Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pilots, White Collar or Blue Collar

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Rez O. Lewshun said:
I am not!

This is another facet of the issue. It is not Democrat or Republican. It is not black or white, yes or no....

This is something that is very grey and many guys have trouble dealing in the grey. The want yes/no answers that are quantifiable.

What are the issues and what politican supports your issues. If a GOP supports Air Line Pilots issues then support him/her. Polarizing around the party is mindless.....

Magnum you should be very concerned about Fred Smith and his push for Foreign ownership... at the same time you'll be glad to know that many republicans voted against foriegn control.....

You guys in the ANG/Reserve have it tough..... which is more important... (which one generates more income) your civilian labor job or your military officer job.... opposite sides politically.. (when it comes to the Prez vote)


I AM very concerned about foreign ownership! I know Fred would immediately open up a "little China" in east Memphis and give free housing to any chinese pilot who would live here and fly his boxes for 25k/year. And I WILL vote against politician who advocates this type of stuff, be they republican, democrat, libertarian, or whatever.

If I ever truly believe my job depends on a political race, I'll vote my job in a heartbeat. However, I don't think the occupant of the WH has as much influence over these issues as do the pogues in Congress. If that means I vote for a GOPer for President and a Dem for the House or Senate (or vice versa), I'll do it in a heartbeat.

The intention (in my opinion) of the Founders was that the President is the Chief Foreign Policy officer of the US and the Congress would handle the domestic issues. Of course, they also had no intention for anyone to be a career politician, either. I actually have more to say on this issue, but I'm just so dam* irritated with every jack*ss in Congress right now that I'm just getting spun up.

Have a great 4th, Rez.
 
Andy said:
WOW! I shoulda talked to you when I got furloughed back on '02. The best I could find is jobs that started at less than $30K and the competition was fierce.
Of course, you're not talking starting salaries. You're not even talking 5, 6 year salaries. Take a look: http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/regional.html
The fastest you can is Horizon, year 12. And that's flying 1000 hrs/yr.
Most sub-major carriers don't even get you to $100K/yr. Ever.

Now if we want to discuss on demand cargo ops, I guess that we can talk about USA jet. Pays $300/wk in training. Starting salary: $51.84/hr w/55 hr/mo guarantee; $2851.20/mo. So we're still talking under $40K. On call; must be able to be at the airport in less than 20 minutes when paged. Must live in Detroit area. Do they issue body armor? I hope that they at least issue a snow shovel.
I assume that this is the place that you are referring to that will eventually pay $100K/yr. Of course the devil's in the details.


Seems like you are looking for a flying position that STARTS at 100K per year. Ain't happenin', bro.And something tells me you weren't swimming in greenbacks as a wet behind the ears butter bar in the air corps, or a probie
plumber at UA for that matter.


PHXFLYR:cool:
 
PHXFLYR said:
Seems like you are looking for a flying position that STARTS at 100K per year. Ain't happenin', bro.And something tells me you weren't swimming in greenbacks as a wet behind the ears butter bar in the air corps, or a probie
plumber at UA for that matter.


PHXFLYR:cool:

Did I forget the sarcasm function on/off again? I was responding to a post stating that $100K/yr was pretty good; he implied that it can be easily attained in the flying profession. There aren't many domestic pilot positions outside of the majors paying that kind of coin. Ever. And many outside of the majors come with quite a few strings attached (pagers, must live in xxx, etc, always on call, etc).
I realize that starting at $100K doesn't happen domestically; I do know a couple of places that start at that salary, but they're not what I'd call garden spots.
 
We are certainly blue collar, with regional airlines paying significantly lower than many other blue collar jobs.
 
Blue collar worker with a white shirt...I can live with that, since blue really isn't my color.
 
PHXFLYR said:
Seems like you are looking for a flying position that STARTS at 100K per year. Ain't happenin', bro.And something tells me you weren't swimming in greenbacks as a wet behind the ears butter bar in the air corps, or a probie
plumber at UA for that matter.


PHXFLYR:cool:

Of course a job won't start that high. The problem is that the entire system is so anti-labor these days, that it is exceptionally difficult to stay with any employer these days long enough to reap the benifits of longevity. All you folks who are senior these days at your respective airlines are lucky. Good for you. However, you are not better people than those junior to you.
 
XJohXJ said:
Make no mistakes folks, if you aren't fantastically rich, Bush hates you!

Or if you're black. Or gay. Or old. Or a child. Or a woman. I think Bush hates cats, too. And trees. Idiot.
 
XJohXJ said:
Make no mistakes folks, if you aren't fantastically rich, Bush hates you!

More class-warfare rhetoric from the left. Is that all you libs have to offer?
 
