Pilot Shortage

[netjetwife]

BF, I'm sorry that things are going badly for you. Real estate experts have noted that lenders should shoulder much of the blame for recently making loans that in the past would never have been approved. Apparently, their greed gave rise to schemes that trapped naive first-time buyers who placed their trust in the wrong people. Outside situations that are beyond a pilot's control are made worse if the pilot doesn't have a professional salary to fall back on. Unfortunately, too many pilots and their families are in that category. Good Luck! NJW

 

[Ultra Grump]

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, NJW. (Shocker, I know ) To blame the lenders is looking in the wrong direction. The biggest problem in the country today is lack of personal responsibility, and it's evidenced by the mortgage meltdown and subsequent attempted bailout by the federal govt. Yes, the lenders were greedy. But the home buyers who wanted their McMansion and wanted it now are the ones to blame for the "I can have it now and (maybe) pay for it later" mindset that led to our current situation. It's their own fault. And before anyone tells me I'm insensitive and obviously haven't experienced it, I'll tell you that this very thing happened to my mother, against all the advice I gave her. She made choices, and she's now dealing with the result of those choices - i.e., foreclosure.

 

[Publishers]

I just now noticed Netjetwife changed the camels to a booted leg.
A few years ago, a graphic designer/computer programer that was any good commanded more money than a GV Captain even if they had dropped out of high school and were 18 years old. Then of course a bunch of kids saw that and signed up for programming and computer design. Eventually unless you had some real skills, everything leveled off and if you were only a graphic person you might not work much or at much money. So who today gets the most, the G550 captain or the kid who programed all those computer screens. The point is that you are in charge of which one or which way you went. I know pilots that would be broke if they earned $500k a year and others who live as they want for $75k a year. We can blame the lenders, we can blame the management, but in the end, it is you who decides who you are.

 

[netjetwife]

.... I'll tell you that this very thing happened to my mother, against all the advice I gave her. She made choices, and she's now dealing with the result of those choices - i.e., foreclosure.

My sympathies to your mother for the difficult position she finds herself in and to you for the frustration of the situation. And actually Grumpy we think more alike than my previous post led you to think. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. Unfortunately, the mess is so big that there's plenty of blame to go around and the whole range of circumstances can be found from greedy lenders deliberately taking advantage of naive, uneducated buyers to impatient, irresponsible consumers. Looking at the debacle, one wishes that the lenders had stuck to their conservative, strict criteria for approving loans. Requirements are in place for a good reason. In the past exercising their veto power and upholding high standards prevented the ugly, wide-spread foreclosures that ultimately hurt many more home-owners than those involved in the riskier deals.

Lowering the requirement bar can have drastic consequences in aviation as well. It's a valid concern for all with ties to the frac industry that companies like Options will take less experienced pilots as the pool of applicants willing to work for less than the going rate dries up. NJW

PS Your mask is slipping, UG. I'm seeing glimpses of a sensitive man behind your board persona...

 

[netjetwife]

For those who missed my earlier post on the subject, I'm running a boot campaign: Stand tall (for your rights); dig in your heels (against unfairness); and give those who won't cooperate the boot. My message is aimed at all the fracs with the understanding that different groups face different challenges in directing their future.

Internally, things are going well for the NJ pilots, but there is an outside entity holding them back and I hope the NJ pilots give 'em the boot.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Lowering the requirement bar can have drastic consequences in aviation as well. It's a valid concern for all with ties to the frac industry that companies like Options will take less experienced pilots as the pool of applicants willing to work for less than the going rate dries up. NJW

Here she goes again, another assumption by the expert on a subject that she knows nothing about.

While there is the perception that a low hour pilot is unsafe, you need to back up your statement with facts and statistics.

The fact is, in the US, low hour pilots have not contributed to accidents in certificated air carriers.

Please, if you have the facts NJW, share them with me.

And remember, before you go spitting out quasi facts that I don't know exist, give real stats from the NTSB, and other sanctioning bodies on certificated air carriers. And make no mistake about it, Fracs are certificated air carriers via Part 119.

Once again, you are busy insulting the low hour pilots that are trying to make a career out of their "investment."

Tsk, tsk. It never stops, does it?

 

[B19 Flyer]

For those who missed my earlier post on the subject, I'm running a boot campaign: Stand tall (for your rights); dig in your heels (against unfairness); and give those who won't cooperate the boot. My message is aimed at all the fracs with the understanding that different groups face different challenges in directing their future.

