Lack of professionalism

[JAFI]

Plumbers also have much more stringent requirements in terms of training and work requirements in order to be a plumber. In order to drastically increase airline pay the barrier to entry has to be raised substantially. ALPA would be better served lobbying Congress to increase requirements for aviators then lobbying airlines for pay raises. Shrink the supply and the pay will come.

My 2 cents anyways.

Agreed. Look at all the pilot wannabes who look for the cheapest and quickest way to get a rating (not the best, or the way to the most knowledge and skill). I would rich if I got a nickel for every certificate/type rating I administered when the applicant informed me that this certificate was "only to get a job, not to act as PIC". I always got a weird look when I said "I do not have a - Just getting a job exam". "I only have the (going to be PIC) PTS".

I wonder if this is what happened to "Buggy Whip" makers and Whale Ship Captains.......

JAFI

 

[A Squared]

Not to stray away from the topic here, but ASquared, what do kind of flying do you do with the -6? Always thought it was a cool rig.

I fly for a 121 cargo outfit in Alaska. mostly scheduled runs, with some charter work into gold mines and such. I also occasionally fly bulk fuel under our Part 125 operation. Some days the '6 is a cool rig, other days it's a pain in the ass.

 

[727C47]

This is a profession, an art, a craft , that has produced voices like St.Ex,and Ernie Gann, it has inspired art and prose, we leap continents,and oceans, pierce the clouds,and weather,touch the very heart of the sky itself ,I don't know maybe a freightdog looks at it as just another job,but I flew a DC3 for 10 years, round this planet, and I never felt about the profession the way you do A squared. This thing of ours is a sacred trust, I'm not dissing tradesmen,God knows ,all labor is worthy of respect,but what we do is different, and it is special,and it is worthy of respect,and professional compensation,certainly at the white collar level, but I do confess there was many an exhausted hard days night flying the 3 ,when I looked at my collar and felt a twinge of blue,that was some hard work, pax flying is cake by comparison, Cheers brothers,peace out.

 

[svcta]

A squared, regarding the *airline* pilots and the rest of us: The whole industry beyond entry-level jobs has always looked to the airlines to begin to map out its own pay scales and work rules. Historically the airlines' pilot groups have had the organization to clearly spell out work rules, pay rates based on weight/speed, etc., which we have been able to sort of 'piggy back' on to. Here in the corporate world it's no secret that the flight departments have to remain competitive in terms of pay relative to the airline operators, or in later years offer other elevated benefits in terms of quality of life.......especially when the major carriers begin to hire. Otherwise they continually lose pilots to the airlines.

As far as getting paid what the market will bear, well that's what the airline pilots have been getting paid. I think we can all concede that they're probably making more than you and I, even in these times of 'concessionary contracts' and management cop outs.

I have never hauled cargo outside of a light-twin operator so I can't say how it works with the heavier cargo operators, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that even they look to the more noteworthy carriers(UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) to find a benchmark.

Major airline operators have traditionally been the last stop for pilots in their flying careers. Granted you may switch carriers at some point due to the volatile nature of the industry, but most airline pilots will switch jobs much less than the rest of us in the course of their lives. So, while I completely agree that the fatality stats that I quoted absolutely cover the WHOLE flying biz, not just airline pilots, it sort of helps make the argument that the airlines may still be the best bet for long-term employment in this industry.

The point of all of this is that we generally look to the airlines to find out just what the market will bear in terms of what we're worth. Anyone who burns kerosene for a living(or very large amounts of Avgas) will benefit from a strong payscale at the airline level.

As far as your "working class hero" attitude is concerned. I'm not any more impressed with the grease under your fingernails than you were with the cleanliness of Airmack's attitude. I still work for an operator that expects me to be well dressed, clean shaven and to maintain my skillset to the best of my ability because aviation is a very unforgiving task. I've worked for outfits in the past where there was more oil on my airplane than paint, and I can see how being around that for years and years might cause one to forget that. However the other side of the coin has people like myself on it. Proficiency checks every six months(failure of which could mean losing your job), maintaining a professional appearance, the fear of waking up one morning and losing your medical, blah blah blah. 67% percent of my short little list of examples there are things that no other job subjects you to, except maybe a surgeon that has to pass boards once in a while. I'm not comparing my job to that of a surgeon, but just pointing out that there are threats to our career all over the place both regulatory and performance-based in nature.

I do agree with you about the Gulfstreamers and people who will pay for their jobs. You are 100% correct that they are a tremendous drain on the profession and make it resemble more of a hobby.
We all need to recognize the things that make our job unique and appreciate each other's work environments enough to recognize that we do have a little more on the line that the average plumber or electrician.

 

[The_Russian]

I do agree with you about the Gulfstreamers and people who will pay for their jobs. You are 100% correct that they are a tremendous drain on the profession and make it resemble more of a hobby.

