GREAT CE-750 Job!!!!

[Ty Webb]

You forget I already have a job, pushing a 75,000 pound jet around for $10k to $15K less than that job offers working twice as much...and I'm the 2nd highest paid in the right seat for this airframe!

In my experience, they guys who are willing to take the low-paying jobs usuallly end up taking less their entire careers, moving from one "Battered Pilot Shelter" to another. . . . . . good luck and good riddance.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

Salary range of $40,000 to $45,000 or possibly higher, based on experience.


I don't think you guy's are reading the ad!

Entry Level 2000TT first starting out is only worth 40-45k If some one who has good qual's I.E. corporate jet time and experience I think they would go higher.

Just a guess but you're the guys that know it all.

I think you are missing the point. The Citation X is not an "entry level" jet anymore than a B-747 is. In other words 2000TT just doesn't cut it, and is below what would even be considered a low time pilot. The assumption is that anyone even being considered for a co-pilot job on a Citation X would have in excess of 2000TT and thus command a better salary, which is to say, that they would have compensation above an "entry level" salary. This point must be fairly close, as THE LOWEST Citation X co-pilot according to the 2006 ProPilot survey made $70K (an entry level salary for a Citation X).
If you want to pay an "entry level" salary in the 40K to 45K range for a Citation that is fine...go and get a Citation II.

But hey, maybe you are the one that knows it all.

 

[bvt1151]

I get the feeling you're in the mood to pick a fight with anyone who says anything that can be twisted to what would satisfy your urge.

Is it still a debate, when the other side has no interest in debating?

 

[coloneldan]

If you don't want to do it, there are plenty who will.

I agree.....sort of. There are plenty of people flying airplanes who are stupid enough to accept a job like this. All it does is screw over every other pilot in the country who is trying to make a decent living. I'm a line captain on a corporate jet. I'm being paid more right now than I have ever been. I make about average for my position and type. According to the government, I'm low income.

Sux to be me.

 

[750driver]

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Company Benefits:
Salary range of $40,000 to $45,000 or possibly higher, based on experience. [/FONT][/FONT]

I think I'll stick to my desk job ... it pays substantially higher.

 

[bvt1151]

They'll get what they pay for. You're in corporate aviation, not the highly regulated and unionized airline industry. Capitalism rules, and if they're willing to take the pilot they can get for 45k, guess what, the pilot works for 45k.

You can't dictate for other pilots their reasoning for taking a job or not. It could be in their home town. It could offer a quick upgrade and a tripling of their salary. They could snag the type and leave.

I was hoping this arrogant mindset was exclusive to the airline industry, but apparently its not. I'm not going to bash another pilot for taking a job at any pay. He has his reasons, and I have the respect for another pilot to assume his reasons are sufficient.

Unfortunate.

 

[G100driver]

I'm not going to bash another pilot for taking a job at any pay. He has his reasons, and I have the respect for another pilot to assume his reasons are sufficient.

Unfortunate.

How many pilots have heard their bosses say ... "you know that I can find people to do this job for less...."

Now do you respect another pilot?

 

[bvt1151]

How many pilots have heard their bosses say ... "you know that I can find people to do this job for less...."

Now do you respect another pilot?

This may happen, and capitalism dictates it. What will most likely happen is they won't get their first choice, or whoever takes the job won't last much over a year. That isn't the fault of the pilot, its the fault of the company. If they're willing to pay that much, they'd better be prepared for what they get.

If you think 40-50k is bad in the corporate industry, try 200 hour pilots flying at 20k in the regional industry. The problem is that we've comoditized ourselves. There is no real difference anymore between a good and a bad pilot, at least not enough that the other pilot can't cover for. Crashes are so rare, and pilots are so plentiful that the public no longer justifies that extra $20 per ticket for a better pilot.

The point is that either this company is aware how long a $40-45k pilot will last, or they'll find out real quick. That is the company's issue, and not the pilot's.

 

[G100driver]

The point is that either this company is aware how long a $40-45k pilot will last, or they'll find out real quick. That is the company's issue, and not the pilot's.

I will agree with you to a point.

However the more guys that quit the worse things tend to get a la PFT, training bonds ect ....

