SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Most people who ascribe to "accident chain" theory of accident causation would disagree with you. This includes the FAA and almost all professional aviators.
Unions and Pay
- Thread starter ppragman
- Start date
- Status
skydog
New Member
FO's at regionals get paid so little, because unions haven't made it a priority for them to get paid more. They don't bother to use "negotating capital," as they call it, on FO's. I not sure why, but I suspect it is because people feel that no one is a regional FO very long (tell that to the Eagle guys), therefore the focus is on getting the CA's rate up.
Another reason some airlines pay less than others is that they are managed by morally bankrupt individuals. Compare Trans States vs. Air Wisconsin, both of whom I have had experience with. Trans States is run by an individual who is concerned solely with profit, and doesn't concern himself with people at all. He would sell his own mother into slavery if their was money to be made. Of the other hand, Air Wisconsin is, or at least was, run by people who have a decent sense of morality, and they don't base every decision solely on financial reasons. Not to say that isn't an important consideration, but it's not the ONLY consideration. They understand that it is wise to spend some dollars on human factors. Even though there isn't a direct financial gain to be made, it makes for a better companhy in the long run. The irony here is that it is the companies that spend the extra dollars that seem to do better.
Yet another reason some non-union airlines pay more than non-union is that unions cost money. An airline only has X amount of dollars to spend on labor costs. If a labor group is unionized, then some of that X amount has to go towards the cost of doing business in a unionized environment environment, such as contract negotiations, contract administration, and grievance procedures. All of that stuff costs money.
In regards to freight vs. regionals: You're comparing two different business models here. Passenger airlines don't make money. Never have. Maybe never will. Hence there is always downward pressure on wages and benefits. On the other hand, cargo operations can't seem to do anything but make money. Again, I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect is that people perceive an absolute need for THINGS to get where they are going, but not so much people. Vacations can be taken later, or be driven too, or not be taken at all. Business meetings can be held via teleconference. But a widget or important document HAS to get there.
Also, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the freight operators you mentioned don't operate unless they have business. These guys aren't just picking and flying routes, hoping someone will book freight on them. They have contracts with customers who need things shipped, and they are paid specifically to operate those aircraft and routes. There is guaranteed revenue. Contrast that with passenger airlines, who throw planes in the air hoping enough people will buy a ticket to make it profitable.
Ultimately, regionals pay more, because they operate larger, more sophisticated equipment, which is generally the accepted benchmark for "more" vs. "less" pay.
And finally, in regards to your remarks about IBEW electricians: Electricians have a skill that is in demand. Houses and buildings need to be built. Electrical systems need to be maintained and upgraded. People are willing to pay for good electrical work because it is perceived as a need, whereas air travel is considered a luxury. Also, there is a lot more that goes into the the development of a qualified electrician than a pilot. Finally, I would argue that the work of an electrician is far more dangerous than the work of a pilot. When's the last time you heard of a pilot falling of the boarding staircase, or getting zapped as he was programming the FMS? Those are real dangers that electricians deal with everyday.
Another reason some airlines pay less than others is that they are managed by morally bankrupt individuals. Compare Trans States vs. Air Wisconsin, both of whom I have had experience with. Trans States is run by an individual who is concerned solely with profit, and doesn't concern himself with people at all. He would sell his own mother into slavery if their was money to be made. Of the other hand, Air Wisconsin is, or at least was, run by people who have a decent sense of morality, and they don't base every decision solely on financial reasons. Not to say that isn't an important consideration, but it's not the ONLY consideration. They understand that it is wise to spend some dollars on human factors. Even though there isn't a direct financial gain to be made, it makes for a better companhy in the long run. The irony here is that it is the companies that spend the extra dollars that seem to do better.
Yet another reason some non-union airlines pay more than non-union is that unions cost money. An airline only has X amount of dollars to spend on labor costs. If a labor group is unionized, then some of that X amount has to go towards the cost of doing business in a unionized environment environment, such as contract negotiations, contract administration, and grievance procedures. All of that stuff costs money.
In regards to freight vs. regionals: You're comparing two different business models here. Passenger airlines don't make money. Never have. Maybe never will. Hence there is always downward pressure on wages and benefits. On the other hand, cargo operations can't seem to do anything but make money. Again, I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect is that people perceive an absolute need for THINGS to get where they are going, but not so much people. Vacations can be taken later, or be driven too, or not be taken at all. Business meetings can be held via teleconference. But a widget or important document HAS to get there.
