Stating the obviously unbovious

[MFT1Air]

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...

When I lived in Hawaii, my studio apartment on Waikiki was $700 a month for a one bedroom, and that was steep. Comparing locations like California is like trying to find someplace on Park Avenue or South Beach. . .

LA is oh so on the extreme it's not even funny.

I'm in Houston; in my area, my house (single family home - 5br) is less $70 a square foot. The average now is probably $90 a square foot. Apartments go anywhere from $400 - $1000 for a studio to a 3 bedroom (2000 square foot) in a very to do neighborhood. Condos easily start at 45k for 2br. Let's be reasonable, ok?

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by 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.

You have made several VERY good points, but of course it falls on deaf ears around here (not all, but quite a few). I especially liked the point you made about the contracts prior to the hikes in petro. AND...as far as contracts, as soon as regional "A" says we are going to negotiate a higher rate, then regional "B" is ready to undercut regional "A".

As for the flying public wanting cheap fares...I equate this to the "Wal-Mart syndrome"...the people making the t-shirts want to make $30/hr but when they get off work, they want to go and buy the same shirt for $5 and NO MORE. Well, something has to give. Lower fares are the way it is going to be...the American public will not stand to fly from ATL to NYC for $1,000. If Delta decides to bring back "the good 'ole days" the likes of Branson will come along and start "Greyhound Airlines" and guess what...he'll have pilots breaking down the doors for the job.

Last thing and I'll shut up. Someone brought up the point about SWA requiring the 737 type...why is it that no one will call BS on this? You have to PAY for it to gain employment, right? How is this right?!?

[scramjet]

You've all made some very good points. Keep in mind, I'm not an airline pilot, but here's what I think having grown up around the weird, weird industry that is the airlines.

On the point of being professional, yes airline pilots do meet the common sociological definition of professional, mainly in the form of the certification processes (oh I hear the 90 day and $50k argument again, but there is still set relatively strict standards), theory not just work process knowledge, and the amount of responsibility pilots have for keeping a very high performance and complex mode of transportation safe. Does that mean pilots shouldn't act like blue collar labor? HELL NO, but I think it's important to break the feeling among the pilot community that we're glorified bus drivers. That's a weaker position to hold and should not be adopted across the community as it seemingly is becoming. The best labor tactics externally emphasize the true responsibility and professionalism of occupations without adopting internal defeatist attitudes.

As someone else said, "pilots need to grow some. We could shut down a significant portion of the transportation sector." As someone who was raised by a proudly Union father, I'm sorry but the attitude of "oh I can live on that" and "it will suffice" blah blah is disgusting. Capitalism is survival of the fittest. We as a labor group need to be fit. This means a union with balls, not taking #### pay just because we've got 300 ####ing hours and we can get in that nice shiny jet, but, again to quote someone else, "selling our professional services to the highest bidder." I mean, come on, airline executives receive more and more bonuses while the employees suffer pay cuts that were effected six to seven years ago in many cases. The spirit of the labor movement is action. Eight years ago, a mechanic could easily make six digits at a few major airlines. A flight attendant could do pretty well, too (as I don't have much personal knowledge of that field, I'm sure someone will better knowledge of F/A-ing will pipe in with a dissenting opinion). And we all know what a good pilot's salary was in the "glory days."

I sometimes wonder if this industry is really worth it. I love flying greatly, but it's changing so fast. I'm not liking a lot of the attitudes I'm hearing and seeing from low time RJ wonders and certainty am disturbed by airlines such as Skybus and the proto-scabs that work there.

[scramjet]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

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

On the contrary, Velo, your hardline union leanings are what this whole industry needs.

[SteveC]

I <3 RightSeatGirl.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

Someone brought up the point about SWA requiring the 737 type...why is it that no one will call BS on this? You have to PAY for it to gain employment, right? How is this right?!?

You do not have to get the type in order to get hired, you have to have it before you get a class date. I think this is very similar to the RJ transition course the regionals are recommending.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

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).

The job was in California, actually. It wasn't the typical portable pilot job.

[LoadMasterC141]

Good points John. I give up. Gonna go buy into that pretty Mooney on the field and call it good.

[RightSeatGirl]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

Y

Last thing and I'll shut up. Someone brought up the point about SWA requiring the 737 type...why is it that no one will call BS on this? You have to PAY for it to gain employment, right? How is this right?!?

