I can't understand the low pay

[metrodriver]

txcap, I think you live in another world. Unions are not only for setting pay standards. They also offer employees protection against employers. Yes, the unions came up with the seniority idea. And I think it's a fair one. I interviewed with a carrier 2 years ago that had furloughed everybody when they went form 15 planes to 5 and immediately recalled the ones they liked (read: the ones that did not complain about low wages, 20+hr duty days and if the captain had a hot date waiting the day could be quite a lot longer, no lavatories on the planes, no food or drinks for the entire day). Of course there was no union.
A lot of pilots and flight attendants have been spared from being fired because of botched drug tests because they had a union behind them.
Alpa for years had their sights mostly on the major carriers with high salaries (that brings most money in the bank for Alpa), and small carriers or the ones with low pay could not join. Those had to go somewhere else like a railroad union or the teamsters in a few cases. Now the regional carriers are slowly being welcomed by alpa.
If there is a problem between a pilot and management the pilot is very easy to replace, until there is a union. And yes txcap, maybe someday in the future you might need that protection. Hopefully you will think back on that message you wrote above and say that was the stupidest thing you ever wrote on this board.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Wifeofapilot
This is how I see your question:


You walk into a hospital, and ask a surgeon why they are not able to prevent some patients from dying. After all, you reason, a bunch of intelligent, educated surgeons surely must be able to prevent such a tragedy.

Well ma'am he says, some diseases and injuries are too severe for medical science to overcome.

(In a huff): Well! With an attitude like that, no wonder your survival rate is in the toilet!


Lets look at it logically:

Exhibit #1) You concede that pilots are highly skilled and educated

Exhibit #2) You acknowledge that pilots would like to earn more than they do at the regional FO level

Exhibit #3) You say that you do not understand why this cannot change

It stands to reason we have thought of this long before you brought it up.

#3 is the key here - You are the one who is not aware of the real supply and demand forces. Blaming the pilots' "poor attitudes" is getting us nowhere.


Repeat after me:
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price

YOU don't like it. I do not like it.
I also don't like it that people are sometimes liars and creeps.
It ain't going to stop it, though.

Since you think it is so easy, why don't you just write up a little instruction sheet on how to fix it.

We will then cite multiple examples where that strategy has been tried and failed. It's all been done. If you are not able to give a workable solution, then how do you justify criticizing the position of others.

Sorry this is harsh, but your post really rubbed me the wrong way.

Best of luck to your furloughed husband.

 

[bobbysamd]

Recommended listening

Wifeofpilot, the long and short of your discussion is how pilot wages are undercut by those pilots who will work for low pay. Accordingly, I suggest that you listen to Part 4 of NPR's series on Wal-Mart. Scroll down the page until you find the link. The piece turns on how Wal-Mart wages have undercut pay for similar jobs in that industry. I submit that aviation is similar.

Also, although I'm not all that familiar with the new Mesa contract, and in no way do I intend to slam Mesa pilots, who, I know, have endured and continue to endure plenty of BS, that contract appears to have the same effect. I repeat that I am not slamming Mesa pilots. I worked for that company briefly ten years ago and I understand their company situation completely.

 

[CFI'er]

Low pilot pay starts at the CFI level. Until the current CFI's demand more pay scale increases, we will always have lower living standards. This is where the low pay starts. CFI's need to band together and demand more. Unfortunately in this day and age, there are those that "give it away" just for the log hours. You know who the "whores are". Supply and demand dictates the low wages.

How about starting at the flight school level and have an investigation into why the school charges $30 for dual flight hours but they pay the CFI for only $12-$15 for dual hoursl. I say bull crap to this practice. Some have said the difference paid for dual is for administrative costs, but this is not true. Look at what they charge for aircraft rental solo and what they charge for dual. The cost for the aircraft rental is the same, only the dual cost is high. It is just a form of hidden profits.

 

[Whirlwind]

How about starting at the flight school level and have an investigation into why the school charges $30 for dual flight hours but they pay the CFI for only $12-$15 for dual hoursl. I say bull crap to this practice. Some have said the difference paid for dual is for administrative costs, but this is not true. Look at what they charge for aircraft rental solo and what they charge for dual. The cost for the aircraft rental is the same, only the dual cost is high. It is just a form of hidden profits.

Actually, I'll have to interject here...

First, lets clear up one thing... "Profit" is not a dirty word, it is the flight schools job to make as much of it as possible.

Ok, with that out of the way...

There are costs to having an employee beyond what you pay them. If the student pays with a credit card, you have to give the bank something. You have to provide facilities for the CFIs and students. You have to cover administrative costs of having those employees. The aircraft pay for themselves and the CFIs pay for themselves.

You might be able to pay the CFI $20/hr if you're taking in $30/hr or maybe $35/hr, but that's about it. Most employees will cost a business about 20% more than their base pay, some a bit more and some a bit less.