Also, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the freight operators you mentioned don't operate unless they have business. These guys aren't just picking and flying routes, hoping someone will book freight on them. They have contracts with customers who need things shipped, and they are paid specifically to operate those aircraft and routes. There is guaranteed revenue. Contrast that with passenger airlines, who throw planes in the air hoping enough people will buy a ticket to make it profitable.
Ultimately, regionals pay more, because they operate larger, more sophisticated equipment, which is generally the accepted benchmark for "more" vs. "less" pay.
And finally, in regards to your remarks about IBEW electricians: Electricians have a skill that is in demand. Houses and buildings need to be built. Electrical systems need to be maintained and upgraded. People are willing to pay for good electrical work because it is perceived as a need, whereas air travel is considered a luxury. Also, there is a lot more that goes into the the development of a qualified electrician than a pilot. Finally, I would argue that the work of an electrician is far more dangerous than the work of a pilot. When's the last time you heard of a pilot falling of the boarding staircase, or getting zapped as he was programming the FMS? Those are real dangers that electricians deal with everyday.
skydog
New Member
If you work for somebody else, you don't control your own destiny
skydog
New Member
When you make a mistake, you are the first of those 122 people to die. I can't think of a better incentive to not make a mistake.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Wrong, as usual. ALPA's goal for many years has been to establish an industry-standard of 60% of CA's pay for FOs. That means that when CAs get paid more, FOs get paid more. When I was on the MEC at Pinnacle, all of our FO payrate proposals pegged the FO rates for every year of longevity between 59-61%. FO pay gets a large amount of consideration from ALPA MECs at the regionals.
False. In the aggregate, union companies pay far more than non-union companies. The only exception that I can think of in this industry is Skywest, which pays more than some other regionals, but that is merely because they've been fighting off union drives for over a decade and now have to deal with a union company on their property. In other words, the union is forcing them to pay more even when they don't have a union.
People do stupid things when motivated by money. When you wave a few hundred dollars in front of a pilot to motivate him to get out on time, simple human nature dictates that he'll most likely cut some corners to make it happen. His own safety and the safety of his passengers will drift into the back of his mind while he focuses on getting that money. Pilots should never have to deal with conditional compensation. It opens up too many opportunities for pilot pushing.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
ALPA = "Taking it back"
Or, wait..
Or, wait..
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
It's a shame that you won't be around to reap any benefits that are brought back. Considering you're on the sidelines by your own choice.
Once again, it gets back to those two key words.
Vested Interest.
Have any pharmaceutical products to sell?
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Look man... You've got good stuff to say but people are going to completely tune you out when you say crap like that.
skydog
New Member
Oh, I would never tune out PCL. He's just too much fun too ignore.
60% may be ALPA's stated goal, but clearly it is not where their priorities are. Look at the regional airline payscales. FO's tend to top out at 40 to 45 bucks an hour after 7 or 8 years, even though the payscale goes up to 12 (or more) years.
My own previous employer of Air Wisconsin is a perfect example. Top rate at 18 years is $94 an hour. Therefore, the top FO rate at 18 years should $54 (plus change) per hour. But the actual rate is well below that, at $43 hour (46%).
American Eagle another example. Top rate at 18 years is $100 an hour. Top FO rate is $40 (40%). Comair, ASA, Mesaba...the list goes on. That's not even taking into account first year pay, which has often been stated on this very forum that ALPA won't "waste" negotiating capital to increase. You tell me: How's ALPA doing with that 60% goal?
Even PCL's own Air Tran: Top CA rate, $153. Top FO rate, $79. Going by the so-called 60% goal, it should be about $92. I know I know, they're not ALPA. Clearly that's the only reason.
It seems pretty obvious to me that, despite their rhetoric, the union's focus is elsewhere, and it seems to be in boosting the Captain's rates.
And you know what? That's just fine with me. Boost FO pay. Boost CA pay. Do whatever you want. But be honest about it. Don't pretend that ALPA is equally concerned witll all pilots, because the body of evidence shows that it's not true.
In regards to my other remark; the one about unions costing money..that one is spot on. Regional airlines only get so much revenue from the contracts with their major partners. Of that money, only so much can be allocated towards labor expenses. Having a unionized workforce carries with it expenses that non-unionized work forces don't have. Therefore, all other things being equal, there is less money to put towards compensation. It's not my opinion. It's simple mathematics.
