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

The Price of a Safe Landing

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

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
The Price of a Safe Landing

By BOB BUCK
Published: March 18, 2006
Fayston, Vt.


Ken Orvidas
IT'S that time again — time for airlines to make pilot pay the burning issue in labor negotiations. At Delta Air Lines, pilot salaries are in arbitration; at Northwest Airlines, pilots are close to striking.

Why is pilot pay always such a source of contention? Perhaps because it seems so high. After all, a pilot can make as much as $220,000 a year for working only 85 hours a month.

But this is only part of the story. True, a handful of senior pilots make $220,000 a year, but 85 hours is only half true because pilots spend as much time planning flights, looking at weather, studying, training and sitting around airports waiting for delayed flights, as they do flying. The 85 hours is counted only from the time the airplane leaves the terminal until it arrives at its destination. What's more, this is the very top salary; a captain for a regional airline, for example, makes around $60,000 a year.

And it's not as if pilots haven't already taken a hit. The Delta pilots agreed to an annual pay cut of $1 billion, or 32.5 percent, in late 2004. (Now Delta is asking for an additional $305 million.) Their Northwest counterparts agreed to $265 million of cuts in 2004 and $215 million in temporary cuts last year. Now the company wants to cut $145 million more. Pilot pensions are in a similar state of disarray.

This is not to say that pilot pay isn't high relative to other lines of work. The high pay dates back to just after World War I, when airmail service, which was managed by the Post Office, was established. And to my mind, the pay was wholly justified.

Back then, flying was dangerous; no radio guidance, no instruments for bad weather, no de-icing equipment or radar to reveal thunderstorms. Flying was all contact, meaning that you stayed in visual contact with the ground. Trying to see ahead when fog or low clouds forced the pilot lower and lower, with no visibility; pilots lost their lives running into hillsides or unseen obstructions.

In exchange for risking life and limb, pilots were well paid. In 1924, the top salary was $8,000 a year, or close to $1 million in today's dollars. In 1938, when I started flying DC-3's for Transcontinental and Western Air (later Trans World Airlines), we still were paid more for flying at night and over mountains.

As flying became safer, pay was reduced but still remained high. How? The pilots formed a union, the Air Line Pilots Association, in 1931. The key man was David L. Behncke, a retired United Airlines pilot, who fought the airlines' attempt to have one industry-wide contract for pilots. By seeing to it that pilots had individual contracts with each airline, Behncke ensured that each negotiation could build on the one that came before it.

He also helped to keep salaries high by emphasizing productivity as well as safety. Behncke argued that a pilot hauling 400 passengers should make more than one transporting, say, 70 passengers. This was a winning tactic, though I was never certain that it was entirely accurate. Smaller planes are not necessarily any easier to fly. A 747 pilot, for example, takes off from New York and lands in Paris: one flight. A regional jet pilot, by comparison, can wind up making five stops during one day, or night — or making all his flights in the same lousy weather system.

People think that computers have made flying easier — you just turn on the autopilot and relax. Not so. Computers do many things, but they don't know what to do when a line of severe thunderstorms blocks the flight path, nor do they worry about marginal weather at destinations and what to do about reserve fuel and a host of possible situations that can be resolved only through human intelligence informed by experience.

There are simply too many situations that demand a professional in the cockpit. I've flown for a long time, and I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard a colleague say (or felt myself), "I earned my year's pay on that flight."

Here's just one story. In June of 1970, I was piloting a TWA 747 from Paris to New York. Forty minutes into the flight, TWA's Paris dispatch office called to tell me I had a bomb on board. According to the warning call they had received, the bomb was due to go off in 45 minutes.

We turned around and dived toward Paris. We started dumping fuel to get our weight down, but we didn't have time to reduce the weight to the legal landing limit.

