Tuition reimbursment

surreal1221 said:
Oh okay - that clears it all up. :rolleyes:

It's as if you're throwing daggers at the guys who decided to put their college education as the secondary, especially those who have families already, and who need to be working. So yes, some of us will spend $35k instead of going to the big name cookie cutter aviation school (that would cost 80-120k).
Click to expand...
My husband is younger than Max, has had a wife since he began his training, and has had two kids for the bulk of his training, works 2 jobs, and finished school. And it was not at a cookie cutter aviation school, and STILL the total is about $80K, w/ no student loans. I'm sorry, but to go through that and then have me say "hooray, 31 year old Max w/ no kids, no spouse, you get to have your college paid for, by the same company that is paying you and my husband the same exact wage, woohoo!!" Yeah right!!

I'm not pointing fingers, but it's not right or fair in my book to give guys (who you may not know anything about their backgrounds, or their reasons for putting school off for a period of time) a sarcastic my way (or my husband's way) is the right way.
Click to expand...
I never EVER said *I* think getting a degree first is the right way!! In fact, I have expressed my opinion more than once at my frustration that my husband LISTENED to everyone on this website that said get your degree first!! He could have already been in his 2nd or maybe even 3rd year at a regional while working on his degree, if we hadn't listened to the ranting of the people on this board saying to get his degree first, so do NOT think you know how I feel, or our backround, or our reasons for putting school first! To go through what we have been through, only to get a wage that is not enough to support a family for the first 5 years, and then to have someone else get their tuition paid for, would be a huge slap in the face to everyone that has worked their asses off to get there with the degree they were told they NEEDED FIRST!!!

And I actually think what a majority of the experience pilots here, who are at majors, are trying to say that you better get that degree at some point - that is if you even think you'd like to work a legacy (DAL, US, UAL, NWA, COA) or one of the two golden carrots (UPS/FDX). Not - that they have to get the degree first before doing any flight training.
Click to expand...
Do a few searches, you'll find you are wrong.
 
Surreal - dude - are your even READING Michelle's posts? It's like you're replying to what you want her to write versus what she actually wrote.
 
My opinion is (and I am sure what my wife is trying to point out) that ANY money that would be used for TR should be used to increase salaries and benefits across the board for all employees at an airline, especially pilots. Not rewarding people that haven't invested the time and effort to get themselves a degree.

There are other ways to get a free education in this country if one so desires it...Surreal was sure to point that out earlier.;)
 
Bottom line, despite whatever else anyone reads into my posts, is that I think any financial resources a regional has, needs to be divided over all the wages and get them up to reasonable before considering situation-specific benefits.

In comparison, my husband's work had a huge summer party tonight at a water park, they rented the whole park out, served a huge catered dinner, had tons of prizes, hired a band, rentend carnival equipment that ran through the whole night, etc. They do this at Christmas too. You've probably seen me mention it before, last Christmas they gave away over 40 prizes, ranging from an ipod, to a $1200 camera, to a snowblower, to a 42", 52" and 72" plasma HD tv. While this is really super cool to the 40 employees that won something, between these two enourmous annual parties, (plus several smaller things throughout the year like golf), they could give the 250 employees a pretty darn decent raise or bonus. While the day was fun, and the kids love the water park, what would really benefit all of us a lot more is better pay. My husband just got his one year raise from them, it was .30, wow. Call me weird or whatever else you want to call me, but I know I'm not the only one that wishes the money spent on these parties was divided into wages.
 
TheWife said:
I have expressed my opinion more than once at my frustration that my husband LISTENED to everyone on this website that said get your degree first!! He could have already been in his 2nd or maybe even 3rd year at a regional while working on his degree, if we hadn't listened to the ranting of the people on this board saying to get his degree first, so do NOT think you know how I feel, or our backround, or our reasons for putting school first!
Click to expand...

I'm gonna say be glad your husband got his degre first before entering the industry.

I'm not gonna exactly relish pulling out the laptop on a long layover and going to school. Or on my days off again, having to go to school.

You don't have to enter the industry with a degree, you only have to get one. But IMO it's far better to have it before, and not get it during.

Just think of this. Now when hubby gets home from his 4 day at SKYW he truly comes home both mentally and physically to you and the kids. His attention isn't split between having to write an 8 page paper on Socrates affect on greek society, and spending quality time with you and the kids!

If I could do it all over again, I'd get it done before becoming a pilot! But that's just me.

YMMV
 
I really understand your point, at the same time though, the time he spent NOT with us while going through school and working two jobs really is probably just as bad as if he'd only been going through training, then got on a SKW, then started his degree while at SKW. Yes, his time home wouldn't have been quality time, but it wasn't when he was doing it in the first place anyway, and at least he would have been building seniority this whole time!
 
