G5 SIC slots

[shroomwell]

Bent, run a spreadsheet. The only way to get to 2 million, using max contribution + company 50% match, is to use a fantasy investment return.

 

[realityman]

If you are gonna have 2 million in your 401k at retirement and be young enough to enjoy it, than you ought to get into the hedge fund business.

There is no way you will get that kind of return from max contributions to get to 2 million.

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

 

[G4dude]

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

Sounds like you are doing all the rights things, realityman.

 

[BentOver]

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

Very good job with your money and nice post!! I was on the same path...Banked $50K in 2 years at NJA (max contribution plus started maxing it out in Spring 2008. Stopped when the furlough pay ended) Now I'm down to just Traditional IRA, hoping to make some smart moves over the next few years to maximize that potential.

My mothers side has all lived well into their 90's with good diet and exercise and NOT smoking ever.... I intend on retiring whenever I feel it, and enjoying 25+ years of retirement with my daughters kids when she is older

 

[shroomwell]

First off lose your financial advisor. Anybody who assumes a 10% return in a Zero Percent Interest Rate (ZIRP) environment, is either ignorant or a charlatan. To get 7% you need to take a lot of risk. And risk means you could lose.

The rule of 72 you refer to actually means to divide your expected rate of return by 72 to get the time to double. Therefore if you rate of return is 9% the doubling time is 8 years.

I say all this so people understand there is risk. It is best to assume the worst and hope for the best, that way anything extra is a bonus. Also you should never have all your eggs in one basket, meaning don't invest your entire 401k into the stock market. Just think if you had invested all your money in the Nasdaq in 1999, 12 years later you are still looking at a substantial loss of principal. Also over the last decade government bonds have outperformed stocks. Don't take short term thinking (gambling) and apply it to your retirement. You need to have a long term focus on it, and you need to be safe.

 

[realityman]

First off lose your financial advisor. Anybody who assumes a 10% return in a Zero Percent Interest Rate (ZIRP) environment, is either ignorant or a charlatan. To get 7% you need to take a lot of risk. And risk means you could lose.

The rule of 72 you refer to actually means to divide your expected rate of return by 72 to get the time to double. Therefore if you rate of return is 9% the doubling time is 8 years.

I say all this so people understand there is risk. It is best to assume the worst and hope for the best, that way anything extra is a bonus. Also you should never have all your eggs in one basket, meaning don't invest your entire 401k into the stock market. Just think if you had invested all your money in the Nasdaq in 1999, 12 years later you are still looking at a substantial loss of principal. Also over the last decade government bonds have outperformed stocks. Don't take short term thinking (gambling) and apply it to your retirement. You need to have a long term focus on it, and you need to be safe.

Shroom, that's good advice. I'm actually scheduled to meet with my adviser again (gotta do more tweeking with the switch to Schwab). I'll see what he has to say. You are correct, I'm in mostly high risk stuff right now.
I did suffer some very significant losses in 2008 as a result of my portfolio.
But the market has come back, along with my money, and while my gains over the past few years have been flat because of that, if you look at the bigger picture, say the past 8 years, my total investment is up 12.5%. I'm not counting on that kind of long-term return, but even with a truly horrible year or two in there along the way, I think I'll be alright.

You keep saying it can't happen, it won't happen, only in a fantasy spreadsheet. I don't understand your logic, as it IS happening, exactly as my adviser has predicted. Sorry, not going to put my actual numbers up here for the world to see, but based on what my adviser has told me to expect, and what my money is actually doing, the rule of 72 is working fine, and by dollar cost averaging my contributions, I'm doing well enough. I won't be riding in the back of the planes I fly in the future, but will have a comfortable retirement.

Things can change. I can't predict the market, or life, with any amount of real accuracy. My plans do include shifting sizable chunks of money into safer investments as things progress. You're right in that I'm HOPING things continue to work out as planned. It's all I can do, but they seem to be doing alright so far.

I'll talk to my adviser about your advice. But I think I'll keep him. He's a pretty smart fella.

 

[jonjuan]

Shroom, that's good advice. I'm actually scheduled to meet with my adviser again (gotta do more tweeking with the switch to Schwab). I'll see what he has to say. You are correct, I'm in mostly high risk stuff right now.
I did suffer some very significant losses in 2008 as a result of my portfolio.
But the market has come back, along with my money, and while my gains over the past few years have been flat because of that, if you look at the bigger picture, say the past 8 years, my total investment is up 12.5%. I'm not counting on that kind of long-term return, but even with a truly horrible year or two in there along the way, I think I'll be alright.

