Happy to take YOUR flying...

[Ben Dover]

Here's an honest question for you. Really, no flame bait here.

Why do you care so much about "taking someone elses flying?"

Do you get upset when Microsoft crushes a competitor and employees at that company lose their jobs? Are those displaced employees mad at the programmers at Microsoft?

When WalMart comes in and puts the mom & pop retailer out of business, is the clerk who lost his job pissed at the WalMart cashier for taking his checking? I think not.

Having been in one of these situations prior to my flying career I can tell you that no one is really angry with the employees of the other company. In fact most of the anger is focused on the management of the company laying off the people for not being able to stay competitive.

So here's the difference between us as pilots, and the Microsoft programmer or the checker at WalMart. Those people can go out and get another job with similar or possibly better compensation. You as a pilot must start over at the bottom with the worst pay and the worst schedule.

So the question is: Why are you agreeing to employment terms that are so potentially devistating to you livelihood? What are the odds you can pick a company to work for today and have the company still be in business thirty years from now? Oh ya, and after picking that company you have to get hired by said company. I think your odds are better in Vegas?

So in summary: Had you not screwed yourself by agreeing to these employment terms, you'd be more focused on getting a better job at a better company that fighting over who is taking who's flying.

 

[rickair7777]

Yeah, I think the longevity scale needs to go away. It is a relic of a bygone era when most americans spent their entire career at one company...

Pilot pay should based on seat and equipment capacity (some seat/gross/speed formula), but the pay is fixed, based on some sort of average of current 1-12 (or 18) year rates.

You keep seniority to determine schedule, equipment, domicile, upgrade, vacation, etc.

There would have to be a phase-in plan so as not to penalize existing senior pilots.


The beauty of this is that it would remove longevity as a cost factor, and negate management's incentive to dump senior workforces and replace them with junior groups.

Additionally, it would make the airline entry-level a liveable economic proposition, and increase competition for those jobs...maybe some real professionals would replace the backpack/ipod slackers...

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Could this be true? Folks calling for the Ryan Model? Interesting

 

[JustaNumber]

Removing the longevity scale, no matter how slowly it happened, would ultimately hurt both the senior employees and the company's bottom line. In today's world, neither can afford that.

How about this: longevity pay based not on company longevity, but on INDUSTRY longevity. Companies could choose to pay a premium for experienced professionals, or they could choose to go the cheap route and hope their company image survives. The marketplace would sort it all out into a much fairer system than we have now. Passengers might even actually be willing to pay extra for the "gray haired airline" versus the "spikey haired airline".

Good luck convincing negotiating committees that this is what we want, though. It would cost a fortune in negotiating capital that no one is willing to spend.

 

[shamrock]

Companies could choose to pay a premium for experienced professionals, or they could choose to go the cheap route and hope their company image survives.

I don't think it would be too hard to guess which option most, if not all, companies would go for.

 

[XJohXJ]

CityJet also does the "no seniority" thing. All the Mesaba folks who've headed over there seem pretty happy with it. They're all making really good money, for one thing.

 

[Tarzan]

Companies could choose to pay a premium for experienced professionals, or they could choose to go the cheap route and hope their company image survives.

So long as a 5000 hour CA can provide the same service and safety as a 20000 hour CA, why buy the expensive guy? Simple economics. Sucks sometimes but thats how it works.

 

[wms]

In Aviation Week there was an article on KAL. They asked the president of KAL if he felt threatened by LCCs in Asia. He said no because the unions were so strong in Asia that a LCC would have to pay the same salaries as the Asian majors. The "Asian legacies" were actually proteced from competition because of the cost of labor.

In the US on the other hand, legacies are threatened by LCCs that use low labor costs to get an edge. Meanwhile, we sell ourselves out to work for lower cost carriers while at the same time threatening the security of the carriers we'd really like to work for.

The problem isn't the free-market competition of bidding for contracts. But that bidding is made possible by a few who will work for less to get the flying, driving down wages in an economy that is getting more expensive to live in.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

In the US on the other hand, legacies are threatened by LCCs that use low labor costs to get an edge. Meanwhile, we sell ourselves out to work for lower cost carriers while at the same time threatening the security of the carriers we'd really like to work for.

The problem isn't the free-market competition of bidding for contracts. But that bidding is made possible by a few who will work for less to get the flying, driving down wages in an economy that is getting more expensive to live in.

I agree with what you are saying. But in part, the hiring practices of some of this majors need to be reviewed. I just don't think that the 7000 hour pilot with a clean record and good credentials should be dismissed because he doesn't know anybody inside. For some people the LCC's are the ones giving the opportunity for interviews. I can't think of anybody that has left lately that the LCC's was their one and only choice. They have also applied for years sometimes to the (Majors, Cargo) folks that are hiring, they simply went with the LCC's because they gave the opportunity. So blaming the individuals that take the ONLY chance given for the current state of degrading salaries and benefits, in my opinion is a little harsh.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

SWA does not just pay pilots more money, they pay their whole employee staff more money than any airline. A pilot salary is 1-3% of the entire ticket cost at any airline. If we pulled that out of the ticket price and added it as a national standard service charge, we'd be protected.