Lowering an already low bar

[Lear70]

OK... my turn to call bullsh*t.

Your charter experiences are WAY outside the norm. I have about $15k in my education (in-state tuition at MTSU for my aerospace degree and all my ratings through CFII, MEI) which is pretty cheap as most go - and I'm still paying on most of it through my Stafford Loans... such is life. But after graduating from college in 1994, arguably a pretty crappy time to get into the marketplace, there weren't any jobs around to be had unless you knew someone.

After shlepping around hangars while flight instructing, I was one of the first people from the guys I went to school with to land a charter job in 1995 - flying right seat in a King Air at $75 a day, 20 days average per month, no per diem. The pay and days off has remained virtually unchanged over the last 8 years except for AN EXCEPTIONAL FEW charter outfits (four of my good friends are chief pilots at different charter outfits in Nashville, Atlanta, Orlando, and Ft. Lauderdale, not to mention I still have lunch or chat from time to time with previous employers in Nashville, New York, and Indianapolis).

I also keep my eye on the job boards (Planejobs, Climbto350, etc), and of those that list salaries or schedules with their jobs, almost all of them are BALLS ON ACCURATE with what I posted (which was copied almost verbatim from last year's NBAA salary survey), unless you want to count a day you were on call but didn't have to fly as an "off day"... in that case, I hope you're on salary instead of daily flight pay!

I'm glad you have a job that gives you EXCEPTIONAL pay and days off, but it is just that... EXCEPTIONAL, i.e. outside the norm. If you were flying for a corporate operator, I'm sure you'd be right on the money for pay and quality of life, but I bet you a c-note and a frosty beer that if you took a salary survey just from within the charter side of the house here on flightinfo, you'd find those numbers pretty accurate. Nobody's paying crap right now... that's why I'm here at Pinnacle and not back in a Lear - only about a $5k difference in pay with no guaranteed days off or pass/jumpseat priviliges. Sure, I could be making $85k a year up in Long Island, but I'd be in the next tax bracket, taking home $5k a month instead of the $3,500 I am now and spending nearly $1,000 of it on the increased cost of living with no GUARANTEED time off to enjoy it. No thanks, been there, done that, wouldn't go back unless it paid six figures and gave me guaranteed days off... which is not likely in the charter world.

Incidentally, upgrades here at Pinnacle are running about 3 years if the guys have the flight time to bid for it (3,000 total, 500 time in type) and after today's pilot meeting with the Chief Pilot and D.O. in DTW, word is that upgrades will drop into the 2 year mark and probably less by early spring for reasons I won't get into on a public board... someone else can spread the rumors.

 

[jegermeister]

An easy solution that may not be popular, would be to limit the number of new pilots each year. In effect the same thing doctors do with medical schools. Will it ever happen? I'm sure it wouldn't. But it would give us a much better position for controlling our proffesion.

 

[jarhead]

You have it backwards. Doctors don't limit the numbers getting into medical schools. Medical schools limit the number of students admited to medical school. This is done in a defacto way. There are only so many medical school seats available in the various med schools, so it becomes very competitive, where only the top scoring students can gain admitance. Are you going to establish legislation to close down FBO's with cfi's? Are you going to say, only so many can get a private license to own or rent a 172 on a weekend. No, you do not offer a simple solution. Just a bad analogy, I'm afraid.

 

[Foobar]

Require a BA and a physical fitness test to work at a regional. Now all the fat guys and folks who never went to college won't think its fair and its not. We all know you can be a fine pilot if you are a fata$$ and a BA does not really make a pilot, but.... It would narrow the pool. I suppose a masters for the major airlines would weed the pool even more.

Thats a solution. Not necessairly a fair one, but one none the less.

That is until pilots start buying degrees from online programs.... Oh wait.... never mind.

I want an online program for my ATP complete with checkride!

 

[jarhead]

Foobar

Now you're on the right track. That is doable. Of course, you would need the employer to make those requirements to be mandated. As you are aware, almost all major airlines now do require a four year degree, and even the regionals prefer it. I know a physical is needed now prior to hire, and then the flight surgeon has to pass you every six months if you're a CA, and yearly as an FO. Why do you think the airlines are not more discriminating as to who gets into the hiring pool? Do you think it might possibly be that they do not want to create a 'pilot shortage', which by the laws of supply and demand, would push up the wage cost for the hiring airline. I think the reason the majors now require a four year degree, is they want a well rounded, educated person, to present to the traveling public. You know, what kind of an image would a red neck, tobacco spitting, clone of Jethro Clampett do for the "image". Not sure Delta would want to raise the bar to hire only people with a PhD in nuclear physics. Might make them need to raise the price of the ticket to the pax, to pay for that PhD pilot.

