Stating the obviously unbovious

[LoadMasterC141]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

We're turning into a country of pansies if we think that $65,000 a year is acceptable compensation for a job that puts hundreds of people's of lives in your hands every day.

My wife puts hundreds of people's lives at risk every day she gets behind the wheel of her Honda!

[mojo6911]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

I personally can't remember in the past that "six/eight month wonders" were transitioning to jets. Also help me here. . . are foreign pilots with less than 1000 hrs TT flying overseas in 737s?

Up to a 2 years ago, most regionals had their mins at 1200/200. Foreign pilots with less than 300 hours are flying right seat on Airbus 320's.

[LoadMasterC141]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

That might be true, but in ending my second year of flying professionally I'm home 8 days a month and make $19,000 a year.

I have not been on these boards for two years yet, and you were an instructor at Skymates when I got here, only leaving for AM when, this spring/summer? You also just got on with a company who had their huge hiring push 3 years ago, and has slowed to nothing for the winter. Someone like Bob, who got on then, was already an FO holding a line that gave 18-20 days off in the same time you have been there.

BTW...I love you man

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

$65,000 a year is chump change in this country. My Dad made that as a psychologist working for the state of Michigan living in a rural town, and as far as I'm concerned was completely ripped off.

Heck at $65,000 a year I couldn't buy a condo in Park City, where my fiance's job is.

This is America, we should demand better than this crap that we're fed. We're told that it's acceptable and we say, "Huh, well somebody said it's good enough so it must be." We're turning into a country of pansies if we think that $65,000 a year is acceptable compensation for a job that puts hundreds of people's of lives in your hands every day.

Succinctly put, I believe you're deluding yourself if you believe $65k is chump change. Demand all you want; you've not provided any evidence to support you're entitled to be paid more. Further, rather than simply spout emotional rhetoric, do the financial math that says increasing your pay won't put the airline out of business. I'll listen then. . .

[Realms09]

My perception is the following inconvenient truth.

Airlines are not interested in candidates who could command high salaries outside of professional aviation. They do not see that level of talent being required anymore, so they see no reason to pay for it.

That's a hard thing to fight.

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Succinctly put, I believe you're deluding yourself if you believe $65k is chump change. Demand all you want; you've not provided any evidence to support you're entitled to be paid more. Further, rather than simply spout emotional rhetoric, do the financial math that says increasing your pay won't put the airline out of business. I'll listen then. . .

I think where you grow up/have lived puts a different perspective on what amount of money is a lot or a little. For someone like me who grew up in NYC and have lived in equally expensive CO and Japan, 65K truly is chump change.

What other evidence do we need about being entitled to be paid more other than we (and I use we as in general airline pilot) used to make several times what we make now? We took pay hits to allow our companies to survive the aftermath of 9/11. Now that that is behind it and our comapnies are making money again, the CEOs and other management types come and go and give themselves tons of money yet our wages have merely trickled up only slightly from what they were reduced to. So are we no longer entitled because we tried to help???

You can rearrange the financial math anyway you want and get an answer to support your way of thinking just like any other statistic. Cut some of the huge management bonuses you can give the employees a pay raise. Elmiminate those golden parachutes and you can give employees a pay raise. Stop the cutting fare and cutting back services war and you cna give the employees a pay raise. Stop flying unprofitable routes or aircraft and you can give employees a pay raise. Stop offering 8 flights a day to a city that provides only 10 or so people at a time and you can give employees a pay raise. Do I need to go on? People arguing against pilots making money is just sickening. Particularly on a pro-aviation website.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

What other evidence do we need about being entitled to be paid more other than we (and I use we as in general airline pilot) used to make several times what we make now?

Proof! Financial documentation to support your rhetoric. . .something I asked for above which you've not provided.

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

We took pay hits to allow our companies to survive the aftermath of 9/11. Now that that is behind it and our comapnies are making money again, the CEOs and other management types come and go and give themselves tons of money yet our wages have merely trickled up only slightly from what they were reduced to. So are we no longer entitled because we tried to help???

Rhetoric. . .move on.

