Does Pilot Quality Impact the Bottom Line?

[avbug]

Noah,

That's something different than what you appeared to be saying before. In a nutshell, you appear to be saying that companies who are going to invest in a pilot prefer a pilot who will be with them longer, than a pilot who will be with them a shorter time period...and they hire the younger pilot.

THIS IS A NEWSFLASH???

 

[Occam's Razor]

The way I see it, the problem with aviation careers are as follows

2. Unions. In any other non-unionized careers, you can leave one employer for any reason and get a job somewhere else making MORE money. With the unions and their bullcrap seniority system, if after 20+ years with a company and you leave for another employer, you start at the bottom of the pay scale. This discourages high turnover rates and a major incentive for management to improve working conditions is lost.

I think you're asserting facts not in evidence. You think the employees that were laid off at IBM all moved over to higher paying jobs? Had you prefaced your theory with, "in good times", you might be 60% correct. There are plenty of folks in the workforce who become tied to a single company due to age, location, or pre-existing conditions. They are hardly the mobile professionals you imagine. A couple of my neighbors have tried lateral moves in the past year, and neither is making as much as they were at their previous job. Maybe I can convince them to log on here to tell you what they think of your theory.

Unions didn't start the seniority system. It's true that they've certainly pushed to make it the overriding qualifier in our industry, but it's hardly a union invention. As a 1/Lt in the USMC I wasn't allowed to command a fighter squadron. The pilots senior to me on the lineal list were the only one's screened for command. Under your theory I could have taken my skills to the USAF for a big pay raise.

Maybe not.

3. Lack of self-respect on part of pilots. If pilots are willing to work for 18K to 25K per year after spending $30K+ for training, then they deserve to be treated accordingly...Most people will take such a job and even pay for their own on the job training to "Pay their dues". This is a major reason why pilots will always be treated as "cogs" y management.

Hence the sucky contracts UAL and DAL signed in 2000 and 2001?

How about this theory: When the industry is doing well, pilots tend to do well. When the industry is doing poorly, pilots tend to do poorly.

I just finished doing my 2005 taxes. I earned $185,000 last year and paid ZERO for my flight training (Your dad paid for it!). Although I'll certainly make less in 2006, it won't be because of my poor self-esteem or the wicked seniority system. It'll be because the POSSESSION arrow points to management right now.

We operate the aircraft. The baggage handlers load the bags. The F/A's serve the drinks. The dispatchers file the flight plan. We're all cogs. Remove any one of us and it gets hard to move cattl...er...people from A to B.

Managment gets paid to make the strategic decisions. We get paid to make the tactical ones. The lower your "decision box" appears on the flow-chart, the more "coggy" you are.

I can handle it.

4. Over supply of pilots. There simply are too many of us and let's face it, the job that we do is not particualarly difficult. Almost anyone can become a pilot, and in practice, there really is no way to measure how pilot quality impacts the bottom line. Management and pilots know this.

I've said my piece on this, and my views are pretty close to yours. Good employees are good employees regardless of their job description. Bad employees are more expensive than good ones.

 

[Zekeflyer]

Occam's razor,
I agree with you that I should have prefaced my argument with "in good times". However, the fact remains that if the economy is good, or more accurately, if your industry is doing well, in any other non-unionized job, you can choose to leave an employer and go to another one that pays you better and treats you accordingly. This is not an option in the airline industry.
Perhaps if the seniority system was modified to allow one with x yrs of experience to move to another airline and was paid the average wage of pilots of similiar qualification with x yrs experience, you could get the kind of turnover that makes management think about "employee retension".
Delta's management is using this phenomena to justify the $14 million severance pay for its execs. They told the bankruptcy judge that they need good severance packages because they have trouble convincing "quality management" people to come work for them. Moreover, to replace the guys that are leaving, they have to pay new hires a lot more to do the same job, driving up their labor costs.
I know this isn't likely to happen, but I think its a way for pilots to improve working conditions...when times are good. In bad times, IMHO, if you dont get laid off, you just kiss butt, and hope you can ride out the bad times. I've been through bad times in my industry, and they really are bad! The good times tough is a chance for you to get yours.
Just my $0.02!

 

[PastFastMover]

I'm not in the aviation business, but I am in business. I found this notion appalling.

Jim, I think this just goes to show the shoddy management that is in Aviation. Management especially middle management have always hated the pilots because of the salaries and who knows what other reason. I think it is now ingrained to treat airline employees or potential employees like crap so that no expectations will be generated. I believe in the end you get what you pay for and it will come back to bite these sub par MBA's.

 

[Draginass]

From my experience, most of the ACMI managements care somewhat about the quality of the captains, but as for F/Os, they could care less. Poor F/Os aren't the company's problem . . . they're the captains' problem. The ACMI cargo companies hope that the F/Os quit after a few years 'cause it cheaper to train a new guy than to pay longevity or retainable wages.