How much $$ is enough?

[ShyFlyer]

With all the talk recently about pilot wages, one thing that I haven't heard is how much money is "good enough." I realize that "good enough" is highly subjective and most probably won't agree on a figure, but being I curious guy, I thought about this and came up with the figures listed below (based on aircraft size):

​

About these figures: These are the figures that someone hired off the street into the FO position on a particular aircraft should see(in my outsider looking in view). Pay for a freighter version would be based on the passenger version i.e. FO pay on a 767F would equal a pax 767 FO's pay. I realize that aircraft in the sub 19 seat catagory (i.e. C208) don't require an FO, so the figure listed would be for the Captain for those types only.
​

So what do you think about these numbers? Too high?( ) Too low? I realize that seeing these pay scales in the real world is a pipe dream, but I'm still interested in what professional pilots think about how much they should be compensated since I've never seen any amounts being talked about.

 

[derg]

Far too low my friend.

 

[surreal1221]

There is no good enough, ever.

Who in their right mind ever settles for the amount that they are currently being paid?

No person should ever be satisfied with the amount of income they make. While money is not the end all be all, but being happy enough to say "Oh no, please don't pay me more. . .I don't want anymore, thanks though" is just about insanity.

Moral of the story is to continue to strive for more, otherwise the reverse trend will enter and take away whatever you do have.

While we all may have our own personal monetary goals, an individual should not ruin the collective group's ability to increase pay by making an effort to convince everyone else that they themselves are just happy making the bare minimum and not striving for more.

But yes, far too low. It's never as easy as adding on another 5 grand.

 

[400A]

Problem #1, pay should not be based on size of aircraft flown. One life is as much responsibility as 500.

 

[Avalon781ML]

Although I agree with everything that has already been said making 40k a year versus 18k would make me feel super duper rich.... in fact it would take me a few minutes to decide whether to roll around in all that money on my air mattress in the el crashpado or to buy an actual bed. Anyway you slice it I wouldn't have to always worry about paying my bills on time or give up my days off to pick up extra flying for a few extra bucks. 12 days off a month can be whittled down to 7 real quick when money is involved.

 

[CRJDriver]

You can keep the current pay rates, but pay me by duty hour! I want to get paid when I'm doing my walkaround, calculating weight & balance, performance, doing paperwork. If I put in a 12 hour duty day, I should be paid for 12 hours, not just when the door is closed. I might consider going back to the regionals when this happens..... I'll just keep dreaming for now Oh yeah, and every overnight should be at least 15 hrs.

 

[FlybyLaw]

I agree with that. Pay for the duty time, not just the flight time. When your instructing you pay for total time that a student is with you not just the hobbs. Also, if pilots are paid by the duty hour, the company would be run a whole lot tighter.

 

[Hernandezcfi]

You can keep the current pay rates, but pay me by duty hour! I want to get paid when I'm doing my walkaround, calculating weight & balance, performance, doing paperwork. If I put in a 12 hour duty day, I should be paid for 12 hours, not just when the door is closed. I might consider going back to the regionals when this happens..... I'll just keep dreaming for now Oh yeah, and every overnight should be at least 15 hrs.

:yeahthat:A freakin men to that!

I'm ok with pay rates that reflect ones experience too. ...but it should never be so low that one can not even afford to rent an apartment without a roomate or support a small family!

 

[ShyFlyer]

While we all may have our own personal monetary goals, an individual should not ruin the collective group's ability to increase pay by making an effort to convince everyone else that they themselves are just happy making the bare minimum and not striving for more.

I wasn't trying to suggest as such (I've never turned down a pay raise ). I guess what I'm trying to determine is at what point does a 1st year wage cease being insulting. In retrospect, I should have phrased my OP better to make that clear.

16k per year to fly anything is very insulting. UAV operators get paid more than that.

Problem #1, pay should not be based on size of aircraft flown. One life is as much responsibility as 500.

Valid point. I used number of seats as a way to classify aircraft because that's the way I, as a private pilot, think of them. The bigger they are, the more complex they are. Plus, I'm only thinking part 121/135 ops.

So should pay be based on seniority rather than aircraft size? Something else?

 

[aloft]

Far too low my friend.

I agree it's too low for >100 seats, but it looks about right to me for <100 seats.

If you disagree, post some numbers you think are appropriate.

 

[400A]

I wasn't trying to suggest as such (I've never turned down a pay raise ). I guess what I'm trying to determine is at what point does a 1st year wage cease being insulting. In retrospect, I should have phrased my OP better to make that clear.

16k per year to fly anything is very insulting. UAV operators get paid more than that.


Valid point. I used number of seats as a way to classify aircraft because that's the way I, as a private pilot, think of them. The bigger they are, the more complex they are. Plus, I'm only thinking part 121/135 ops.

So should pay be based on seniority rather than aircraft size? Something else?

I think pay should be based off of some sort of "guild type" scale based on years in service. The devil is in the details of how one comes up with a years in service protocol.

 

[higney85]

trip/duty rigs and paid by max cert takeoff weight in the fleet. So a company operating a CRJ-200, -700, -900 would be paid at the -900 rate formula for all ops. Only -200's in the fleet= 200 weight rate. figure up a formula. I'm fatigued after my 4-day.. night night

 

[ready2fly]

Best quote I've ever heard was from a passenger whom I was speaking with prior to a flight (he brought the subject up, not me):

"I think it's a crime what you guys get paid. No airline pilot should be paid less than $50,000.00 to start....minimum."

I said: "Write a letter."

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Problem #1, pay should not be based on size of aircraft flown. One life is as much responsibility as 500.

I disagree somewhat. The logic that's used to arrive at seat-based pay scales is that a pilot who flies bigger equipment brings in more revenue for his company. A pilot that flies a BE1900 might bring in $3,500 in revenue per flight, but a pilot flying a B717 might bring in $15,000 in revenue per flight. Which deserves more money?

As to the original question, I'm honestly not too concerned about first year pay. I think airlines actually have a valid argument in paying someone significantly less during their first year, since they have no idea whether the individual will even make it past probation, plus they have to outlay $30,000+ to train a newhire in his first year. I think a union is usually wasting its time by negotiating first year pay. The important number is the 2nd year pay rate. In the old days (pre-9/11), a first year DAL pilot only made $28,000 per year, but he jumped to about $80,000 second year. By his fifth year, he was well into the six figure range. Pretty easy to swallow the first year pay when it works like that, and we're getting back there, slowly but surely.

In my opinion, a valid 50-seat RJ pay scale for FOs would look something like this:

1 - $30/hr
2 - $47/hr
3 - $51/hr
4 - $54/hr
5 - $57/hr
6 - $61/hr
7 - $65/hr
8 - $67/hr
9 - $70/hr
10 - $72/hr
11 - $75/hr
12 - $77/hr

To get the Captain rate (except for first year), divide by 0.67. We've obviously got a long way to go.

 

[Polar742]

We move the GDP of Lichtenstein on every flight. That kind of productivity should be reflected in the pay scale.

A plane that can move 220 lbs of stuff can't make as much money as one that moves 220,000 lbs of stuff.

That's how the companies make money, moving stuff. Our pay should reflect accordingly.

 

[Blip16]

I disagree somewhat. The logic that's used to arrive at seat-based pay scales is that a pilot who flies bigger equipment brings in more revenue for his company. A pilot that flies a BE1900 might bring in $3,500 in revenue per flight, but a pilot flying a B717 might bring in $15,000 in revenue per flight. Which deserves more money?

