A squared, regarding the *airline* pilots and the rest of us: The whole industry beyond entry-level jobs has always looked to the airlines to begin to map out its own pay scales and work rules. Historically the airlines' pilot groups have had the organization to clearly spell out work rules, pay rates based on weight/speed, etc., which we have been able to sort of 'piggy back' on to. Here in the corporate world it's no secret that the flight departments have to remain competitive in terms of pay relative to the airline operators, or in later years offer other elevated benefits in terms of quality of life.......especially when the major carriers begin to hire. Otherwise they continually lose pilots to the airlines.
As far as getting paid what the market will bear, well that's what the airline pilots have been getting paid. I think we can all concede that they're probably making more than you and I, even in these times of 'concessionary contracts' and management cop outs.
I have never hauled cargo outside of a light-twin operator so I can't say how it works with the heavier cargo operators, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that even they look to the more noteworthy carriers(UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) to find a benchmark.
Major airline operators have traditionally been the last stop for pilots in their flying careers. Granted you may switch carriers at some point due to the volatile nature of the industry, but most airline pilots will switch jobs much less than the rest of us in the course of their lives...........
snip
..............The point of all of this is that we generally look to the airlines to find out just what the market will bear in terms of what we're worth. Anyone who burns kerosene for a living(or very large amounts of Avgas) will benefit from a strong payscale at the airline level.
I don't disagree with any of this. If you think that my position is contrary to this, you may have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing for lower pay, anywhere. I understand the concept that higher pay at other airlines may indirectly have an upward effect on my compensation. I don't object to anyone being compensated comfortably, nor do I object to anyone wishing to increase that compensation.
What I do object to is Flymack's staggering sense of superiority and entitlement. to wit:
"I'm a "professional" (No you're not, not by any rational, commonly accepted definition of professional) therefore I *deserve* to get paid like a doctor."
Umm no, you *deserve* exactly what the market gives you. If, like GVflyer and Sayagain you are able to apply those market forces to your benefit, good for you.
So, while I completely agree that the fatality stats that I quoted absolutely cover the WHOLE flying biz, not just airline pilots, it sort of helps make the argument that the airlines may still be the best bet for long-term employment in this industry.
Right, I don't disagree with your conclusion there, but the point of the fatality statistics was whether or not airline flying was a dangerous occupation. It is foolish in the extreme to suggest that it is. Flymack made the claim that he deserved more pay because "he
risked his life on a daily basis", which is an absurd, fallacious statement.
It's fallacious on two levels: First, flying passengers in an airbus is an incredibly safe occupation, probably safer than being a postal clerk. Second, risk has very little to do with how much one is paid. I don’t know if you took a look at the links I provided, but very briefly, the 2005 version of the statistics you mentioned claimed 17 occupational fatalities for "airline pilots copilots and flight engineers" In a year when there were exactly 2 crew fatalities in airline accidents, both in the Chalks Ocean Airways crash. Even if we were to accept the 17 fatalities as accurate that would make a fatality rate of about 21/100,000 which would make airline flying safer than any of the top 10 dangerous occupations. Anyone want to argue that construction laborers should make more money than airline pilots because they are in a riskier occupation? If we use the more realistic number of 2 fatalities for Airline pilots in 2005, then we have a fatality rate of 2.5 fatalities per 100,000, which makes the fatality rate for airline pilots less than office managers (2.7/100,000)
As far as your "working class hero" attitude is concerned. I'm not any more impressed with the grease under your fingernails than you were with the cleanliness of Airmack's attitude. I still work for an operator that expects me to be well dressed, clean shaven and to maintain my skillset to the best of my ability because aviation is a very unforgiving task. I've worked for outfits in the past where there was more oil on my airplane than paint, and I can see how being around that for years and years might cause one to forget that. However the other side of the coin has people like myself on it. Proficiency checks every six months(failure of which could mean losing your job), maintaining a professional appearance, the fear of waking up one morning and losing your medical, blah blah blah. 67% percent of my short little list of examples there are things that no other job subjects you to, except maybe a surgeon that has to pass boards once in a while. I'm not comparing my job to that of a surgeon, but just pointing out that there are threats to our career all over the place both regulatory and performance-based in nature.
Again, you misunderstand my position, rather badly. I don’t claim some moral high ground because I have grease under my fingernails. I do however object to Flymack’s (and seemingly yours, although I hesitate to read too much into your words) attitude that he exists on a higher level, merely because his particular employer has higher grooming standards, that somehow, because his clothes are clean, that elevates him to the level of "professional". Rather than establish a distinction and claim superiority for that side of the line upon which I exist, my intent was to do exactly the opposite; to point out that except for the completely irrelevant factor of grooming standards, there is little functional difference between the nature of his job and mine. We both operate equipment under the requirements of Part 121. To state more simply, I wasn’t claiming that I’m better because I’m a blue collar worker and he’s not, but that we’re both blue collar workers, despite the fact that his collar may be a little cleaner than mine.
It would appear from your words that you are of the opinion that cargo pilots don’t maintain their skillset to the best of their ability, and that we don’t have 6 month proficiency check, or that we don’t have the same concerns about losing our medical. I would urge you to point out the specific parts of 121 which you believe exempt cargo pilots from those requirements. As far as how that compares to other occupations, sure there are some things about flying which are unique to flying. However I think that if you were involved in just about any occupation, you would find things which are unique to that occupation, things which cause stress and keep you up at night. None of this is relevant to the difference between an occupation and a profession.