Decision time: land and risk going off the end of the runway, or circle around dumping fuel before the bomb goes off? Landing a plane that's overweight takes up runway space. I visualized what was off the runway's end: farmland. I concluded that it was probably worth the risk, even though we'd knock out lights at the end of the runway as we slammed through.

Thankfully, we landed safely. The passengers were evacuated down the slides while still far from the terminal. (Officials didn't want us nearby in case we blew up.) The only injury was a fracture in a flight attendant's ankle. They never found a bomb.

Airline pilots go through stuff like this all the time. This is why they deserve to be paid decently (if not extravagantly). It's for this reason that I hope the union will remain strong as it works with Delta and Northwest (and whoever's next) on problems of pay, retirement and safety. As they talk, pilots, I know, will do their job of getting airplanes from departure to destination safely. After all, the pilot is on board, too — a fact that should be respected, but not taken for granted.

Bob Buck is the author of "North Star Over My Shoulder: A Flying Life."
 
Well, we all know it is true, but try telling that to J. Blow air traveller! All he want, is to get his drink on and his snack on, on an airline where the towel is laid out like that, however, he wants it for less than the cost of a spliff.
 
One of the best aviation authors of our time.

I greatly enjoy reading Bob Buck's comentary. His books are a must read for any professional aviator, in addition to the other great pilot books such as "Flying the Line."

I for one have emailed this article to many of my collegues and friends. Spread the word!
 
It's tough to decipher the truth when the Delta CFO is spouting off about Delta pilot pay averages BEFORE the retirement exodus of highly-paid senior captains last year - those high averages are way out of date... It's all about how you SPIN the data...
 
I'm going to look forward to reading some of his books, but first I have to finish "Airline Without a Pilot" The inside story of Delta's success, decline and bankruptcy, by Harry L. Nolan.
 
Dizel8 said:
Well, we all know it is true, but try telling that to J. Blow air traveller! All he want, is to get his drink on and his snack on, on an airline where the towel is laid out like that, however, he wants it for less than the cost of a spliff.

Dizel:
I couldn't have said it better!
737
 
Well written Bob Buck! I once carried his son (also named Bob) in the jumpseat - BTV to BOS, and BOS - JFK. A classy guy, just like his father, I'm sure. I believe he (Buck Jr) is a DAL 767 intl capt.
 
Bob Buck is an idiot. How can anyone swallow such garbage? A jet is a flying bus. Or a flying subway train. It must be easy. Why else would pilots do it for the slave wages currently offered? PFT - I wish I had thought of that! Greatest invention of the modern age. Richard said I could get some free music CD's if I could set up PFT at VA. I like ABBA. What do you guys like?
 
Editorial from Tucson

Business


Opinion by Richard Ducote : Airlines need higher fares, not tiny cuts in amenities


Opinion by Richard Ducote

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.19.2006

advertisement​
OAS_AD('300x250_1')