60% may be ALPA's stated goal, but clearly it is not where their priorities are. Look at the regional airline payscales. FO's tend to top out at 40 to 45 bucks an hour after 7 or 8 years, even though the payscale goes up to 12 (or more) years.
My own previous employer of Air Wisconsin is a perfect example. Top rate at 18 years is $94 an hour. Therefore, the top FO rate at 18 years should $54 (plus change) per hour. But the actual rate is well below that, at $43 hour (46%).
American Eagle another example. Top rate at 18 years is $100 an hour. Top FO rate is $40 (40%). Comair, ASA, Mesaba...the list goes on. That's not even taking into account first year pay, which has often been stated on this very forum that ALPA won't "waste" negotiating capital to increase. You tell me: How's ALPA doing with that 60% goal?
Even PCL's own Air Tran: Top CA rate, $153. Top FO rate, $79. Going by the so-called 60% goal, it should be about $92. I know I know, they're not ALPA. Clearly that's the only reason.
It seems pretty obvious to me that, despite their rhetoric, the union's focus is elsewhere, and it seems to be in boosting the Captain's rates.
And you know what? That's just fine with me. Boost FO pay. Boost CA pay. Do whatever you want. But be honest about it. Don't pretend that ALPA is equally concerned witll all pilots, because the body of evidence shows that it's not true.
In regards to my other remark; the one about unions costing money..that one is spot on. Regional airlines only get so much revenue from the contracts with their major partners. Of that money, only so much can be allocated towards labor expenses. Having a unionized workforce carries with it expenses that non-unionized work forces don't have. Therefore, all other things being equal, there is less money to put towards compensation. It's not my opinion. It's simple mathematics.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Even Eagle doesn't have 9 year FOs. There's no reason to expend negotiating capital on a payrate that will never be seen by anyone. Take a look at the rates for the years where people will actually be FOs. Guess what? Right around 60% of Captain's pay. Neat, huh?
You can't possibly believe that it would be smart to negotiate an 18-year FO rate at Air Wisconsin. Hell, you can upgrade quicker than that at Airways.
I would never use our contract as an example for anything. The NPA is a joke. Please don't follow our example. We need ALPA bad.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't care about whether you tune him out or not. You're already in this game.
However, to the several hundred lurkers who view this thread and are thinking about going to the regionals some day, the words of a guy who readily (and often) admits he is a former MEC level officer carry a lot of weight. And when somebody like that spouts off poorly worded, VERY defensive garbage that consists of direct personal attacks, it can lead many of these future regional pilots down a path that has them end up like the FO I flew with several months ago who asked if there was a way he could opt out of the union, not because he didn't think it was beneficial (he did) and not because he didn't want to pay dues (he didn't mind and thought they were probably worth it) but rather because he didn't want to be associated with the bullies (his words) in ALPA leadership whom he saw posting on line.
skydog
New Member
Eagle doesn't have 9 year FO's now. Couple of years ago, Eagle didn't have 7 year FO's. Couple years before that, Eagle didn't have 5 year FO's. Actually they probably did, but I think you get my point. Do you really think that, given the current state of things, a 9 or 10 year (or more) FO at Eagle is outside the realm of possibility?
You're making my point for me. You said it yourself: "there's no reason to expend negotiating capital on a payrate that will never be seen by anyone." Look back at my original post. That's exactly what I said about why regional rates are low. ALPA would rather expend negotiating capital elsewhere, and I suggested that it was Captain's pay.
We had many 15+ year FO's at Air Wisconsin. They were on the 146. The highest seniority FO I knew had over 20 years as an FO. One guy even retired as an FO, never having been a Captain. I don't know why, but the fact remains that we had them. They were maxed out on pay long before they ever saw the Captain's seat. Do think they were worth expending negotiating capital on? Apparently the negotiatiing committed didn't. In the last contract, signed on (ironically) 9/11/2001, 146 CA's saw an increase in top pay to about 135 an hour, while the FO rate for the same aircraft decreased to something like $55-$60 an hour. I want to say $58 an hour but I can't remember the exact number. In fact, the contract actually contained a special provision to ease the transition for long term 146 FOs to the lower rate. This was obviously before the concession's circa 2004
Anyway, to the OP, that's one reason why FO rates at regionals are low. ALPA would rather put its resources elsewhere. Good or bad, right or wrong. It's not necessarily a bad thing. In theory, you will spend much more time as regional CA then a regional FO. You can take PCL's assurances that we'll never see 9 year regional FO's.
skydog
New Member
I'm not sure I can give you an example. I'm just thinking logically. If the company only has X amount of dollars to allocate towards labor expenses, and it has to the bear the costs associated with having a unionized work force (as I said in a previous post: contract negotation and administration, grievance resolution, etc), then it stands to reason that a non-union company has, at least the ability, to pay more. Skywest might be a good example. They seem to keep pace with the unionized airlines in terms of hourly rates, and overall W2 earnings. But I'm just speculating there. As I said, this is just simple mathematics.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
No, I don't do pharma. That's for beginners, champ.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, I do.