It is really very hard to violate the laws of physics, and just about as difficult to alter the laws of supply and demand in economics. You can try to increase the demand for pilots, by lowering supply. I am not advocating it, but another way to limit supply, would be to make a pilot job un attractive by not only bad pay, but by having a lot of fatal crashes killing lots of pilots. But wait, that might also limit the number of paying pax too. Then the revenue stream dries up, and there is no money to pay the pilot a decent wage(tic) Same dilemma I guess.

 

[100LL... Again!]

How about if we dial it up a notch on the technical evaluation/interview.

Let's make it something that a student from a certificate mill would not be able to pass.

Who could possibly be against that? Other than those who would not make the cut, of course.

Any idiot can get a 4 year degree. Let's base hiring on something meanigful - like skills and knowledge in [I[aviation[/I].

Those of you with skills and knowledge shouldn't have a problem with this. The screams will come from the wanna-be's.

Flame away.

 

[Lear70]

Why not just keep it simple - the same thing you see at most majors. 4-year degree from an accredited university, an ATP, then a sim check in a full-motion Level D EFIS sim including a V1 cut and a hand-flown single-engine ILS down to 200 and 1/2. It wouldn't be pretty and they wouldn't know ALL the right procedures, but as long as they kept it in the ballpark and didn't paint it red, they get to join us?

 

[100LL... Again!]

So those of us who could only afford a two-year degree can go screw ourselves, no matter how well we can fly?

Other than that, it sounds like a good idea. I think that "ballpark" is not good enough.


Here's what I would like to see:

100 question written test on all aspects of aviation an ATP should know. Icing. Windshear. Aerodynamics. Regulations.

Board-type interview, with particular emphasis on the person's knowledge of their previous job. Aircraft systems, Ops Specs, etc.

Sim ride with a non-normal loft-type scenario. It is not fair to evaluate someone too harshly in an unfamiliar sim. How about a diversion situation, or an approach that isn't your typical monkey-can-fly-it ILS? Make the dtermination based on their basic flying skills and decision-making skills.


If we start raising the bar on the performance we expect from ourselves, the wanna-be's will be filtered out (or forced to up their skills/knowledge). This will reduce the labor pool and increase pay. Limiting the supply is the only way. Arbitrary factors like college degrees, eyesight, etc, can thin the pool, but it has no bearing on fitness for the position.

 

[pilotyip]

raise age

Require a Masters or Phd to apply, and raise the age of the ATP to say 45, that would really cut down the supply. This is effective as all the others solutions offered here, the supply and demand baby that is all it is. BTW right 100 LL, 4 yr degree has nothing to do with flying an airplane.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I think my point is a little more realistic.

How about requiring an ATP for ANY airline position?

 

[jarhead]

I think that most of you are looking at unrealistic "Utopia" Who is going to set these higher qualifications for hiring pilots? As far as I can tell, that is in the realm of either the airline management, or the FAA. As far as I can tell, neither of these entities has a vested reason to do so. If the airlines were to opt for more restrictive quals, it would just raise their costs. Why would they do that? As far as the FAA getting involved, the only motivation I can see for that, are reasons of safety. How can you all as a collective group, influence these entities to change the status quo? More accidents? Airlines wanting to pay higher wages? They are all trying to get concessions now. Why would they want to "raise the bar"?

Again, you need to face reality. Supply and demand will always rule.......period.

 

[blott]

Ok guys,

I read the first page, then skipped all the rest, so it might have already been said. Actually a while back someone already figured out the answer and posted it somewhere else.

Simple idea, not easy to implement:

The airline I work for is a "closed shop" I am REQUIRED to pay union dues. Its my choice if I participate in the union or not. (for the record, I'm very pro union).

Now, that being said, lets look at another profession. Actors. I believe they have something called guild. I'm not really sure what this is, but I think everyone must be a member and sort of gets hired out of it-they have a minimum price-but can be paid at a higher rate.

Why can't we have something like this. We can still have our union, but we can also have a "guild" establising minimum compensation. MINIMUM, not MAX-but it setts the lower level. Our unions will still be there for protection, and negotiating our contracts, just like now. It could be done. If we get enough people at each airline to support it(majority vote) then it could be started. Why would anyone NOT vote for it? Once we get the unions signed on, then anyone not in the guild- would be SCAB material. The guild could set standards for all pilots-from the flight instructors, traffic, cargo, charter, corprate, airline...

Its just a concept...someone else needs to work out the details...

What do you think?

B

 

[blott]

If the bottom line was set, and contracts were negotiated above this level, then if, for example, Comair had the highest pay rates, it would be bragging rights-not a pissing contest...

B

 

[stillaboo]

Once we get the unions signed on, then anyone not in the guild- would be SCAB material.

I think the guild idea is a good one, but how is it determied who gets to be members of the guild and who doesn't?

For instance, PFT pilots; it currently out of favor to get a job this way, but it was ok to do 5 years ago. Or low-timers. Some ops hire them, some don't. Do we evaluate pilots on their experience, or their skills? How does it work in the acting guild?

