HR 5900 Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010

Wow!
My Cornell B.S. cost me $150/year after scholarships.
My U Penn M.S. cost me zero/year after scholarships.
My Drexel MBA cost me zero because my employer paid for it.

Lucky! My state school education cost me right around 8,000$ per year all up. I'll be paying on the loans for a while, it was worth it though.




Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
 
All of you tax payers continue to fund my continuing educations. Thanks.

I like my right seat SIC 121 current job a shiite-ton more than I did my higher-paying left seat multi-turbine PIC 135 job.
But what do I know.
 
The 50-seaters weren't going away anyway. Management had long-term contracts on those airplanes that they couldn't get out of. They had big heavy checks coming due on some of the older planes, and they wanted a way out of paying that, while at the same time getting rid of the airplanes that weren't profitable anymore and replacing them with airplanes that are profitable. The way out was to get Bombardier to agree to a deal to trade the old 50-seaters for a smaller number of 70-seaters. The total number of airframes would go down, but management would be happy with the bigger airplane and the lower unit costs, not to mention avoiding the heavy maintenance. If it hadn't been for the TA, they couldn't have made that deal with Bombardier, and those airplanes were not going out the door. Don't believe everything you hear a crew lounge wannabe airline manager tell you.

Wouldn't this still be scope erosion in the long term? Once its gone you can't get it back. Isn't that what all you peeps have been saying?
 
All of you tax payers continue to fund my continuing educations. Thanks.

I like my right seat SIC 121 current job a shiite-ton more than I did my higher-paying left seat multi-turbine PIC 135 job.
But what do I know.
Oh...I am aware - you done goooooooooooddddd.
 
1500 hours for a pilot to be even considered is in my opinon a recipe for a shortage. From what I've been told from certain high-up people in a 121 flight department, its gonna look ugly soon. What is everyone's take on the new rule?

The FAA has given future/current airline pilots (as a whole) a great opportunity to take back the industry. They're
sort of handing us a written check, and hoping we cash in on it!

  • Increasing qualification to become ATP/121-Regional Pilot = Reduced supply of qualified pilots entering the industry = Increased demand for qualified pilots entering the industry = Increased negotiating power for better wages and QOL for pilots (increase pressure on airline/121 operators to raise pay / QOL to attract the best qualified and experienced pilot).
  • I think this works in the favor of professional pilots. Think of it like this: Airlines will hire cheap labor if able (taking advantage of 12 happy cheap ducklings who would do anything to just fly), even if it mean 24 seasoned ducks that costs more are taken out. The FAA is now saying you can't be a duckling flying for an airline!
 
Lucky! My state school education cost me right around 8,000$ per year all up. I'll be paying on the loans for a while, it was worth it though.

Lucky you. My "state" university tuition+student fees is up to $4,791 per QUARTER, or $14,373 per year. For the year I lived on campus, room & board was another $11,000 on top of that (with a roommate). Anyway, fingers crossed it pays off.

What were we talking about? Pilot shortage! Rabble rabble rabble!
 
Wouldn't this still be scope erosion in the long term?

No. Scope is another word for job protection. As long as jobs aren't lost, then there isn't scope erosion. In this case, I would say it was actually scope accretion, because outsourced airframes were reduced while mainline airframes will be increased. Remember, pilot jobs don't come from the number of seats, they come from the number of block hours flown and the airframes. The seat limit is an artificial restriction that has always been used to merely make outsourcing less desirable to management. But hard caps on airframes themselves does a better job as long as it reduces the overall number of outsourced airframes.
 
Lucky you. My "state" university tuition+student fees is up to $4,791 per QUARTER, or $14,373 per year. For the year I lived on campus, room & board was another $11,000 on top of that (with a roommate). Anyway, fingers crossed it pays off.

What were we talking about? Pilot shortage! Rabble rabble rabble!


I feel for you, I graduated in 2006 and I think people there today are in the same boat you are. Wages haven't gone up so I don't know how they do it. Let alone pay for flying outside of that.


Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
 
Lucky! My state school education cost me right around 8,000$ per year all up. I'll be paying on the loans for a while, it was worth it though.
Lucky you. My "state" university tuition+student fees is up to $4,791 per QUARTER, or $14,373 per year. For the year I lived on campus, room & board was another $11,000 on top of that (with a roommate). Anyway, fingers crossed it pays off.
That's the "University of California, with limited support from the People of the State of California" in the second post, with the truly State university at the top, thank you. ;)

(Made in the CSU here; this distinction is important politically, and the CSU/UC are designed to serve different markets - or at least, that was the master plan for public education in California.)
What were we talking about? Pilot shortage! Rabble rabble rabble!
Repeat after me: There will be no shortage.
 
Wow, way to twist things around. I'm not sure how old you are but I've been flying (not professionally) for quite possibly as long as you've been alive. There is not much I haven't heard already so you're not telling me anything I don't know. I never said that making a little over 30k is what a pro pilot deserves but this is not the food stamp 18k wage everyone talks about and you won't be living in your parent's basement. Do you even know what legacy starts their first year FO's at? Try somewhere in the 30s. It's pretty bad but that is how management compensates for taking the risk for spending $35k or more training you. I'm not saying I agree with it but it is what it is.
Secondly, I said that the Jet I fly is easy, easy as in easier than a lot of other jets and turbo props because of the level of automation on board. You should take a look at what a SW pilot has to do just to start their 737 engine but I don't feel sorry for them since they are paid well.
Lastly, pilots have been exploited for their love of the job forever, even before deregulation this has been going on. I've tried myself to combat this problem myself by staying out of the regionals for over a decade but sadly for every guy like me taking a stand for the pilot group trying to acheive a higher sense of worth, there were 10 kids behind me trying to take the job I didn't so they could chase a dream that for most did not become reality.

I highly doubt that as if that were the case you'd be close to or beyond retirement age.

Since when is what another company starts their employees at justification for your salary? So a legacy starts their FO's in the 30's, although since you used SW lets go with them, they start their FO's at over 50k and year two pay is over 90. Thats 12 bid periods, 79 credit hours (monthly guarantee) and no per diem factored in as per diem is not salary.

I don't get the "it's how management compensates fr taking the risk"...they take a risk every 6 months or any time you upgrade. Why doesn't your salary drop then also?

So your jet is "easy" to fly. but a SW 737 is hard. So when all of SW is flying say the 738, which I assume will be much easier vs the old steam gauged 73, should their pay go down because it is easier? What about companies flying the 787 or the A380, should their pay fall since those jets are supposedly highly automated?

I am not saying you are wrong for taking a job. We all need to eat and provide for our families. I took issue with you saying..."I love the job. I'll make over $30k on first year pay, have half of the month off, fly an automated, easy to fly jet with overnights in the largest cities in the US. Most of the people hating life are the ones trying to commute on reserve." as it comes off as though you are living the dream and are happy to be making 30k a year to fly a machine. Yeah, flying is cool, but it's still a job. And 30k for a professional job is sad. It may work for you, but I know for many people that is a poverty wage. Take the job, act professionally but do not promote it as though the issue is people trying to commute in that makes it difficult, the issue is the race to the bottom.

You are not to blame, but the attitude of "this is great, I get to fly a jet and they even pay me for it" is. It wont ever go anywhere and if you want a shot at the majors, for many people it means holding your nose and diving into the stink. It doesn't mean you should be happy with it or should ever stop fighting to improve the reality.
 
I work at a regional. My life sucks.

Just ask the internet.

A whole bunch of people on the internet who don't have jobs as professional pilots think all regionals suck worse than anything that could possibly suck, so they must be right.

I know, I am one of them! The level of suck is HUGE! LISTEN TO ME!

Just to clarify, I am an equal opportunity hater of low wages. In my own profession, many firms large and small will offer pathetic starting salaries to recent college graduates, in some cases well below poverty level wages, in a trade for "experience". I don't find it acceptable here either and I try and fight the good fight. The only real benefit, is that unlike airlines, I can take my experience and use it to gain a higher salary.
 
I highly doubt that as if that were the case you'd be close to or beyond retirement age.

