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

[pipejockey]

How sad that you post this on the very day we are celebrating Independence Day. We don't celebrate independence from the British, we celebrate independence for individuals from over-reaching tyrannical government. Do you believe a government should have whatever power it feels like taking (or we feel like giving it)? Or shouldn't there be very specific limits?

We need to be careful about using the phrase, "the government needs to..." anytime we want something. The United States of America is a Republic. That means the government merely represents the people. The government by definition shouldn't have any more rights than the individuals it represents. So I can delegate to the government the power to protect me (police, fire dept., FAA safety regs., etc.) since I already have the right to my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but I can't delegate the power to stop someone else from their own pursuit of happiness, just so I can make more money myself, since I don't have that right as an individual myself. This is exactly the philosophy of our founding fathers. They therefore wouldn't be happy to allow the government to artificially limit the number of airline flights just so a few pilots could make more money.

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?

 

[Speedtape]

I'm nowhere near the bottom of my seniority list.

Probably, because you are not on a Seniority List!

 

[pipejockey]

Oh, and I have to ask yip a question. You are so anti-regulation, scaring everybody into thinking that nearly everyone would be out of work, the sky is falling the sky is falling. Well what do you base that on? How many airline pilots were there in 1978, the year of the beginning of the end of what was an awesome career? You have been saying that sooo many jobs would be lost if we were to go back to that. Well how many yip? What is your opinion?

 

[pilotyip]

Best guess. The regulations you would like to see to make the career like 1978 again will increase cost. How much that cost will be is an unknown. But what can be presumed is a natural reaction to economics. Price goes up, demand goes down. As demand goes down, there is less need for empty seats, therefore fewer flights and fewer pilots. I would guess 1978 tickets pricing translated to 2009 dollars would reduce flying by around 33%.

 

[JustaNumber]

Oh, and I have to ask yip a question. You are so anti-regulation, scaring everybody into thinking that nearly everyone would be out of work, the sky is falling the sky is falling. Well what do you base that on? How many airline pilots were there in 1978, the year of the beginning of the end of what was an awesome career? You have been saying that sooo many jobs would be lost if we were to go back to that. Well how many yip? What is your opinion?

"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).

 

[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?