Me thinks this policy is there because SWA really wants their pilots to have prior experience in the 737 vs a brand new type rating. They feel they have safer pilots that way. And that hiring policy sort of translates to: " Go get a job with another carrier to get your 737 type then talk to us in a couple of years." Me personally, I don't see a problem with that. There are lots of 737 operators, KHA, AirTran i.e. one can get on with that can get you the type rating without you paying for it on your own. These just are not low-time (less then 2500 hours) jobs.

I really don't see it as BS at all. I call it smart business. They save a ton of money on new-hire training. One more reason why they have been so successful. They just want pilots that have been in the business for a while and are coming there to work to retirement.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

Me thinks this policy is there because SWA really wants their pilots to have prior experience in the 737 vs a brand new type rating. They feel they have safer pilots that way. And that hiring policy sort of translates to: " Go get a job with another carrier to get your 737 type then talk to us in a couple of years." Me personally, I don't see a problem with that. There are lots of 737 operators, KHA, AirTran i.e. one can get on with that can get you the type rating without you paying for it on your own. These just are not low-time (less then 2500 hours) jobs.

I really don't see it as BS at all. I call it smart business. They save a ton of money on new-hire training. One more reason why they have been so successful. They just want pilots that have been in the business for a while and are coming there to work to retirement.

Good old Herb's business practices have been sound for oh so many years. (More of a reason why I'm glad I purchased LUV stock 20 years ago! )

I see no problem with requiring 737 type ratings before you're hired either. Years ago, they called SWA the "Greyhound in the sky!" They're not saying that now, are they?

[Cruise]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Good old Herb's business practices have been sound for oh so many years. (More of a reason why I'm glad I purchased LUV stock 20 years ago! )

I see no problem with requiring 737 type ratings before you're hired either. Years ago, they called SWA the "Greyhound in the sky!" They're not saying that now, are they?

Actually, now I think it's Air Greyhound!

[RightSeatGirl]

Well, when it really comes down to it..the end result of what a pilot does on the job is exactly the same as that of a bus driver...moving a person from point A to point B. Though a pilot obviously requires far more complex training and a more sophisticated skill set to accomplish the job are the two occupations really all that different insofar as end of the line responsibility? I mean 50 lives are 50 lives whether at 25,000 feet or 5 feet. And statistically, a passenger has a much higher chance of being killed or injured on a bus vs. an airplane.

I'd say 5 out of ten bus drivers have the brains to be trained to be excellent pilots. And about five out of ten pilots could never drive a bus because most pilots I know are worse drivers then my 65 year old mother, LOL.

I guess the point of my post is why do some of us get so hot and bothered by being compared to a bus driver? Hell, if I could figure out how to sell a round trip ticket for $50 bucks, pay my crews what they really earn and still make a huge profit I could find investors to start an airline that would make more money then Bill Gates...What is the real difference between taking a businessman to a power suit meeting in another city at 25,000ft or taking a crack ##### to the new pimp that traded her for a kilo of blow at 5ft? You are still just moving people...whether respectable member of society or low life.

Psst, psst...just playing devil's advocate here.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

Well, when it really comes down to it..the end result of what a pilot does on the job is exactly the same as that of a bus driver...moving a person from point A to point B. Though a pilot obviously requires far more complex training and a more sophisticated skill set to accomplish the job are the two occupations really all that different insofar as end of the line responsibility? I mean 50 lives are 50 lives whether at 25,000 feet or 5 feet. And statistically, a passenger has a much higher chance of being killed or injured on a bus vs. an airplane.

I'd say 5 out of ten bus drivers have the brains to be trained to be excellent pilots. And about five out of ten pilots could never drive a bus because most pilots I know are worse drivers then my 65 year old mother, LOL.

I guess the point of my post is why do some of us get so hot and bothered by being compared to a bus driver? Hell, if I could figure out how to sell a round trip ticket for $50 bucks, pay my crews what they really earn and still make a huge profit I could find investors to start an airline that would make more money then Bill Gates...What is the real difference between taking a businessman to a power suit meeting in another city at 25,000ft or taking a crack ##### to the new pimp that traded her for a kilo of blow at 5ft? You are still just moving people...whether respectable member of society or low life.

Psst, psst...just playing devil's advocate here.

Devil's advocate? Look out! Comment like that, and you'll have people believing you're the devil himself.(Gender bias )

[RightSeatGirl]

Emmmmm...howww do ya know I'm not!!?? ..And the devil can be a she...Elizabeth Hurley looked stunning in red! (Ref movie Bedazzled)

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

Emmmmm...howww do ya know I'm not!!?? ..And the devil can be a she..