Internally, things are going well for the NJ pilots, but there is an outside entity holding them back and I hope the NJ pilots give 'em the boot.

If I didn't know better, it sounds like you finally agree with me that the outside entity (the union) has to get thrown out! :laugh:

 

[netjetwife]

Outside, irrelevant Fudspinners try to conveniently ignore the reality that the pilots ARE the Union, (making ridiculous comments in the process... ) but those of you following along closely know exactly what I'm talking about. I predict that my credibility and insight will again be affirmed in the near future; in sharp contrast the word-twisting, Fudspinner rudely interrupting the frac community's online visits has yet to answer basic questions about his present occupation and employer. Typical.

Those who stand in the way of progress deserve to get the boot.

 

[dime line]

If I didn't know better, it sounds like you finally agree with me that the outside entity (the union) has to get thrown out! :laugh:

Moron

 

[CaveoFalco]

Here she goes again, another assumption by the expert on a subject that she knows nothing about.

While there is the perception that a low hour pilot is unsafe, you need to back up your statement with facts and statistics.

The fact is, in the US, low hour pilots have not contributed to accidents in certificated air carriers.

Please, if you have the facts NJW, share them with me.

And remember, before you go spitting out quasi facts that I don't know exist, give real stats from the NTSB, and other sanctioning bodies on certificated air carriers. And make no mistake about it, Fracs are certificated air carriers via Part 119.

Once again, you are busy insulting the low hour pilots that are trying to make a career out of their "investment."

Tsk, tsk. It never stops, does it?

I know it is hard by why do you insist on spinning what NJW says? She did not report that low time pilots were the cause of accidents. She stated that it could happen. Insurance companies recognize that fact by setting time requirements in their contracts like 2500 hours at NJA. Even the FAA requires it when they established minimums hour requirements for a commercial license. You lose - again.

What does FAR 119 have to do with anything in this thread? It doesn't. It is you trying to sound educated when you aren't (other than BS degree in reading and quoting Wikipedia).

 

[Fozzy]

B19,
Don't need no stinking facts. Let us just ask our owners what they are comfortable with.
NJA makes a point of talking about pilot experience with our owners. Don't see many other companies doing that.

Go back under your bridge.

 

[gunfyter]

Hey I am dredging up this blast from the past... because I found a YOUTUBE clip explaining it from Humphrey Bogart's TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQyqvFVe4Y4 as the old man explains why Gold costs so much....

You will find similar language in Wealth of Nations section wages of labor....

Smith says any father could invest the monies and send his son to Apprentice with a Cobbler and be reasonable sure his son would succeed in that career. But to invest in the education and experience it takes to practice medicine or law .... Many will not succeed.

The successful applicant must be compensated not only for the time and capital he has expended... but for that of all the others who tried and failed!

IOW, 1000 people begin flight training hoping to make it in this industry... 250 make it.... The ROI of all the funds expended on flight training by the 1000 people must be recouped by the 250 of us who remain.

This is why Pilot pay should be several times the pay of most other workers.

I have invested a lot of money on Pitching and Batting lessons for 2 boys. But only those parents whose sons make the major leagues will get a good return on such an investment. If i get one scholarship out of it i will think i am ahead.

According to Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations... http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-10.html

[SIZE=-2][24][/SIZE] Fifthly, the wages of labour in different. employments vary according to the probability or improbability of success in them.

 

[wacoflyr]

Ah, god,.... Here we go again. And I am right there with you. Yes, pilots should be well paid. But take an honest look around the cockpit. Was it difficult for us to get here? You bet. Did many fall by the wayside? Absolutely, and a few more probably should have. Still, what remains sometimes gives me pause....

You don't need a degree to do this. In fact, you just need a decent grasp of simple math, geometry, and some basic english skills. Most people acquire the necessary basics by say, the tenth grade. We all learn our way around the compass rose, manage to understand a few basic aerodynamic principles, and then,... some can, and some can't. I used to teach this, and I couldn't tell you ahead of time who would succeed, and who wouldn't. I still can't. But the fact remains that some good, intelligent people do not have what it takes to do this, and some true simpletons seem to be able to.

All that having been said, the investment of time, money, sweat and tears is such a high hurdle (and getting higher) that I believe upward pressure on our payscale will only increase over the next few years. The banks will not finance junior to the tune of $100,000 anymore, not for a starting pay in the low twenties.

I hope we are both right. My fear is that because this has not happened in the past, it may not happen in the future. We would certainly be bucking the trend, as professionals of all stripes lose income to the people with capital. If the supply is restricted enough, though, we may finally have some power. Wouldn't that be a great day?

