The furure of employment for pilots?

At the point where the military becomes comfortable with a single pilot operating multiple aircraft at great distance, the economics begin to make sense.

Until then all your doing is adding complexity for a civilian mission which is neither dull, dirty or dangerous.
 
At the point where the military becomes comfortable with a single pilot operating multiple aircraft at great distance, the economics begin to make sense.

Until then all your doing is adding complexity for a civilian mission which is neither dull, dirty or dangerous.

"pilot"? No pilot in a UAV.
 
There's going to be demand for pilots for our lifetimes. It's funny, really - the much maligned (by people who don't understand economics) price situation leads to very low profit margins for the airlines, and I suspect that the cost of developing a new automated system is higher than just sticking with the current system.

Also, regulation is inefficient. It's all about the airlines' failure to adjust quickly enough to changing demand. Yada, yada....No economist has argued over this for decades.

There's a lot of irony in this situation. I bet pilots will still be around for a long time.

-Felix
 
There's going to be demand for pilots for our lifetimes. It's funny, really - the much maligned (by people who don't understand economics) price situation leads to very low profit margins for the airlines, and I suspect that the cost of developing a new automated system is higher than just sticking with the current system.

And therein lies the REAL reason that there won't be automated airliners in our lifetime: The airlines can't cut their pay by 40% when times get hard. :rolleyes:
 
Here I thought the word was "competition".

One airline can't suddenly start charging more than everyone else because very few people would buy tickets. There have been a number of tries at higher cost, better service airlines with not too much success. The market has spoken. That is reality.

I am certainly not an expert on the the airline business, but it seems to me that Southwest Airlines is the biggest problem for the other airlines. They are typically cheaper than other airlines and consistantly make money. While their pay wages may not be great they at least seam to treat there employees well and I think it shows on the bottom line. How many Southwest employees have been laid or off or furloughed in the last year?

True Southwest is a bit of a niche market and it is no frills flying but they have figured out 2 very important things for a business. 1. How to treat there employees. 2. partially as a result of #1 how to make money at it.

Brian
 
They are typically cheaper than other airlines

Well, that isn't always the case. On the trips I typically look at, Southwest isn't always the cheapest ticket. In fact, usually they aren't.

While their pay wages may not be great

Well, as far as their pilots are concerned, I believe they are at the top of the pay scales for the 737. Their pilots get paid more that UAL's 767 pilots, IIRC.

they at least seam to treat there employees well and I think it shows on the bottom line.

No doubt about that. Other airline managements should take notes.
 
Say what you will, but I believe that most of the issues that the airlines currently have are due to deregulation. I think those that promoted deregulation in the late 70's would have thought twice about it if they knew it would end up the way it is now.

Why?

In the 70s, few people had the opportunity to fly. Prices were high. Service was determined by regulators, not by demand.

Sure, if you could afford it, flying was grand. Huge seats, generous legroom, food served on china. But, YOU PAID FOR IT!!!. Yes, airline pilots made tons of money for flying 20hrs a month. But WE PAID FOR IT!!!

Greg, I love you like a brother, and I know that the marketplace changes have been hard on you and your brethren, but I for one will take inexpensive, frequent service any day of the week. Pilots don't make a ton of $$$ because there are tons of wannabes are waiting in line for the chance to become one. They put a price on achieving their dreams and, like it or not, they put a very low price on it.

I would never want to go back to the Soviet-style airline service days-of-yore, and I have enough money to be able to afford it!
 
I am certainly not an expert on the the airline business, but it seems to me that Southwest Airlines is the biggest problem for the other airlines. They are typically cheaper than other airlines and consistantly make money. While their pay wages may not be great they at least seam to treat there employees well and I think it shows on the bottom line. How many Southwest employees have been laid or off or furloughed in the last year?
I have priced and flown on Southwest and I wouldn't say they are "typically cheaper". It just depends on the flight and the time. I also think their pay, at least for the pilots, is higher than their competitors here in Denver.

True Southwest is a bit of a niche market and it is no frills flying but they have figured out 2 very important things for a business. 1. How to treat there employees. 2. partially as a result of #1 how to make money at it.
3. How to hedge their fuel.
 
Well, that isn't always the case. On the trips I typically look at, Southwest isn't always the cheapest ticket. In fact, usually they aren't.

Not THE cheapest, but close enough that their great service and friendly employees make the difference. That's where I come out. If one of the mainlines was $100 lower, fat chance, but I'd still take Southwest because I hate the service-with-a-snarl I get from the mainlines.

