new low for pinnacle

[Nancy Pryor]

If they forced double occupancy on RON's it would be rock bottom.

It's been done before. Mesa did this routinely in the 1990s when they were still a Part 135 airline.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

It's been done before. Mesa did this routinely in the 1990s when they were still a Part 135 airline.

There was a time that this was standard practice at corporate/charter outfits everywhere....

 

[arthompson]

When I was at ACA and at COEX we were required to share rooms in Customer Service training, and I believe at COEX it was standerd for all employees. I didn't particularly care for having a roomie, but I do understand why the company does it.

 

[ReverseSensing]

The regional airlines are boiling frogs with these practices, and by meekly accepting them it's getting worse for everyone. Who knows what's at the end of the road?

Maybe I'm missing something, but a month ago you were asking advice on which regional to apply to, and now you're taking this rather condescending tone? So which is it? Do you need career advice? Or do you have it all figured out?

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Throw a frog into cold water over a low flame, and it will sit there until it realizes the water temperature is slowly rising, but then it's too late to jump out.

So, frog boy, when you get offered your first airline job are you going to jump out of the water when they tell you that you have a roommate or are you going to sit there and get boiled? Like the old saying goes, don't talk the talk unless you are willing to walk the walk...

 

[Nancy Pryor]

Maybe I'm missing something, but a month ago you were asking advice on which regional to apply to, and now you're taking this rather condescending tone? So which is it? Do you need career advice? Or do you have it all figured out?

I don't think you're missing anything. To answer your question, yes, I was asking advice then, and I absolutely still welcome advice on which regional is the best choice and career advice in general. Do I have it all figured out? No, I learn as I go along just like everyone else. And at the same time, I do have opinions on things like double occupancy during training. I think it's counterproductive, not to mention adding unnecessarily to the stress of groundschool, and the airlines can easily afford to do better, and in doing better, maybe they will also benefit. The cost of single occupancy compared to the overall cost of operating the airline is a drop in the ocean, but regional airlines are squeezing pilots beyond what is reasonable. Do you disagree with this?

 

[Nancy Pryor]

So, frog boy, when you get offered your first airline job are you going to jump out of the water when they tell you that you have a roommate or are you going to sit there and get boiled? Like the old saying goes, don't talk the talk unless you are willing to walk the walk...

Good question. This illustrates the point well. For every applicant that "walks the walk" there are six more who won't. So what do the airlines do? They take advantage of this situation, knowing that they can. That doesn't make it right.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Good question. This illustrates the point well. For every applicant that "walks the walk" there are six more who won't. So what do the airlines do? They take advantage of this situation, knowing that they can. That doesn't make it right.

I don't blame the airlines. They do what economically makes sense for them. I blame the academy grads and other idiots that would do -anything- to fly for an airline. No matter how many folks out there are willing to refuse to take a job flying for nothing or refuse to work for an outfit like Mesa that treats their people like sh!t, there will always be some idiots that are only interested in doing whatever it takes to get ahead. That is why complaining about these things is and always will be a useless effort.

 

[Nancy Pryor]

I don't blame the airlines. They do what economically makes sense for them. I blame the academy grads and other idiots that would do -anything- to fly for an airline. No matter how many folks out there are willing to refuse to take a job flying for nothing or refuse to work for an outfit like Mesa that treats their people like sh!t, there will always be some idiots that are only interested in doing whatever it takes to get ahead.

I agree with this. I expect everyone here has seen or experienced someone leave footprints on a fellow pilot's back.

That is why complaining about these things is and always will be a useless effort.

Unfortunately, I agree with this too. I wish it wasn't a useless effort, but you're right.

 

[ReverseSensing]

I don't think you're missing anything. To answer your question, yes, I was asking advice then, and I absolutely still welcome advice on which regional is the best choice and career advice in general. Do I have it all figured out? No, I learn as I go along just like everyone else. And at the same time, I do have opinions on things like double occupancy during training. I think it's counterproductive, not to mention adding unnecessarily to the stress of groundschool, and the airlines can easily afford to do better, and in doing better, maybe they will also benefit. The cost of single occupancy compared to the overall cost of operating the airline is a drop in the ocean, but regional airlines are squeezing pilots beyond what is reasonable. Do you disagree with this?

