluki My thought on this sort of thing is that if you want to be able to have transferable experience (and thus somewhat transferable pay), then 121 is likely not the best part of the industry for you. In 135 my experience is largely transferable between companies and I can get whatever wage someone is willing to pay me, but that doesn't mean it will go up over time or that the job will be better. I have a great job, best I've ever had in aviation, but if it's gone tomorrow I will likely take a pretty decent pay cut if I didn't go back to Alaska, and if I did, I'd likely take a big hit to my quality of life, so nothing is really secure. The ultimate version of this is the guy who is strictly a contract pilot. Those guys can do really really well for themselves, they are the essence of "transferable experience," but there's zero stability in it and they basically are at the mercy of forces entirely outside their control. If you want to have a modicum of financial stability then you need a side hustle - and one that is likely outside of aviation so that it is immune to (or at least insulated from) aviation's ups and downs. Todd found real estate, a few friends of mine have as well. I know one guy who remodels houses and another guy who's a handy man. Personally, I'm still looking for what I can enjoy to do for money as much as airplanes, but there's something out there. Go look for yours, find it, and make a ton of money, then it doesn't matter (well, to you anyway) what you make at your job flying airplanes.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
I think people are blinded by the dream of making $200k one day, and don't really think about all the interim years. "Oh, it'll be worth it, if I take this job now for next to nothing so that I can have the experience I need to make more later." I'm no better, I've done it more than I'd care to admit, but the truth is, you're not mortgaging your present for your future, you're mortgaging your present for the chance to have the future you want. Ultimately, that's a gamble that may not ever pay off. For those who win the lottery, these sacrifices are worth it, but somebody should do the math, how many actually make it out of FFD purgatory and into a Legacy carrier compared to how many would like to? At a certain point, living the lifestyle one could theoretically get may not be worth the amount of BS that it takes to attain it - especially when there are other avenues out there that can provide comparable quality of life and a good enough paycheck to be able to support a family. Just my thoughts from another part of the industry.
The only real solution to happiness is to simply not work in aviation, at least full time. This job is best worked on a part time, hobbyist basis.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong, but I don't know of many union shops where someone with experience can come to a company and hurdle over less experienced workers who have more time/seniority at the company (outside of a merger, of course). Can't see a layed off GM union worker jumping over to Ford at the same pay scale. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
In addition, doing so would require those workers invested in a company to sacrifice negotiating capital during contract talks for the benefit of someone at a different company under a different contract. Personally, if my MEC gave up a raise for the FO's who have been sitting next to me for years in order to help out someone from a different company we would have "words" behind the woodshed. I don't care how long you have been at GoJet, come here and you start at the bottom.
In addition, doing so would require those workers invested in a company to sacrifice negotiating capital during contract talks for the benefit of someone at a different company under a different contract. Personally, if my MEC gave up a raise for the FO's who have been sitting next to me for years in order to help out someone from a different company we would have "words" behind the woodshed. I don't care how long you have been at GoJet, come here and you start at the bottom.
pete2800
'Member?
I've worked outside of aviation, and that's not a picnic either.
EVERY job is best worked on a part time, hobbyist basis. It's the full-time obligation part of jobs that makes them start to suck.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
I was under the impression that one of the things airline professionals lamented was the lack of portability of their careers. I know I do. Judging from the responses to this thread, that seems not to be the case. If that's how it is, then so be it. But I think it's a mistake to continue taking the short view. It was the short view that the allowed the RJ's nose under the tent.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Not quite the case. No one stands behind portability because there is no realistic push to make it an agenda currently. As far as the RJ camel, apparently scope choke is working. The mainline union agenda is to kill the RJ, and it seems to be trending in the right direction, regardless of the strife at the regionals. The 'short view' can have lasting implications.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Flying Saluki said:
I lament lots of things. I can't do anything about most of them, though. Such is life.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Again, I don't understand the "hate" about RJs. While some routes will be replaced with larger jets, many of the routes (along with the jobs), will disappear if RJs go away or become too costly. I remember one quip from a mainline pilot. "We don't want to operate the RJs. We just know it will be too costly to run them if we get control of them."
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Nonsense (at the desire to fly RJ's). If it pays correctly, people will fly them. Mainline management will only offer so much though, so they won't be brought on property and the union is fine with that at the risk of regional airlines being able to fulfill their commitment and having the staffing. Currently the gamble is paying off.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you individually but I have heard the sentiment expressed more than once over the years along with "No way will my squadron mates be willing to fly a small jet." Of course the DRJ is kind of a small jet... and many of those pilots piss and moan about the routes.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Oh I know. Pilots (especially military pilots in my experience) seem to attach a lot of value to the actual size of the plane. Hell when I was on my first IOE on the CRJ700, my Captain was telling me how lucky I was not to have to fly on the 'little RJ'. Luckily, the current scope decisions at the MEC level aren't taking this into consideration as much as their predecessors. RJ = replacement jet.