Why do you insist on singling out "Gulfstreamers" as being people who are willing to "pay for jobs" and drain the profession to a hobby. There are plenty of "non-Gulfstreamers" who have entered the industry through more typical routes seeking to feed their "hobby". Not once, in my five years with GIA and GAA, have a met a person who believes or even considers that they are "paying" for their job to undercut others and cheapen the industry. In fact, most don't even know the difference because they are kids, or they just returned from serving their country.

Reconsider your statement while including all the other fast-track schools, ERAU, 141 Academies, ALPA carrier pay cuts, the vast majority of Legacy pilots who PFT'd, anyone who flys a 50-70 seat RJ for 20 bucks an hour, scabs, and your own career.

Really, take a close look at it before you start pointing fingers.

 

[GVFlyer]

I think the same market forces that determine the value of everything in capitalist free market economies serve to determine our salaries. That is to say, relative scarcity determines value.

There are lots of Boeing pilots available in the market, so their value is depressed.

G550 pilots, because there are fewer of them, get paid more. This is in part because of training costs, G550 initial is $55k and change, recurrent is $37K.

Subsequently, average nationwide G550 captain pay is $130K. Regionally, it can be much higher.

In my region the average salary is better than $150K. I used that as a starting point. In salary negotiations I pointed out that I was managing a $50 million dollar asset for the company and I wanted to be compensated in the same manner as any other executive that was managing a $50 million business segment.

I believe that responsibility for profit or potential loss can also affect compensation.

Thus, in salary talks I also pointed out that the risk exposure I was managing was greater than that of most similarly compensated executives. I supported this statement by showing that while we only had $50 million in hull insurance on each aircraft, our liability coverage was $300 million each.

GV







~

 

[A Squared]

I think the same market forces that determine the value of everything in capitalist free market economies serve to determine our salaries. That is to say, relative scarcity determines value.

There are lots of Boeing pilots available in the market, so their value is depressed.

G550 pilots, because there are fewer of them, get paid more. This is in part because of training costs, G550 initial is $55k and change, recurrent is $37K.

Subsequently, average nationwide G550 captain pay is $130K. Regionally, it can be much higher.

In my region the average salary is better than $150K. I used that as a starting point. In salary negotiations I pointed out that I was managing a $50 million dollar asset for the company and I wanted to be compensated in the same manner as any other executive that was managing a $50 million business segment.

I believe that responsibility for profit or potential loss can also affect compensation.

Thus, in salary talks I also pointed out that the risk exposure I was managing was greater than that of most similarly compensated executives. I supported this statement by showing that while we only had $50 million in hull insurance on each aircraft, our liability coverage was $300 million each. GV

No disagreement here. If you can convince your "market" of a higher worth, more power to you. One way is to differentiate your "product" so to speak, from others, show that you are not a "widget" but a superior asset.

That, apparently, is what you and "say again" have done in negotiating your compensation. I think that you'll agree that this doesn't negate the concept of worth being determined by the market, but shows that you've used market forces to your advantage.

 

[svcta]

Why do you insist on singling out "Gulfstreamers" as being people who are willing to "pay for jobs" and drain the profession to a hobby. There are plenty of "non-Gulfstreamers" who have entered the industry through more typical routes seeking to feed their "hobby". Not once, in my five years with GIA and GAA, have a met a person who believes or even considers that they are "paying" for their job to undercut others and cheapen the industry. In fact, most don't even know the difference because they are kids, or they just returned from serving their country.

Reconsider your statement while including all the other fast-track schools, ERAU, 141 Academies, ALPA carrier pay cuts, the vast majority of Legacy pilots who PFT'd, anyone who flys a 50-70 seat RJ for 20 bucks an hour, scabs, and your own career.

Really, take a close look at it before you start pointing fingers.

Gulfstream was an example that was used earlier in this thread, so I was answering a statement made before this post. Though I do place more at their feet than 141 college programs and certainly myself, since you asked.

I did things the old-fashioned way, so no blame here. And I don't fly for an airline anymore...I got out of that business because after I got there I couldn't stand it. I felt like a joke; constantly like all my friends would think I was nuts to do what I had to do to make such a sh!tty living. I may go back one day...but to a mainline carrier.

By the way, are you claiming that the "vast majority of Legacy pilots" somehow paid for their jobs? Funny, I don't know a single one that did.

As far as you having never met anyone at GIA or GAA that thought they were undercutting, or brining anything down or whatever.....well I'm sure your typical suicide bomber thinks he's doing things the right way, too.

