135 Scabs

[ePilot22]

Scenario 1. You own a house. The deck is badly deteriorated and needs to be replaced. You've got bids from several contractors ranging from $4000-$6000. You find out your neighbor 3 houses away is a retired general contractor and a master carpenter. He tells you he'd be happy to do the project for $2750. Since he's retired his schedule is flexible and he can start any time you'd like him to? Do you hire him or go with the contractor for twice as much?

Scenario 2. Same house. Plumbing needs to be redone. Turns out a neighbor is a retired plumber who used to have his own plumbing company. He's replumbed hundreds of houses just like yours. His bid is about half of what a regular plumber would charge. Who do you hire?

Scenario 3. Your wife swipes a guardrail with your car. You don't have collision coverage so the repairs are coming out of your own pocket. Body shop quotes 2500. Guy down the street is a retired body and fender guy who has been doing repairs and restorations since dents were filled with lead. He'll do it for a grand. Hire him or go with the shop downtown?

Scenario 4. It's tax time. You have a complicated return due to owning a few rental properties and a retail business. The fee at the place that normally does your taxes is $550. At a cocktail party you meet a guy that just retired as VP of accounting for a medium sized corporation. He tells you he has all the current tax software on his computer and that he does tax returns for friends and family just to "keep a hand in the business." He further explains that he wants to stay in accounting part time just to keep his mind sharp and so he doesn't get bored now that he has a lot of spare time. He'll do your tax return for $175 and a bottle of Ranch Zebaco Dancing Bull Zinfandel ($14). Who does your tax return?

Sorry Dave, but all your scenarios have one flaw.

What you lay out above describes a "one time" deal. Now, if I hired my neighbor down the street to do the work on my deck, car or tax return, then hired him/her to start a business and work on a full-time basis, the scenarios would fit the problem and reality a little better.

Hiring my neighbor one time to do my deck, sure. Hiring my neighbor one time to fly my jet ( I wish!), sure. Hiring my neighbor to manage or fly my jet full-time on a routine basis at a discounted rate, NO!

Besides my neighbor would have to be an idiot to work on decks every day at a discounted rate just because he's got some spare time or doesn't need the dime. If they're that well off, then take the full pay and give to charity.

These guys are right, people willing to work for less of PFT are undercutting the industry.

Just a thought...


eP.

 

[Capt1124]

If you get training or a type rating from an employer, and then leave shortly after, to the employer that makes you a bad guy who's ripped him off.

However, employer *always* ask for applicants who are current and typed, because they don't want to pay anything for training. So every employer wants you to rip off a another employer for his benefit.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Sorry Dave, but all your scenarios have one flaw.

What you lay out above describes a "one time" deal. Now, if I hired my neighbor down the street to do the work on my deck, car or tax return, then hired him/her to start a business and work on a full-time basis, the scenarios would fit the problem and reality a little better.

Hiring my neighbor one time to do my deck, sure. Hiring my neighbor one time to fly my jet ( I wish!), sure. Hiring my neighbor to manage or fly my jet full-time on a routine basis at a discounted rate, NO!

Besides my neighbor would have to be an idiot to work on decks every day at a discounted rate just because he's got some spare time or doesn't need the dime. If they're that well off, then take the full pay and give to charity.

These guys are right, people willing to work for less of PFT are undercutting the industry.

Just a though...


eP.

So you'll look for the best value but business owners shouldn't. It's a free country. We can't prevent people from offering their services for less money. You have a couple of choices. One is to provide superior service and make it worthwhile for your employer to pay you more. The other is to withdraw your services and do something else for a living. All I'm trying to point out is what everyone complains about happens everywhere. It's not a problem limited to aviation. Everyone who uses the services of the retired accountant I used in my scenario is taking away business from a regular accounting firm. We have the same problems in the regionals. There are some people that fly for a hobby and could care less about whether or not our pay is where it should be. Ultimately you're trying to get around capitalism and free markets. You might need to move to country with a different economic system if that's what you're after. Your employer is looking to get the most bang for his buck. If he can hire a retired guy who can get the job done for less without complaints he's probably going to do it.

How big a problem is it? Chances are the percentage of retired is not all that high. Most of them don't want to work as hard as we do. The golf course or boat has more allure than a life spent in FBO's or hotels.

 

[pilotyip]

Dave B. this is a pilot board stop dealing in reality

 

[LAZYB]

...I don't mean to offend the military rank and file; and if you are offended, it is not my intention, it's the few that work below established norms. by below norms i mean a Chief Pilot making below $80,000 that oversee's more than 12 planes including Gulfstreams, and another DO making below $60,000 working for an even larger company.

Would this be @ CMA and VNY - down by the golf course

 

[HMR]

Would this be @ CMA and VNY - down by the golf course

I was thinking the SAME thing! There's also a CP @ SBA making ~50K. Same dept. that offered a pilot on this board $40K to be captain on a G200.

Pretty pathetic.

 

[hawkerjet]

Yes those are 2 out of 3 airports I'm talking about. BUR is the 3rd.
I started this thread to vent my feelings and see what kind of feedback I could get. So far I am extremely happy to see I am not the only one who thinks like this. I don't like the situation, but have decided to grab the bull by the horns and do something about it.I have confronted the pilot and discussed with him the con's of working for a lower wage. I also talked with my boss who was not happy at first ( still isn't but has warmed a little) but the talks are still ongoing. While a few people in management aren't happy, I believe a lot more good will come of this to include better morale and pilot retention. These two things alone will make pilots work harder and more diligently,thus saving the company money on operating costs, and retention.
Thanks to all who commented..