If you pay the CFI $20/hr, then they probably will cost you about $24/hr. If you charge the student $30-35/hr, then you can make between $6 and $11/hr profit.

Jason

 

[jarhead]

CFI'er

I get the impression from your post (rightly or wrongly), that you interprate "Supply and Demand" that the "demand" part of that rule of ecconomics applies to what you, as a group, "demand" for pay. May I respectfully submit, that the "demand" part of that rule, has to do with the demand for your service from a paying customer. I would in fact, wish it were true that wages in all areas of the ecconomy could be what people wanted. Unfortunately, that is just not reality. When their is an over supply of people wanting to work at a given occupation, wages will be pushed down. When there is a shortage of supply for that occupation, wages will be pulled up. That is the long and the short of it.

You also seem to imply that their is a "hidden" profit in the rental structure at an FBO. I really doubt that it is "hidden", as if it were a conspiracy to keep pay down. No privately owned business is required to disclose its balance sheets. Your post has a conotation to it that "profit" is a dirty word. No one has a business, with all the risk and work involved, just to break even.
To raise payscales, typically would require the FBO to raise its rates to prospective and current customers. That can have the effect of keeping customers away, and spending their $$$ elsewhere. One cannot just "demand" more money, and expect to get what they "want". If pay is so low, that qualified instructors do not go to work at an FBO, the owners have to make the decision as to whether they can increase pay to attract those employees or not. They may make the determination, that to do so, would cause the business to start losing money, and put the enterprise at risk of going out of business. Or, they may determine that yes, they should raise the pay to attract and keep qualified people.

 

[Whirlwind]

CFI'er

I get the impression from your post (rightly or wrongly), that you interprate "Supply and Demand" that the "demand" part of that rule of ecconomics applies to what you, as a group, "demand" for pay. May I respectfully submit, that the "demand" part of that rule, has to do with the demand for your service from a paying customer.

I would respectfully submit that at least half the population simply doesn't understand how the economy actually works, or how business works.

You're right, supply and demand ultimaly drive it... Sometimes market forces get out of phase with reality, but they are usually self-correcting in short order.

That is part of the beauty of a free-market system.

One of the downsides is that it isn't always kind to the people who exist within it.

When their is an over supply of people wanting to work at a given occupation, wages will be pushed down. When there is a shortage of supply for that occupation, wages will be pulled up. That is the long and the short of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

You also seem to imply that their is a "hidden" profit in the rental structure at an FBO. I really doubt that it is "hidden", as if it were a conspiracy to keep pay down. No privately owned business is required to disclose its balance sheets. Your post has a conotation to it that "profit" is a dirty word. No one has a business, with all the risk and work involved, just to break even.

Exactly, the people who start businesses put a lot of time, money, effort, and sweat into them...

They are not doing it to provide you with a job, they are doing it to provide themselves with something, either in the form of freedom, money, whatever...

Shoot, the balance sheets of most FBOs isn't even a secret. It is not hard to figure out what it might be making, just based on the level of transparancy.

Anyone can find out in two seconds what the split is for the CFIs on the pay scale, another two seconds gets you the split for the aircraft owners.

Anyone can figure up the cost of rent, utilities, basic overhead.

There are really no real secrets in this business, too much transparancy for that...

Jason

 

[KickSave]

The spread in CFI wages vs the rates they charge at flight schools can be summed up by one word - insurance! Flight schools have expenses like any other business, and have a right to make a profit like any other business, but whenever a student, anywhere across the whole dern country, bangs up a prop or bends some landing gear, insurance prices go up for the whole industry. Insurance rate increases have far exceeded the COLA or Inflation in recent years.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Reply to Freight Dog

It's interesting that if you are indeed in that line of work you don't seem to recognize airline managements as being a far bigger problem than pilot unions. I don't need to point out record losses, pay cuts forced on unions in order to 'save their airline' when instead the pay cuts go to pay for bonuses for management.

1) So if an airline is failing to make money and it is the management's fault, are you saying that every single pilot has done everything possible to make the airline run as efficiently as possible? Come one. How many times have I readon this board when pilots exhort their union brothers to do something to make it hard on management. Sure, Wilbur.
2) As for records losses, when the economy turns down ALL INDUSTRIES take losses. I will agree that some airlines are using an outdated business model, but some airlines have managed to continue making money in spite of the economy of the last three years - and some have never laid off a pilot.
3) On forcing wage cuts, I will concede to you that the most recent example at American Airlines was pretty slimy but I don't think that it is appropriate to say that its the rule.

Have you seen any success stories of pilot unions? I think ALPA has done many things to improve safety that are now an industry standard. ALPA's role goes way beyond your traditional union role of simply negotiating contracts and collect dues. What do you think of B777?