 

[A Squared]

A squared, regarding the *airline* pilots and the rest of us: The whole industry beyond entry-level jobs has always looked to the airlines to begin to map out its own pay scales and work rules. Historically the airlines' pilot groups have had the organization to clearly spell out work rules, pay rates based on weight/speed, etc., which we have been able to sort of 'piggy back' on to. Here in the corporate world it's no secret that the flight departments have to remain competitive in terms of pay relative to the airline operators, or in later years offer other elevated benefits in terms of quality of life.......especially when the major carriers begin to hire. Otherwise they continually lose pilots to the airlines.

As far as getting paid what the market will bear, well that's what the airline pilots have been getting paid. I think we can all concede that they're probably making more than you and I, even in these times of 'concessionary contracts' and management cop outs.

I have never hauled cargo outside of a light-twin operator so I can't say how it works with the heavier cargo operators, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that even they look to the more noteworthy carriers(UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) to find a benchmark.

Major airline operators have traditionally been the last stop for pilots in their flying careers. Granted you may switch carriers at some point due to the volatile nature of the industry, but most airline pilots will switch jobs much less than the rest of us in the course of their lives...........

snip

..............The point of all of this is that we generally look to the airlines to find out just what the market will bear in terms of what we're worth. Anyone who burns kerosene for a living(or very large amounts of Avgas) will benefit from a strong payscale at the airline level.

I don't disagree with any of this. If you think that my position is contrary to this, you may have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing for lower pay, anywhere. I understand the concept that higher pay at other airlines may indirectly have an upward effect on my compensation. I don't object to anyone being compensated comfortably, nor do I object to anyone wishing to increase that compensation.

What I do object to is Flymack's staggering sense of superiority and entitlement. to wit:

"I'm a "professional" (No you're not, not by any rational, commonly accepted definition of professional) therefore I *deserve* to get paid like a doctor."

Umm no, you *deserve* exactly what the market gives you. If, like GVflyer and Sayagain you are able to apply those market forces to your benefit, good for you.

So, while I completely agree that the fatality stats that I quoted absolutely cover the WHOLE flying biz, not just airline pilots, it sort of helps make the argument that the airlines may still be the best bet for long-term employment in this industry.

Right, I don't disagree with your conclusion there, but the point of the fatality statistics was whether or not airline flying was a dangerous occupation. It is foolish in the extreme to suggest that it is. Flymack made the claim that he deserved more pay because "he risked his life on a daily basis", which is an absurd, fallacious statement.

It's fallacious on two levels: First, flying passengers in an airbus is an incredibly safe occupation, probably safer than being a postal clerk. Second, risk has very little to do with how much one is paid. I don’t know if you took a look at the links I provided, but very briefly, the 2005 version of the statistics you mentioned claimed 17 occupational fatalities for "airline pilots copilots and flight engineers" In a year when there were exactly 2 crew fatalities in airline accidents, both in the Chalks Ocean Airways crash. Even if we were to accept the 17 fatalities as accurate that would make a fatality rate of about 21/100,000 which would make airline flying safer than any of the top 10 dangerous occupations. Anyone want to argue that construction laborers should make more money than airline pilots because they are in a riskier occupation? If we use the more realistic number of 2 fatalities for Airline pilots in 2005, then we have a fatality rate of 2.5 fatalities per 100,000, which makes the fatality rate for airline pilots less than office managers (2.7/100,000)

As far as your "working class hero" attitude is concerned. I'm not any more impressed with the grease under your fingernails than you were with the cleanliness of Airmack's attitude. I still work for an operator that expects me to be well dressed, clean shaven and to maintain my skillset to the best of my ability because aviation is a very unforgiving task. I've worked for outfits in the past where there was more oil on my airplane than paint, and I can see how being around that for years and years might cause one to forget that. However the other side of the coin has people like myself on it. Proficiency checks every six months(failure of which could mean losing your job), maintaining a professional appearance, the fear of waking up one morning and losing your medical, blah blah blah. 67% percent of my short little list of examples there are things that no other job subjects you to, except maybe a surgeon that has to pass boards once in a while. I'm not comparing my job to that of a surgeon, but just pointing out that there are threats to our career all over the place both regulatory and performance-based in nature.

Again, you misunderstand my position, rather badly. I don’t claim some moral high ground because I have grease under my fingernails. I do however object to Flymack’s (and seemingly yours, although I hesitate to read too much into your words) attitude that he exists on a higher level, merely because his particular employer has higher grooming standards, that somehow, because his clothes are clean, that elevates him to the level of "professional". Rather than establish a distinction and claim superiority for that side of the line upon which I exist, my intent was to do exactly the opposite; to point out that except for the completely irrelevant factor of grooming standards, there is little functional difference between the nature of his job and mine. We both operate equipment under the requirements of Part 121. To state more simply, I wasn’t claiming that I’m better because I’m a blue collar worker and he’s not, but that we’re both blue collar workers, despite the fact that his collar may be a little cleaner than mine.

