Stating the obviously unbovious

[mojo6911]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

So what can YOU do about MY pay rate? Nothing. You don't negotiate with my company for my pay rate, I DO. Until YOU are on the inside with a vote that counts, you can do NOTHING for my company.

I never said I would personally change your pay rate. You didn't negotiate with your company about anything. They had an employment package that you accepted. The only negotiation power a new hire at an airline has is to either take the job or leave it.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by mojo6911

I never said I would personally change your pay rate. You didn't negotiate with your company about anything. They had an employment package that you accepted. The only negotiation power a new hire at an airline has is to either take the job or leave it.

But if you don't get in there and get in a position to vote on the next contract, it'll go no where. If you want to change things, come on over! We could always use votes that'll bump pay on the next contract as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't care, on the other hand, please stay away from ALL airlines.

[OldTownPilot]

Why are they barely profitable? Because they (management) choose to not cover their costs with the price of the ticket.

I made more slinging bags than a first year FO. 4 days a week, 12 hour days, but unlike a pilot I was in my own (or some random girls) bed every night. And in my 3 days off I was going to europe, rather than going across the country to get home. Sad.

An entry level job using my degree would net me AT LEAST 60k a year. I know guys that have 100k/ years jobs lined up for after graduation in may.

Name any other industry where a entry level PROFESSIONAL, that is required to be there, that is payed as little as a 1st year FO. Good luck.

[RightSeatGirl]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Why are they barely profitable? Because they (management) choose to not cover their costs with the price of the ticket.

I made more slinging bags than a first year FO. 4 days a week, 12 hour days, but unlike a pilot I was in my own (or some random girls) bed every night. Sad.

An entry level job using my degree would net me AT LEAST 60k a year. I know guys that have 100k/ years jobs lined up for after graduation in may.

Name any other industry where a entry level PROFESSIONAL, that is required to be there, that is payed as little as a 1st year FO. Good luck.

It's not that simple...

Airlines can't just raise ticket fares without impacting the volume of their business. The industry is too competitive for an individual company to take that kind of risk. The airline industry was once focused on selling "service". Now it's all about volume.

Picture it this way...

You are a frequent business traveler. You travel weekly from say...ORD to DFW. And you usually fly on Delta. Well Delta announces fares are going up 25% (yes it would take that much to pay first year pilots what most are demanding)..You now ask yourself...why not just put up with the lines and open seating on Southwest and fly for $200 to $300 less per ticket...It's not like that's a 15 hour trans-pacific flight!

Okay, so not everyone would fly a cheaper carrier. But flying is no longer the exclusive domain of the upper class. It's now mass transit and the market does not support what you propose. For an airline to hike fares enough to really make a dent in their current problems and survive the loss in business, they would have to be willing to go into the red for years trying new marketing strategies to get fliers back that went with the discount airline. And there is not a stock holder alive that would let them do that.

Things are as they are because of the economics of the industry. It does not matter that professional positions in other lines of work pay more first year. You are comparing apples to steak..You are not seeing that scarcely any other industry has the initial investment required of an airline to put into a new hire. Most industries new hires come "pre-trained". Ready to go right to work on day one with maybe a few days of company indoc class or something. I doubt there is any other industry that has to spend as much on a new hire as an airline does on a new f/o.

[jtrain609]

Why in the world would an airline have to announce a fair hike? The fare structure is so jacked up right now nobody would notice a $10 hike unless the airline made a big stink about it.

[Rocketman99]

For those complaining that no one is actually arguing against pilots making money I will say this. If you're not FOR us making more money as pilots and arguing for it then you are against us. Plain and simple, and most of this thread is people doing just that. Furthermore, if that's the case, then you really don't need to be part of our career field.

There's a big difference between paying dues and living in poverty. While a first year regional FO may be an "entry level" job for the airlines, it is one that involves quite a large amount of risk and puts a large number of lives at stake on a given day. There's not much reason to argue why 19K is not an accpetable amount of money to make as a first year regional airline pilot. If you can't see that without someone explaining it to you you're probably not going to figure it out and I'm not going to waste my time.

As for the changes suggested that may have to be implemented to get close to bringing pay and benefits back to a level they once were 6 years ago, so be it. I don't really see it as anything less than a good thing that suddenly lots of experience would be required to be an airline pilot. Less pilot jobs would not be a bad thing. Flying is not for everyone. Lord knows I've flown with people that should be nowhere near an airline cockpit. Everything is great when the wx is clear and every systme is working like it should. Then again, I could probably train my dead dog to operate a plane in those conditions.