Waco.

 

[gunfyter]

I think you are Right On....

But what did you think of the old man explaining why Gold costs what it does? It represents the labor of not only those who were successful, but those who invested, worked and FAILED!

I currently have a good gig ... and I am happy with it. But I always run into jealous people who say ... we don't deserve what we have.

 

[glasspilot]

Thats why you shouldn't take investment advice from TV or Hollywood. It's a play. It's entertainment. It's not real and is pretend.

The price of Gold has nothing to do with the labor of the guy who digs it up or the guys who failed to dig it up. Gold is a commodity and it has perceived safety as there is only so much and it last forever. As people get nervous in other investment they turn to where they think there money will be safest and Gold comes up.

Others speculate on nervousness in general and when they think others will get more nervous they are likely to bet that Gold will go up further based on the above logic. So there's two pressures driving the real price of Gold up and neither have to do with the labor.

I honestly believe that if the world economy ever collapsed to the point where your Gold investment would save you then it's collapsed to the point where Gold won't help you. Guns, bullets and a survival book would go a lot further at that point.

I realize I'm just a pilot on a pilot forum but you did just quote a movie from Hollywood.

 

[gunfyter]

Shouldn't take investment advice from a Movie.... I wish I had bought Gold at $20. Looks like it was good advice. Its up 80,000%

But what I was trying to do was relate the old man's explanation to the value of

...Of Wages and Profit in the different Employments of Labour and Stock ( Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith 1776ook 1, Chapter 10)

​

"...Fifthly, the wages of labour in different. employments vary according to the probability or improbability of success in them..."

The old man explains that the successful Gold Prospector must be compensated not only for his own labor ... but for the 999 others who did not succeed.

Wealth of Nations:

The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for the employment to which he is educated is very different in different occupations. In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker, there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes; but send him to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks. In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The counsellor-at-law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only of his own so tedious and expensive education, but that of more than twenty others who are never likely to make anything by it. How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors-at-law may sometimes appear, their real retribution is never equal to this. Compute in any particular place what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a very small proportion to their annual expense, even though you rate the former as high, and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable professions, are, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompensed.

This is one reason why pilots need to be compensated well ... The lottery of Aviation is also far from perfectly fair and "under-recompensed".

 

[glasspilot]

Sure. 90 to 95% of all restaurants fail. By your logic the price of our food need to cover all the costs of the successful restaurants and the failures. Maybe the true cost of food should be much less.

I see your point. I don't think it applies to Gold or much else as value is very complicated. Supply / demand is part of it obviously but you're adding difficulty of attainment and leaving out perception.

 

[gunfyter]

Its not food that should cost more ... but the profits of people who succeed in businesses that need to be greater.... Thats why we need more tax cuts for the rich.

 

[glasspilot]

Holy cow you just jumped off a ledge.

Government costs X. You can argue different parties want X to be bigger or smaller...but at the end of the day it costs X to maintain a military, roads, an FAA and a TSA. A CIA and the salary of congress. NASA and Wellfare and US debt. It all has a cost and that is X.

We don't need to worry about ensuring profits to restaurant owners or airline execs. That's their job. We need to ensure we maintain a country where smart ideas succeed with effort and talent rises to the top. If, through your hard work and the system of government that enabled it you do succeed then you have a debt and that debt is a higher tax bracket.

Like it or not we have a progressive tax in this country. It's fair. Those who prosper pay more. Those who struggle for survival pay less. If we instituted a fair tax then the super rich would get a 2% tax break and the poor would get a 40% tax hike.

That's not how it works and it would be ruinous if it did work that way. Stop watching Fox. Ron Paul wants to do away with the FAA. Market forces will prevail. Do you really think that's a good idea? Ya think rest rules would stay in place if Delta, American, United and NetJets could operate any dang rest they wanted? Or maybe there should be a rule and maybe taxes should pay for an agency to enforce that rule.

You look at how many of your rules rest right up against FAA regulation and get back to me.

 

[pilotyip]

Thats why we need more tax cuts for the rich.

What is rich? many people in this country would consider many people posting here as rich.

Median Income, the 2008 census reported the medium income as $50,233. The PewResearch Center suggests that the middle income range is 75 percent to 150 percent of the median income. This would make the middle class income range $37,675 to $75,350. To most, this range seems small, and surveys conducted by the PewResearch Center find that many who fall outside this range still consider themselves middle class.

So is everyone making more than 75K to be considered rich?