A better understanding of this guild system is needed before I personally could sign on to it.

Any other good ideas guys?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Hey,
I have been proposing a guild type union system for the last year or so. The pay scales would be set at a national level based upon an agreed upon rate for type 747-BE1900 would pay the same for individual type regardless of the carrier, ie
747=$220.00 per hr, BE1900=$35.00 per hr no matter who you work for. Longivity would follow the individual pilot, ie, 4th year pilot would recieve 4th year pay no matter who he/she works for, longivity within the union/guild, not the employer determines pay rate. The union/guild would start by including all employed pilots regardless of job classification, ie flight instructors thru 747 capt. New membership within the union/guild would be strictly limited, if one union/guild member is unemployed no new members would be admitted. This would limit the current process of furloughs and contract shifting to lower costs. The upside to the employer would be stable costs without the constant escalation of payscales at every contract expiration, creating an employee cost factor that would be entirely predictable, the downside would be that the entire industry would be at the mercy of one unified employee group, without the ability to pit one group of pilots against another. These are just a few ideas/details, armchair style.
PBR

 

[Lear70]

In order to join SAG (Screen Actors Guild) you must have had three paying acting gigs within the last two years. Commercials, stage work, whatever... that's it. You apply, pay your dues $$, then you're a SAG actor, eligible for all SAG screen work and the protections that come with it.

The way SAG members protect themselves is that no one will work on a non-SAG set, period, meaning that ALL hired actors MUST be SAG members, or no one will sign on. When an actor becomes a SAG member, they're given a VERY tough lecture on the dangers of accepting non-SAG work and if they do take it and someone finds out about it, they get thrown out of SAG and never get back in... the end of their career.

It takes a kind of unity that no longer exists in the aviation world - there will always be some kind of low-baller out there who will fly for d*mn near free and undercut everyone else. Until it gets to the point where no one will sign up to undercut the next guy (or gal), we won't be able to fix the problem, and that takes pretty drastic steps. Must have been simpler when you just went out and kneecapped the scabs...

 

[stillaboo]

BE1900=$35.00 per hr no matter who you work for.
PBR

Wow! I hope this was a # you just pulled out of thin air, b/c you aren't gonna' get any current Beech drivers to sign on @ $35. Of course, there are plenty of CFI's who would take it for $25.

Someone can always form a non-guild airline, and pilots will fly there, ruining the whole guild system. Witness Freedom Airlines.

Sad when a ditzy 'hollywood-type' can show a pilot something about fortitude and protecting the profession.

 

[F70pilot]

"Sad when a ditzy 'hollywood-type' can show a pilot something about fortitude and protecting the profession."

If there were only about three airlines in existance and they only used a couple of hundred (max) pilots you could probably form the kind of monopoly on talent that exists in the SAG. I would like to be a "Pilot's Guild" member. I would also like the position to be hereditary. You know, like the European aristocracy.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Stilla,
Of course that number was just a random number to illustrate a point. The pay numbers would be a thouroughly researched and planned pay scale, by members of the guild/union prior to implementation. As with any project of this scope and magnitude, and possible consequences, research and planning are the answer, the devil is in the details! As posted elsewhere this type of union/guild concept would stabilize the industry, insuring that currently employed pilots continued to work, regardless of the state of the company they work for. RPM's are a relatively stable factor when factored over time, pilots and their services would continue to be necessary, the concept of furlough would all but be eliminated. The companies would hate this, given their current ability to reset the pilots senority whenever it is deemed necessary. Example, J4J at any of the participating carriers, mainline pilot furloughed and offered employment at a regional at a substantally reduced pay rate! Sure they retain their senority number, how many USAir guys will ever get back to the mainline anytime soon, or prior to manditory retirement?
Food for thought!
PBR

 

[SWAnnabee]

Here's an idea!!!

Does anyone remember the big ATC strike back in the 1980's. This was a MASSIVE coordination of all ATC personnel, and it got a lot of media attention. Their only failing was that as federal employees they are not allowed to strike and so got fired.

Pilots, on the other hand, are free to strike and DO IT ALL THE TIME. What kind of public, media, and management attention do you think we would get if EVERY REGIONAL PILOT ACROSS THE NATION staged a walkout/strike on the SAME DAY??? THIS WOULD BE HUGE!! MEDIA would eat it up. Management would be FORCED to concede. You could really organize and make some BIG improvements for your and your FAMILY's futures.

Less intelligent and less educated workers have SUCCESSFULLY done this in the past. And they didn't have the communication/coordination assets we have today. JUST USE THIS MESSAGE BOARD. Quit whining and DO SOMETHING! Make a difference. No guts, no glory. Keep doing what you are and NOTHING will change.

I see it posted all the time that unless WE start to change something then NOTHING will change. Hell, FLIGHT ATTENDANTS do this all the time too. With the holidays comming up, soon would be the perfect time. Think about it.