The great minds of the airline industry have come up with some new ideas.
None of these ideas primarily focus on comfort or convenience for passengers. They are all about cash flow for the airlines.
Northwest Airlines is testing a program to charge an extra $15 for selected seats in coach — some aisle seats and the emergency exit row that offers more leg room.
Free meals, movies and alcoholic beverages disappeared long ago from most flights.
Where will this search for more revenue end?
Amadeus, an information services provider to the travel industry, said last week its survey found that nearly one-third of passengers would be willing to pay more for things like "guaranteed overhead storage above their seat" or "priority baggage handling."
Yes, I would like my bags to be on the same flight I'm on, thank you.
Pay toilets can't be far behind. How about charging to open and close the window screens?
Seat belts add value to the flight. What about a charge there? The Chiclet-size pillows and baby blankets could be brought back for a fee.
It's often said there is too much capacity on planes, thereby making it difficult to raise fares. The infrequent summer flights I encounter are always packed.
Airlines might consider a nominal charge to spray enplaning passengers with vegetable oil to make canning — er —seating a bit easier.
Such efforts to increase revenues only nibble around the edge of the problem. Real fare hikes are required for airlines to thrive.
Famed investor Warren Buffett observed in 1991 that the global airline business had not made a nickel in a century of manned flight.
Things have only gotten worse since, with several major U.S. carriers visiting Bankruptcy Court in recent years, some more than once.
Jet fuel prices jumped from $42 a barrel in January 2004 to $76 per barrel at the end of February.
The No. 1 carrier out of Tucson, Southwest Airlines, will see its fuel bill increase by $600 million this year over last year's $1.3 billion. The king of low fares recently ended its longstanding fare cap of $299 on its most expensive routes.
The industry demonstrably needs more money to stay viable.
The flying public, a spoiled lot, resists fare increases at every turn.
People seem to accept the fact that gasoline prices are creeping back toward $2.50 a gallon. Two years ago, such a price would have been considered shocking.
But we seem to think that, year after year, vacation after vacation, the $229 round-trip to the East Coast from Tucson is a constitutional right.
We have forgotten the incredible time value of flight.
Consider the alternative cost of driving three or four days each way to a distant vacation spot. Add up gas for the family van, motel stays and meals. And cut the vacation destination plans by a week to allow time for driving.
In the case of business travel, time value is even more demonstrable.
We can fly across the continent in the time it took our pioneer ancestors to make 20 miles in a horse-drawn wagon.
All fares should increase to preserve safe, dependable, convenient flights on reliable equipment operated by highly trained people. The five-and-dime cuts in amenities and $5 fare increases are not getting the job done.
We might be able to say that cost and value have reached equilibrium when, once again, a simple snack on a long flight is complementary.
Carriers' losing billions of dollars a year is not sustainable. Costs have been slashed. It's time to accept fare hikes as necessary for the long-term health of an indispensible service.

● Contact Richard Ducote at 573-4178 or [email protected].
 
chase said:
Business


Opinion by Richard Ducote : Airlines need higher fares, not tiny cuts in amenities


Opinion by Richard Ducote

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.19.2006

advertisement​
OAS_AD('300x250_1')

The great minds of the airline industry have come up with some new ideas.
None of these ideas primarily focus on comfort or convenience for passengers. They are all about cash flow for the airlines.
Northwest Airlines is testing a program to charge an extra $15 for selected seats in coach — some aisle seats and the emergency exit row that offers more leg room.
Free meals, movies and alcoholic beverages disappeared long ago from most flights.
Where will this search for more revenue end?
Amadeus, an information services provider to the travel industry, said last week its survey found that nearly one-third of passengers would be willing to pay more for things like "guaranteed overhead storage above their seat" or "priority baggage handling."
Yes, I would like my bags to be on the same flight I'm on, thank you.
Pay toilets can't be far behind. How about charging to open and close the window screens?
Seat belts add value to the flight. What about a charge there? The Chiclet-size pillows and baby blankets could be brought back for a fee.
It's often said there is too much capacity on planes, thereby making it difficult to raise fares. The infrequent summer flights I encounter are always packed.
Airlines might consider a nominal charge to spray enplaning passengers with vegetable oil to make canning — er —seating a bit easier.
Such efforts to increase revenues only nibble around the edge of the problemfare . Real hikes are required for airlines to thrive. ...............................
It's time to accept fare hikes as necessary for the long-term health of an indispensible service.

● Contact Richard Ducote at 573-4178 or [email protected].


The only legal way to make fare hikes stick is for the lowest carrier to either die (see FlyI) or to just raise fares (see SWA). Otherwise, it will take a change in anti-trust law to allow the individual carriers to form an OPEC style cartel, and subsequently fix prices.

As much as I'd like to see fares come up, I firmly believe that the market will rule. If the end consumer (passenger) won't pay, there ain't a darn thing that the provider can do to coerce his business. As such, this article is a great step in the direction of informing the passengers of their need to accept such increases. I say, thanks to Mr. Ducote.

regards
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom