"Pilots don't mind making $16,000 per year because it's a stepping stone."

[JustaNumber]

So you condone the blatant overcapacity that we currently have which dictate fares to be so low that the airlines can't make money? That many pilots, especially Regional FO's have to work for so little they can't make it on their salary alone? Allowing obviously more flights than the airspace system and airports we have can handle? The Airlines obviously won't reign their flights in on their own. So how do you remedy this? Did you read my post earlier listing the number of flights? Do you think that is an appropriate number o flights? Over 80 flights a day from LGA to DC, BOS, and ORD?

You use words like blatant overcapacity and appropriate number. They imply that the airlines are doing something illegal or that should be illegal. This is not the case.

I will agree with you that something is wrong, and that there is currently too much capacity. However, we disagree on the reason for and solution to this problem. You seem to think that some government bureaucrat in an office in D.C. can somehow arbitrarily determine "the appropriate number" of seats for sale, adjusting for a myriad of constantly changing market conditions. This is, and has always been, completely impossible. The only thing that can determine appropriate capacity is a truly free market, which we do not have.

You sense that something is wrong when airlines run flights at a loss, and you indeed are on to something. This is not the airlines' fault; they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. I argue it is completely the government's fault for interfering in the free market. The CEO of United Airlines admitted a few years ago during their unusually long period under bankruptcy protection (read: unfair government protection) that he was using bankruptcy as a competitive advantage. (He shouldn't be condemned; he should be commended for using the system to its full advantage). The problem is the bankruptcy system itself unfairly meddles in free market principles, preventing the weak from failing. It gives failing companies unfair advantages, causing all other companies in that industry to also fail. THAT is why airlines have been losing money for years. Get the government out of, not further in to our industry, to see real fairness, prosperity, and common sense business operations.

 

[Kalifornia]

When you say get the government out of airlines, does that mean you favor a dismissal of all FAR's? No rest requirements, no maintenance requirements, no safety requirements what so ever? You want all of ATC to be privatized? All airports to be privatized? That's a very broad declaration to say government should be out of the aviation business don't you think? How about government rules on foreign ownership?

And then considering a market system, isn't beyond stupid to advertise this job as easy, purely joyful which encourages a larger supply of minimum wage working pilots with less attention to the serious side of operating an aircraft safely thus putting the profession more in peril. You're not helping create a market for higher wages by spouting off your mouth to everyone that you think it's an easy job with low responsibility. That is unless your a management troll or bitter old bridge burner like some on here.

 

[JustaNumber]

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I fully support the government's role as a safety regulator, but it has no business attempting to exert control over business/ financial decisions and contracts (other than enforcing those contracts). Reread my previous post that explained the original and true role of government. Once you understand the logic (please try!), it's brilliantly simple and undeniable.

 

[pipejockey]

You use words like blatant overcapacity and appropriate number. They imply that the airlines are doing something illegal or that should be illegal. This is not the case.

No. I'm implying that when there are so many flights that seats have to be sold at a loss to fill them, while the industry loses billions year after year after year, and will never change if something drastic isn't done to illicit change.

will agree with you that something is wrong, and that there is currently too much capacity. However, we disagree on the reason for and solution to this problem. You seem to think that some government bureaucrat in an office in D.C. can somehow arbitrarily determine "the appropriate number" of seats for sale, adjusting for a myriad of constantly changing market conditions. This is, and has always been, completely impossible. The only thing that can determine appropriate capacity is a truly free market, which we do not have.

It has? Then why were the airlines able to make a profit on 60% load factors and allow pilots to earn a wonderful living and have great schedules and benefits and time off back in the good ole days of regulation?

The problem is the bankruptcy system itself unfairly meddles in free market principles, preventing the weak from failing. It gives failing companies unfair advantages, causing all other companies in that industry to also fail. THAT is why airlines have been losing money for years. Get the government out of, not further in to our industry, to see real fairness, prosperity, and common sense business operations.

Yes, I agree that it is ONE of the reasons they have been losing money. So you support allowing a company like UAL to just fail, which would result in an 11% capacity cut since that is their market share, but that will not work without some form of regulation because every LCC in the nation will be taking deliveries and filling the lost capacity. virgin unamerica has been trying to get slots in ORD so you know they will be all over that! And without some form of regulation you will have startups like skypuss after skypuss, directscare after directscare, and jetwho's after jetwho's!! Thats your free market!! Corporate greed will do whatever it takes to line their pockets with cash, even if it means running a company into the ground. You don't think the head honchos at skypuss probably knew they would fail in time? And there had to have been a time they knew for certain, and of course continued to operate until they absolutely, positively couldn't continue. And I am sure the head honchos continued to make money hand over fist the whole while!

 

[pipejockey]

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I fully support the government's role as a safety regulator, but it has no business attempting to exert control over business/ financial decisions and contracts (other than enforcing those contracts).

Oh of course!! The government is so totally capable of regulating us the pilots in the name of safety by telling us what we can and can't do in the name of safety, but they cannot dare to regulate the decisions of management in how to run an airline in the name of finally earning a damned profit?? The same management that has been unable to run a profit since de-regulation?

 

[pipejockey]

"I'll take this one, yip." First of all, it's not an opinion. We're talking actual hard data. In 1978, there were a little more than 35,000 actively employed airline pilots. In 2008, there were 62,680 active airline pilots. It should also be noted that at the height of industry employment in 2000, 94,820 people were employed as airline pilots.