You keep saying it can't happen, it won't happen, only in a fantasy spreadsheet. I don't understand your logic, as it IS happening, exactly as my adviser has predicted. Sorry, not going to put my actual numbers up here for the world to see, but based on what my adviser has told me to expect, and what my money is actually doing, the rule of 72 is working fine, and by dollar cost averaging my contributions, I'm doing well enough. I won't be riding in the back of the planes I fly in the future, but will have a comfortable retirement.

Things can change. I can't predict the market, or life, with any amount of real accuracy. My plans do include shifting sizable chunks of money into safer investments as things progress. You're right in that I'm HOPING things continue to work out as planned. It's all I can do, but they seem to be doing alright so far.

I'll talk to my adviser about your advice. But I think I'll keep him. He's a pretty smart fella.

Your Financial Advisor isn't very bright if he's telling you that the Rule of 72 says that your money will double in 72 months. In reality it's the number by which you divide your expected annual rate of return to get the number of years your money will double. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp#axzz1lWLFb84t
If you are using 72-months for a double, you need an annual average return of 12%. Don't count on that as you shouldn't count on the frax model/payrates/401k match to be around forever.

 

[realityman]

Your Financial Advisor isn't very bright if he's telling you that the Rule of 72 says that your money will double in 72 months. In reality it's the number by which you divide your expected annual rate of return to get the number of years your money will double. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp#axzz1lWLFb84t
If you are using 72-months for a double, you need an annual average return of 12%. Don't count on that as you shouldn't count on the frax model/payrates/401k match to be around forever.

No worries, I'm not 'counting' on anything. I'm hoping. What else can I do? Unless you have some way to accurately predict what the market, my job, and my life are going to do over the next 25 years, I can only go by what is currently happening.

As for the rule of 72, you guys keep saying it doesn't work. But my returns have been almost EXACTLY what you would expect with the rule of 72. People keep saying "It doesn't work". Really? It's been working just fine for me. Maybe you're trying to say "don't count on it continuing to work.". Okay, I can live with that. But what you're saying is just as much a guess as my adviser saying it should work. Which of you is right? Only living until the future will give that answer.

So I will continue to make the best guesses I can and hope they work out.

 

[shroomwell]

Never use the past eight years to try and predict the next 25 years. That is short term thinkg and no one can predict that far out. The best thing to do is take the past 60 or 70 years and use that to TRY to predict the future.

You must not that Zero interest rates are going to have a tremendous effect on your returns. You cannot expect good returns in that environment.

As for your Financial Advisor. I suspect he is a guy who tells you what mutual funds to invest in. If you pay him for his time that is best, but if he is getting a commission from the funds you chose, than lose him, his interests are not aligned with yours. Besides he didn't know what the rule of 72 is and he thinks you can make 10% returns, which is BS. If he is that good he should be running a hedge fund making billions of dollars, and most of the guys who make that money in hedge funds cheat to some degree as well.

In today's environment I am happy to make 2-3% on my 401k money and be able to sleep at night knowing it is not at much risk. Sure it is horrible return on capital, but with the government/Fed keeping interest rate down at zero, it is what it is. Think of all the old people who used to live off of CD's at the bank getting 6-7% a year, they have essentially been put in the poor house by these policies.

Moral of the story is, be safe not greedy, it is you and your families future.

 

[realityman]

Shroom,

If you go back over the past 60 or 70 years (which is one of the things my adviser did) you see a historical return over that time frame of slightly better than 10%.

I expressed many of the same concerns to him that you are now expressing. The point he was making was that if you look at any 8 or 10-year block of time on the market, the returns are around 10-12%. If you just looked at 2008 and 2009 you'd say 'Holy crap! The market is killing everyone!". But his point was that if you start at the end of 2011 and go back 8 or 10 years, the return was actually an average of 12.5%. He showed me the historical data on the market going back pre-depression era. Even in the depression era, if you looked at any given 10-year block of time, the returns were overall good.

Now, is history a precursor of future returns? That seems to be the point you're trying to make. I don't know. I don't think you know. I doubt anyone on here knows. So, does my financial adviser know? No, he doesn't KNOW! If he did, he'd be a billionaire as you suggest. But I trust his educated guesswork more than most of the pilots I know.

I'm not looking to be rich. Even retiring with my hoped-for $3 million isn't rich, as that money may have to last my wife and I 30 years or more (another guess). However, I'm willing to take a higher risk portfolio now, and hope things pan out.