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

You can rearrange the financial math anyway you want and get an answer to support your way of thinking just like any other statistic. Cut some of the huge management bonuses you can give the employees a pay raise. Elmiminate those golden parachutes and you can give employees a pay raise. Stop the cutting fare and cutting back services war and you cna give the employees a pay raise. Stop flying unprofitable routes or aircraft and you can give employees a pay raise. Stop offering 8 flights a day to a city that provides only 10 or so people at a time and you can give employees a pay raise. Do I need to go on?

More of a reason why perhaps a business vice an aviation degree bodes well for pilots. Consider that?

Lastly,

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

People arguing against pilots making money is just sickening. Particularly on a pro-aviation website.

English composition 101 - I don't see anyone arguing against pilots making more money. Help me please to find someone doing so. I see quite a few arguing for more money.

My argument? Like any other business, show me the dollars and cents to justify the raise. Can you do that? Janitors ask for more money, waiters ask for more money. . .everyone asks for more money. Prove your statement above is true that the industry can afford what you want for the industry without burying it.

[mojo6911]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Proof! Financial documentation to support your rhetoric. . .something I asked for above which you've not provided.



Rhetoric. . .move on.



More of a reason why perhaps a business vice an aviation degree bodes well for pilots. Consider that?

Lastly,



English composition 101 - I don't see anyone arguing against pilots making more money. Help me please to find someone doing so. I see quite a few arguing for more money.

My argument? Like any other business, show me the dollars and cents to justify the raise. Can you do that? Janitors ask for more money, waiters ask for more money. . .everyone asks for more money. Prove your statement above is true that the industry can afford what you want for the industry without burying it.

It is impossible to "prove" that companies can afford a pilot's raise from our end of the spectrum.

[GalaxyIFE]

Management is in the position to manage. If they are able to keep the schedule going (some are having issues with that) at the rates they are paying pilots, it is not going to change.

I can't think of a person who has a career who DOESN'T want more money. I just think *for me*, 65K a year is not bad considering the QOL it can afford, such as in Cap'n Bob's situation. Call me the bast&^%, but I would be content with 65K a year. At least it isn't being outsourced...yet.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by mojo6911

It is impossible to "prove" that companies can afford a pilot's raise from our end of the spectrum.

Knowledge is power; never say impossible to what can be done. Companies can attempt to prove why they can't; knowledge is there to prove they can. It's call negotiation and bartering. If they balk, it's called arbitration.

[Wing_96]

MFT1AIR, I have never had to prove that the company I work for has enough money to give me a raise. I have never had to do that at any job I've ever had since I started sacking groceries when I was 15!

MFT1AIR, you also mention low time FOs. Clearly they shouldn't be compensated the same as the CAs or other higher time FOs. However, that being said, they should be compensated more than a kid flipping burgers. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I think 19K/year for an FO is too low, but that's just my opinion. And I agree with GalaxyIFE, as long as there are people willing to work for 19K/year, then there probably is not going to be any change.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by Wing_96

MFT1AIR, I have never had to prove that the company I work for has enough money to give me a raise. I have never had to do that at any job I've ever had since I started sacking groceries when I was 15!

Your point?

Originally Posted by Wing_96

MFT1AIR, you also mention low time FOs. Clearly they shouldn't be compensated the same as the CAs or other higher time FOs. However, that being said, they should be compensated more than a kid flipping burgers. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Firstly, I agree. Secondly, I didn't say they should be compensated the same as CAs. I said, let's compare the ratios previous to the ratios now and determine where the FOs salaries are with respect to experience past and present. (Understand something though. . .an FO is usually a typed SIC, correct? Isn't that akin to something like a PIC in training?) Just a question. . .

Originally Posted by Wing_96

I think 19K/year for an FO is too low, but that's just my opinion. And I agree with GalaxyIFE, as long as there are people willing to work for 19K/year, then there probably is not going to be any change.

I agree here as well; however, depending upon the turnaround rate of first officers in those types of jobs makes it apparent to the company in order to reduce attrition rates, they must increase pay. Additionally, a pilot of higher caliber tend to trend towards companies with increased pay. Yes, they may fly for less if other circumstances are present, but generally speaking if more money is paid elsewhere along with other favorable circumstances, a pilot will leave for greener pastures. Management knows this. . .should they wish the company to fail, they'll take the appropriate action.