Biggest mistake United employees made was taking company stock. SWA employees get cash bonuses and that is clearly a better motivator. Cash is king.
 
Yes, airline pilots made tons of money for flying 20hrs a month. But WE PAID FOR IT!!!

Can you cite where you are getting this information from?

If you actually look back over the past 40 or so years pilot's salaries have been consistent (adjusted for inflation) with the last few years seeing dramatic decreases in salaries while flying has increased. I don't know of any pilot's making a ton of money for only flying a 20 hour a month line.
 
Why?

In the 70s, few people had the opportunity to fly. Prices were high. Service was determined by regulators, not by demand.

Sure, if you could afford it, flying was grand. Huge seats, generous legroom, food served on china. But, YOU PAID FOR IT!!!. Yes, airline pilots made tons of money for flying 20hrs a month. But WE PAID FOR IT!!!

Greg, I love you like a brother, and I know that the marketplace changes have been hard on you and your brethren, but I for one will take inexpensive, frequent service any day of the week. Pilots don't make a ton of $$$ because there are tons of wannabes are waiting in line for the chance to become one. They put a price on achieving their dreams and, like it or not, they put a very low price on it.

I would never want to go back to the Soviet-style airline service days-of-yore, and I have enough money to be able to afford it!

The whole idea of Deregulation was to make it easier for other airlines to be established to provide competition for those in existence. While that did happen, the newbees were not capitalized to the extent needed to survive. They came in with unrealistic low prices that they could not sustain. That meant the legacies had to match in order to maintain market share. And when the newbees dropped out, they could then charge a fare that would make money.

The idea of deregulation was that there would be many airlines to provide competition. What has happened? The number of airlines actually has contracted. Not quite what the writers had in mind. NOW what is happening is that there is a movement to let FOREIGN carriers come in and provide the competition. Do you really want there to be NO domestic airlines and all our service being provided by Air France or Lufthansa?

You made a comment about fares being high and not many being able to afford to fly. Well, thing is, the airlines HAVE to be able to charge a fare that allows them to make a profit. And if that means charging a fare that is out of reach to some, that is the way it has to be. No one can provide a service for less than cost and remain in business.

A guy I fly with is friends with one of the Congresscritters that was instrumental in getting Deregulation passed, That person said that vote was the singe worst vote he has made in his career. That tells me that what has happened was not what the framers intended.

Since that cow is now out of the barn, it is unlikely that the industry will be re regulated. At least not to the extent that it was. But don't be too surprised if sometime in the future there are NO domestic airlines and our national defense is at least partially dependent on carriers of a foreign government.
 
Biggest mistake United employees made was taking company stock. SWA employees get cash bonuses and that is clearly a better motivator. Cash is king.

There were a lot of things that was flaky about that deal. Not the least of which we had no real control for the majority of stock we owned. Besides, the whole thing with the stock deal was there was NO MONEY to be had.
 
The whole idea of Deregulation was to make it easier for other airlines to be established to provide competition for those in existence. While that did happen, the newbees were not capitalized to the extent needed to survive. They came in with unrealistic low prices that they could not sustain. That meant the legacies had to match in order to maintain market share. And when the newbees dropped out, they could then charge a fare that would make money.

The idea of deregulation was that there would be many airlines to provide competition. What has happened? The number of airlines actually has contracted. Not quite what the writers had in mind. NOW what is happening is that there is a movement to let FOREIGN carriers come in and provide the competition. Do you really want there to be NO domestic airlines and all our service being provided by Air France or Lufthansa?

You made a comment about fares being high and not many being able to afford to fly. Well, thing is, the airlines HAVE to be able to charge a fare that allows them to make a profit. And if that means charging a fare that is out of reach to some, that is the way it has to be. No one can provide a service for less than cost and remain in business.

A guy I fly with is friends with one of the Congresscritters that was instrumental in getting Deregulation passed, That person said that vote was the singe worst vote he has made in his career. That tells me that what has happened was not what the framers intended.

Since that cow is now out of the barn, it is unlikely that the industry will be re regulated. At least not to the extent that it was. But don't be too surprised if sometime in the future there are NO domestic airlines and our national defense is at least partially dependent on carriers of a foreign government.

Foreign carriers? Why is that a problem? if they can do it cheaper, so be it. Why would they be able to do that, if domestics can't?? That's what I don't get. Do they have a cost advantage. Magic powder that lets their planes fly better?? 3rd world indentured servants providing cabin service??

