What SHOULD Regional Airline Pilots Make?

[mrnolmts]

Pilotyip, you have the most asinine views I've seen in a long time. Your argument is akin to the "Do you know that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes? OUTRAGEOUS!" argument.
I bet you are one of the numbnuts making that statement too, aren't you?

 

[asa rat]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

 

[damnflyboy]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

Love it! Behold! The root of the problem--the inability to make a true lateral move as an airline pilot. If we could determine pay/QOL on aptitude rather than seniority, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[pilotyip]

Pilotyip, you have the most asinine views I've seen in a long time. Your argument is akin to the "Do you know that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes? OUTRAGEOUS!" argument.
I bet you are one of the numbnuts making that statement too, aren't you?

Yea I think I made that statement, and your point is? Do you fly airplanes because you like to?

 

[pilotyip]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

Because they have skills beyond flying an airplane. I wish I had gone into management much earlier. As a management person you much more control over your life, and when you leave a job you can move to your next job at almost the same salary. Unlike a pilot whose pay is based upon a position on a seniority list. But I liked flying too much and stuck with the cockpit until I was in my mid-50's, when unemployment forced me into management. I am not degrading the skills of the pilot, but their skills are almost interchangeable, a ten year pilot is almost like any other 10 year pilot. Not so with a CPA who has ten years expereince in Tax policy, or an IT guy with ten year experience in net work development. This is my view of reality, I know it will be countered by some, but please stay away from the name calling.

 

[mrnolmts]

Yea I think I made that statement, and your point is?

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

The fallacy of this simplified thought is that we DON'T have a flat tax.

The truth is that "I" pay $346,500 in taxes while "you" are likely getting more money back than "you" sent in. Yet, somehow, "I'm" not paying my fair share.

 

[pilotyip]

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

so we should tax them at 99% like England did after WWII. Funny thing happened on the way to taxation perfection, the people with money left England.

 

[Flyprdu]

so we should tax them at 99% like England did after WWII. Funny thing happened on the way to taxation perfection, the people with money left England.

Lots of other numbers between 36% and 99%. Don't be such a drama queen.

 

[mrnolmts]

The fallacy of this simplified thought is that we DON'T have a flat tax...

*sigh* Of course we don't, nitwit. I was simplifying it with nice, round numbers so people like yourself could understand why it's logical that 1% pay 40% of the taxes. Apparently, I failed, and for that I apologize. I can only do so much.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Let's face it. On paper, we are an expense. No more, no less. If they could get people to fly on airplanes without the labor expense (us), they would. In the mean time, as long as there are pilots lining up to do the job (at any level), pay will be whatever "they" can get away with.

 

[mrnolmts]

Wow, we agree on something! Cheers!

 

[russtgol]

All you clowns should start an Airline and pay top wages. Oh thats right your not smart enough. You just like to cry on this forum day in and day out. Put up or shut up!!

 

[mrnolmts]

All you clowns should start an Airline and pay top wages. Oh thats right your not smart enough. You just like to cry on this forum day in and day out. Put up or shut up!!

You're absolutely right. We should be happy we have a job, and there's no shame in qualifying for food stamps for a job you spent over 100 grand to land. Hell, let's cap wages at 50k, as that is definitely a livable wage most places in this country. I mean, 1 mill + for our CEO's is really pathetic if you think about it. There are brokers at Wall Street making much more than that. It's just not right.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

Jet CA/FO (70seat)

Probationary: $50K (65K) / 25K (30K)
2nd Year (Off probation): 70K (80K) / 35K (40K)

Then up from there as per the contract.

Note: I took Jack3d about 30 minutes ago so this could all be non-sense. OFF TO THE GYM!



COME AT ME BRO!

 

[russtgol]

You're absolutely right. We should be happy we have a job, and there's no shame in qualifying for food stamps for a job you spent over 100 grand to land. Hell, let's cap wages at 50k, as that is definitely a livable wage most places in this country. I mean, 1 mill + for our CEO's is really pathetic if you think about it. There are brokers at Wall Street making much more than that. It's just not right.

Cry me a river. Go be a broker on Wall Street then. Thats right your not smart enough.

 

[mrnolmts]

And so the sarcasm flew right over your head. How unexpected.

 

[Flyprdu]

Thats right your not smart enough.

The irony of this sentence is hilarious. :smash:

 

[sunlitpath]

Pilots should be paid whatever the market will bear. The market can bear a little more...

 

[homerjdispatch]

Pilots should be paid whatever the market will bear. The market can bear a little more...

Who determines this? You say it can bear more, but the bean counter says we are overdrawn... THE ONLY WAY AN EMPLOYEE CAN CONTROL WAGES IS TO NOT ACCEPT A JOB WITH A SALARY BELOW WHAT THEY THINK THEY DESERVE TO DO THAT JOB!