Understand this; if PFT/PFJs are present, you know people will accept 19k. Can't speak to the quality/caliber of the pilot, but if the time comes around, that pilot will leave unless something more than money is an incentive.

[Wing_96]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Demand all you want; you've not provided any evidence to support you're entitled to be paid more. Further, rather than simply spout emotional rhetoric, do the financial math that says increasing your pay won't put the airline out of business. I'll listen then. . .

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Your point?

It sounded like you were saying that a person would have to prove the company they work for had money to give for a raise before one could ask for said raise, but maybe I miss interpreted what you were saying.

[ready2fly]

Originally Posted by aloft

"unbovious"?

Isn't it bovious what he's trying to say??? I swear, Captain Bovious! Sometimes you're boviously trying to pick a fight!

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Succinctly put, I believe you're deluding yourself if you believe $65k is chump change. Demand all you want; you've not provided any evidence to support you're entitled to be paid more. Further, rather than simply spout emotional rhetoric, do the financial math that says increasing your pay won't put the airline out of business. I'll listen then. . .

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that MFT is secretly typing the things that he believes that Mike Tyson would reply with?

Just an observation.

[t-cart]

It is a problem in all different types of aviation.Last year a local company bought a Pilatus and talked to two different experienced guys with around three or four thousand hours each.They were both lobbying for around $40,000 for the job.Word is that they were undercut by a guy with 1000 hrs for the low price of---------$15000 per year. Sucks, FLY SAFE T.C. Both of the other guys have found better jobs fortunately.

[jspeed87]

What we all should do is demand for the FAA to set more professional standards. Part 121 Minimum Hours: 1000 Hours fixed wing. 200-500 Multi Engine Time. No Exceptions!

Part 121 Minimum Salary 1st year salary: 45-50K. Cannot be paid any less!
Minimum 14 Days off a month.

All Pilots should demand a change from the FAA.

[jtrain609]

I've gotta go grab some lunch, but I'll echo what Doug has said in the past:

We've got a very serious problem when pilots are arguging with other pilots about how we're overpaid.

THIS is how crappy contracts get voted in, and as John's original post said; you don't realize how much you're worth. We could shut down the transportation section of this economy if we all grew a pair and stopped arguging with each other about how we don't deserve to be paid well.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

We've got a very serious problem when pilots are arguging with other pilots about how we're overpaid.

I don't think I've seen anything in this thread to support your statement.

We could shut down the transportation section of this economy if we all grew a pair and stopped arguging with each other about how we don't deserve to be paid well.

So?

Why do you feel you deserve more? What is your business justification for it, aside from you think you're worth more? And if you do, why in the world did you accept the job!?!

The great thing about capitalism is we aren't forced to do anything. Were you forced to take the "undakinerpaid" position as a regional FO? No. I'm not saying don't work for higher wages, we can all use it, but I find it ironic that someone talks about shutting down an entire sector of our economy because they aren't happy with the pay, which they knowingly accepted.

Unfortunately, I think the high pay actually works against us, as we are more willing to accept lower pay initially with the hope of "making it big".

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by Chewie von Nubbins

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that MFT is secretly typing the things that he believes that Mike Tyson would reply with?

Just an observation.

From now on when I read his posts it will be with MT's voice in my head . . . already LOL!!!

[DenverPilot8]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Proof! Financial documentation to support your rhetoric. . .something I asked for above which you've not provided.



Rhetoric. . .move on.



More of a reason why perhaps a business vice an aviation degree bodes well for pilots. Consider that?

Lastly,



English composition 101 - I don't see anyone arguing against pilots making more money. Help me please to find someone doing so. I see quite a few arguing for more money.

My argument? Like any other business, show me the dollars and cents to justify the raise. Can you do that? Janitors ask for more money, waiters ask for more money. . .everyone asks for more money. Prove your statement above is true that the industry can afford what you want for the industry without burying it.

Yeah I love how you are telling someone to provide financial proof when you don't provide ANY of your own.