Just wanted to add though, that yes, I am glad it's done, it's a huge relief to have one less thing to worry about, and I know I can't dwell on the past or keep wishing he'd only got there sooner, but so far that degree has yet to help him get anything, not a better job now than if he didn't have one, not better pay when he does get to the regional, etc. So it's hard to not look at is as wishing he'd just gone straight to the regional before the degree.
 
There's an MBA adage about salary being tied directly to the education and experience of the employee; it eludes me presently, but it'll come to me . . .soon I hope. Basically, it relates to the "perception" of increased insight one has with increased education as opposed to experience.

What I won't argue is increased education should equate to increased salary. I won't argue the general perception that starting airline salaries are extremely deflated. (Truly, I've not done the research, but I'll concede the perception as true.)

Where I will argue vehemently in support of is the fact higher education should lead to increased pay and the fact a Bachelor's degree aviator (given all other aspects being equal) generally should be paid more than a nondegreed aviator. Again, all other aspects of aviation experience being equal, the potential and experiences of a degreed aviator because of the degree is generally greater than a nondegreed person, and the pay should reflect this. That's real world.

Aviators supposedly have spent upwards of 80K for their appropriate ratings. Degreed aviators have done the same thing plus paid for four years of college as well. Are individuals saying, for example, someone having spent one year amassing flight hours and ratings to go to the regionals should be paid the same starting salary as someone who spent four years attaining an advanced degree and that same year amassing flight hours and ratings? Excuse me, but as a degreed person, I'd argue contrary to the fact we're equal, and I'd demand I be paid more. Excuse me, but I'm bringing more to your organization than simply flying prowess especially if perhaps my degree was in engineering or engineering technology. If I were a business/management major, I'm bringing to your organizations those appropriate organizational skills taught to me in higher institutions of learning I can pass on to improve the organization, and that potential to do so is documented with a degree. It's not simply a piece of paper; it's a document to attest to the potential I have to improve the organization with whom I'm flying.

. . .and to say give tuition reimbursement proceeds towards increasing salaries? OK. . .what about those individuals who have a degree already? What do you provide to them as an incentive to professionally develop themselves. Kinda reminds me about CFI training and how the curriculums are formulated to improve training for both skilled pilots and initial entry aviators.

I am again reminded of the movie, "The Right Stuff" where Chuck Yeager failed to become an astronaut because he was not degreed. Excellent "natural" pilot, but for the whole person astronaut, it took both that natural skill and education to complete the person. Again, real world.

Where I am personally curious is the period in the early 70/80s. . .I've not done the research, but I do wonder the percentage of airline pilots with and without degrees? I can only speculate the majority with the higher salaries generally were those with degrees.

More pertinent now is to perhaps look at Southwest Airlines. Wonder over the past 25 years or so what percentage of those pilots are degreed?

To improve one's standing in any occupation, an organization should reimburse its employees for wishing to achieve higher education no matter what the course might be. We send them to schools in-house to improve their skills for the benefit of the company and they're rewarded upon completion. Tuition reimbursement should be an incentive for seeking increased education.
 
Michelle - I think surreal is looking at your view on tuition reimbursement as an indictment of pilots who did not attend college first. I re-read your posts a couple of times and I can sort of see where he drew that conclusion, although on second and third readings I began to understand your point.

In most corporations, tuition reimbursement requires a certain contractually obligated tenure after completing the education reimbursed, or the employee needs to return the money. This is win-win, because the company receives the value of productivity and education they paid for.

An airline really doesn't receive any benefit from a newly-degreed pilot they've already hired. As someone else posted in another thread, pilots are fungible and interchangeable once in the company - the degree helps the airline whittle down the number of desirable applicants, but after the hire, there is absolutely ZERO reason for the airline to increase the pilot's skillset outside of flying, make him more employable elsewhere.

It might make sense for a little bit of tuition assistance/repayment at the regional level (as mentioned about Mesaba/UND), where it is a valuable recruiting tool.
 
MFT1Air, I disagree with you. Degreed pilots should not receive more pay for the same work. You are not being paid to bring organizational skills to the company. In an airline your are paid to fly airplanes, and specifically passengers. My experience as an EMT-B and working in guest services at a hotel will both have very direct carry over to working with passengers, but I do not deserve to be paid more. They're both fair game in deciding if I should get hired, as is a college degree. But, once I'm hired I should be paid the same as other pilots flying the same airplane with the same seniority. There are so many more factors to how valuable a pilot is than whether or not he has a degree. If two pilots get hired at the same time for the same airplane, but one has more experience, should he get paid more? How do you value life experience? At what age should a pilot receive a lower salary for being to young? Or too old? There are too many variables to decide how much one pilot is worth more than another.
 