Slam dunk. So yeah, I'd say he's right, and the government would just destroy this industry (again).

Well thank you for doing that research. I also did the same research. But I was very curious to hear how many pilots yip thought their were in 1978, since he cries that "the sky is falling the sky is falling" and there won't be anymore airline jobs under regulation. Well the population of the USA in 1978 was a little over 200 million, now we have a little over 300 million. So increasing the pilot population by the same rate, where we needed 35,000 in 1978, we'd need over 52,000 today. Not a whole lot different than what we currently have. Yes people would lose their jobs, but nearly as many as the fear mongers would have us believe. Even if we had to endure an up to 33% cut, so be it!! Refer to my figures on flight frequency from LGA. 35 a day to ORD. Come on!! That is uncalled for when you can't operate on time on a perfect day let alone if there is any weather. So 35 a day would go to 24 or so. Oh the humanity!! The free market doesn't work in this industry. There is no self restraint among these companies. Why is it that people seem to feel that air travel is a right and not a privilege? Why is it that people seem to think that they deserve an airfare for less than the cost of transporting their sorry ass. I have never heard of anything like this in any other industry.

 

[pilotyip]

So that is what you think of the people who support your job?

Why is it that people seem to think that they deserve an airfare for less than the cost of transporting their sorry ass. I have never heard of anything like this in any other industry.

So you despise the people who pay for your job. It is called economics; people will migrate their sorry asses to the lowest fare. BTW My pilot employment numbers came from an old NPA flyer I had from 1978 when I left the Navy, compared to a FAPA flyer from 2005. Back in 1978 NPA only counted 121 majors as pilot jobs, and the regional and fractional did not really exist.

 

[JustaNumber]

No. I'm implying that when there are so many flights that seats have to be sold at a loss to fill them, while the industry loses billions year after year after year, and will never change if something drastic isn't done to illicit change.

That something drastic should be eliminating Chapter 11 from the bankruptcy code. That eliminates the ability of some companies to unfairly sell tickets at a loss. Think about it: you are endorsing having the government tell some companies they can be protected as they operate at a loss, and then to compensate for that mess, you want the government to tell other companies that they're not allowed to compete with the loser airline. So the government picks the winners and the losers, with the incompetants winning and the competants losing. That's how the government destroys industries.

It has? Then why were the airlines able to make a profit on 60% load factors and allow pilots to earn a wonderful living and have great schedules and benefits and time off back in the good ole days of regulation?

I know it's tempting to only look at our industry from a pilot's point of view, but that's a little myopic. A successful industry requires equally happy shareholders, happy employees, and happy customers. Let's take your own personal bias out of it and look at another industry. Let's say the government decided to screw up the automobile industry (I know, it's a stretch). What would you say if the government forcibly prevented other companies from competing with the bankrupt companies? If auto supply was drastically limited in order to protect the great salary, benefits, and days off of the remaining union workers? What if the average car cost $100,000 (but it was a nice car), and only the rich could afford to drive? Would you agree or disagree with this? Do you want to live in the Soviet Union or in the United States of America?

Yes, I agree that it is ONE of the reasons they have been losing money. So you support allowing a company like UAL to just fail, which would result in an 11% capacity cut since that is their market share, but that will not work without some form of regulation because every LCC in the nation will be taking deliveries and filling the lost capacity. virgin unamerica has been trying to get slots in ORD so you know they will be all over that! And without some form of regulation you will have startups like skypuss after skypuss, directscare after directscare, and jetwho's after jetwho's!! Thats your free market!! Corporate greed will do whatever it takes to line their pockets with cash, even if it means running a company into the ground. You don't think the head honchos at skypuss probably knew they would fail in time? And there had to have been a time they knew for certain, and of course continued to operate until they absolutely, positively couldn't continue. And I am sure the head honchos continued to make money hand over fist the whole while!

I think you forget that 95% (I think that was the number from the FAPA seminar) of start-up airlines fail? I agree that airlines paying poverty wages (and pilots accepting those jobs "as a stepping stone") is a problem, but it should be addressed on the union side (utilizing our freedom to negotiate), as opposed to by the forceful power of the government at the end of a gun. Remember that the government always uses force: if you don't do what they want, you'll be told you're going to jail, and if you still disagree, you'll be looking at the end of a gun. I always prefer freedom.

 

[pilotyip]

Again, nice touch of reality

I think you forget that 95% (I think that was the number from the FAPA seminar) of start-up airlines fail? I agree that airlines paying poverty wages (and pilots accepting those jobs "as a stepping stone") is a problem, but it should be addressed on the union side (utilizing our freedom to negotiate), as opposed to by the forceful power of the government at the end of a gun. Remember that the government always uses force: if you don't do what they want, you'll be told you're going to jail, and if you still disagree, you'll be looking at the end of a gun. I always prefer freedom.

For those who want change in the industry, like pipejocky, they want a guarantee of the good ole days along with a guarantee that they will have one of those good jobs with no down side risk for them. No logic need be applied here. The only true way for this industry to survive is in the freedom of the market place where competition drives companies to be productively and efficiently run. No Gov’t intervention in any industry has ever produced that. Keep remaining the unhappys, they don’t listen to me.