Since when is what another company starts their employees at justification for your salary? So a legacy starts their FO's in the 30's, although since you used SW lets go with them, they start their FO's at over 50k and year two pay is over 90. Thats 12 bid periods, 79 credit hours (monthly guarantee) and no per diem factored in as per diem is not salary.

I don't get the "it's how management compensates fr taking the risk"...they take a risk every 6 months or any time you upgrade. Why doesn't your salary drop then also?

So your jet is "easy" to fly. but a SW 737 is hard. So when all of SW is flying say the 738, which I assume will be much easier vs the old steam gauged 73, should their pay go down because it is easier? What about companies flying the 787 or the A380, should their pay fall since those jets are supposedly highly automated?

I am not saying you are wrong for taking a job. We all need to eat and provide for our families. I took issue with you saying..."I love the job. I'll make over $30k on first year pay, have half of the month off, fly an automated, easy to fly jet with overnights in the largest cities in the US. Most of the people hating life are the ones trying to commute on reserve." as it comes off as though you are living the dream and are happy to be making 30k a year to fly a machine. Yeah, flying is cool, but it's still a job. And 30k for a professional job is sad. It may work for you, but I know for many people that is a poverty wage. Take the job, act professionally but do not promote it as though the issue is people trying to commute in that makes it difficult, the issue is the race to the bottom.

You are not to blame, but the attitude of "this is great, I get to fly a jet and they even pay me for it" is. It wont ever go anywhere and if you want a shot at the majors, for many people it means holding your nose and diving into the stink. It doesn't mean you should be happy with it or should ever stop fighting to improve the reality.

You are really over analyzing everything that I'm saying. My comment that you keep quoting contained commas and different statements not related to one another. For example, the ease of the equipment has nothing to do with with my comment about pay and the same goes for the location of overnights. Why didn't you also jump to a conclusion that because all of my overnights are in large cities that it is a good justification for low pay? I was just commenting that I don't qualify for food stamps and I enjoy my job. I never said that I feel that we are adequately paid nor did I relate my pay to ease of job. In fact, generally speaking its just the opposite and the easier your workload the more you are paid in this industry. You should take a step back and reread my post in this thread. You are reading into everything and saying things I never said.
Do you really not understand the risk management takes on a new hire? Do you think the company invest the same amount of money and encounters the same level of risk on a new hire vs. a PC or an upgrade? Like I said to you before, I was just trying to explain the way it is. I didn't come up with this idea nor do I promote it but I do understand the logic. I will play devil's advocate and remind you that most good jobs out of college that start you off at $50k don't require the company to also spend $35k or more for additional training with no guarantee that you will even get through IOE.
Also, where in the world did you get to a conclusion that low legacy pay was justification for my salary? The whole reason I brought that up was to let you know that mainline legacy along with the regionals pay a low first year pay. It was an effort to explain how management does things, not a justification. Why not complain about American, United, US Airways starting their pay at 30k-40k? Unless you feel that is adequate? It is what it is. The only reason I ever brought up over 30k in a positive manner was to be informative because you'd be surprised how many CFI's think I make 20k. I wasn't saying the money was awesome or adequate but I didn't think I had to break it down to that level of explanation to prevent future misinterpretations.
Having a positive, upbeat attitude is a good way to live life in my opinion. I could spend all day complaining about any job but I choose not too. This job is not perfect but I can appreciate the positives of this job, like having over half of the month off and never having to take the job home with me on days off or vacations. I don't complain about the job I took because I knew exactly what I was getting into. I didn't like the future of the job after somebody flew a plane or two into a building so I stayed out to avoid becoming disgruntled. I waited patiently and now things are changing so here I am, starting year two.
This job is on the right path with massive amounts of forced retirements, lack of new students and the new rest rules coming out forcing additional staffing. I got hired not because the company was upgrading but because they lost a handful of 0 tpic FOs to the majors. We are on the threshold of having this industry turn into a pilot's market instead of an employer's market. Contracts will improve. In the mean time try not to be a hater or mr. jump to conclusions.
 