Also it's a matter of common sense. If an airline comes out of bankrupcy and yet can afford to pay bonus money to management (in the millions) then maybe that airline can "afford" to distribute that moey to the employees.

Janitors and waitors might ask for a raise but they never took a pay cuts in the first place. So this said raise is really just people asking for THEIR money back at this point.

Why don't you write up some "proof" that it is a good business decision to increase attrition rates because of disgruntled emloyees but pay a lage bonus to an executive that has done nothing but run the company into the ground.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I don't think I've seen anything in this thread to support your statement.

So?

Why do you feel you deserve more? What is your business justification for it, aside from you think you're worth more? And if you do, why in the world did you accept the job!?!

The great thing about capitalism is we aren't forced to do anything. Were you forced to take the "undakinerpaid" position as a regional FO? No. I'm not saying don't work for higher wages, we can all use it, but I find it ironic that someone talks about shutting down an entire sector of our economy because they aren't happy with the pay, which they knowingly accepted.

Unfortunately, I think the high pay actually works against us, as we are more willing to accept lower pay initially with the hope of "making it big".

You're saying, "Don't complain about pay, you knew what you were getting into."

I say, "Complain about pay, work rules, everything. I knew what I was getting into, and I intend on changing things. If we don't try to make things better, management WILL work to make things worse."

If you don't understand that very basic tenant about negotiating a higher pay rate under the rules that we're stuck with, then you'll never get a better contract. Our job, with the way this system is structured (that system being collecting bargaining), is to try to extract as much money as we can from management. Management's job is to get us to work for as little as possible.

There is no "we deserve to make X amount" in this job, we simply deserve to make more because if we're not working towards that, then from a historical perspective you see things moving backwards. One group, either the managers or the pilot, is ALWAYS moving to make the other side give up more, and if one of those two groups is not then the other side wins by default.

[surreal1221]

Aaaah!

The ones in our profession that are the push overs are the Management, Finance, or Economic degree types that are so use to the management, finance, and economic kool-aid that they are easily swayed and quickly flop over and devalue their professional worth.

I say - no more management, finance, or economic degree pilots in the cockpit. . .

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Oh OK so it's only about the money for you. I see. Why did you become a pilot then? Why not a doctor, a lawyer, or [insert job where you quote high pay]?

You can't put a price on living where you want? I can. It could mean the difference between a 3/2 1500 sq. ft. home that costs $500,000 vs. $130,000. It could mean the difference between driving to work every day and hating rush hour traffic or using a golf cart as your primary transportation.

Then you did the wrong thing going to ExpressJet. You need to make a move toward a corporate job where you can directly negotiate your pay.

I didn't say it was great. I said it still goes a long way. I'm not at Skybus 1) because I'll make more money here as an FO than I would there as an FO and more as a CA here than as a CA there 2) I can't stand the midwest and hope I never have to move there 3) because they are a new startup and I think they don't have a chance and 4) because I drink too much soda and I refuse to spend my per diem buying the stuff while at work!!

I've got 34 hours in beautiful Dayton, OH to argue with you guys about this one now.

I'm not in this job for the money, but I'm also not juvenile enough to think that this isn't a J-O-B. This isn't just some childhood dream to me that allows me to live where I want or fly cool airplanes for me, it's a way to pay bills. If it isn't that for you, then I hope you get out ASAP because you're not doing anything but hurting my negotiating power. To be quite honest with you I live on $19,000 a year just fine, the only thing that sucks about it is I'm unable to save any money with making this little. Right now I'm spending 50% of my income on rent between my apartment in Utah and my crashpad in Newark. I could live in the pilot lounge, but I'm sure the other guys at my company wouldn't be too happy about that. I could move to New Jersey but my fiance would leave me and I'd probably be spending just as much on rent.

[surreal1221]

Well said John. . .But. . .

How dare you rain on those people's dreams of flying a plane for a living. . .

Glad you feel just about the same way as I do. It's a job, and an individual should have enough self worth to defend their profession when it's being knocked down, and enough self worth and professional value to stand up and pick things up to make it (the profession) better than ever.