For everyone saying my adviser doesn't know what he's doing and I should dump him, why? My money has done EXACTLY what he said it should be doing. Why would I dump someone who has been right? I sure don't blame him for 2008. I don't recall talking to ANYONE who foresaw a drop like that coming.

At any rate, I pay him directly. He gets a (very small) percentage of my returns. A little less than some of the fees in my Schwab account (on a percentage basis), so he has a vested interest in my accounts doing well.

Shroom, it's as you say. The market is a gamble. But it's working out okay so far. Everyone has advice on what to do to make money, or stay safe, yet I don't see a whole bunch of these folks retiring early, or living large. I suspect most folks' best guesses aren't any better than what my adviser is telling me. I'm not trying to be greedy. I'm on a slow build-up which, if things go averagely well, should meet my goals in 25 years. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[jonjuan]

Never use the past eight years to try and predict the next 25 years. That is short term thinkg and no one can predict that far out. The best thing to do is take the past 60 or 70 years and use that to TRY to predict the future.

You must not that Zero interest rates are going to have a tremendous effect on your returns. You cannot expect good returns in that environment.

As for your Financial Advisor. I suspect he is a guy who tells you what mutual funds to invest in. If you pay him for his time that is best, but if he is getting a commission from the funds you chose, than lose him, his interests are not aligned with yours. Besides he didn't know what the rule of 72 is and he thinks you can make 10% returns, which is BS. If he is that good he should be running a hedge fund making billions of dollars, and most of the guys who make that money in hedge funds cheat to some degree as well.

In today's environment I am happy to make 2-3% on my 401k money and be able to sleep at night knowing it is not at much risk. Sure it is horrible return on capital, but with the government/Fed keeping interest rate down at zero, it is what it is. Think of all the old people who used to live off of CD's at the bank getting 6-7% a year, they have essentially been put in the poor house by these policies.

Moral of the story is, be safe not greedy, it is you and your families future.

His advisor is telling him that the rule of 72 yields 12% per year (double in 6 years). If he wants to believe his advisor isn't trying to hoodwink him, that's his deal. He probably also told him, "I can tell that you are not only a powerful man, but a good looking one." LOL

 

[BentOver]

Ahhh,,, every pilot thinks he is always right.... I listened to another pilot once about buyinjg a certain stock..Took his advice and lost out on a 400% return.... Never let it happen again....

 

[shroomwell]

jonjuan, I explained to him in my early post what the rule of 72 is. Bottom line is most of these so called "financial advisers" are just salesmen. They don't have any formal education or training. There only training is to sell this because XYZ, without knowing what XYZ are.

 

[realityman]

His advisor is telling him that the rule of 72 yields 12% per year (double in 6 years). If he wants to believe his advisor isn't trying to hoodwink him, that's his deal. He probably also told him, "I can tell that you are not only a powerful man, but a good looking one." LOL

My adviser only makes money if I do. Uhhh, I admit right here in front of everyone that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can't figure out how he's 'hoodwinked' me. Into what? Not following the advice of the folks on FI?

Fact is, actions speak louder than words. You can make fun of me and my adviser all you want, my money is doing what he said it would be doing if I followed his advice.

Not sure what his education is, but he's been guiding me pretty well, even through the tough market conditions we experienced recently.

Some of you folks actually seem angry that it's working out for me. Don't know why. Use whatever system works for you. If you can play the market well on your own, great. I prefer advice. I trust this guy and he's done right by me so far. I keep saying over and over that his advise and calculations have panned out very well for me, and you folks keep saying 'no it hasn't. no it won't'. Whatever.

I keep hearing over and over that it won't work out for me. Why? Based on what? What formal education in this area do you folks have that makes you smarter at this than my adviser?

Sheesh! Sorry I brought it up. I guess jonjuan will be doing well on his Delta pension, so no need to worry about the market. Oh, wait..........

I'll let all you market brianiacs talk amongst yourselves. Maybe in 25 years I'll come back to this thread and admit you were right. Or maybe I'll be too busy enjoying my well-funded retirement to bother with you. Only time will tell.

 

[jonjuan]

That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months.

With the fact that you nor your advisor know the meaning of "rule of 72", you appear to be lost in a fog (that or your advisor is mis-educating you).

 

[realityman]

With the fact that you nor your advisor know the meaning of "rule of 72", you appear to be lost in a fog (that or your advisor is mis-educating you).