You are really over analyzing everything that I'm saying. My comment that you keep quoting contained commas and different statements not related to one another.

Most likely, so I'll just stop. In my defense though, I was just using my new toy.

jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg
 
Lucky you. My "state" university tuition+student fees is up to $4,791 per QUARTER, or $14,373 per year. For the year I lived on campus, room & board was another $11,000 on top of that (with a roommate). Anyway, fingers crossed it pays off.

What were we talking about? Pilot shortage! Rabble rabble rabble!
Sweet monkey bananas.
My private school tuition 8 years ago cost less than that.
That is ridiculous.
 
No. Scope is another word for job protection. As long as jobs aren't lost, then there isn't scope erosion. In this case, I would say it was actually scope accretion, because outsourced airframes were reduced while mainline airframes will be increased. Remember, pilot jobs don't come from the number of seats, they come from the number of block hours flown and the airframes. The seat limit is an artificial restriction that has always been used to merely make outsourcing less desirable to management. But hard caps on airframes themselves does a better job as long as it reduces the overall number of outsourced airframes.
That is not entirely true. You are honestly telling us that if you reduce the number of airframes, all is good, even if those airframes are 737 size (or CRJ 1,000,000 or whatever the latest coming out of Brazil and Canada are)? I think your metric should be how many butts are in the seat vs. how many pilot are on property. But, what do I know, I'm just a corporate pilot?! If you outsource less airframes, but they hold more people, then you are a net loss, depending on numbers. Once the "scope", or loss of restrictions on larger airframes happens, then the cat is out of the bag, and in-house flying continues to erode. Not sure if most pilots would agree with your point, but I have had some wine, so maybe you're right. However, seeing the last ALPA thread, maybe you don't see eye to eye with most pilots anymore...
 
A whole bunch of people on the internet who don't have jobs as professional pilots think all regionals suck worse than anything that could possibly suck, so they must be right.

OMG life at a regional is the worst thing ever! NOTHING could be worse!!
 
That is not entirely true. You are honestly telling us that if you reduce the number of airframes, all is good, even if those airframes are 737 size (or CRJ 1,000,000 or whatever the latest coming out of Brazil and Canada are)? I think your metric should be how many butts are in the seat vs. how many pilot are on property. But, what do I know, I'm just a corporate pilot?! If you outsource less airframes, but they hold more people, then you are a net loss, depending on numbers. Once the "scope", or loss of restrictions on larger airframes happens, then the cat is out of the bag, and in-house flying continues to erode. Not sure if most pilots would agree with your point, but I have had some wine, so maybe you're right. However, seeing the last ALPA thread, maybe you don't see eye to eye with most pilots anymore...

What would be preferable; a scope clause that allows 50% of domestic flying to be done by a regional carrier, or a scope clause that allows 10% of available seat miles to be outsourced at any size aircraft?

Airline wants to outsource a few 777's to the lowest bidder? Great, but they'll eat up all their seat miles on 30 pilots worth of scope.
 
What would be preferable; a scope clause that allows 50% of domestic flying to be done by a regional carrier, or a scope clause that allows 10% of available seat miles to be outsourced at any size aircraft?

Airline wants to outsource a few 777's to the lowest bidder? Great, but they'll eat up all their seat miles on 30 pilots worth of scope.
I do not know the numbers honestly for the 10% ASM outsourcing, but I would THINK that what we have now, 50% of domestic flying would be worse. What are the numbers...how many ASM's are on regionals right now?

As far as the 777 scenario, slippery slope... next thing you know, they are in bankruptcy, and all of a sudden, those 30 pilots are now 300, etc. Tell me the slippery slope argument is bad, because that is EXACTLY what has happened. We started with <50 seats, then 50+, then 70, and what are we up to now? What is the largest outsourced flying right now (not including code shares and Alaska, Southernjets as mentioned by Dough)? 99 seats or so, right? How many DC-9, etc.,mainline pilot jobs did we lose over the last 15 years?

It's late, heading to bed...you airline guys figure it out in the next 8 hours, k, thks, bye!!
 
Back
Top