Further, the airlines are NOT the new public bus. Flying is not a benefit for everyone. It's certainly not a right to be entitled to pay some ridiculously cheap amount of money to fly across the country. I'm not gonna shed a tear if suddenly Joe Schmo can't afford a plane ticket. Hell, I'm not gonna shed a tear if I suddenly can't afford an airline ticket. Current fares are so low it's disgusting. Of course, I guess that ties into other opinions like the idea of welfare going away, but that would turn this into a 10 page thesis paper.

It's a shame that my fellow pilots are willing to cut my knees out on pay to get a flying job. Even worse are the ones who realize this yet aren't willing to try to fight to stop it. It's just not right.

[Wing_96]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

It just kills me when I hear professional pilot's gabbering on about more pay more pay more pay! So for those that do I have a question to pose to you….in a very Dr. Cox styled tone…Juhuhhhhhsssttt where do you think the money will come from….huh? It's not like management is hording funds to spare..Most airlines in current operation …if profitable at all are BARELY profitable. The margins are so small right now that it's almost not even worth all the trouble of running an airline.

The exces at UAL and AMR managed to find money to give themselves millions in bonus money. Maybe they could use that same creative thinking to give their pilots their salaries back, much less a raise?

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

For an airline to hike fares enough to really make a dent in their current problems and survive the loss in business, they would have to be willing to go into the red for years trying new marketing strategies to get fliers back that went with the discount airline. And there is not a stock holder alive that would let them do that.

How is that any different at all from what the legacies are doing rght now? They are pretty much operating in the red becasue they've cut everything in an attempt to compete with the LCCs. Guess what, it's not working that way either.

[RightSeatGirl]

You guys, I'm not arguing amounts, I'm arguing reason. None of you have yet to suggest a methodology for any airline to be able to afford to substantially increase first year f/o pay.

And a side note..I'm a first year f/o and I'm on track to pull 35k this year....Don't blame the industry for the decision to go to work for the wrong carrier...19K sucks..I never said it didn't. But why work for a carrier that pays that low to begin with? Who is the more foolish...the foolish company, or the fool that applies to work for the foolish company?

A lot of the salary woes I've read about on the thread so far are quite self inflicted...No airline would pay that low if no pilot would work for them!

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

You guys, I'm not arguing amounts, I'm arguing reason. None of you have yet to suggest a methodology for any airline to be able to afford to substantially increase first year f/o pay.

And a side note..I'm a first year f/o and I'm on track to pull 35k this year....Don't blame the industry for the decision to go to work for the wrong carrier...19K sucks..I never said it didn't. But why work for a carrier that pays that low to begin with? Who is the more foolish...the foolish company, or the fool that applies to work for the foolish company?

We've got the industry leading contract right now (you can figure out who I work for by my avatar), and I'll make $19,000 this year. Sucks when you're on reserve and the bypass level is 60 hours.

[OldTownPilot]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

Picture it this way...

You are a frequent business traveler. You travel weekly from say...ORD to DFW. And you usually fly on Delta. Well Delta announces fares are going up 25% (yes it would take that much to pay first year pilots what most are demanding)..You now ask yourself...why not just put up with the lines and open seating on Southwest and fly for $200 to $300 less per ticket...It's not like that's a 15 hour trans-pacific flight!

You want to claim a 25% fare hike?

A first year FO is paid $25/hour (i'm being generous here, but it makes for easy math). in a 50 seat RJ, that is 50 cents per seat per hour. On a 2 hour flight you paid 1 dollar for the the FO. granted this is for a full flight, but load factors are running in the ~75% range. So you just spent $1.50 for the FO. If you want to double the FO's salary, that will cost another $1.50 per leg (assuming a 2 hour flight), or 75 cents per hour. Hardly 25%. I hate it when people pull statistics out of their ass.

As for engineering, don't talk about things you don't know. Companies are investing 2 YEARS in new employees in training, and placing them in the right department in the company. This is very common in the industry, with larger companies. I have been talking to Pratt and Whitney for a while now about this program and getting a job there. All while being paid 60k/year. After 2 years you'd be making close to 80k.

