"Remember 3407" Airline Labor Reform Act

Kestrel452 said:
I just realized something... I know you guys are trying to get the message out, but won't it be too late if you don't go public with this by the time congress has their session on this issue?
Click to expand...

Congress will have a session, there will be lots of hot air, and nothing much will change.

When we get our bill on the floor, there will be voting, and things WILL change.

Exactly when has yet to be determined. As the 'tip of the spear' of this legislative revolution, I still gotta find time to do it all... and I do have a life, even if it is somewhat unglamorous these days.

Heehee... tip of the spear.. that's just another way to say "I'm a prick!"
 
I just had an idea that would help pilot pay, minimize furloughs and make a negligible dent in the flyers pocket. I figured these numbers using VERY conservative figures (a 50 passenger regional jet/tprop). The answer? Slashing airline's payscales by 25% across the board. BUT, federally mandated pilot fees on each ticket. Every dollar of this would go DIRECTLY into the pilots' pay, NOTHING going to the airline's pocket of course. Say you charge an extra $10-20 per ticket, a pilot would see ENORMOUS gains to his yearly income.

$20 pilot fee
50 pax
3 flights a day
4 work days a week
4 weeks in a month
12 months in a year

What do you get? $576,000!!!!! Split amongst the pilot and co-pilot, that is a $288,000 salary!

I know that these numbers may not be 100% correct, but i figured this using a tiny plane, so it can't be THAT far off. Even if you charge $10 a pax, you are still putting a huge amount of money into the pilot's pocket.
 
Kestrel452 said:
I just had an idea that would help pilot pay, minimize furloughs and make a negligible dent in the flyers pocket. I figured these numbers using VERY conservative figures (a 50 passenger regional jet/tprop). The answer? Slashing airline's payscales by 25% across the board. BUT, federally mandated pilot fees on each ticket. Every dollar of this would go DIRECTLY into the pilots' pay, NOTHING going to the airline's pocket of course. Say you charge an extra $10-20 per ticket, a pilot would see ENORMOUS gains to his yearly income.

$20 pilot fee
50 pax
3 flights a day
4 work days a week
4 weeks in a month
12 months in a year

What do you get? $576,000!!!!! Split amongst the pilot and co-pilot, that is a $288,000 salary!

I know that these numbers may not be 100% correct, but i figured this using a tiny plane, so it can't be THAT far off. Even if you charge $10 a pax, you are still putting a huge amount of money into the pilot's pocket.
Click to expand...

I don't want the government to have a "hand" in how much I make - they already do with Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax, etc....

I want to be able to:
1) negotiate with my company a fair rate for my services
2) carryover experience and pay rate to my next gig (unless it pays better), but it should never pay less
3) abolish RLA pertaining to aviation
 
cencal83406 said:
I don't want the government to have a "hand" in how much I make - they already do with Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax, etc....

I want to be able to:
1) negotiate with my company a fair rate for my services
2) carryover experience and pay rate to my next gig (unless it pays better), but it should never pay less
3) abolish RLA pertaining to aviation
Click to expand...

Are we forgetting how much the government intervened back when being a pilot was like being a doctor?
 
Kestrel452 said:
Are we forgetting how much the government intervened back when being a pilot was like being a doctor?
Click to expand...

Good point indeed. Before deregulation it was a very high paying job and prestigious, I might add. I think you were on to something with the gov't tax. $10 extra per ticket isn't a lot to ask to ensure your pilot is well compensated, hence able to provide for family, live comfortably, eat a good healthy meal and afford a decent hotel room to get a good night sleep following a long commute. I hope an abundance of required rest time would be mandated by the gov't as well.
 
If you want it to work study what the AMA did for surgeons. Copy. Repeat.

You need to remove the "minimum wage for pilots". I agree it's needed but you need to go about it a different way. The only way to bring the wage up is to reduce pilot supply. The only legitimate way to do that is by raising the bar for pilots. Other methods will prove temporary at best. The ATP requirement for 121 ops is an excellent starting point.