That's okay. Seems like good fog. My account is doing well enough based on his advice. Maybe he knows more than you think. You've never met him, the only info you have on him is what I've told you, and most of what I've told you is that over the years his advice has worked out very well for me, and somehow from all that you've determined he's a lousy adviser. I'd really hate to see your decision making abilities at work based on what you're saying here.

Okay, no more from me on this subject. Pass all the judgements you like about my adviser. What you think isn't important, because my results with him have been right on target based on what he's telling me.

 

[jonjuan]

His name must be Warren Buffet because only he has come close to 12% a year over 30 years.

 

[CRAWDADDY]

Seniority rules.

Not at Netjest

 

[NachoMamma]

Not at Netjest

Bingo!

 

[acaTerry]

Seniority in the fracs is really pointless. Look at the situation at NJA for example. Many FOs are near the 10 year payscale maxout. They can work there for 30 years and not see a dime more...EVER. Upgrades...yeah, in like another 8 years if they are lucky (that makes you a 15 year FO on a 10 year payrate). PICs will bid the new equipment (lest they wait out a displacement and possibly get a fleet they hate) and the seats they vacate will go to disposal because our company leadership has it in their head that shrinkage is growth. FO bids in the GV are all that is left. But guess what? Those are going to PICs now too. So now the SICs have one thing left to use seniority for...which of the 3 crummy schedules do we want? Option 1 where you are on the road 7 days at a time, all the while being cabin boy cleaning up after the previous crew who didn't clean the plane or bother to do Jepps? Option 2 where you do 6 on 3 off until you turn purple? Or Option 3 where you have absolutely no idea when you work each month? So aside from vacation bids, seniority means nothing anymore. You have no upgrade, no payscale increase, and no life. So I ask...does expecting progress in your career make you an entitled baby? I think not.

 

[imacdog]

Are you looking at moving on Terry? Just curious what the general feeling amongst the stagnated FO's is these days.

 

[cldsfr79]

Seniority in the fracs is really pointless. Look at the situation at NJA for example. Many FOs are near the 10 year payscale maxout. They can work there for 30 years and not see a dime more...EVER. Upgrades...yeah, in like another 8 years if they are lucky (that makes you a 15 year FO on a 10 year payrate). PICs will bid the new equipment (lest they wait out a displacement and possibly get a fleet they hate) and the seats they vacate will go to disposal because our company leadership has it in their head that shrinkage is growth. FO bids in the GV are all that is left. But guess what? Those are going to PICs now too. So now the SICs have one thing left to use seniority for...which of the 3 crummy schedules do we want? Option 1 where you are on the road 7 days at a time, all the while being cabin boy cleaning up after the previous crew who didn't clean the plane or bother to do Jepps? Option 2 where you do 6 on 3 off until you turn purple? Or Option 3 where you have absolutely no idea when you work each month? So aside from vacation bids, seniority means nothing anymore. You have no upgrade, no payscale increase, and no life. So I ask...does expecting progress in your career make you an entitled baby? I think not.

This was a great post! It definitely sums up the mind set of the FOs from what I have heard and I couldn't agree more with what was written: PICs bidding new PIC slots or large cabin SIC slots bc they want a shiny new plane, lazy crews not cleaning up a cabin without recourse (this can be a whole new thread), and the fact that seniority is nothing more now and days than getting the vacation you want.

If I was an FO looking at 10 more years to upgrade, I would be looking at an exit plan. I'd rather sit 15+ years in the right seat of a slow moving major than at a fractional. Even Junior PICs are starting to squawk a bit. Yeah they get the captain cash but they still are the "cabin boy" and have to put up with the old or lazy or incompetent guy that sits in the left seat, which together appears to make up a large population.

 

[jonjuan]

Seniority in the fracs is really pointless. Look at the situation at NJA for example. Many FOs are near the 10 year payscale maxout. They can work there for 30 years and not see a dime more...EVER. Upgrades...yeah, in like another 8 years if they are lucky (that makes you a 15 year FO on a 10 year payrate). PICs will bid the new equipment (lest they wait out a displacement and possibly get a fleet they hate) and the seats they vacate will go to disposal because our company leadership has it in their head that shrinkage is growth. FO bids in the GV are all that is left. But guess what? Those are going to PICs now too. So now the SICs have one thing left to use seniority for...which of the 3 crummy schedules do we want? Option 1 where you are on the road 7 days at a time, all the while being cabin boy cleaning up after the previous crew who didn't clean the plane or bother to do Jepps? Option 2 where you do 6 on 3 off until you turn purple? Or Option 3 where you have absolutely no idea when you work each month? So aside from vacation bids, seniority means nothing anymore. You have no upgrade, no payscale increase, and no life. So I ask...does expecting progress in your career make you an entitled baby? I think not.

