Does Pilot Quality Impact the Bottom Line?

[Zekeflyer]

Therein lies the trouble with aviation careers. It doesn't surprise me that this kind of treatment resides in aviation.
Ever since I was 6, I've wanted to be an airline pilot. I couldn't afford to go to Riddle or any other flight school for college, so I went to a local college. I got a degree in engineering so as to better afford flight training (Highest Paying out of college~$55K/yr). It was only after I started flight training that I discovered just how terrible aviation careers can be. It has now made me wonder if I want to subject myself to the crap treatment it takes to become an airpline pilot.
When I was working at Mcdonalds during my high school years, I was bought a sandwich after my 10-minute interview. They had enough respect for me to at least offer me lunch even tough I was to work for minimum wage.

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

1. Incompetent management.
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.
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.
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.

 

[Publishers]

There is considerable difference between a corporate job type situation and one of these group type interview processes. In some of the group processes, you are given time for lunch out. There may or may not be a place near so maybe it is all right to give you a heads up.
In most more personal type interviews, this is not the case. In less personal situations more like cattle calls (group interviews) there is little personal touch unless you get past the intial parts.

 

[bssthound]

Remember the commercial a few years back where kids would say something like "I wanna be a yes man" or "I wanna be a brownnoser" to make a point about growing up to realize not everyone is gonna be Superman? A lot more kids say "I wanna be a pilot" than "I wanna be Assistant District Sales Manager." Face it, flying airplanes is a lot more fun than crunching numbers and making sure "we're making the numbers." Also, how many people aren't qualified for desk jobs because of a physical?

Couple that with the fact that the airlines are in business to make money; regardless of the oceans of red ink they're now bleeding. Mgmt naturally wants to keep costs down, hence the nickel & diming with employees' wages. Obviously we're in a tight spot because they know we enjoy flying and that quite a few pilots could do well in other fields but are in the cockpit due to said love of flying.

Also, mgmt knows most pilots are rather type A. Most pilots are going to get out on time despite incompetence in other areas, such as slow fueling, pax/bag loading, etc. That's why intentional slowdowns are so effective. Mgmt has factored into the schedule our tendency to "make it happen."

At my airline the vast majority of the Captains are great pilots and great people to be around. By the time someone has the seniority to hold Captain he's flown with many such Captains and has the necessary flying skills, temperament, and decision making abilities to ensure a flight's success. The training dept does a fine job, but it's the majority of the line Captains who groom an F/O to be a good Captain.

To answer the original question, as much as I'd like to say pilot quality affects the bottom line, I don't really think it does to a large extent. In my opinion there just aren't many bad pilots flying airliners.Airline flying is, for lack of a better expression, "choreographed." It's the business of moving people, it just happens to be in airplanes. My opinion, which I know is like an unpleasant part of my anatomy, is that pilot satisfaction weighs much in the equation.

 

[avbug]

I want a chef that can quote Shakespeare.

What yoke through yonder eggshell breaks? Tis a chicken, and this pan the sun. Fall therefore, liquid chick, and bake yourself yet anon. Good stuff.

I've found that an evil kinevil lunchbox works at less formal interviews. For a formal interview, I like something contemporary, such as spiderman or spongebob.

Then there's the question of what to eat during the interview. I prefer something light, and I like to bring something for the interview panel. I was always told it's not polite to eat unless you bring enough for the whole class. What works well is a buddy burner in the brief case. Set that up on the table while they're explaining the sim session or asking questions about approach charts, and then you can have smores while you discuss weather, radar, and regulations.

Try it. You'll really impress them with the cooking, AND shakespeare. Smore! I dip thee, I dip thee, I dip thee! Alas! Poor Marshmallow! I knew the well! Of what, lady interviewer? of speaking honourably? Is not marriage honourable in a beggar? Is not your pilot applicant honourable without hiring? I think you would have me say, 'saving your reverence, a pilot:' and bad thinking do not wrest true speaking, I'll offend nobody: is there any harm in 'the heavier for a smore-smoking pilot'? None, I think, and it be the right pilot and the right company; otherwise 'tis light, and not heavy: ask my buddy Wilber else; here he comes.

I don't care if an interviewer buys me lunch. Doesn't impress me in the least. But an interviewer that's got a trout pond and offers free bait and a hook while I'm waiting for the interview...now I'm impressed.

I long ago gave up submitting to an interview. When called to one, I interview the interviewer. Try it...you might be really surprised how well it works.

And I make them bring their own lunch.

Trouts are optional.

The fish, is the thing.

