Twin Time!

Oh I fully agree. These guys are making $40 an hour to fly SE. We all know if they went to build time in an ME it would cost them well over $40 an hour. The fact that the owner is willing to give them the option speaks volumes. He doesn't need an ME program, but is letting his pilots choose this option if it works for them. He doesn't have open himself up to the liability of a guy VMC'ing an Apache into a neighborhood when the singles do the job just as good.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Are any jobs being lost because of this setup? No. Is anyone taking someone's job under this setup? No. Does the owner have a differential revenue benefit associated with this setup? Doesn't seem like it. Is anyone losing pay because of this setup? Not unless they want to.

In terms of claims of employee abuse, this is not the hill I would choose to die on.
Click to expand...
Eh, maybe I just feel like I wanna get paid for something that IS work, no matter what way you look at it. But to each his own. It's not like I thing these guys are killing the industry or anything, I just don't want to see people potentially lining themselves up to get taken advantage of. I've had the multi time "carrot" waved in front of my face to get me to do something stupid enough to where I look at this stuff with a little suspicion.
 
JustinS said:
I'm in @JordanD 's camp on the issue. If you're making revenue for the boss, then that revenue generating piece of equipment's operator should be compensated in more than just flight time... Many of my students are multi students, and I don't have a lot of single-engine students. If I didn't get paid to fly the multi that would be a huge hit on my ability to do the whole put a roof over my head and food in the belly thing Jordan was talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm in JordanD's camp as well. I agree that the pilot should be compensated with more than flight time while making revenue for the company. Honestly, with all the (in my opinion, completely justified) disapproval of Great Lakes and PFT/PFJ on this board, I'm a little surprised more people don't object to this.

I work for a different Aerial Survey company, which operates both 172s and piper Aztecs. Right now our Aztec pilots are actually paid more than the 172 pilots. If pilots at one company are willing to fly for free to build multi time, there is the possibility other companies such as mine might realize they can get away with this too and start expecting pilots to fly the Aztec for free. I suppose, since the company in the OP does not actually need the twin, as others have pointed out, it is less egregious than that scenario would be. But it still makes me uncomfortable, and I'm surprised more people on here don't have a problem with it.
 
Yakob said:
I'm in JordanD's camp as well. I agree that the pilot should be compensated with more than flight time while making revenue for the company. Honestly, with all the (in my opinion, completely justified) disapproval of Great Lakes and PFT/PFJ on this board, I'm a little surprised more people don't object to this.

I work for a different Aerial Survey company, which operates both 172s and piper Aztecs. Right now our Aztec pilots are actually paid more than the 172 pilots. If pilots at one company are willing to fly for free to build multi time, there is the possibility other companies such as mine might realize they can get away with this too and start expecting pilots to fly the Aztec for free. I suppose, since the company in the OP does not actually need the twin, as others have pointed out, it is less egregious than that scenario would be. But it still makes me uncomfortable, and I'm surprised more people on here don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
Oh, that company is exactly the "multi time carrot" I was referring to. :P
 
JordanD said:
Eh, maybe I just feel like I wanna get paid for something that IS work, no matter what way you look at it. But to each his own. It's not like I thing these guys are killing the industry or anything, I just don't want to see people potentially lining themselves up to get taken advantage of. I've had the multi time "carrot" waved in front of my face to get me to do something stupid enough to where I look at this stuff with a little suspicion.
Click to expand...

So then use the the single engine and get paid for all your time. I'd imagine if they run out of singles and need to use the twin, the pilot would get paid in that scenario. The owner doesn't have to use the twin for any of the runs, but it's there as an option for the pilots if they feel like getting some multi time.
 
I'm sure someone would do it, might not be the smartest decision, but it might work out great for some people.
A more relevant example that compares like-things would be if a charter company uses mainly Citations, but has an E145 or Global Express for a flight crew if they want to use it. It's not needed in the business, but as long as the owner owns a bigger plane, it may as well get some use.
 
Stinger said:
I'm sure someone would do it, might not be the smartest decision, but it might work out great for some people.
A more relevant example that compares like-things would be if a charter company uses mainly Citations, but has an E145 or Global Express for a flight crew if they want to use it. It's not needed in the business, but as long as the owner owns a bigger plane, it may as well get some use.
Click to expand...

Actually a more relevant example might be if a company offered FOs the option to upgrade and fly as a captain for free, or at least for less pay than as an FO, in exchange for building turbine PIC time.
 
Yakob said:
Actually a more relevant example might be if a company offered FOs the option to upgrade and fly as a captain for free, or at least for less pay than as an FO, in exchange for building turbine PIC time.
Click to expand...

oohhhh...that makes sense to me now. Didn't click when I read the other post for some reason.
But yes, if a pilot really wants to do that, I don't have any problems with it.
 
I'd optionally not fly for free. Boss cutting a great deal on personal trips in the plane is one thing, but he can forget about asking you to make money for his business while you're flying it.
 
Stinger said:
oohhhh...that makes sense to me now. Didn't click when I read the other post for some reason.
But yes, if a pilot really wants to do that, I don't have any problems with it.
Click to expand...

You might be singing a different tune if people were given the opportunity to do your job for free to build more coveted experience. This is the sort of thing that depresses wages throughout the aviation industry, when pilots show they're willing to work for free or for peanuts to build hours.
 