Air France and Lufthansa provide pretty good service. Now, are their profits subsidized by protected domestic markets. Mayhaps. However, both are under assault by low-cost carriers too. IIRC, though, we do have cabotage agreements with both countries.

It really doesn't matter, if the price is right. The prices allowed large seats, china service, plenty of legroom. The prices did not permit many people to fly. Obviously airline service can be provided at prices that are affordable whilst still allowing a profit. how do I know this? Because SWA does it.

If the new carriers dropped out of the market because they set unsustainable prices, then obviously prices will rise to the sustainable level. You said it yourself. Dereg allowed competition to flourish between newcomers and old line airlines themselves. There was NO competition before. None. Zero. Nil. That's not the American way. Of COURSE those in the industry long for those days. Heck, if I was insulated from competition, the government allowed me to charge a price for the route it gave to me, i'd love it too.
 
I don't know of any pilot's making a ton of money for only flying a 20 hour a month line.

Today. No.

yesterday. yes. I have a friend who made $170k/yr at AA, his duty month was 28hrs IIRC. That was pre-9/11 and the airline meltdown. Did he take a stick in the mouth when they cut salaries? You betcha. Did i make maybe 2/3 of that for 3 times the hours? You betcha.

How much do they fly now?? 35hrs? Oh dear. And that's just Hobbs time. Doesn't count time in the terminal. heavens, cry me a river. So maybe you have an 80hr duty month. Most regular folks have that in 2 weeks. Most folks who make > $100k do that in 1 week. I know I did.

You know what makes me sick?? When I read a Les Abend column bellyaching about how hard his commute is from Florida to New York to start his work day. People just don't understand how many hours he puts in before he gets to work. Memo to Les - most people don't get to commute from FL to NY, gratis, to get to work.
 
You have your view, I have mine. I am outta here.
 
Last edited:
yes, something about regulation that raises my hackles. Sorry for going over the top. :redface:
 
Today. No.

yesterday. yes. I have a friend who made $170k/yr at AA, his duty month was 28hrs IIRC. That was pre-9/11 and the airline meltdown. Did he take a stick in the mouth when they cut salaries? You betcha. Did i make maybe 2/3 of that for 3 times the hours? You betcha.

How much do they fly now?? 35hrs? Oh dear. And that's just Hobbs time. Doesn't count time in the terminal. heavens, cry me a river. So maybe you have an 80hr duty month. Most regular folks have that in 2 weeks. Most folks who make > $100k do that in 1 week. I know I did.

You know what makes me sick?? When I read a Les Abend column bellyaching about how hard his commute is from Florida to New York to start his work day. People just don't understand how many hours he puts in before he gets to work. Memo to Les - most people don't get to commute from FL to NY, gratis, to get to work.

You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on this subject. The numbers you are using simply don't add up, anywhere close to reality. Even using AA's trip and duty rigs it won't add up.

I'm done here also.
 
It would be nice if we could discuss deregulation without getting so worked up so I'll try.

The thing is, we don't know what things would have looked like now if the industry was still regulated. Deregulation happened so long ago that I barely remember what it was like before. I know that fares were relatively more expensive. It seems like I pay about the same for a similar ticket as I did 20 years ago. Sometimes I try to do some rough calculations about what I paid for my ticket times the number of people on the airplane, and the number I come up with doesn't seem like it would cover the expenses, but I know it isn't as simple as that. They probably try to make it up on other routes.

I don't think the problem with deregulation is that it happened, but that the airline industry was set up in an environment of regulation and for whatever reason was unwilling or unable to adapt. Big, old companies are entrenched in the way they do things and it's very difficult for them to change. Then there's that business philosophy where one company provides service below cost in the hopes of driving others out of business. How well is that working?
 
You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on this subject. The numbers you are using simply don't add up, anywhere close to reality. Even using AA's trip and duty rigs it won't add up.

I'm done here also.

Don't quit the discussion. If you have good data, then post it to prove your point. I'm open to being disproved. To say, "You don't know what you're talking about" and then walk away without proving it is pointless.
 
I would never want to go back to the Soviet-style airline service days-of-yore, and I have enough money to be able to afford it!

No Andrew, you have enough money to AVOID it. There's a difference. I think the leather fumes in your nice cushy Matrix may have gotten to your brain a bit here... ;)

Foreign carriers? Why is that a problem?

<strong Indian accent> "Welcome to Curry Airways, this is your Captain, uh, Brian speaking...</accent>

Obviously airline service can be provided at prices that are affordable whilst still allowing a profit. how do I know this? Because SWA does it.