You are correct that ALPA will not expend negotiating capital on phantom payrates. A payrate that will never be used is not worth the negotiating capital that it takes to achieve it. It would be completely irresponsible for a union to negotiate for something that would never be used.
Quite frankly, no, I don't. If someone chooses to stay in the right seat for 15 years when upgrades are running at 5 years, then I don't exactly think they are worth spending negotiating capital on. That one FO would cost the rest of the pilots thousands upon thousands of lost wages because the negotiating capital would have to go to negotiate his rates simply because he's too scared or too lazy to upgrade.
Ability and desire are two very different things. We have to look at facts, not theory. The fact is, non-union companies pay far less than union companies. No way around that. You can argue the "size of the pie" and other theories all you want, but reality doesn't back up your theory.
Skywest pilots have W2 earnings that are less than ASA and XJT, and possibly Horizon.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
This post is going to go out to those lurkers that ARE reading this thread and might want to take what skydog says as the truth.
Skydog, you are wrong. We are non unionized and I make $14.00 less as Captain on my plane than a unionized pilot is making. When I was on the Beech, I was making less than unionized Beech Pilots where making at Gulfstream and Big Sky. Our Saab guys are making considerably less than the unionized pilots at Mesaba and Eagle. And our benefits are extremely expensive so don't even try going there.
You shoot from the hip skydog with your antiunion hatred.
Here is a perfect example of this...
http://forums.jetcareers.com/airline-pilots/74716-more-free-food-for-colgan-pilots-2.html
You posted without knowing what is going on at my company. You posted assumptions about how management was treating us since the last drive, how they are taking our opinions, and what you generally think is going on. What you are assuming is going on is not.
Skydog, you are wrong. We are non unionized and I make $14.00 less as Captain on my plane than a unionized pilot is making. When I was on the Beech, I was making less than unionized Beech Pilots where making at Gulfstream and Big Sky. Our Saab guys are making considerably less than the unionized pilots at Mesaba and Eagle. And our benefits are extremely expensive so don't even try going there.
You shoot from the hip skydog with your antiunion hatred.
Here is a perfect example of this...
http://forums.jetcareers.com/airline-pilots/74716-more-free-food-for-colgan-pilots-2.html
You posted without knowing what is going on at my company. You posted assumptions about how management was treating us since the last drive, how they are taking our opinions, and what you generally think is going on. What you are assuming is going on is not.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Because to the company, your piloting skills don't matter. You're not contributing more revenue to the airline if you're a better than average pilot and you're not contributing less revenue to the airline if you are a worse than average pilot.
If you want to get paid based on your performance, then you've got to get one where you can distinguish yourself in a way that can be measured in dollars and cents.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I haven't really been paying too much attention to this one, but has anybody brought up the most important point of being a pilot?
Your goal is not to be better than the guy next to you. Your goal is not to be worse than the guy next to you. Your goal is not to get there on time more often. Your goal is not to burn less fuel than anybody else.
Your goal is to be standard, so that nobody can tell the difference between you and the next guy.
I've reassigned before, and literally within 5 minutes of getting into the cockpit I was finished with my brief and was about to launch off with a JC member I had never met before. If I had hit the guy with a car, I wouldn't have had any who he was, but we were able to complete 2 legs very successfully as if I had known him my whole life.
THAT is the goal.
Your goal is not to be better than the guy next to you. Your goal is not to be worse than the guy next to you. Your goal is not to get there on time more often. Your goal is not to burn less fuel than anybody else.
Your goal is to be standard, so that nobody can tell the difference between you and the next guy.
I've reassigned before, and literally within 5 minutes of getting into the cockpit I was finished with my brief and was about to launch off with a JC member I had never met before. If I had hit the guy with a car, I wouldn't have had any who he was, but we were able to complete 2 legs very successfully as if I had known him my whole life.
THAT is the goal.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Seggy only makes about $15 more per hour (at year 5) than what a Mesa Dash-8-200 FO makes and he has about 40 more passengers.
- Status