The more that guys say NO the better. Pilots should not compete with each other based on pay. They should compete based on merit. The last thing that I want is to fly with some dork because he CONvinced my boss that he was the boy for the job because he would work for less than industry standard wage.

We are talking about zillionare's and corporations that have the wealth to own a jet. A Cit X flying about 350 hours an year has a budget of $1.3-1.7 MILLION a year. Do you think under paying your pilots has any effect of whether or not the flight department survives?

Demand an industry wage ... who knows, maybe you will get some respect along the way as well

 

[JP4user]

a jet. A Cit X flying about 350 hours an year has a budget of $1.3-1.7 MILLION a year. Do you think under paying your pilots has any effect of whether or not the flight department survives?

Demand an industry wage ... who knows, maybe you will get some respect along the way as well

This simple fact is lost on so many pilots. Comparing the salaries to the actual costs of the operation on an annual basis is miniscule percentage wise.

 

[bvt1151]

Neither charter companies nor part 91 flight departments are non-profit organizations. The company is out to maximize profits, and that means minimizing costs. The argument that pilots should be paid to even those out does not apply. They will pay the minimum amount for the type of pilot they want. That's how business works. If you turn down a job because the company is making too much money, the next guy won't, and you'll have taken a "stand" for absolutely nothing.

The "rules" of capitalism are much like the rules of physics. They can be bent, but never changed. Eventually, if pilot supply exceeds pilot demand, capitalism will find a way to lower wages. Instead of trying to force wages up artificially, the much better long term solution is to give a reason for your wages to increase. Instead of providing internet job boards, which give the employer the advantage of finding the lowest cost pilot, start a survey of pilot qualifications that lets the owners of these outfits know exactly how qualified or unqualified their pilots are compared to the industry. Put the focus back on the pilots' ability, rather than just the cost. That's how you increase wages. Make them WANT to pay you more.

 

[sleepy]

Neither charter companies nor part 91 flight departments are non-profit organizations. The company is out to maximize profits, and that means minimizing costs. The argument that pilots should be paid to even those out does not apply. They will pay the minimum amount for the type of pilot they want. That's how business works. If you turn down a job because the company is making too much money, the next guy won't, and you'll have taken a "stand" for absolutely nothing.

The "rules" of capitalism are much like the rules of physics. They can be bent, but never changed. Eventually, if pilot supply exceeds pilot demand, capitalism will find a way to lower wages. Instead of trying to force wages up artificially, the much better long term solution is to give a reason for your wages to increase. Instead of providing internet job boards, which give the employer the advantage of finding the lowest cost pilot, start a survey of pilot qualifications that lets the owners of these outfits know exactly how qualified or unqualified their pilots are compared to the industry. Put the focus back on the pilots' ability, rather than just the cost. That's how you increase wages. Make them WANT to pay you more.

Very good post.

 

[BlueCanoe]

I'm a CRJ-70 FO, and I was making fun of airline pay compared to what you won't touch a much smaller aircraft for.

If you can't laugh at yourself...

Trust me, I'm about to lose my job because a whole slew of guys with SJS will do it for less. Read a bit about it on the Regional's forum. You're preaching to the choir.

Another GJ pilot outed...

 

[bvt1151]

Another GJ pilot outed...

Do a bit of research, and you'll understand how rediculous you sound.

 

[surplus1]

I don’t have a dog in the fight but your discussion is interesting and I do have a couple of questions and comments based on what you said.

Pilots should not compete with each other based on pay. They should compete based on merit. The last thing that I want is to fly with some dork because he CONvinced my boss that he was the boy for the job because he would work for less than industry standard wage.

That’s interesting. Since you don’t want to compete based on pay = cost, but want to compete based on “merit”, my question is this: How and who determines what “merit” is? Isn’t “merit” an arbitrary determination made by your boss? If he “likes” you, you have “merit”. If he doesn’t “like” you, you have less merit.

You say you don’t want to fly with the lowest bidder (understandable – to me) but you also say you would rather fly with the biggest a$$ kisser (not understandable – to me).

“Merit” is totally subjective and has nothing to do with “qualifications” or worth. It may or may not have something to do with performance. Bottom line, it depends on the whims of your boss.

So does the pay for the job so, what’s the real difference?

.

They will pay the minimum amount for the type of pilot they want. That's how business works.

Probably true.