Very true - And I put most of the blame for the current situation on the management of the legacy carriers, not on deregulation.

Oh, and us cheap American consumers.

How much do they fly now?? 35hrs? Oh dear. And that's just Hobbs time. Doesn't count time in the terminal. heavens, cry me a river. So maybe you have an 80hr duty month. Most regular folks have that in 2 weeks. Most folks who make > $100k do that in 1 week. I know I did.

You are WAY off here. WAY off.

I am not an airline pilot, but as the ground-pounding version thereof (and someone who is in position to, and seriously considered, going the airline route), I do have some idea what their lifestyle is like.

35 hours? Are you kidding? The FAA allows 100 hours, and most of the places I looked at pay a 75-hour minimum. I would be REALLY surprised if there are any lines at less than 75 hours except maybe in the case of the long-haul international routes. So, take your 80-hour estimate and figure that's how much they fly. Double that, and you may have a good idea how much time is actually spent on the job. Hey, 160 hours, that sounds pretty much like any other job.

Now comes the part you're really not understanding. Sure, you worked hard to make a lot of money - But you got to go home at night. Even if you didn't see MUCH of your family, you still woke up next to your wife every morning. You were there on weekends to play with the kids, you were there to cut the turkey on Thanksgiving, and you were there to fill the stockings with candy at Christmas.

I know full well from trying to get other people to understand the rigors of my job that it is impossible for someone who has not done it to understand it. You want to have some kind of clue what my job as a truck driver is like? Take a cot to work. Put it three feet behind your desk. Pay $400 for a dorm fridge to put on the side (No, a dorm fridge doesn't cost that much, but a truck fridge does.) Sleep in the cot. Wake up, pour some cereal into a Solo cup and fill it with milk, and go to your desk and start working. Do NOT stand up from your desk until you've been there working with no break for at least four hours. Are you hungry yet? Okay, you can go out *quick* for some crappy fast food. No, you may not get Chipotle or anything even remotely tasty - Subway, McDonald's, Wendy's, Hardee's, or if you're really lucky, Taco Bell. :rolleyes: Go directly back to your desk, and eat while you work. Oh, did I tell you that the entire time you're working there are people trying to kill you? That if you let your concentration lapse for even a few seconds, that you may kill someone including yourself? Okay, now drive another 4 hours. Find more fast food. :vomit: Drive another 3 hours. Okay, you're done for the day, and you're so tired it takes you a few minutes to get the motivation to even crawl 3 feet from your desk chair to your cot. Go to sleep. Have someone wake you up in an hour (That's the security guard asking what load you have). Go back to sleep. Have someone wake you up in another hour (that's security telling you that they'll actually let you in the gate now). Go to someone else's desk and have them completely ignore you for 20 minutes (that's the receiving clerk, who clearly has better things to do than, say, receive things). Go back to sleep, but have someone shake your cot every 5 minutes for the next 2 hours. When the 2 hours is up, have them wake you up again - They're done unloading you. Work for 15 minutes (closing trailer doors, sending satellite messages to dispatch, parking on the other side of the lot). Go back to sleep - If you can. Have someone wake you up again 15 minutes later to tell you you can't sleep there - Work for 10-30 minutes (to find another place to park). Get back in the cot and go back to sleep - OK, don't. It's kind of hard to, after you've been woken up several times already. Try anyway, because the chances you'll kill someone tomorrow go way up if you don't. Toss and turn, get 2 hours of sleep over the course of the next 5 (oh, and this whole thing is considered your "break."). Tired? Doesn't matter, you have to do this whole thing over again. Every day for the next two weeks, minimum. THEN you can go home and see your family and friends - But expect to be completely worthless for at least the first day while you unwind. Enjoy the next day, because on the third day it's back to the "office."

Even after all that - There's no way you can understand until you do it. You can read all that and try to imagine it, but you'll still be at home with your family tonight. Despite the pain in the butt that it is, I think in many ways airline pilots have it worse. I'll be with my family for Christmas, while many, even a majority of airline pilots won't - Only the most senior ones will get a line with Christmas off. And while my rest breaks are often the multi-interruption ordeals like I described above, sometimes I'm just at a truck stop for the full 10 hours - Airline pilots don't get 10 hours, or even 8 sometimes, and then they're supposed to safely hurtle people through the sky. I'm surprised more of them don't fall asleep.