You also need to bone up on AIRCON. They will be your silent foe. AIRCON was established before deregulation. They have outlived the reason they were allowed to form. Time is now for them to go away. They should have been disbanded when the CAB was shut down.
 
LX40 said:
Good point indeed. Before deregulation it was a very high paying job and prestigious, I might add. I think you were on to something with the gov't tax. $10 extra per ticket isn't a lot to ask to ensure your pilot is well compensated, hence able to provide for family, live comfortably, eat a good healthy meal and afford a decent hotel room to get a good night sleep following a long commute. I hope an abundance of required rest time would be mandated by the gov't as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Although it's not really a tax, just a federally mandated fee tacked onto each ticket in which every cent of it goes directly into the pilots' income. Although Firebird, the website admin for R3407, hasn't given me his opinion on it.
 
seaav8tor said:
If you want it to work study what the AMA did for surgeons. Copy. Repeat.

You need to remove the "minimum wage for pilots". I agree it's needed but you need to go about it a different way. The only way to bring the wage up is to reduce pilot supply. The only legitimate way to do that is by raising the bar for pilots. Other methods will prove temporary at best. The ATP requirement for 121 ops is an excellent starting point.

You also need to bone up on AIRCON. They will be your silent foe. AIRCON was established before deregulation. They have outlived the reason they were allowed to form. Time is now for them to go away. They should have been disbanded when the CAB was shut down.
Click to expand...

The pilot supply is already getting choked. Look at how hiring went right before this recession. If congress doesn't mandate a minimum wage then so be it. But to take it off the list would be a mistake.
 
Kestrel452 said:
The pilot supply is already getting choked. Look at how hiring went right before this recession. If congress doesn't mandate a minimum wage then so be it. But to take it off the list would be a mistake.
Click to expand...

Leaving it on the list makes it look like you are using the issue to create a money grab. You run the risk of failing to gain public support. The AMA was able to create a health care industry where specialty surgeons can now gross over 1 million in billable procedures per year. They would have NEVER accomplished that if they would have fought for a "minimum wage" at the start. Learn from the group who did it right. Don't reinvent the wheel. There are many unintended consequences of "pay controls". The proven solution is to control the supply of "Quality". Dump the "Junk".

We will never see health care type salaries but any improvement must come from supply (of pilots) or any gains will be short lived. The control of supply must be to ensure quality or any gains will be short lived. If we keep saying "You get what you pay for" then fail to deliver a better product any gains will be lost.
 
seaav8tor said:
Leaving it on the list makes it look like you are using the issue to create a money grab. You run the risk of failing to gain public support. The AMA was able to create a health care industry where specialty surgeons can now gross over 1 million in billable procedures per year. They would have NEVER accomplished that if they would have fought for a "minimum wage" at the start. Learn from the group who did it right. Don't reinvent the wheel. There are many unintended consequences of "pay controls". The proven solution is to control the supply of "Quality". Dump the "Junk".

We will never see health care type salaries but any improvement must come from supply (of pilots) or any gains will be short lived. The control of supply must be to ensure quality or any gains will be short lived. If we keep saying "You get what you pay for" then fail to deliver a better product any gains will be lost.
Click to expand...


You may be right. I'll investigate the issue.
 
Kestrel452 said:
I just had an idea that would help pilot pay, minimize furloughs and make a negligible dent in the flyers pocket. I figured these numbers using VERY conservative figures (a 50 passenger regional jet/tprop). The answer? Slashing airline's payscales by 25% across the board. BUT, federally mandated pilot fees on each ticket. Every dollar of this would go DIRECTLY into the pilots' pay, NOTHING going to the airline's pocket of course. Say you charge an extra $10-20 per ticket, a pilot would see ENORMOUS gains to his yearly income.

$20 pilot fee
50 pax
3 flights a day
4 work days a week
4 weeks in a month
12 months in a year

What do you get? $576,000!!!!! Split amongst the pilot and co-pilot, that is a $288,000 salary!