Travisimo said:
There are too many variables to decide how much one pilot is worth more than another.
Click to expand...

While you have a valid point, I would say that a 4 year degree is a pretty good standard to measure by. Should that get you higher pay than a new hire without a degree? In my opinion, absolutely. However if I had my way, having the 4 year degree would be a prerequisite to receiving a commercial pilots license. That would certainly help raise the bar a bit in my estimation.
 
CRoper said:
While you have a valid point, I would say that a 4 year degree is a pretty good standard to measure by. Should that get you higher pay than a new hire without a degree? In my opinion, absolutely. However if I had my way, having the 4 year degree would be a prerequisite to receiving a commercial pilots license. That would certainly help raise the bar a bit in my estimation.
Click to expand...

Whaaaat? First of all glad you don't get your way. Because that would suck for Joe Six pack who just wants to get his comm and fly on the weekends, but doesn't have a degree.
 
CRoper said:
While you have a valid point, I would say that a 4 year degree is a pretty good standard to measure by. Should that get you higher pay than a new hire without a degree? In my opinion, absolutely.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, about having a 4 year degree, makes one a better pilot, better able to conduct a flight safely? I'm not talking about getting hired - I'm talking about actually flying the plane, making decisions. I know it's a requirement of the majors, and that's fine. But unless that 4-year degree somehow enables you to fly a more efficient approach, use less fuel, make better wx decisions or any of the 100 other things that you have to do in a flight, I do not agree that you deserve more pay for it.

However if I had my way, having the 4 year degree would be a prerequisite to receiving a commercial pilots license. That would certainly help raise the bar a bit in my estimation.
Click to expand...

Raise the bar? Pilots without degrees are lowering the bar for the profession?

That's interesting. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet a large sum of money that 25-30 years ago, military-trained pilots were saying the same thing about civilian-trained pilots.

C'mon man - do you really, honestly believe what you said up there?
 
What, specifically, about having a 4 year degree, makes one a better pilot, better able to conduct a flight safely?
Click to expand...
I would think that would entirely depend on the degree. But if it was weather related, couldn't that be helpful for a pilot to better understand what a plane can and can't do in what kind of weather? (Like, it can't land on a short runway that's covered in rain...) Or if it was in airplane mechanics, could that help with solutions to safety problems or emergencies? I would certainly think that some risk management and aviation science would be quite helpful. Or do you feel the airlines train enough that the degree doesn't really provide much beyond that, that would be helpful?

While I don't know that I entirely agree about college being a requirement for a commercial license, I do understand the advantage it could provide if it were a requirement at the airlines. I think if a degree was required on all levels, it would eliminate a lot of the 250 hour SJS pilots that you all seem to hate so much. If there was enough of a pilot shortage, but the degree was still required, would that not possibly force the airlines to increase the wages? Maybe I'm just not understanding the chain of reactions there, but I would think that it would help give leverage for higher wages.
 
surreal1221 said:
Oh - I'm loving the higher than thou attitudes.
Click to expand...
Why the change of reply? Decided to tone down a little on looking like an ass? Why is any opinion that is different from yours, a higher than thou attitude? This is just a group of people with different perspectives, for the most part trying to help the aviation industry be great again. Just some different ideas of what could be done or what shouldn't be done or what could be required to change the industry from a bunch of low-time willing to fly for nothing, eager kids, to those with a drive, those who want to improve the way things are now. Not all ideas or posts that people make would actually work, but maybe some would. Nobody here is screaming "You aren't good enough to fly and I am!!!" You want to take it that way, because you want to have a problem with me and anyone else that doesn't agree with you. Get over yourself.
 
surreal1221 said:
Oh - I'm loving the higher than thou attitudes.
Click to expand...

Me, it's making me a little queezy.


MFT1Air said:
T
Again, all other aspects of aviation experience being equal, the potential and experiences of a degreed aviator because of the degree is generally greater than a nondegreed person, and the pay should reflect this.

Excuse me, but as a degreed person, I'd argue contrary to the fact we're equal, and I'd demand I be paid more.

It's not simply a piece of paper; it's a document to attest to the potential I have to improve the organization with whom I'm flying.
Click to expand...

CRoper said:
However if I had my way, having the 4 year degree would be a prerequisite to receiving a commercial pilots license. That would certainly help raise the bar a bit in my estimation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top