[Rocketman99]

I made 26K being the guy and working for the airline Sleepy-san calls a disgrace in another thread. I don't complain because my company pays less that X or Y or Z airline. I am incensed that mine and all the other airlines pay so little to begin with. Someone is always going to be paying more and someone is always going to be paying less. The problem is that the company paying more is STILL not paying jack.

At the regional level it's easy to pay us more money, quit bidding so freaking low for contractd flying. Or in the case of Pinnacle, sign the pilot contract instead of incurring debt that's significantly more than the difference in pay for the LENGTH of the pilot contract to buy new planes (Q400) and another airline (Colgan). The money is there, the suits just don't wanna put it anywhere other than their pockets.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Why in the world would an airline have to announce a fair hike? The fare structure is so jacked up right now nobody would notice a $10 hike unless the airline made a big stink about it.

Business travelers do book on fare price. But, when the fares are within $100 of each other, they'll take the higher fare if the schedule/route is more congruent with their needs. It has been this way with every company I've worked for, and it's presently how I deal with my own travel.

I have to fly on average of 2-3 days a week. At least - I have been since May. I'd LOVE it if fares went up 15-20% or more provided that the crews were better-taken-care-of and the services I received were improved.

It's called value.

[RightSeatGirl]

The money is there? Really? Where?

50 seat RJ cost averages (generalized numbers):

$2500 per hour for fuel
$700 per hour for maint
$100 per hour for flight crew and f/a

$3300 per hour...now consider this..out of the remaining profit per seat (around $7000 or so) must come revenue to pay for:

Every paper clip, every roll of duct tape, every admin, HR, scheduling, dispatch, ground personnel salary, every dime of office utility costs, every piece of printer paper, every roll of toilet paper in company restrooms, every dime spent on insurance of various types, band width for web sites, advertising, legal costs etc etc etc...when you whittle it down...another $1.50 is no longer such a small amount....

Understand the big picture. You are looking at a complex economic system too simplistically. And for the record. I was never defending low salaries. But I do understand them. I see things from other points of view. Not just through the cockpit window.

I'm not saying there is not a fair amount of greed within the management side of the airline industry. And that there is absolutely no room for improvements salary wise. I am saying that this is not simple issue and many I hear talking don't seem to grasp that concept. A board of directors cannot simply and arbitrarily hand out higher salaries to pilots just because we have earned them or want them even if they were willing to do so.

Someone once said they hated it when people pulled statistics out of their ass...I hate it when youthful arrogance and job frustration blinds otherwise reasonable and intelligent people from practicing objectivity limiting their ability to discuss things in an adult manner....

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

The money is there? Really? Where?

50 seat RJ cost averages (generalized numbers):

$2500 per hour for fuel
$700 per hour for maint
$100 per hour for flight crew and f/a

$3300 per hour...now consider this..out of the remaining profit per seat (around $7000 or so) must come revenue to pay for:

Every paper clip, every roll of duct tape, every admin, HR, scheduling, dispatch, ground personnel salary, every dime of office utility costs, every piece of printer paper, every roll of toilet paper in company restrooms, every dime spent on insurance of various types, band width for web sites, advertising, legal costs etc etc etc...when you whittle it down...another $1.50 is no longer such a small amount....

Understand the big picture. You are looking at a complex economic system too simplistically. And for the record. I was never defending low salaries. But I do understand them. I see things from other points of view. Not just through the cockpit window.

I'm not saying there is not a fair amount of greed within the management side of the airline industry. And that there is absolutely no room for improvements salary wise. I am saying that this is not simple issue and many I hear talking don't seem to grasp that concept. A board of directors cannot simply and arbitrarily hand out higher salaries to pilots just because we have earned them or want them even if they were willing to do so.

Someone once said they hated it when people pulled statistics out of their ass...I hate it when youthful arrogance and job frustration blinds otherwise reasonable and intelligent people from practicing objectivity limiting their ability to discuss things in an adult manner....

. . .and I am bartering/negotiating for increased salaries. . .not simply whining about some perceived BS poverty level, for if you're a professional pilot, you've no clue what poverty is unless before you became a professional pilot, you've actually lived in it.

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Man, I'm not even getting started on this thread because by the end of the post, most of you guys would think I'm in the antichrist.

Methinks they don't want to hear from me, either!

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

The money is there? Really? Where?