Oh, and I would have needed 8 years as an airline pilot to get back to making the amount of money I was making as a truck driver (at my last company - So far I've taken about a 1/3 hit at the new company with the bad economy). Where do I sign up? :frown2:
 
OBTW - As to that "35 hours and 170K" claim, here's what 737/A320 captains make per hour for various airlines, and what they'd make per year:

[ROW][CELL]Airline[/CELL][CELL]Hourly 737/A320 10-yr Capt. pay[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at 35 hours/month[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at airline's minimum guarantee[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at FAA-maximum duty time[/CELL][/ROW]
[ROW][CELL]American[/CELL][CELL]$163[/CELL][CELL]$68,460[/CELL][CELL]$125,184[/CELL][CELL]$163,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]United[/CELL][CELL]$91[/CELL][CELL]$38,220[/CELL][CELL]$76,440[/CELL][CELL]$91,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Delta[/CELL][CELL]$159[/CELL][CELL]$66,780[/CELL][CELL]$124,020[/CELL][CELL]$159,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]US Airways[/CELL][CELL]$122[/CELL][CELL]$51,240[/CELL][CELL]$105,408[/CELL][CELL]$122,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Southwest[/CELL][CELL]$201[/CELL][CELL]$84,420[/CELL][CELL]$188,136[/CELL][CELL]$201,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]JetBlue[/CELL][CELL]$155[/CELL][CELL]$65,100[/CELL][CELL]$130,200[/CELL][CELL]$155,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Virgin America[/CELL][CELL]$120? (only listed up to 6 years)[/CELL][CELL]$50,400[/CELL][CELL]$100,800[/CELL][CELL]$120,000[/CELL][/ROW]

Of course, we all know that nobody just jumps in the left seat of a 737... You've gotta cut your teeth in the right seat of a small turboprop or RJ first. Let's see where you'll start out - And remember, the lifestyle ain't any better at these pay rates:

[ROW][CELL]Airline[/CELL][CELL]Hourly starting FO pay[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at 35 hours/month[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at airline's minimum guarantee[/CELL][CELL]Yearly at FAA-maximum duty time[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Air Wisconsin[/CELL][CELL]$25[/CELL][CELL]$10,500[/CELL][CELL]$22,500[/CELL][CELL]$25,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Colgan[/CELL][CELL]$21[/CELL][CELL]$8,820[/CELL][CELL]$18,900[/CELL][CELL]$21,000[/CELL][/ROW][ROW][CELL]Great Lakes[/CELL][CELL]$16[/CELL][CELL]$6,720[/CELL][CELL]$14,400[/CELL][CELL]$16,000[/CELL][/ROW]

So, I think that the characterization of airline pilots working for a little time and making a lot of money is completely off-base. Okay, so far off base it's not even in the ballpark. Maybe not even in the same city as reality...
 
And I put most of the blame for the current situation on the management of the legacy carriers, not on deregulation.
I do too.

Oh, and us cheap American consumers.
I don't blame the consumers. They are only doing what consumers do, try to find the best value for the price. The reality is that what most people want is transportation. They don't care about having meals on china or cloth napkins if they have to pay more for it. When there is not that much differentiation in service, consumers are going to go for the lowest price. Sure people complain about the lack of legroom, but if the airplane had only half the seats and charged twice as much do you think they would stay in business very long? There are people who would pay for that but I don't think it would be enough people to make it a profitable business model. There have been airlines which have tried similar things, mostly to overseas destinations, but they have not been very successful.

You are WAY off here. WAY off.

I am not an airline pilot, but as the ground-pounding version thereof (and someone who is in position to, and seriously considered, going the airline route), I do have some idea what their lifestyle is like.
I think most people have misconceptions about what other people's jobs are like, especially if you have a job (flying airplanes) which other people pay a lot of good money to do. That is also just the way it is.

So then what do you think the industry would look like today if it had not been deregulated? Do you think the public would have clamored for lower airfares? Do you think the airlines would be subsidized or nationalized?
 
I don't blame the consumers. They are only doing what consumers do, try to find the best value for the price. The reality is that what most people want is transportation. They don't care about having meals on china or cloth napkins if they have to pay more for it. When there is not that much differentiation in service, consumers are going to go for the lowest price. Sure people complain about the lack of legroom, but if the airplane had only half the seats and charged twice as much do you think they would stay in business very long? There are people who would pay for that but I don't think it would be enough people to make it a profitable business model. There have been airlines which have tried similar things, mostly to overseas destinations, but they have not been very successful.