Miss the airlines?

 

[acaTerry]

Miss the airlines?

Not really. I am in fact rather happy (yes, still) at NJA. Overall it's a still a good job, even with much of the monkey business that's going on these days. But you know, no matter how much I like the job, I still have to have a future and the possibility of taking care of my family long term.
And with no upgrade, and even the SIC slots going to PICs now, there's just no point in stagnating. The initial pay hit of going to the airlines can be justified. Even if I never do upgrade, at 5 or 6 yrs from now at an airline, say Delta for example, $106,000 with many schedule lines to choose from, and a real reserve line (not the make believe reserve we have at NJA) is also possible. What's stopping me is that I don't want to do the whole commuting thing again. And I like the type of flying we do at NJA.
Nothing against the airlines, I just like what I do better now. But if those SIC slots for the GV keep going like the upgrades have, and there is no big improvement in pay next contract, I'll have to go. Sad, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[corpflunkie]

Just curious, but if a PIC bids down to SIC on the G-Whiz fleet, wouldn't said individual be taking a pay cut?

 

[CA1900]

Just curious, but if a PIC bids down to SIC on the G-Whiz fleet, wouldn't said individual be taking a pay cut?

Yep. Pay cut for him, while denying a pay raise for an SIC. Win-win! (for the company)

 

[trogges]

Your attitude amuses me Terry; you seem to have no idea what the current pilot market is like. You assume that you could leave NJA and go work for Delta, or any other airline, on your terms. What about the thousands of well qualified pilots, including the 495, of which I am a part of, that are beating the pavement everyday for any job that lets them pursue their dream of flying. Bringing home $120k+ in addition to great benefits, schedule and QOL, even while being forced to sit in the right seat and vaccuum up crackers and dog hair? You poor thing! Sounds like pretty good duty to a lot of pilots. You are doing what is best for your family now. Where else are you going to make that kind of money and still be home to see your family grow? I don't need, nor do I want, your sympathy, but guys like you that have the gall to complain at all about one of the best jobs in aviation, especially given the circumstances, are really salting the wound. Seniority has no value? Try telling that to your less senior comrades on the street. Get your head out of the sand. Please go stagnate somewhere else.

 

[imacdog]

Stagnation sucks Terry, but that's pretty universal no matter where you are.

 

[nordo_2]

Your attitude amuses me Terry; you seem to have no idea what the current pilot market is like. You assume that you could leave NJA and go work for Delta, or any other airline, on your terms. What about the thousands of well qualified pilots, including the 495, of which I am a part of, that are beating the pavement everyday for any job that lets them pursue their dream of flying. Bringing home $120k+ in addition to great benefits, schedule and QOL, even while being forced to sit in the right seat and vaccuum up crackers and dog hair? You poor thing! Sounds like pretty good duty to a lot of pilots. You are doing what is best for your family now. Where else are you going to make that kind of money and still be home to see your family grow? I don't need, nor do I want, your sympathy, but guys like you that have the gall to complain at all about one of the best jobs in aviation, especially given the circumstances, are really salting the wound. Seniority has no value? Try telling that to your less senior comrades on the street. Get your head out of the sand. Please go stagnate somewhere else.

What SIC is making $120,000?

 

[jonjuan]

Not really. I am in fact rather happy (yes, still) at NJA. Overall it's a still a good job, even with much of the monkey business that's going on these days. But you know, no matter how much I like the job, I still have to have a future and the possibility of taking care of my family long term.
And with no upgrade, and even the SIC slots going to PICs now, there's just no point in stagnating. The initial pay hit of going to the airlines can be justified. Even if I never do upgrade, at 5 or 6 yrs from now at an airline, say Delta for example, $106,000 with many schedule lines to choose from, and a real reserve line (not the make believe reserve we have at NJA) is also possible. What's stopping me is that I don't want to do the whole commuting thing again. And I like the type of flying we do at NJA.
Nothing against the airlines, I just like what I do better now. But if those SIC slots for the GV keep going like the upgrades have, and there is no big improvement in pay next contract, I'll have to go. Sad, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

understood. imo, you might want to beat the xmas rush.