50 seat RJ cost averages (generalized numbers):

$2500 per hour for fuel
$700 per hour for maint
$100 per hour for flight crew and f/a

$3300 per hour...now consider this..out of the remaining profit per seat (around $7000 or so) must come revenue to pay for:

Every paper clip, every roll of duct tape, every admin, HR, scheduling, dispatch, ground personnel salary, every dime of office utility costs, every piece of printer paper, every roll of toilet paper in company restrooms, every dime spent on insurance of various types, band width for web sites, advertising, legal costs etc etc etc...when you whittle it down...another $1.50 is no longer such a small amount....

Understand the big picture. You are looking at a complex economic system too simplistically. And for the record. I was never defending low salaries. But I do understand them. I see things from other points of view. Not just through the cockpit window.

I'm not saying there is not a fair amount of greed within the management side of the airline industry. And that there is absolutely no room for improvements salary wise. I am saying that this is not simple issue and many I hear talking don't seem to grasp that concept. A board of directors cannot simply and arbitrarily hand out higher salaries to pilots just because we have earned them or want them even if they were willing to do so.

Speaking purely at the regional level - you know what all of that really says? It's that the company bid too low to provide the operation with the overhead that it needs. If that's the case, I could give one quarter of a crap less if the company can come up with the cash to pay more or not. What do any of us ever get to see as pilots? Management does great and all the employees get the shaft.

If my company really has no extra money laying around at all to give me a pay raise then fine, I guess I wont get one. But don't for a second try to con me into thinking that if you can then go out and buy new planes and companies and hand out nice management bonuses. That doesn't wash. I may be a pilot but I'm no young idiot. I'm about to turn 30, spent 10 years as an officer and pilot in the Air Force and have an advanced degree from the Colorado Mountain School for wayward children. I can spot BS from a good distance away.

Oh and Velo, we ALWAYS wanna hear from you!

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

Speaking purely at the regional level - you know what all of that really says? It's that the company bid too low to provide the operation with the overhead that it needs. If that's the case, I could give one quarter of a crap less if the company can come up with the cash to pay more or not. What do any of us ever get to see as pilots? Management does great and all the employees get the shaft.

If my company really has no extra money laying around at all to give me a pay raise then fine, I guess I wont get one. But don't for a second try to con me into thinking that if you can then go out and buy new planes and companies and hand out nice management bonuses. That doesn't wash. I may be a pilot but I'm no young idiot. I'm about to turn 30, spent 10 years as an officer and pilot in the Air Force and have an advanced degree from the Colorado Mountain School for wayward children. I can spot BS from a good distance away.

Oh and Velo, we ALWAYS wanna hear from you!

You. . .with the silver spoon. My "little" brother is CMS grad Class of 88. I did the Hudson U. thing many years ago, but ending my tenure as a enlisted person. You didn't grow into your adult career "hurting" by any means. . .matter of fact, you were pampered. . .severely! I understand your perspective comparatively speaking. You took a severe financial hit transitioning from military to civilian aviation. I still don't agree with you. Nope, you're not a young idiot; you were simply pampered, but generally speaking, most (not all) academy grads are, especially aviators.

. . .as the cliche' goes, "Welcome to the real world!"

[RightSeatGirl]

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

Speaking purely at the regional level - you know what all of that really says? It's that the company bid too low to provide the operation with the overhead that it needs. If that's the case, I could give one quarter of a crap less if the company can come up with the cash to pay more or not. What do any of us ever get to see as pilots? Management does great and all the employees get the shaft.

If my company really has no extra money laying around at all to give me a pay raise then fine, I guess I wont get one. But don't for a second try to con me into thinking that if you can then go out and buy new planes and companies and hand out nice management bonuses. That doesn't wash. I may be a pilot but I'm no young idiot. I'm about to turn 30, spent 10 years as an officer and pilot in the Air Force and have an advanced degree from the Colorado Mountain School for wayward children. I can spot BS from a good distance away.

Oh and Velo, we ALWAYS wanna hear from you!

I understand your point of view and it's logic. I really do. And I also sympathize with it. But here is some food for thought. A good percentage of the current contracts between regionals and their mainline leash holders were negotiated prior to the fuel cost spike of the last few years. Contracts bid out when Jet A was $2.50 a gallon five years ago allowed for more internal spending on everything from real creamer in the pilots lounge to flight crew pay. Now that fuel costs have skyrocketed so has everything else.

And as far as new airplanes...well...it hardly pays to pay pilots more to fly equipment that is down for maintenance more often then not. New aircraft acquisition is considered by airline management to be a higher priority then salaries. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying how it is. You can't sell tickets on airplanes that are always broken.....And, the salary issue aside, you can't make any profit on older inefficient equipment.