Of course she can. And, the longer you're here, you'll find some devilish soul sisters.

[RightSeatGirl]

EXCELLENT!!!!

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

They save a ton of money on new-hire training. .

How so?

[RightSeatGirl]

The difference between hours in a sim learning a new airplane vs just learning company specific procedures in a procedures trainer is how so don't you think..If I'm wrong new information is always appreciated...

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by RightSeatGirl

The difference between hours in a sim learning a new airplane vs just learning company specific procedures in a procedures trainer is how so don't you think..If I'm wrong new information is always appreciated...

Usually all new hires get the full meal deal even if they're formerly qualified on the same equipment at another carrier. That's because you've got to meet the FAA standards approved for that company.

Of course, having the type rating and experience on the same equipment makes training kind of a no-brainer for you.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

How so?

Have I missed something here? Are you implying it isn't less expensive to transition someone already rated in type than it is to have someone not already rated?

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Have I missed something here? Are you implying it isn't less expensive to transition someone already rated in type than it is to have someone not already rated?

It costs the same. You've still got to hit all the wickets. The only thing you might not have to do is a type rating check. However, you still need a company check, so its moxnix.

For example, I had a DC-9 type rating when I checked out on the MD-80. So, I didn't need a type ride, but I did need a Company check. The only difference was which IP could do the check.

[RightSeatGirl]

Ah, got it, that makes sense. Thanks for updating my hard drive...File saved...

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

You do not have to get the type in order to get hired, you have to have it before you get a class date. I think this is very similar to the RJ transition course the regionals are recommending.

OK then...answer me this. You get "hired" you show up and you DON'T have to type rating that SWA asked YOU to pay for? And yes, I am pretty sure it ISN'T a recommendation. What happens? Yes, this is a rhetorical question. To me...that is PFT. I don't understand the policy, and for the argument that...oh hell, what is the argument again? I feel VERY confident that the last 3 C-5 pilots I have worked with will ALL pass SWA's training...and not just because they got the type. IF you can fly a C-5, you sure as hell can fly a 737-200-300-500-NG-and whatever else stupid configuration the thing comes in. Comparing it to a RJ transition course is as Doug would say is "non-sequitur"...I think that is just a way for the regionals to better their chances that some 300 hour wonder-pilot can perhaps hack training.

Before 9/11 most of the pilots I knew of avoided SWA because of the requirement. Alas, how the times have changed.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

OK then...answer me this. You get "hired" you show up and you DON'T have to type rating that SWA asked YOU to pay for? And yes, I am pretty sure it ISN'T a recommendation. What happens? Yes, this is a rhetorical question. To me...that is PFT. I don't understand the policy, and for the argument that...oh hell, what is the argument again? I feel VERY confident that the last 3 C-5 pilots I have worked with will ALL pass SWA's training...and not just because they got the type. IF you can fly a C-5, you sure as hell can fly a 737-200-300-500-NG-and whatever else stupid configuration the thing comes in. Comparing it to a RJ transition course is as Doug would say is "non-sequitur"...I think that is just a way for the regionals to better their chances that some 300 hour wonder-pilot can perhaps hack training.

Before 9/11 most of the pilots I knew of avoided SWA because of the requirement. Alas, how the times have changed.

Not exactly. . .let's say perhaps you can fly it, however, the level of competence/proficiency is always subjective, right? The April 2006 Dover incident proves no one is perfect even in flying their own typed aircraft.

Now, back to the Military Channel; thoroughly enjoying the shows to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force. Go Air Force! Beat Navy! Go Army! Beat Air Force!

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Have I missed something here? Are you implying it isn't less expensive to transition someone already rated in type than it is to have someone not already rated?

That is correct. The requirements for a proficiency check, largely, are no different from a rating ride.

The only advantage I can see is a potentially lower wash out rate due to familiarity of the airplane. I'd imagine that's a nominal rate at best, but have no statistics to support it or nullify it. And most applicants are just getting the type rating with no experience in the airplane at all...which doesn't make any sense to me. The real world advantage to SWA would be time in type...not a type rating. I probably have 1200 hours in 737s but SWA wouldn't be interested in me. Someone with 8 hours in a simulator is more valuable to them. I've never figured out that rationale.

But from a regulatory standpoint...no cost differences.