JordanD said:
Eh, maybe I just feel like I wanna get paid for something that IS work, no matter what way you look at it. But to each his own. It's not like I thing these guys are killing the industry or anything, I just don't want to see people potentially lining themselves up to get taken advantage of. I've had the multi time "carrot" waved in front of my face to get me to do something stupid enough to where I look at this stuff with a little suspicion.
Click to expand...

I think you have to look at pay beyond just salary. I did consulting work for practically free once for a former employer as I transitioned to my new position. The reason I did it was because they allowed me to remain on their healthcare plan during the three months before my new plan kicked in. I wasn't getting much of a paycheck, but I was being paid in healthcare benefits.

I think in this case you could say that the opportunity to fly the twin is a non-salaries benefit. It still costs the employer, and it still has value to the employee, so I'd say it's pay. Now of course that's a slippery slope, particularly when you look at PFT ops who argue that experience is equivalent to pay.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I think you have to look at pay beyond just salary. I did consulting work for practically free once for a former employer as I transitioned to my new position. The reason I did it was because they allowed me to remain on their healthcare plan during the three months before my new plan kicked in. I wasn't getting much of a paycheck, but I was being paid in healthcare benefits.

I think in this case you could say that the opportunity to fly the twin is a non-salaries benefit. It still costs the employer, and it still has value to the employee, so I'd say it's pay. Now of course that's a slippery slope, particularly when you look at PFT ops who argue that experience is equivalent to pay.
Click to expand...

If I can keep my family healthy by showing the hospital my logbook I would agree with you.

But I can't so I wont.

Flight time, no matter the engines are NOT a benefit. It's simply a byproduct of doing our job.

OP's case is difficult however...
 
T/O w/FSII said:
If I can keep my family healthy by showing the hospital my logbook I would agree with you.

But I can't so I wont.

Flight time, no matter the engines are NOT a benefit. It's simply a byproduct of doing our job.

OP's case is difficult however...
Click to expand...

Ehhh, the way I see it, it's optional if I want to fly the thing or not. I think his heart is in the right place. I don't see a "nefarious" angle to it. He knows we need twin time, and has that there if we so choose. Like I said before, I plan on flying the single on my dense routes in order to get the paycheck, and will fly the twin on the routes that are a bit thinner and lower in time ( <4 hours ). I'm not revealing the company I work for or anything, and as I mentioned, there are only 6 or 7 pilots, so it's more of a family operation to be honest. (Yes it's a business, but you get my drift).

The whole disgruntled employee suing for wages though is a valid point, and I will probably bring that up to him, just so he can check his six.
 
I'd be less concerned with a former employee suing me, and more concerned with my business model if my margins are too thin to pay a pilot because Im using a apache instead of a Cherokee (or whatever se plane you said you were flying).
 
ozziecat35 said:
Ehhh, the way I see it, it's optional if I want to fly the thing or not. I think his heart is in the right place. I don't see a "nefarious" angle to it. He knows we need twin time, and has that there if we so choose. Like I said before, I plan on flying the single on my dense routes in order to get the paycheck, and will fly the twin on the routes that are a bit thinner and lower in time ( <4 hours ). I'm not revealing the company I work for or anything, and as I mentioned, there are only 6 or 7 pilots, so it's more of a family operation to be honest. (Yes it's a business, but you get my drift).

The whole disgruntled employee suing for wages though is a valid point, and I will probably bring that up to him, just so he can check his six.
Click to expand...

Yea I get your point, I was mostly just commenting on calling hours a "benefit" as quoted in my post. Hours can't compare to health insurance.

abolton1 said:
I'd be less concerned with a former employee suing me, and more concerned with my business model if my margins are too thin to pay a pilot because Im using a apache instead of a Cherokee (or whatever se plane you said you were flying).
Click to expand...

To be fair, adding an engine usually doubles operating cost, find me a small aviation business that can absorb a 100% increase in operating cost and still turn a profit. Remember survey companies usually run off a contract, its not like they can suddenly start charging the customer double.
 
abolton1 said:
I'd be less concerned with a former employee suing me, and more concerned with my business model if my margins are too thin to pay a pilot because Im using a apache instead of a Cherokee (or whatever se plane you said you were flying).
Click to expand...

My companies margins are definitely not the issue at play here, that I can guarantee.

T/O w/FSII said:
Yea I get your point, I was mostly just commenting on calling hours a "benefit" as quoted in my post. Hours can't compare to health insurance.
To be fair, adding an engine usually doubles operating cost, find me a small aviation business that can absorb a 100% increase in operating cost and still turn a profit. Remember survey companies usually run off a contract, its not like they can suddenly start charging the customer double.
Click to expand...

The operating cost was the reasoning for the policy. It was explained that it's more than double that of one of our SE Pipers.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Yea I get your point, I was mostly just commenting on calling hours a "benefit" as quoted in my post. Hours can't compare to health insurance.



To be fair, adding an engine usually doubles operating cost, find me a small aviation business that can absorb a 100% increase in operating cost and still turn a profit. Remember survey companies usually run off a contract, its not like they can suddenly start charging the customer double.
Click to expand...

Its tough to say without knowing what they're charging customers per hour. But I can say that the Apache is pretty cheap to operate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top