I agree that the additional cost is negligable. (30 days X $30 X 50 new hires/year [half the total] = $45,000/year). Double occupancy sucks, but you and others are overstating the hardship. Like I said, I felt much like you do, beforehand. But it really worked out fine. And unlike some, apparently, it was definitely not a deal-breaker for taking a job at a relatively solid company.

But here's the more important point. At QX, double occupancy was negotiated (hard-fought first contract) by our pilot group 5 years ago. It's in our contract. I'm sure it was the company's proposal and that it just wasn't worth expending a bunch of our pilot group's negotiating capital to make the first 4 weeks of a new hire's career at Horizon a bit more comfy.

I appreciate your post. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. The whole frog thing, however....

 

[Nancy Pryor]

But here's the more important point. At QX, double occupancy was negotiated (hard-fought first contract) by our pilot group 5 years ago. It's in our contract. I'm sure it was the company's proposal and that it just wasn't worth expending a bunch of our pilot group's negotiating capital to make the first 4 weeks of a new hire's career at Horizon a bit more comfy.

Sounds like it was a case of choosing battles wisely. I can understand this.

I appreciate your post. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. The whole frog thing, however....

Well maybe the frog analogy doesn't fit very well . I think there is some truth to the idea that several small changes spread over a period of time are less likely to be rejected or cause upset than a sudden larger change, and management at many airlines (and most of the rest of corporate America) is probably well aware of this strategy.

 

[UZAInstructor]

You might want to get through training at least before you get too publicly smug about how smart and noble you were on your choice amongst the "necessary evil" regionals.

On the other hand, sincerely, best of luck at your new job.

I appreciate the well-wishes, though I don't believe I was being smug. You'll notice I didn't say anything about the company I got hired on at nor the housing situation during training, until I had to. I'm not making these posts to say "ha, I did better than you guys", but just to discuss a point. I will never think it's allright to be forced to share a room with someone, when it's not of my choosing, or the circumstances really warrant it.

If I did come off as smug, my apologies, it's really not my intentions. I believe in the "slippery slope" theory, and feel this is just one more small slide down the mountain, is all.

As for your allusion to my thinking of the regionals as a choice only to be tolerated, I really don't think it's all that unfair or high-falutin' of me to say. I have no problem with working my tail off, flying however many legs a day, even for lower-end-of-the-scale pay. I understand hard work will (or should) get me where I want to go in life. I'm not one to demand $60k right off the bat, as I know that's unreasonable and I haven't earned that yet. However, I do have a problem with the ridiculous wages they're imposing. If they were to pay their FO's even a somewhat respectable (or at least livable) wage commensurate with the responsibility and training required, say $30k to start, you'd never hear me calling them a "necessary evil". However, in this current job market, choices to gain experience are limited, so off I go. At least I feel I've chosen a decent airline, for me, to go work at.

And to top it all off, I understand the irony of having issues with the pay, yet becoming "part of the problem". It bothers me to no end to compromise my principles, yet I see little choice. And this is how management has won.......

 

[climbhappy]

hulk,
what's the big deal? you watch a guy take a dump in the frat house bathroom
take a dump in the YMCA, and you watch your wife take a dump. what is unpleasant about watching people defecate? If you can't stand to room with him, how could you stand him on a 4 day trip.?

 

[Beantown]

~wheelsup
EDIT: Is it per diem or full guarantee you are talking about?
EDIT #2: Thanks for clearing that up bean - I was under the impression from some @ CAE that they did not.

Full guarantee (76 hrs a month) from day one in training. No per diem until sim. -Bean

 

[laterallymobile]

All of this really isn't a big deal since you will get your own rooms when pay for training comes back about six months from now.