Overall the unions have done more harm than good. I can see how they begin, but once they exist they exist for the benefit of the already arrived and the most senior. I guess SWA's outstanding safety record is due to ALPA? Oh... wait a minute... ALPA doesn't represent them.... nevermind.
The businesses, the FAA, and passengers mandates will increase safety. My point is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that increases in safety have been due to unions and nothing else - thousands of things have lead to an increase in safety that run the gammut from regulatory to the insistance of the paying customers.

Fail in what way? Pay? Work rules? It's the perception. Personally, I think ALPA dropped the ball when they allowed any new jets on regional property that weren't grandfathered, hence the current problem. It can be fixed, but it takes people/union members to make a stand. You say that pilot unions fail, and I say that pilot population fails when they are willing to sell their mother for the position to sit in the right seat of a jet which brings me to the topic of this thread.

1) Pilot unions prevent you from being able to leave one job and walk into another based on qualification. Why? Because that may displace someone who has already been given a protected status that has nothing to do with their ability to fly an airplane, but instead has everything to do with "I was here first". I love the quote from Fate is the Hunter - this is close to verbatum: Seniority protects the weak, who are everywhere, and in the greatest numbers. If I had a copy of it at my desk I would give you the quote exactly.
2) Why should an airline not be allowed to choose the equipment that it puts on a certain route? If it makes money and satisfies the customers, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Do you see that your question proves my point??????? If a company sees benefit in using certain equipment, and its more profitable and satisfies the paying customers, what the hell is a union doing trying to dictate something else? You are proving my point that unions dictate terms to airlines (and for that matter all companies which are unionized) that are necessarily less profitable than other alternatives.

You mention seniority as a problem in your previous post... look at it from this perspective, we have a vested interest in well-being of our airlines. If managements had the same system in place, you wouldn't see the rape and pillage of major airlines that took place. Look at UAL for example. Think their current situation is their pilots' fault because of their pre-9/11 payscales? How about Hawaiian Airlines and Boeing successfully suing to remove their CEO? How about the outcry about AMR execs lining themselves up for multimillion dollar bonuses while asking all its employee groups to take paycuts?

To say that having seniority gives you a vested interest in the company flies (forgive the pun) in the face of reality. I am personally not in a union job, and am employed at will by my company. If, some day, they decide to fire me it is their perogative to do so. Now... do you suppose that makes me produce in a way that insures that I will not ever find myself in that position? Of course it does. The union job is extremely protected and lends itslef to the opposite effect.

Then you go on to say that if managements had a seniority system there would be no rape and pillage of major airlines..... you have completely lost me here. If management had a seniorty sytstem then Carty would have had a UNION CONTRACT that prevented the company from being able to fire him.

So what in the world are you talking about here? You've lost me. Maybe I don't have enough hours after all.....


I have thought about reading Flying the Line but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Back to you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: Reply to Freight Dog

Overall the unions have done more harm than good. I can see how they begin, but once they exist they exist for the benefit of the already arrived and the most senior. I guess SWA's outstanding safety record is due to ALPA? Oh... wait a minute... ALPA doesn't represent them.... nevermind.

Yet they operate under the same rules, using the same safety measures and equipment that ALPA helped secure.


The businesses, the FAA, and passengers mandates will increase safety. My point is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that increases in safety have been due to unions and nothing else - thousands of things have lead to an increase in safety that run the gammut from regulatory to the insistance of the paying customers.

None have been so insistant, consistant, and sucessful as ALPA.


1) Pilot unions prevent you from being able to leave one job and walk into another based on qualification. Why? Because that may displace someone who has already been given a protected status that has nothing to do with their ability to fly an airplane, but instead has everything to do with "I was here first". I love the quote from Fate is the Hunter - this is close to verbatum: Seniority protects the weak, who are everywhere, and in the greatest numbers. If I had a copy of it at my desk I would give you the quote exactly.

Do you suggest that every pilot negotiate his own salary, work rules, etc? How would you implement such a system?


2) Why should an airline not be allowed to choose the equipment that it puts on a certain route? If it makes money and satisfies the customers, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Do you see that your question proves my point??????? If a company sees benefit in using certain equipment, and its more profitable and satisfies the paying customers, what the hell is a union doing trying to dictate something else? You are proving my point that unions dictate terms to airlines (and for that matter all companies which are unionized) that are necessarily less profitable than other alternatives.


Please give me an example when a union prevented an airline from choosing what equipment it flew on what route. I can think of none. My airline, for example, is free to operate as many airplanes as they want on whatever route they want. There are no restrictions on what equipment they may purchase or operate.



I have thought about reading Flying the Line but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Back to you.

Perhaps you should. It might be illuminating.

You are entitled to your opinion on unions, and I don't really care to change it. The only reason that I posted was to ensure you had the facts. Good luck with whatever career you choose, union or not.

(for the record, I recognize that unions, like everything else, have pros and cons. I would not, however, make such a blanket statement that ALPA has done more harm than good. I believe the opposite to be true)