As to the original question, I'm honestly not too concerned about first year pay. I think airlines actually have a valid argument in paying someone significantly less during their first year, since they have no idea whether the individual will even make it past probation, plus they have to outlay $30,000+ to train a newhire in his first year. I think a union is usually wasting its time by negotiating first year pay. The important number is the 2nd year pay rate. In the old days (pre-9/11), a first year DAL pilot only made $28,000 per year, but he jumped to about $80,000 second year. By his fifth year, he was well into the six figure range. Pretty easy to swallow the first year pay when it works like that, and we're getting back there, slowly but surely.

In my opinion, a valid 50-seat RJ pay scale for FOs would look something like this:

1 - $30/hr
2 - $47/hr
3 - $51/hr
4 - $54/hr
5 - $57/hr
6 - $61/hr
7 - $65/hr
8 - $67/hr
9 - $70/hr
10 - $72/hr
11 - $75/hr
12 - $77/hr

To get the Captain rate (except for first year), divide by 0.67. We've obviously got a long way to go.

i could possibly apply to an airline if those were the rates!

 

[400A]

I disagree somewhat. The logic that's used to arrive at seat-based pay scales is that a pilot who flies bigger equipment brings in more revenue for his company. A pilot that flies a BE1900 might bring in $3,500 in revenue per flight, but a pilot flying a B717 might bring in $15,000 in revenue per flight. Which deserves more money?

All in the spirit of good debate.


I don't think it is a matter of whom deserves more money. The guy flying the 1900 vs the guy flying the A380 do the same thing, they move the airplane from point A to point B (albeit the distances between said points is variable :crazy

I try to look at this in context. I, the pilot, did very little in terms of generating the revenue the cargo, whatever that may be, creates. I simply fly the airplane. I didn't sell the seat, broker the volume, pick up the extra 50k#s out of Hahn, etc etc.

If we look at all the pilots at a single airline, they all do the same job, the folks flying larger equipment don't work any harder or any less hard. The argument could be, of course, that my skills at flying the larger aircraft successfully and safely is a marketing tool and leads to more revenue, but I think that is a bit of stretch when it comes to pay across the fleet for a single company.

A difference of opinion, I can see the other side of the argument, I just think mine has a bit more merit

 

[derg]

Well, gotta factor in productivity too.

Someone at the local Subway and at Ruth's Chris both produce meals. But one is certainly producing much more revenue than the other.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

All in the spirit of good debate.


I don't think it is a matter of whom deserves more money. The guy flying the 1900 vs the guy flying the A380 do the same thing, they move the airplane from point A to point B (albeit the distances between said points is variable :crazy

I try to look at this in context. I, the pilot, did very little in terms of generating the revenue the cargo, whatever that may be, creates. I simply fly the airplane. I didn't sell the seat, broker the volume, pick up the extra 50k#s out of Hahn, etc etc.

If we look at all the pilots at a single airline, they all do the same job, the folks flying larger equipment don't work any harder or any less hard. The argument could be, of course, that my skills at flying the larger aircraft successfully and safely is a marketing tool and leads to more revenue, but I think that is a bit of stretch when it comes to pay across the fleet for a single company.

A difference of opinion, I can see the other side of the argument, I just think mine has a bit more merit

I definitely see your argument, and as someone that has no desire to fly bigger, longer-haul equipment, it would certainly personally benefit me to have a pure longevity scale rather than an equipment scale, but I can't get past the revenue angle.

The guy flying the 1900 certainly has the same job and the same responsibility, but his company can't possibly afford to pay him $250/hr, because they just don't bring in the revenue with a fleet of 1900s in order to pay him that amount. The mainline carrier with the fleet of Boeings, on the other hand, is a very different situation. The 767 Captain brings in much more revenue for his company, so the ability to pay him that kind of rate is there. We have to think realistically about the company's revenue generation.

 

[400A]

Well, gotta factor in productivity too.

Someone at the local Subway and at Ruth's Chris both produce meals. But one is certainly producing much more revenue than the other.

That's not a fair analogy. RC is a much better product than Subway and can charge more per meal and get that revenue. A pilot flying a 767-200 is not producing a better product than a pilot flying a 737-300.