It would appear from your words that you are of the opinion that cargo pilots don’t maintain their skillset to the best of their ability, and that we don’t have 6 month proficiency check, or that we don’t have the same concerns about losing our medical. I would urge you to point out the specific parts of 121 which you believe exempt cargo pilots from those requirements. As far as how that compares to other occupations, sure there are some things about flying which are unique to flying. However I think that if you were involved in just about any occupation, you would find things which are unique to that occupation, things which cause stress and keep you up at night. None of this is relevant to the difference between an occupation and a profession.

 

[svcta]

I think that we agree more than we might realize, I just get irked when someone who I assume does operate under the same pressures as myself and the rest of the bulk of the pilot group at large claims that we shouldn't expect any more of a wage than a plumber because his job has the same demands as ours. Which, I think, is essentially what you said at one point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The fact remains that there are certain silver bullets that would end a potentially profitable flying career that don't exist for any other job.

I was once a cargo hauler myself, as I pointed out, and I completely understand that you lads have the same P.C. requirements that the 121 guys do. This is why my statement ended with the bit about respecting each other's work environments.

As I said, I get my hackles up when a fellow pilot plays the 'overpaid bus driver' card. We get than enough from other sources, we don't need it from within.

That's all I've got on that. Thanks for taking the time to help us understand each other's point. I guess I'll stay here with my toys for a little longer.

 

[A Squared]

This is a profession, an art, a craft , that has produced voices like St.Ex,and Ernie Gann, it has inspired art and prose, we leap continents,and oceans, pierce the clouds,and weather,touch the very heart of the sky itself ,I don't know maybe a freightdog looks at it as just another job,but I flew a DC3 for 10 years, round this planet, and I never felt about the profession the way you do A squared. This thing of ours is a sacred trust, I'm not dissing tradesmen,God knows ,all labor is worthy of respect,but what we do is different, and it is special,and it is worthy of respect,and professional compensation,certainly at the white collar level, but I do confess there was many an exhausted hard days night flying the 3 ,when I looked at my collar and felt a twinge of blue,that was some hard work, pax flying is cake by comparison, Cheers brothers,peace out.

I'm certainly not immune to the sort of romanticism and emotional attachment which you describe. Quite the contrary, flying holds a strong emotional appeal for me, as it does for many pilots. That doesn't make it a profession, though. You'll find the same emotional appeal, and an even larger body of literature and music devoted to being a cowboy. That doesn't make punching cows a profession, though. Any number of trades and occupations hold a strong emotional appeal. Sailors, long haul truckers and railroad engineers come to mind. If you log onto any one of a number of woodworking forums, you’ll find a large number of people who feel passionately about working with wood. For all that, framer, finish carpenter and cabinetmaker are all trades, not professions.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of "profession", but there are a couple of universal basics.

1 A profession requires a higher education. Clearly being a pilot doesn't meet this standard. As mentioned earlier, you can hold the highest pilot certification level available without even a high school education. The fact that *some* employers require a degree doesn't make education an inherent element of piloting. A plumbing company could require it's plumbers to have a degree in English lit, so that they can quote Chaucer to for the client as they fix the garbage disposal. That wouldn't make plumbing a profession.

2) A profession is self regulating. An engineer, for example conducts his business in accordance with standards established by a professional organization, and the actual regulation of the profession while having the force of state law, is generally done by a board of practicing professionals from within the industry.

There is nothing resembling this in aviation.

A profession is a skill based on extensive theoretical knowledge. Very little theoretical knowledge is required to fly an airplane. True, many pilots do possess extensive theoretical knowledge, but it's not a requirement. Again, it is entirely possible for a high school dropout to hold the highest level of certification.

A profession has a Code of professional behavior or ethics. As an example, the state bar associations have codes of professional behavior and ethics. If you are an attorney, and your behavior is in violation of this code of ethics, even if it is not illegal according to state law, you may in fact find yourself disbarred, and unable to practice. Nothing of this nature exists in piloting. Now I’m sure that someone will probably point out that ALPA has something they present as a code of ethics or something. That’s not quite the same thing. To begin, ALPA isn’t a professional organization, it’s a trade union; a trade union to which not all pilots (or even most) belong. (Try finding an attorney who isn’t a member of both his local Bar and the American Bar association) To a non-ALPA pilot, whatever code ALPA has is completely irrelevant.

The thing is, the closer you look at what constitutes a profession, the more you realize that flying airplanes falls short of that mark on most of the major points.

 

[BushwickBill]

Airmack,

Just a word of advice.....

Try not to spout off at people and expect them to respond with less than a firm slap in the face. Trust me, it doesn't go over well on this board. I once posted in such a manner. It doesn't pay off.

Please don't threaten folks with "the law" on here, its just not cool.