 

[NoahWerka]

If the paying public, regardless, airline or corporate, knew what goes on in the "cockpit" they would never get in an airplane again. Those of you who do this for a living know what I am talkng about. Quality of the pilots is a non-issue. Why spend say $20,000(WAG) in training costs, on an an "EXTREMELY' qualified pilot who is fifty-five, who can only werk five years when you can spend the same $20,000 on a 25 year old "pilot" with 250 hours who can werk for 25 years and hope he doesn't wreck an airplane. You do the math. I actually heard of a CEO at a "Major" Regional Airline say that, to paraphrase, it was "cheaper to pay off a crash" than it was to do "otherwise". Figure that one out. So, what has QUALITY have to do with the "bottom line"? Nothing.

 

[CFIse]

Does pilot quality affect the bottom line?

This fact is going to upset a lot of professional pilots - but here goes.

All an airline pilot has to be is adequate. Anything beyond that is not valued by the company. There is no value in passing a checkride "better" than anybody else - you pass or you fail. If you pass you're adequate. If you fail you're not.

Why is that? Most piloting is very routine, sometimes, very rarely, it requires supreme piloting skill so resolve a very dangerous situation. If you could choose those moments and assign your best crews to those moments then there would be some value in having identified your better pilots. But you can't, so you have to train all your pilots to a level that should allow them to resolve almost any situation. Those pilots are adequate.

So in the same way that when there is a labor shortage Burger King has to pay more than minimum wage and has to offer employee referrals and signing bonuses etc. the airlines woud have to woo their pilots if there was a pilot shortage. There is no pilot shortage - so airlines sift through piles of applicants, choose those they think can be adequate and move on. If some group of pilots doesn't want to apply because they have to bring a packed lunch, so be it, plenty more where they came from.

Who knows what he airline business model is, but that's their pilot hiring model. :crying:

 

[avbug]

If the paying public, regardless, airline or corporate, knew what goes on in the "cockpit" they would never get in an airplane again. Those of you who do this for a living know what I am talkng about. Quality of the pilots is a non-issue. Why spend say $20,000(WAG) in training costs, on an an "EXTREMELY' qualified pilot who is fifty-five, who can only werk five years when you can spend the same $20,000 on a 25 year old "pilot" with 250 hours who can werk for 25 years and hope he doesn't wreck an airplane. You do the math. I actually heard of a CEO at a "Major" Regional Airline say that, to paraphrase, it was "cheaper to pay off a crash" than it was to do "otherwise". Figure that one out. So, what has QUALITY have to do with the "bottom line"? Nothing.

What an absolute crock of BS.

You aren't by chance the 25 year old pilot "werking" at the "major" regional airline that heard "of" a CEO who claimed it's cheaper to pay off a crash than train, are you?

I don't know any airline that refuses to train pilots because it's too expensive...it's regulatory and it's required, and everybody trains. Period. Do YOU know of any airline that quits training pilots when they reach age 55 because they've only got five years left?

Twenty grand for training is nothing, and companies know this. Big, big bucks get spent on training.

What exactly is your point?

 

[waka]

No chef with no college degree means a chef with a degree; double negative there.

Actually, it is a triple negative; "We don't want no chef with no college degree..." so, it retains the originally intended meaining! :laugh:

 

[NoahWerka]

Dear avbug,
I have been in the business over twenty-five(for those of you that can't read),25 years. I have seen it more than once that that a younger pilot with less experience has been hired over an older pilot with more experience. Since the company pays for the training, the only conclusion I can come to is, that over a period of time, the cost per year of the low time less experienced low time pilot outweighs the experience of the older more experienced pilot. IOW they get more bang for the buck by hiring younger pilots whose werking life span is longer than an old pilot.

IE: 60-55=5; 20,000/5= 4,000.
60-25=25; 20,000/25=800
60= current retirement age.
Depreciation does count.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Pilot quality can affect the bottom line in many ways.

Unfortunately, they can be difficult to measure.

What about all the untorched enigines, the ublown tires, the undinged wingtips? What about all the placated passengers, the careful use of costly resources?

Most people don't like paying for insurance, but that's exactly what a quality pilot is. A quality pilot is insurance against:

1) Unintentional damage to aircraft
2) Giving passengers the impression that your operation is unsafe
3) Unnecessary expenditures due to inefficient operation and poor decisions
4) A million other things

The problem is age-old: How do ou convince someone to buy quality if the have no understanding of the consequences.

I'll explain this way:

Everyone knows that ultra-cheap tools can break in the middle of a job, thus stopping work.
What is hard to get people to understand is that a poorly-designed tool might not break, but can almost imperceptibly lower the speed and quality of work that is performed.

GOOD managers understand quality and are prepared to pay for it, since they understand that in the end it costs less.

Right now, I think there are very few 'good' managers in the airline business.

 

[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.