The "rules" of capitalism are much like the rules of physics. They can be bent, but never changed. Eventually, if pilot supply exceeds pilot demand, capitalism will find a way to lower wages.

That’s probably true too, although I would say it a bit differently. Capitalism has only one “rule” and that’s the golden rule, i.e., “the man with the gold makes the rules.” That’s not very different from the “merit system” where the man with the power makes the merit.

Instead of providing internet job boards, which give the employer the advantage of finding the lowest cost pilot, start a survey of pilot qualifications that lets the owners of these outfits know exactly how qualified or unqualified their pilots are compared to the industry. Put the focus back on the pilots' ability, rather than just the cost.

Hmmm, and just how does one determine a pilot’s “qualifications”. If two pilots each have the same education and the same licenses and ratings, how do you decide which one is more “qualified” that the other? Isn’t that subjective as well?

Are “qualifications” based on flight hours? If so, isn’t that arbitrary as well? If you have two pilots, each with 10,000 hours, are they equally qualified? Is a pilot with 10,000 hours all in a Piper something more “qualified” than a pilot with 3,000 hours in say a King Air or 500 hours in an F-15? Can a pilot have 3,000 hours of “experience” and another pilot have 1 hour of “experience” – repeated 3,000 times?

It seems to me you are both saying essentially the same thing but using different words. It’s all subjective.

In contrast, in your airline system based on seniority, everyone is assumed to be “qualified” as long as he/she meets the legal requirements. Likewise, everyone is assumed to have the same “merit” as long as you do your job and stay out of trouble. The system is fairly objective because the same criteria is applied to everyone. Additionally, if you’re unionized, you have a collective voice in determining the value of your service and your working conditions. You are more, though not much more, than an “at will” employee.

That brings us back to square one, compensation. No matter how it’s arrived at, compensation is also subjective and has nothing to do with “merit” or “qualifications”. Unless your in the airline environment, you can take it or leave but you have no voice in the matter.

Company A has a vacancy and offers to pay $50 K. Company B has the same vacancy but offers to pay $30 K. The applicant must decide, regardless of his “merit” or his “qualifications”, which of the two jobs he prefers and will take and which he will not. It doesn’t seem to me to make much difference as long as the pilot is personally satisfied with the job and the terms. He might accept either offer or turn down both.

The employer is free to offer whatever he wants and the pilot is free to take it or leave it. What the employer “gets” for his money may or may not be determined by the amount of money in the corporate world. What the employer “gets” in the airline world is someone who is legally “qualified” to fill the vacant seat. What the pilot “gets” in either case may be a great job for only 30K or a lousy job for 50K, or a mediocre job for either sum.

Moral 1: The man with the gold makes the rules.

Moral 2: All that glitters is not gold.

Both of you could be right, and then again both of you could be wrong. It’s all a crap shoot and it’s always been that way.

In the corporate world you’re basically a chauffer whose “car” (limo) has wings; a sort of glorified servant. In the airline world you work a lot harder but there is little if any “servitude” involved. You’re closer to being a bus driver than a limo chauffer.

“Different strokes for different folks.”

 

[Brett Hull]

In the corporate world you’re basically a chauffer whose “car” (limo) has wings; a sort of glorified servant.

That's kinda like saying every RJ pilot has no basic understanding of high-altitude aerodynamics, switches seats on the way up while chanting "4-1-0 it dude". It may fit for a few, but you shouldn't paint with such a broad brush.

 

[Tgaug6300]

Aren't all of us pilots some type of "glorified servants"?

Corp. pilots = (according to Surplus1: Chauffers)
Airline pilots = Bus drivers
Cargo haulers = mailmen
EMS pilots = Amublance drivers
Flight Instructors = Teachers

But as pilots, we all have certain skills and knowledge that not everyone has or can do. Therefore we should be paid as such. I have to agree that if a company can afford a 16mil aircraft, then they should be able to pay at least industry standard. Just my .02

 

[Tgaug6300]

I guess we are all flying for "THE MAN"! (LOL)

 

[dime line]

The average Nanny makes 60-80,000, Personal cooks 120,000, 120ft + Yacht Captains 150,000 +

We are not paid what were worth, were paid what we negotiate.

 

[750driver]

We are not paid what were worth, were paid what we negotiate.

That's a fact. Well said.