[Rocketman99]

Ouch man, that stings!

True, some doors may have been a bit more open because of the route but I really wouldn't say pampered. I always had to work for everything I got and I didn't take shortcuts or look for handouts. Oh and it was quite a financial hit. One to the tune of about 70% less than what I cleared my last year working for our good uncle. Eh, the real world sucks sometimes. But I digress...

I simply don't understand why you disagree with our pay issues at the airlines. In fact it seems like you also deny that we took large wage concessions after 9/11? Why is that? I was recently talking to a friend of mine whose dad is a NWA CA. He was on the verge of crying looking over his yearly financial numbers when he discovered he made more money (unadjusted for inflation mind you) in 1987 than in 2007. It's not even me and I almost wanna cry in sympathy!

[RightSeatGirl]

I think that our industry is in a period of transition. Airline exec's are scrambling to try to to adapt their company's economics to "oil shock". Eventually the airline industry will develop some new landmark strategy that enables it to deal with the rapidly changing economics of the world. I think they all have realized we will never again see stable fuel prices. So eventually things will get better. But it won't be tomorrow...

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

I understand your point of view and it's logic. I really do. And I also sympathize with it. But here is some food for thought. A good percentage of the current contracts between regionals and their mainline leash holders were negotiated prior to the fuel cost spike of the last few years. Contracts bid out when Jet A was $2.50 a gallon five years ago allowed for more internal spending on everything from real creamer in the pilots lounge to flight crew pay. Now that fuel costs have skyrocketed so has everything else.

And as far as new airplanes...well...it hardly pays to pay pilots more to fly equipment that is down for maintenance more often then not. New aircraft acquisition is considered by airline management to be a higher priority then salaries. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying how it is. You can't sell tickets on airplanes that are always broken.....And, the salary issue aside, you can't make any profit on older inefficient equipment.

Ahh, but that is the perfect time for a ticket price increase. As the regional feeders suddenly become less profitable the revenue stream needs to be increased somehow. When (often times) you're the only show in town you can raise the ticket price! You're not competing with anyone worrying about being undercut then.

I can't speak for new airplanes vs old airplanes and efficiency. I haven't seen all the CASM numbers and fuel efficiencies of the planes doing the flying. I do know that props are cheaper to operate than jets 9 times out of 10 on a given route. If the biggest issue is the cost of fuel why continue to use a plane that's not efficient? I doubt the airlines stick with the RJs because Joe traveller prefers a jet. Matter of fact, I bet they could care less but I can only speculate. Of course, my opinion and 5 bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Planes break. Future, new, old, or ancient they all still break. Some newer break more than some older. Which level of flying do you refer to speaking of management priorities? I don't think major airline aircraft acquisitions are a sticking point against paying the pilots more.

[RightSeatGirl]

I dunno man...Every outstation we hit has at least one other regional servicing that airport, albeit to a different hub, but there is competition for every airport we operate into nevertheless.

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Where are you living? Because living in Los Angeles, I don't think you could find a home in Burbank for less than a good million. SURE you could move to a slum there but I was still paying $750 a month in rent for a 200 square foot studio and the bodies kept piling up in front of my apartment complex. No thanks, bossman.

Condo's are going for $180,000 on the low end in Park City, which is where my fiance lives. She's not going to sacrifice HER career just so I can take sub standard pay in MY career. She'd leave me pretty fast if that's how our relationship went.

And city bus drivers in Lansing, MI top out at $130,000 a year, and those in Kalamazoo, MI are making $100,000 a year. So...

I live in San Antonio, TX. There is no way in HELL I would live in California (unless Uncle Sugar tells me to go). So, you choose to live in an area that has a high standard of living...that is your choice (unless you are in the military, of course). I would prefer to live somewhere where I don't have to pay $700/ for the area of my garage...no way in hell. SO, it's all about choices. I can live on 65K a year quite well, and I am lucky enough that I am involved with a woman that can do her job pretty much anywhere. Again, your mileage may vary...this is just MY opinion.

Now as for bus drivers....they TOP out...but how much do they tend to make? Here is the BLS information:


Median hourly earnings of transit and intercity bus drivers were $14.30 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $10.74 and $19.31 an hour. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $8.66, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $23.53 an hour.
SO generally speaking, they aren't making 100K a year...unless of course they work 112 hours a week (median).