Midwest Express (/Midwest Airlines) was the best at this. Look where it got them... Bought out by Republic recently. :frown2:

I think most people have misconceptions about what other people's jobs are like, especially if you have a job (flying airplanes) which other people pay a lot of good money to do. That is also just the way it is.

Yup - But I don't get into that conversation until someone tells me I'm overpaid.

So then what do you think the industry would look like today if it had not been deregulated? Do you think the public would have clamored for lower airfares? Do you think the airlines would be subsidized or nationalized?

I don't have any clue... Not gonna go there. But it would be interesting to see what would happen if the airlines' management wasn't so idiotic, if the TSA had never come about, etc... I think there could have been a much happier middle ground between what we had in the days of regulation and what we actually have now.
 
Gee, real data. How nice. Thank you.:smile:

I accept your data. How is it different from 10yrs ago, before the pilots got reamed by mgmt?? I believe they were making considerably more. THey certainly have the right to be bitter. Hell, I'd be throwing molotovs at management after they chop salaries then go get their big annual bonuses.

AFA the rigors of being away from home?? True. But my position is this - it comes with the territory. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. Same with trucking. THat's part of the job, if you accept the job bitching about one of the very basic parameters -- travel -- is silly. IMHO of course.:D
 
I am gonna jump in here strictly from the perspective of a flying consumer. Its not the issue of deregulation that changed the industry alone. Deregulation turned flying for transportion purposes from a luxury to a commodity. Remember when you actually could distinguish, and airlines sold you tickets based on, the differentiation of service provided by one carrier compared to another? Perhaps the old cart before the horse adage applies here. In an economic sense, without competitive alternatives (which I believe was then the motive behind the movement to deregulate the industry) the alternatives shifted to internal ones (ie price driven) rather than external ones (airplane vs car vs rail). To the consumer, the issue is strictly price. Most will forfeit service for price, given the alternatives in the marketplace. That being the case, how does any corporation control price except for those factors which it CAN control, especially wages and working conditions (a classic labor vs management issue in US economic history). Notice, I am not making a value judgement here..this is the reality... and don't try to compare our domestic airline industry to Europeans. The airfare structure in Europe is far more expensive for seat mile ticket costs than in the US, Why? because there are viable external alternatives in that market that do not exist in the US. Since labor is the easiest thing to control in terms of cost, its not a surprise that it is in this arena that the issue of compensation and work rules are the most contested. Now throw in the external factors of operating costs other than labor, (ie fuel) the 9-11 related substantive realities, and the overall economic downturn, its no wonder that the industry is reeling. Deregulation...not so fast. Look at how much the FAA really has a substantial impact on the work rules as shown in this post...then tell me where the regulatory pressure is really coming from. No passengers, no profit, no planes, no jobs.
 
AFA the rigors of being away from home?? True. But my position is this - it comes with the territory. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. Same with trucking. THat's part of the job, if you accept the job bitching about one of the very basic parameters -- travel -- is silly. IMHO of course.:D

Andrew, I do agree as a rule on this. However as you know, people want to advance themselves or be able to provide the best they can for their families. Sometimes this means taking jobs that have conditions they don't like in order to be able to do so. Depending on our opportunities and education, the way to do that may involve accepting jobs that involve conditions that are not ideal.

Yes, we should all be thankful we have jobs and can support ourselves and our families and it's important to focus on that rather than complain about how things could be better. But you and I also have lives where our comprimises are significantly less than what many have to deal with. Let's not lose sight of the fact that doing what's best for your family may involve not spending time with them, and that money doesn't make that easier. I know for me money doesn't buy happiness, all it does is rent it for brief periods.

Not saying this does or does not apply to airline pilots, but for a lot of truckers and other jobs? You betcha. BTDT, although not nearly as much as Kent (and he'd probably call me a cheater for using a Dodge instead of something with a proper diesel engine).
 
No passengers, no profit, no planes, no jobs.
This is true and I think many companies forget that it is true. At least it seems that way by looking at the way they treat their customers. The company exists for its customers, not for its stockholders, for management or for labor. Without customers there is no company.

Another thing people tend to forget is that they are in the same boat together. There is always tension between management and labor, even in a non-union setting. People want to get paid more; the company doesn't want to shell out so much. It usually ends up being that the company pays as much as it needs to in order to get the people it wants, but no more than that. Employees stay unless they find it's not worth it for whatever reason. At the end of the day though, the company cannot exist without employees and the employees have no jobs if the company goes under.