Or you can turn the blowtorch on and flame the slapp happy dorks. Worked for me.

Oh and Johnny law is for sissys.

BTW I worked for a plummer for a year. Every time something comes up that bothers me on the job I just think to myself: thank god I'm not a plummer anymore (while I visualize myself in a ditch filled with crap being yelled at by a guy who's fat enough to make captain.)

 

[727C47]

I'm certainly not immune to the sort of romanticism and emotional attachment which you describe. Quite the contrary, flying holds a strong emotional appeal for me, as it does for many pilots. That doesn't make it a profession, though. You'll find the same emotional appeal, and an even larger body of literature and music devoted to being a cowboy. That doesn't make punching cows a profession, though. Any number of trades and occupations hold a strong emotional appeal. Sailors, long haul truckers and railroad engineers come to mind. If you log onto any one of a number of woodworking forums, you’ll find a large number of people who feel passionately about working with wood. For all that, framer, finish carpenter and cabinetmaker are all trades, not professions.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of "profession", but there are a couple of universal basics.

1 A profession requires a higher education. Clearly being a pilot doesn't meet this standard. As mentioned earlier, you can hold the highest pilot certification level available without even a high school education. The fact that *some* employers require a degree doesn't make education an inherent element of piloting. A plumbing company could require it's plumbers to have a degree in English lit, so that they can quote Chaucer to for the client as they fix the garbage disposal. That wouldn't make plumbing a profession.

2) A profession is self regulating. An engineer, for example conducts his business in accordance with standards established by a professional organization, and the actual regulation of the profession while having the force of state law, is generally done by a board of practicing professionals from within the industry.

There is nothing resembling this in aviation.

A profession is a skill based on extensive theoretical knowledge. Very little theoretical knowledge is required to fly an airplane. True, many pilots do possess extensive theoretical knowledge, but it's not a requirement. Again, it is entirely possible for a high school dropout to hold the highest level of certification.

A profession has a Code of professional behavior or ethics. As an example, the state bar associations have codes of professional behavior and ethics. If you are an attorney, and your behavior is in violation of this code of ethics, even if it is not illegal according to state law, you may in fact find yourself disbarred, and unable to practice. Nothing of this nature exists in piloting. Now I’m sure that someone will probably point out that ALPA has something they present as a code of ethics or something. That’s not quite the same thing. To begin, ALPA isn’t a professional organization, it’s a trade union; a trade union to which not all pilots (or even most) belong. (Try finding an attorney who isn’t a member of both his local Bar and the American Bar association) To a non-ALPA pilot, whatever code ALPA has is completely irrelevant.

The thing is, the closer you look at what constitutes a profession, the more you realize that flying airplanes falls short of that mark on most of the major points.

I beg to differ, on many levels, but you have fun in that 6 now.

 

[svcta]

Yeah, A squared, you just keep losing me. And I feel like if you don't get it at this point in your life, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

I don't care what you say, flying is my profession and I strive to act like a professional. I understand the psychology of managing a crew, a cabin full of nervous people, I've worked as a mechanic in order to broaden my knowledge of how things actually work, I do my best to remain conversant in a lengthy set of regulations laid out by the government, violation of which could cause the loss of my ability to execute my job(and with much greater prejudice than the state BAR, I would guess), I appreciate the physics involved in managing the energy of heavy aircraft as they move around in space, and most of all I demand (and usually get) the respect of my friends and peers as a professional because they all seem to understand it for what it is.

Right now I work for a man that has many dollars. He is a pilot and has had an airplane for almost all of his adult life. When he stepped in to the level of operating swept-wing jets he made the decision that he was no longer comfortable doing this for himself. And he hired professionals to do it for him.

Perhaps(once again) we work with a unique skill. Some people can do it on the weekends, which isn't the case with attorneys and doctors, but not all pilots can develop the skillset required for certain jobs in the professional side of the business. Professionalism is an attitude as much as anything else, but the business is self regulating in certain ways. Pilots(both hobbyists and pros alike) get killed with a level of regularity when they prove to be under prepared for what they're involved in. Whether is ag flying, bush flying, cargo hauling, carrying passengers, or flying to gramma's house. As a professional I carry with me an increasingly solid guarantee that I will be capable of making decisions in such a manner as to avoid these situations on behalf of the people who have employed my services as a professional.

 

[A Squared]

And I feel like if you don't get it at this point in your life, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

I get it just fine. For whatever reason, you feel a deep need to proclaim yourself a professional, and the fact that operating airplanes bears none of the characteristics that define a professional is not going to influence you.

I don't care what you say

Right, and I think that captures the essence of your attitude perfectly, you have decided against all evidence that the operators of airplanes are professionals, any you are completely unwilling to examine that thought dispassionately and analytically.

flying is my profession and I strive to act like a professional.