Typical Republican debating tactics: Personally attact your opponent instead of debating the ideas they present. Takes an awful lot of critical thinking now, doesn't it? Yes, in an era where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting significantly poorer and the middle-class are shrinking rapidly, I would have to agree that class warfare is alive and well in America, and the rich are winning hands down, with the full support of the current administration. Heck, Warren Buffet admitted as much, why can't you?

How about those grossly overpaid and unproductive airline CEO's, who are earning several hundred times more than you are, have they been helping you or your company lately? How about the wildly overpaid health insurance corporate leaders? Where do you think they get their money? From workers, thats correct, right out of our pockets, and they make more by denying treatment to workers. But no, there's no class warfare going on now, is there?
 
XJohXJ said:
Typical Republican debating tactics: Personally attact your opponent instead of debating the ideas they present. Takes an awful lot of critical thinking now, doesn't it? Yes, in an era where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting significantly poorer and the middle-class are shrinking rapidly, I would have to agree that class warfare is alive and well in America, and the rich are winning hands down, with the full support of the current administration. Heck, Warren Buffet admitted as much, why can't you?

How about those grossly overpaid and unproductive airline CEO's, who are earning several hundred times more than you are, have they been helping you or your company lately? How about the wildly overpaid health insurance corporate leaders? Where do you think they get their money? From workers, thats correct, right out of our pockets, and they make more by denying treatment to workers. But no, there's no class warfare going on now, is there?

Debating tactics? How is anyone supposed to debate "Bush hates poor people?" You define that as intellligent debate?

I agree there is a widening disparity between rich and poor in this country, but that's not a subject you brought up. I also wasn't aware that corporate malfeasance began in 2000 with the election of a GOP administration. Can you unequivocally state that the seeds for the corporate f*ck overs in recent years WERE NOT sown in the 90s under Bill Clinton?
 
Where's the moderator? Kill this thread--it's gone on too long and has crept out of control.

By the way, I'm blue collar, but have a MASSIVE white collar attitude!
 
We are in the livery trade and henceforth "blue collar". In our profession, we are supposed to be pragmatic. To view ourselves as white collar is frankly delusional.
 
blue collar, white collar, dirty collor, who cares? If you are doing something you like and being paid for it, you are indeed lucky. Fly because you like to, etc.
 
The profession has always been blue collar but at least it once had a strong national union. Govt; control of jumpseats? no way, Pilots and flight crews going through security? not a chance. At one time ALPA was strong enough to shut the country down. Now it's just a lip service organization with no real agenda or strength. The pilots hired by secretarys at the few majors have had no reason to complain in the past or risk any job satisfaction supporting the pilots at other carriers. Now pay and benefits are being cut across the line and job satisfaction is pretty much gone. Good, it probably won't get better until it hits rock bottom and we're closing on that target fast. Prior to the "blue flue" episode at AA, 75% of allied political donations went to republicans. I'm not saying there weren't plenty of useless idiots within the democratic party, but their platform didn't call for the destruction of unions. So, given the opportunity. I'd scab Allied tomorrow. I figure they supported an anti union agenda in the past when they thought they were bullet proof so as the saying goes, "you can't scab a scab".
 
maru657 said:
The profession has always been blue collar but at least it once had a strong national union. Govt; control of jumpseats? no way, Pilots and flight crews going through security? not a chance. At one time ALPA was strong enough to shut the country down. Now it's just a lip service organization with no real agenda or strength. The pilots hired by secretarys at the few majors have had no reason to complain in the past or risk any job satisfaction supporting the pilots at other carriers. Now pay and benefits are being cut across the line and job satisfaction is pretty much gone. Good, it probably won't get better until it hits rock bottom and we're closing on that target fast. Prior to the "blue flue" episode at AA, 75% of allied political donations went to republicans. I'm not saying there weren't plenty of useless idiots within the democratic party, but their platform didn't call for the destruction of unions. So, given the opportunity. I'd scab Allied tomorrow. I figure they supported an anti union agenda in the past when they thought they were bullet proof so as the saying goes, "you can't scab a scab".

Maru657, your post made a lot of questions pop in my head. This was not the thread to ask them, so I started a new one "questions about ALPA and it's history". I quoted your post to ask some of the questions. just wanted you to know.
 
pilotyip said:
blue collar, white collar, dirty collor, who cares? If you are doing something you like and being paid for it, you are indeed lucky. Fly because you like to, etc.

You basically reapeated your signature line...
 
Rez, is there something wrong with being paid a decent wage to do something you like, that makes you feel good about your chosen profession, and that you left and came back to because compared to another type of job it is the best job out there? A job you wanted from the first time you saw an airplane as a kid in1947. Is that what you are saying?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top