I know that these numbers may not be 100% correct, but i figured this using a tiny plane, so it can't be THAT far off. Even if you charge $10 a pax, you are still putting a huge amount of money into the pilot's pocket.
Click to expand...

Well Firebird, what do you think? :hiya:
 
Kestrel452 said:
Well Firebird, what do you think? :hiya:
Click to expand...

I think the numbers are interesting, but directly attributing costs of pilots to American consumers places responsibility for pilot compensation on the shoulders of just that- American consumers. It needs to be, ultimately, on the shoulders of the companies themselves. Letting them continue to sidestep properly compensating crews and then mitigating the effects by placing the burden elsewhere might ease the pains of the crews, but it ultimately creates further complication to a system with enough complication as it is.

It's an idea with merit, and I like where your head's at, but I think any additional pay needs to come from the companies. They may pass that on to consumers anyways at that point, but relieving management from responsibility for their action by our own choice sets a negative precedent.

Airline management, after all, has continually demonstrated their inability to act responsibly. We must be careful to never excuse that.
 
seaav8tor said:
Leaving it on the list makes it look like you are using the issue to create a money grab. You run the risk of failing to gain public support. The AMA was able to create a health care industry where specialty surgeons can now gross over 1 million in billable procedures per year. They would have NEVER accomplished that if they would have fought for a "minimum wage" at the start. Learn from the group who did it right. Don't reinvent the wheel. There are many unintended consequences of "pay controls". The proven solution is to control the supply of "Quality". Dump the "Junk".

We will never see health care type salaries but any improvement must come from supply (of pilots) or any gains will be short lived. The control of supply must be to ensure quality or any gains will be short lived. If we keep saying "You get what you pay for" then fail to deliver a better product any gains will be lost.
Click to expand...


If we choke off our supply domestically, that could possibly drive things like cabotage to become a further priority. With companies like Virgin America already skirting the limits of cabotage legislation, we need to be watchful.

If foreign air crews became a circumvention to paying an American air crew a fair wage, I'd bet my pitifully small salary that the airlines would try to do just that.

We need to make it clear that in American airspace, aviators are required to maintain the highest possible standards, and in order to qualify to be among their ranks they cannot be treated like 'interns' or 'people working their way up.'

If you're in the 121 environment, the time for training wheels has long past.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I think the numbers are interesting, but directly attributing costs of pilots to American consumers places responsibility for pilot compensation on the shoulders of just that- American consumers. It needs to be, ultimately, on the shoulders of the companies themselves. Letting them continue to sidestep properly compensating crews and then mitigating the effects by placing the burden elsewhere might ease the pains of the crews, but it ultimately creates further complication to a system with enough complication as it is.

It's an idea with merit, and I like where your head's at, but I think any additional pay needs to come from the companies. They may pass that on to consumers anyways at that point, but relieving management from responsibility for their action by our own choice sets a negative precedent.

Airline management, after all, has continually demonstrated their inability to act responsibly. We must be careful to never excuse that.
Click to expand...

It's an idea worth mentioning to congress i think though. If they can't find any ways to surefire fix the airlines pay system at least they have that idea to fall back on.

I don't understand where you are going with the notion of "we cant put pilot compensation on the shoulders of the public". The public is who buys the tickets, and only people who buy tickets will have to spend the extra $15-20.

Heck, it might even push back airplane automation a decade or two. Granted i dont think 2 person cockpit crews will go away in our lifetimes but it very well could postpone it further.
 
I think it might be interesting to see passengers reactions when they actually see how little of the ticket goes to the pilots and flight attendants.

His math does support my saying that paying pilots generously might cost a whole $5 a passenger.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I think it might be interesting to see passengers reactions when they actually see how little of the ticket goes to the pilots and flight attendants.

His math does support my saying that paying pilots generously might cost a whole $5 a passenger.
Click to expand...

Good point.

While directly passing on the cost to the consumer are not an idea I want to formally legislate, demonstrating how little it would cost if they DID do that could be worthwhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top