But you and I also have lives where our comprimises are significantly less than what many have to deal with.
I don't know much about Andrew but I think that you did all the right things; studied hard, got an education, got a good job, which is pretty much what you thought would happen if you played by the rules. Airline pilots thought they were playing by the rules too but the rules were changed on them, so it's not surprising that many are disillusioned.

As far as travel goes, I can agree that people who want to be home every night shouldn't be airline pilots or long distance truck drivers. However, I think that sometimes when you are young and picking a career you don't think about that. Either that or your priorities change.
 
One of the marketing professors used to ask his students to discuss the reasons why there was never a "Santa Fe Airlines" or a "Southern Pacific Airlines." After all, he'd ask, weren't they the national leaders in the passenger and freight transportation business?

It would be nice if we could discuss deregulation without getting so worked up so I'll try.

The thing is, we don't know what things would have looked like now if the industry was still regulated. Deregulation happened so long ago that I barely remember what it was like before. I know that fares were relatively more expensive. It seems like I pay about the same for a similar ticket as I did 20 years ago. Sometimes I try to do some rough calculations about what I paid for my ticket times the number of people on the airplane, and the number I come up with doesn't seem like it would cover the expenses, but I know it isn't as simple as that. They probably try to make it up on other routes.

I don't think the problem with deregulation is that it happened, but that the airline industry was set up in an environment of regulation and for whatever reason was unwilling or unable to adapt. Big, old companies are entrenched in the way they do things and it's very difficult for them to change. Then there's that business philosophy where one company provides service below cost in the hopes of driving others out of business. How well is that working?
 
I don't know much about Andrew but I think that you did all the right things; studied hard, got an education, got a good job, which is pretty much what you thought would happen if you played by the rules. Airline pilots thought they were playing by the rules too but the rules were changed on them, so it's not surprising that many are disillusioned.

True, but I was also afforded some good opportunities which would still have been possible given different upbringing, but most likely different. There are also no shortage of educated people who have the rules changed on them last minute and then are left in a pickle. That's one of the advantages of being young and single, though.

As far as travel goes, I can agree that people who want to be home every night shouldn't be airline pilots or long distance truck drivers. However, I think that sometimes when you are young and picking a career you don't think about that. Either that or your priorities change.

Yes, I'd agree on that for certain. However airline pilots vs. truck drivers have one major difference, which is that being an airline pilot takes a lot more investment and education than being a truck driver. I've not met a tremendous number of truck drivers of the same background and education level as Kent, but most of the airline pilots I've met are pretty well educated. Just an observation.
 
There are also no shortage of educated people who have the rules changed on them last minute and then are left in a pickle.
That's for sure but I think the airline industry is worse because you are essentially married to your employer for life, at least if you don't always want to be starting over again. With most professions you can make a parallel or upward move changing jobs. Even I could do that (if I was lucky) because I am in another part of the aviation industry. As an outsider I see the seniority system as having both advantages and disadvantages but I can't think of any other way to do it. When you have thousands of people who are essentially interchangeable, how do you decide who to promote or let go? Even if you have a couple dozen people in a company there are sometimes still hard feelings and controversy when someone gets a position someone else wants.

However airline pilots vs. truck drivers have one major difference, which is that being an airline pilot takes a lot more investment and education than being a truck driver. I've not met a tremendous number of truck drivers of the same background and education level as Kent, but most of the airline pilots I've met are pretty well educated. Just an observation.
I agree and I think that people getting into the airline or aviation business need to take a hard look at the reality of the job. I think too many people just think about how cool it would be to fly the airplane. It take a long time to figure out that it's not just about the airplane.
 
I accept your data. How is it different from 10yrs ago, before the pilots got reamed by mgmt??

Supposedly, Sully has taken a 40 percent pay hit in that time period, meaning he'd have been making a bit over $200/hr and thus somewhere in the neighborhood of $200K per year. Considering the costs to get started and the fact that you have to live on peanuts or less for your first 10+ years in the industry, I don't think that's out of line in the least. :no:

AFA the rigors of being away from home?? True. But my position is this - it comes with the territory. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Right - But there's a value judgement there. If you decided that you were willing to make those sacrifices to make $200K and then someone cut your pay by 40%, I think you have every right to be ****ed... Because making $120K might change that value judgement significantly, and it might no longer be worth it to you, but by that point in your life you're pretty much stuck doing what you're doing as you'd be starting at the bottom in any other career and unlikely to even make the $120K. Yeah, I'd be bitter!