The two are not one and the same. I have no doubt that you approach your job with a high level of professionalism, as do I. I take pride in what I do and strive to do it to the best of my abilities. I imagine that you do also. That doesn’t make flying a profession. You can find examples of professionalism in many trades. You will find plumbers, electricians and auto mechanics who are equally dedicated to providing the best possible service they can.

The responses, yours and others’ all seem to fall into the same general category: A recitation of a litany of factors which while true, do not define what is a profession and what is not.

I understand the psychology of managing a crew, a cabin full of nervous people,

So too does the site foreman on a large electrical job understand the psychology of managing a crew of workers, and I think that may tradesmen would be surprised at your suggestion that they don’t have to deal with clients who are upset or apprehensive for a number of different reasons, including but not limited to cost, safety, schedule or inconvenience.

I do my best to remain conversant in a lengthy set of regulations laid out by the government, violation of which could cause the loss of my ability to execute my job.

So too do Electricians and Plumbers remain conversant in the complex and dynamic NEC and NPC. Go down to your local bookstore and take a look at the NEC, it’s a book much larger than a book containing Part 1,91,119, and 121 combined. Being knowledgeable about a set of regulations is not a defining feature of a profession.

(and with much greater prejudice than the state BAR, I would guess),

Perhaps, perhaps not. I think many of us tend to feel that attorneys need more restraint, whether from within or externally. I will say that I know a former attorney who got an ethics complaint and was disbarred in this state. Even though, as I understand it, his transgression was not a crime, he will not practice law again. Ever. Anywhere. He’s now a flight instructor.

I appreciate the physics involved in managing the energy of heavy aircraft as they move around in space,

That may be, I have an appreciation and understanding of physics also, having studied it at the university level. It is not however a requirement to fly airplanes. It is not necessary, for example, that a pilot understand *why* drag varies inversely with airspeed below a certain velocity nor *why* a wing stalls, It is only required that the pilot *knows* this occurs and operates the equipment accordingly. You want a demonstration of how little theoretical knowledge is actually required? Start a discussion on why Va decreases with gross weight. The majority of the responses will be absolute gibberish quoting "reserve angle of attack" and such; nonsense that is completely at odds with physics and aerodynamics. But for all that, it really doesn’t matter. All that is required is that the pilot *knows* that Va decreases with gross weight (not why) and operate in accordance with that rote knowledge, and many of those pilots who really don’t have the vaguest clue as to why Va decreases with gross weight, may be very skillful, effective safe pilots.

and most of all I demand (and usually get) the respect of my friends and peers as a professional because they all seem to understand it for what it is.

I think that this statement hints at the basis of your need to insist that operating airplanes is a profession. It almost seems that you believe that you are less worthy of respect if you are not a "professional", that somehow a skilled tradesman is inferior to a professional, and that is why you are reluctant to accept the obvious, and argue against it with such insubstantial reasoning. I don’t share this prejudice. I don’t accord my respect based on paychecks or degrees. I would have a much greater degree of respect for a plumber, or an operator of airplanes who plies his trade with the highest level of craftsmanship than I would for a doctor who makes much more money doing mediocre boob jobs for insecure bimboes. Having spent my formative years in a university environment, I’ve known far too may idiots with Phd’s to be terribly impressed by them. Respect is earned, not demanded

Right now I work for a man that has many dollars. He is a pilot and has had an airplane for almost all of his adult life. When he stepped in to the level of operating swept-wing jets he made the decision that he was no longer comfortable doing this for himself. And he hired professionals to do it for him.

Yes, and I have been doing electrical work since my teenage years. Most recently I wired my garage shop with 240 for an aircompressor. I take a great deal of pride in having done it to the best of my abilities and having done it in accordance with the NEC and local codes. For a job much more complicated, I would probably hire an electrician. Neither scenario sheds light on what is or is not a profession.

Perhaps(once again) we work with a unique skill. Some people can do it on the weekends, which isn't the case with attorneys and doctors, but not all pilots can develop the skillset required for certain jobs in the professional side of the business.

Similarly, most people with an interest could learn to push piles of dirt around with a bulldozer. Not all are capable of developing the skills required to do so with the adroitness, accuracy or efficiency of a really good equipment operator.

Professionalism is an attitude as much as anything else,

I agree, completely. Approaching your job with a professional attitude is not a defining characteristic of a profession. Within any profession or trade or other occupation you will find people who approach it with professionalism and those who do not.

but the business is self regulating in certain ways. Pilots(both hobbyists and pros alike) get killed with a level of regularity when they prove to be under prepared for what they're involved in.

This is not what is meant by "self regulation". We both know that. Any number of tradesmen can "self regulate" themselves out of existence if they are not careful.