 

[HMR]

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Anyone ever notice that between CMA, BUR and VNY there's an unusual number of CP's or DO's named Mark?

 

[RedBehren]

The unfortunate reality, gang, is that these "scabs" usually show up more qualified than the average bear, willing to work harder, and they hardly EVER complain. Take your choice as an employer... Who do you want?

 

[pilotyip]

They normally have a lot of expereince running an office outside of the cockpit, which is why you hire these guys as managment.

 

[Deuce130]

Reading between the lines, it appears that the civilian-only guys think that ex-military pilots (retired or not) are somehow able to command parity, or even premium wages, in the market. The majority of the time, this isn't the case.

A pilot retiring from the military is for the most part, wholly or predominantly inexperienced with the nuances of civilian flying that operators and civilian pilots take for granted. Additionally, as far as job performance/work ethic goes, they're an unknown quantity.

For these reasons, despite a good experience level in terms of equipment flown...but definitely not in terms of hours, or expertise in the "real world"...many ex-military pilots find it tough to find a premium job...and are "overqualified" for entry-level jobs.

On the other hand, some ex-military pilots seem to "fall into" great, high-paying jobs. I submit to you that this is because of networking among their former associates, and not primarily because they were ex-military with adequate experience in type(s). However, these pilots are generally viewed by the civilian pilot community as "typical." They are hardly that.

The average ex-military pilot seeking civilian flying work will find himself landed on a strange shore, ten to fifteen years (in terms of age) behind those he's competing with in the job market, and (although confident and tested in basic flying skills) unsure of what is expected of him, what to do, and how to do it.

What ensues is essentially an operator taking a chance on an unknown quantity, and a pilot jumping on what appears to be definitely below his/her desires and aspirations, but "adequate" in terms of basic employment.

I'm familiar with the problem that the original poster described. It is real, and it does drive wages down. I don't expect it will ever change, but maybe now some of you have an insight into the problem from the other side of the fence.

The individual ex-military pilot who takes a job for what you folks consider whore wages is not the problem; he's just caught in the middle of a system that neither he nor you can change.

You seem to have serious issues with military pilots as well as being wholly ignorant of what military pilots do for a living. 1) We can, and do, demand parity for wages once coming off active duty. This is well deserved. I'll put our flying skills up against any equally experienced civilian in any airplane, any place, any time. 2) Just what "nuances" to civilian flying are you talking about? Flying is flying. Except military flying tends to be more challenging, more dynamic, and more varied. In addition, all companies do things a little differently - all it takes is time to learn how you're company does it. 3) Performance/work ethic? Seriously? After 20 years in the military flying high performance aircraft, leading men and women, and holding command positions you seriously think work ethic and performance is an unknown quantity? Ridiculous. 4) Not experienced in terms of hours?? I'd rather take a 10 year F-16 pilot with 1600 hours (further broken down into night, combat, NVG, and instructor hours) or a 10 year C-130 pilot with 3,000 hours (same break down) over a 10 year guy who's been paying for time, hustling at the FBO, or flying puddle jumpers between Tallahassee and Dothan. And what, exactly, is the "real world?" You mean the airspace between Virginia and California? The sun never sets on military pilots. 5) Military guys don't "fall into" these jobs. They earn them. Management at the majors might hire a few guys with connections, but if the vast majority of the military guys weren't so qualified then they wouldn't get hired. SWA, FDX, UPS, et al wouldn't hire so many of us if they weren't getting a kick-a** product. They'd hire a lot more civilians instead. But, since they don't, I'll take that as positive feedback that we are not 10-15 years behind competing civilians in the job market.

Maybe if you guys had a payscale wherever it is that you work you wouldn't run into this issue. In addition, anyone has a right to work. Having a military pension shouldn't disqualify a guy from working. What would you have him do? Work at the Wal-Mart so he doesn't drive your wages from 35$/hr to 32$/hr? The guys at the majors could say the exact same thing about regionals. Ask someone at Delta, United, or NWA if guys flying for peanuts at the regionals/commuters doesn't have an effect on them.

 

[El Ocho]

Interesting... I think the two sides of this issue might come down to those that believe in working to make something better and those that believe in the "magic" of capitalism and the free market....

Problem with the "magic" of course is that is does not care about anything worthwhile, i.e. people, and it's work is not the best in term of humanity, only in terms of economics...

So you choose, no restrictions and more profit, or some rules and some humanity...

 

[G100driver]

. Having a military pension shouldn't disqualify a guy from working. What would you have him do?

You are correct, just do not use it in the interview to say that you will work for less money(not that it sounds like you are trying to do so).

I have heard this in the past from more from retired airline than military. This is a profession, not a hobby.

 

[stonewall]

You are correct, just do not use it in the interview to say that you will work for less money(not that it sounds like you are trying to do so).

I have heard this in the past from more from retired airline than military. This is a profession, not a hobby.

I agree. The mil pension isn't really that much...I'm not sure why any retired military dudes would do this.

 

[pilotyip]

They would do it because they like the job, it is near where they want to live, they like the guy they are going to work for, and those are more important in the decision than the top dollar. If he did not get the 135 DO job; he might also really be into home improvement and decide that a job at Home Depot at less money is actually better for him. If the pay and work conditions are too low the employer will be faced with turnover. As stated above the market place will figure out what works. I will also comment, when you are unemployed your view of what is an acceptable salary changes drastically. Mil retirement is a nice cushion, but you can not live very well on it, and I think it is available to almost anyone who wants put in the time to collect it.