Same with trucking. THat's part of the job, if you accept the job bitching about one of the very basic parameters -- travel -- is silly. IMHO of course.:D

Yep... But you'd be surprised. One of my friends' trainees lasted all of about 5 days before he quit. The money quote? "Jeez, I didn't think we'd have to do so much DRIVING!" :rofl:
 
That's for sure but I think the airline industry is worse because you are essentially married to your employer for life, at least if you don't always want to be starting over again. With most professions you can make a parallel or upward move changing jobs.

The trucking industry is crazy - We get nothing but pay for seniority for the most part. The average driver works for the average company for less than 90 days! If the airlines were like that, a third to a half of their pilots would be in training at any given time! :eek:
 
Airline pilots need the same thing in seniority as the uninsured do in health insurance: portability.

If there were some way to incorporate portability into the seniority system, I think it might help dramatically. Getting locked in that seniority trap is a tough way to go. I'm sure the guys in the '30s never expected the unintended consequences of the system they created.

Maybe a total makeover of the system? Has anyone ever proposed such a thing?? I can't believe pilots are happy with what they have.
 
Airline pilots need the same thing in seniority as the uninsured do in health insurance: portability.

If there were some way to incorporate portability into the seniority system, I think it might help dramatically. Getting locked in that seniority trap is a tough way to go. I'm sure the guys in the '30s never expected the unintended consequences of the system they created.

Maybe a total makeover of the system? Has anyone ever proposed such a thing?? I can't believe pilots are happy with what they have.

I have an assignment for you. Give it critical thought. How would you envision a system like that working?

A universal seniority number looks good in theory, but when you start to look at ALL sides of the issue, it becomes unworkable.
 
I have an assignment for you. Give it critical thought. How would you envision a system like that working?

A universal seniority number looks good in theory, but when you start to look at ALL sides of the issue, it becomes unworkable.

That's why I was asking if someone else had. It made my brain hurt trying to make it work.

If you assume seniority is the determining factor, I think you're locked into a bunch of tough lifestyle decisions.

If you go with something other than seniority, well, I don't know where you would start. Lots of companies hire employees, they rise with the company on merit, sometimes not, move on to a similar or higher level job with another company. That's pretty much a merit-based system. Implementing that in an airline environment would be challenging, just as in teaching. Would you have some sort of aeronautical competition every year, like an annual review at a regular job?? Institute pilot levels, like Jr Pilot, Pilot, Asst Sr Pilot, Sr Pilot, Sr Vice Pilot, Executive Vice Pilot, based on total hours, or time in type, so you could move up the ranks based on flight time, and hop to another airline (say you needed 8500hrs in a 737 to be Sr Vice Pilot, you hit that at Airline A, but all the SVP slots are full, so you apply to Airline B which is hiring SVPs). I dunno - that's one idiot's musing on a webboard, I'm sure it's full of holes.

I do think that it wouldn't hurt for ALPA or someone to rethink the system.
 
That's why I was asking if someone else had. It made my brain hurt trying to make it work...

Exactly.

If you eliminate the seniority system within a company, and base advancement on merit, you introduce a whole lot of potential for abuse into the system. You get management that plays favorites, Chief Pilots who may not like you, vice presidents that want to get their Sister-in-law a good job. Politics, favoritism, cronyism, nepotism. It goes on and on.

If you institute a universal seniority system, then what? I got hired at UAL in 1989. It was a good company to work for all the way up to 9/11, IMO. But several airlines went out of business. Should all those people who got hired before me at those airlines be allowed to come in ahead of me just because they had the misfortune of choosing to work for a company that went out of business? I am flying a 777. Should someone who came from a company that only flew Beech 1900s be allowed to come in ahead of me, just because they got hired at their commuter before I got hired at UAL?

The seniority system has its faults. But in the grand scheme of things, it really is the best way to keep all the bad things out. Yeah, it may cost a few good things, but sometimes you have to accept that.

It is what it is. If you can figure out a FAIR way that cannot be abused, I am sure someone would be interested. But until that happens, we have what we have, and it is about as fair as it can be made.

I do think that it wouldn't hurt for ALPA or someone to rethink the system.

I am sure it has been done. Regardless of its warts, anything else would have MORE warts, if not down right cancer.
 
If you eliminate the seniority system within a company, and base advancement on merit,

You get the system that an awful lot of us (myself included) work under.

If you institute a universal seniority system, then what?

The incompetent thrive. I've seen that too, when layoffs here were done by seniority back in the '70s. Some really great people got shown the door. And many worthless bumps on logs remained. No thanks.

Were'nt we just complaining about the quality of American cars in the 70's 80's? Guess what...
 
Back
Top