Look, we could go on and on with this, You can continue naming specious reasons and I can continue showing that the same or very similar things exist in the trades. What you can’t do is show that piloting inherently has those features which define a learned profession in the traditional sense. You aren’t required to be educated, nor have a deep theoretical knowledge, nor is there self regulation nor a regulating professional body, nor do pilots open individual professional practices. I guess that I am secure enough in who I am to accept that yes, operating airplanes is a trade. It’s a trade which holds an appeal for me, and it is special to me, and I take a great deal of pride in it, but at the end of the day it is a trade. If it was really, really important to my sense of self worth to be able to say "I’m a professional" I would have remained in my former profession.

 

[WabiSabi]

There is no universally agreed upon definition of "profession", but there are a couple of universal basics.

It looks as if your version of "universal basics" doesn't quite jive with the dictionaries of Random House, Princeton, Harper's etc.

Even the the last cut/paste from Merriam Webster's mentions intensive academic preparation as just one of the "or's"

My read on these dictionary's definitions is that the word profession encompasses more than you think.

Among professional pilots, of which you are one, I believe that you're relatively alone in your opinion.

pro·fes·sion

/prəˈfɛʃ

ən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-fesh-uh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching. Compare learned profession. 2.any vocation or business. 3.the body of persons engaged in an occupation or calling: to be respected by the medical profession. 4.the act of professing; avowal; a declaration, whether true or false: professions of dedication. 5.the declaration of belief in or acceptance of religion or a faith: the profession of Christianity. 6.a religion or faith professed. 7.the declaration made on entering into membership of a church or religious order.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME < ML professiōn- (s. of professiō) the taking of the vows of a religious order. See professed, -ion

]

—Related formspro·fes·sion·less, noun

—Synonyms 1. calling, employment. See occupation. 4. asseveration, assertion, protestation.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This pro·fes·sion

(prə-fěsh'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. 1. An occupation or career: "One of the highest compliments a child can pay a parent is to choose his or her profession" (Joan Nathan).
   2. An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.
   3. The body of qualified persons in an occupation or field: members of the teaching profession.
2. An act or instance of professing; a declaration.
3. An avowal of faith or belief.
4. A faith or belief: believers of various professions.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
profession
c.1225, "vows taken upon entering a religious order," from O.Fr. profession, from L. professionem (nom. professio) "public declaration," from professus (see profess). Meaning "occupation one professes to be skilled in" is from 1541; meaning "body of persons engaged in some occupation" is from 1610; as a euphemism for "prostitution" (e.g. oldest profession) it is recorded from 1888. Professional (adj.) is first recorded 1747 with sense of "pertaining to a profession;" 1884 as opposite of amateur. As a noun, it is attested from 1811. Professionalism is from 1856.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This profession
noun1. the body of people in a learned occupation; "the news spread rapidly through the medical profession"; "they formed a community of scientists" 2. an occupation requiring special education (especially in the liberal arts or sciences) 3. an open avowal (true or false) of some belief or opinion; "a profession of disagreement" 4. affirmation of acceptance of some religion or faith; "a profession of Christianity"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

One entry found for profession.
Main Entry: pro·fes·sion
Pronunciation: pr&-'fe-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English professioun, from Anglo-French profession, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin profession-, professio, from Latin, public declaration, from profitEri
1 : the act of taking the vows of a religious community
2 : an act of openly declaring or publicly claiming a belief, faith, or opinion : [SIZE=-1]PROTESTATION[/SIZE]
3 : an avowed religious faith
4 a : a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b : a principal calling, vocation, or employment c : the whole body of persons engaged in a calling

 

[A Squared]

It looks as if your version of "universal basics" doesn't quite jive with the dictionaries of Random House, Princeton, Harper's etc.


My read on these dictionary's definitions is that the word profession encompasses more than you think.

Yes, I am aware that the word profession has multiple meanings. I assume that you are speaking of meaning implied from these particular portions of the definitions that you cite:

2.any vocation or business.

[*]An occupation or career:

Meaning "occupation one professes to be skilled in" is from 1541;

a principal calling, vocation, or employment

Certainly piloting aircraft would fit that definition. However so too would plumber, electrician, truck driver, houskeeper, and construction laborer. If your position is that pilots are "professionals" in hte same sense that plumbers are professionals, I would agree. That's not what the discussion is about.

My assumption is that we were not speaking of that general sense of the word profession, but rather the sense of learned* profession.

Among professional pilots, of which you are one, I believe that you're relatively alone in your opinion

.

No doubt that you are right, but that proves little. Among true learned professionals, I suspect that you would find more who share my view. Declaring yourself a professional is a little like declaring youself a hero, it's not quite as meaningful as when it comes from someone else.

*By learned I mean this definition:

Learn·ed (lûr'nĭd)
adj.
Possessing or demonstrating profound, often systematic knowledge; erudite.

Directed toward scholars: a learned journal.

not this definition:

(lûrnd) Acquired by learning or experience: learned behavior; a learned response.

 

[say again]

Flying is my profession!!!!

 

[WabiSabi]

No doubt that you are right, but that proves little. Among true learned professionals, I suspect that you would find more who share my view. Declaring yourself a professional is a little like declaring youself a hero, it's not quite as meaningful as when it comes from someone else.

So, an ambulance chasing slime ball attorney (a true learned professional) is immune from your hero analogy?



To back up to another post;

I agree, completely. Approaching your job with a professional attitude is not a defining characteristic of a profession. Within any profession or trade or other occupation you will find people who approach it with professionalism and those who do not.

You contradict yourself here. So, a physician who practices unprofessional conduct on a routine basis is still a professional? I know there is some bleed over into variations in the definition but, the point remains. Earlier, you said that your version of true professions have oversight for ethical standards. Whether or not that overseeing organization catches one in improper conduct or not doesn't define professionalism. Reference; ambulance chasing slime ball attorney.....may be acting within the ethical standards of a state's bar association yet still exploiting the system. I'm sure that you're familiar with the concept of loopholes. The most important standard of ethics is your own. Holding oneself to a higher standard, especially when no one is watching, is far more indicative of a true professional.

Quote:
2.any vocation or business.
[*]An occupation or career:

Meaning "occupation one professes to be skilled in" is from 1541;

a principal calling, vocation, or employment
Certainly piloting aircraft would fit that definition. However so too would plumber, electrician, truck driver, houskeeper, and construction laborer. If your position is that pilots are "professionals" in hte same sense that plumbers are professionals, I would agree. That's not what the discussion is about.

My assumption is that we were not speaking of that general sense of the word profession, but rather the sense of learned* profession.

For the most part, a working pilot that considers him/herself as a professional is not trying to artificially be above any discipline, electrician, plumber or otherwise. As was stated previously by someone, the state of being a professional is more an attitude than anything. This of course assumes that the alleged profession falls under enough of the true universal definitions of what are/aren't professions. Flying aircraft for hire does clearly fall under enough of said definitions

Your assumptions are incorrect in that they're limiting the application of many of the posted definitions. There are clearly more definitions that are relevant to the pilot profession. You're just being selective in the definitions used to bolster your argument.

 

[A Squared]

So, an ambulance chasing slime ball attorney (a true learned professional) is immune from your hero analogy?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The practice of law is a profession. Some individual practitioners may in fact be pretty unprofessional.

To back up to another post;


You contradict yourself here. So, a physician who practices unprofessional conduct on a routine basis is still a professional?

No, the fact that a doctor may be behaving unprofessionally doesn't make the practice of medicine not a profession.

I know there is some bleed over into variations in the definition but, the point remains. Earlier, you said that your version of true professions have oversight for ethical standards. Whether or not that overseeing organization catches one in improper conduct or not doesn't define professionalism. Reference; ambulance chasing slime ball attorney.....may be acting within the ethical standards of a state's bar association yet still exploiting the system. I'm sure that you're familiar with the concept of loopholes.

I agree that the law profession could benefit from more vigorous and effective enforcement of their professional standards, and that those standards may have holes through which unethical behavior may slip. I think many will agree with that. perhaps it could be more effective, but the point is, that exists in law, whereas it is completely absent in piloting. lets say that you and I are pilots working for different operators, but from the same airports. You happen to know that I am flying unprofessionally, in a manner that endangers the public, busting minimums, taking off without adequate fuel reserves, just behaving as a general menace to society. There is no professional body that you can take my case to so that my behavior would be judged by a group of my peers and who are able to sanction me for the improvement of the profession. it doesn't exist. The only recourse you may have is to rat me out to the feds, and while that might be appropriate, that is a long way from being self regulating.

The most important standard of ethics is your own. Holding oneself to a higher standard, especially when no one is watching, is far more indicative of a true professional.

I agree with this, however that is the answer to a different question. You are commenting on individuals and their individual behavior. It sheds no light on whether an occupation is, by its own nature a profession or a trade.

I don't think you understand my position. I agree that a pilot, along with a plumber or a waitress can exhibit the quality of professionalism, and in fact be true professionals. I have never claimed that professionalism is absent in those who operate airplanes. My position is that operating airplanes is not a profession in the sense that medicine or law or engineering are professions.

For the most part, a working pilot that considers him/herself as a professional is not trying to artificially be above any discipline, electrician, plumber or otherwise.

Well, actually, if you go back and read the early posts you will see that is *precisely* what Airmack was attempting to do; differentiate between piloting and trades like electrician or plumber, and place piloting above those occupations, and equate piloting to Medicine and law.