What SHOULD Regional Airline Pilots Make?

[pilotyip]

What ever the market will bear, lets start a regional airline where F/O's start at $100K/yr. All those ready to invest please get this project off the ground,

 

[Kalifornia]

What ever the market will bear, lets start a regional airline where F/O's start at $100K/yr. All those ready to invest please get this project off the ground,

The karma market says you got what you deserved.

 

[tomgoodman]

Moving target

The karma market says you got what you deserved.

It's true that when you make an unwise move, Karma will return fire with an unpleasant consequence. The problem is that Karma's aim is imperfect, and it may hit someone else instead.

 

[homerjdispatch]

What ever the market will bear, lets start a regional airline where F/O's start at $100K/yr. All those ready to invest please get this project off the ground,

Exactly! Markets dictate what pay is... If people arent willing to work for a certain wage, wages increase...If the comany cannot bear the finacial burden of the costs of business then they need to either lower the costs, or close the doors. From a stockholder/owner perspective, id say pay them as little as possible, while maintaining a productive and satisfied (notice i didnt say happy) work force. From an employee perspective, id say pay me in gold bricks...

Where is the happy medium?

 

[redflyer65]

Easy : $50,000 FO
$100,000 captain
Starting

That's funny, those are the exact numbers I thought about when I read the title. Spot on.

 

[pilotyip]

Exactly! Markets dictate what pay is... If people arent willing to work for a certain wage, wages increase...If the comany cannot bear the finacial burden of the costs of business then they need to either lower the costs, or close the doors. From a stockholder/owner perspective, id say pay them as little as possible, while maintaining a productive and satisfied (notice i didnt say happy) work force. From an employee perspective, id say pay me in gold bricks...

Where is the happy medium?

nice touch of reality

 

[Flyprdu]

From a stockholder/owner perspective, id say pay them as little as possible, while maintaining a productive and satisfied (notice i didnt say happy) work force.

Ugh. More free-market nihilism.

This is a cross post from another thread:

It's so disappointing that it has become morally acceptable that corporations have no social obligation to its citizens. I'm not just talking about what's good for the country. It's also good for business.

Companies should have an obligation to keep wages commensurate with the existing quality of life and cost of living in order to sustain and promote their own consumer base. By stripping their own employees of decent wages and benefits... they've eroded their own bottom lines. Short term gain in cost savings. Long term disaster in net revenue.

The financial bungling by the wealthy elites have eliminated the power of 'free-market hiring' by tanking the economy; an employment shortage is the furthest thing from reality. Meanwhile, they use the crisis as a further excuse to drive wages down.

We are in the death throws of a plutocratic revolution. And they have the low-intelligent people convinced to look into the mirror, point, and say "You're the problem!"
_________________________________________

A union worker, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across the table, takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Bagger and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

 

[homerjdispatch]

Ugh. More free-market nihilism.

This is a cross post from another thread:

It's so disappointing that it has become morally acceptable that corporations have no social obligation to its citizens. I'm not just talking about what's good for the country. It's also good for business.

Companies should have an obligation to keep wages commensurate with the existing quality of life and cost of living in order to sustain and promote their own consumer base. By stripping their own employees of decent wages and benefits... they've eroded their own bottom lines. Short term gain in cost savings. Long term disaster in net revenue.

The financial bungling by the wealthy elites have eliminated the power of 'free-market hiring' by tanking the economy; an employment shortage is the furthest thing from reality. Meanwhile, they use the crisis as a further excuse to drive wages down.

We are in the death throws of a plutocratic revolution. And they have the low-intelligent people convinced to look into the mirror, point, and say "You're the problem!"
_________________________________________

A union worker, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across the table, takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Bagger and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

Did you read right past the line about keeping the employee satisfied???


Typical socialistic response... of course if it were your company its how you would run it, right? If you answer yes, then obviously you have either never owned your own business with employees, or two, the business failed miserably because costs were out of hand and no one would pay the exorbitant cost of your product.

 

[Flyprdu]

Did you read right past the line about keeping the employee satisfied???


Typical socialistic response... of course if it were your company its how you would run it, right? If you answer yes, then obviously you have either never owned your own business with employees, or two, the business failed miserably because costs were out of hand and no one would pay the exorbitant cost of your product.

You contradicted yourself... you said you'd pay them as low as you could, or keep them satisfied. Which is it? Can't be both.

And here's the collective failure of no-holds barred capitalism. If a company does the socially responsible thing, and pay your employees a decent wage so they can be a consuming force in the economy, you will get destroyed by competitors who will not play by the rules and ship all the work out to the lowest bidder.

So then end result is we have lots of cheap products, but it doesn't matter. Consumers won't be making enough to buy your goods anyway.

So we all go out of business. But if you were ruthless enough to shaft your own country, you're probably unscrupulous enough to pay yourself 7 figures for your ingenuity. So who cares if the whole thing burns?

 

[homerjdispatch]

You contradicted yourself... you said you'd pay them as low as you could, or keep them satisfied. Which is it? Can't be both.

And here's the collective failure of no-holds barred capitalism. If a company does the socially responsible thing, and pay your employees a decent wage so they can be a consuming force in the economy, you will get destroyed by competitors who will not play by the rules and ship all the work out to the lowest bidder.

So then end result is we have lots of cheap products, but it doesn't matter. Consumers won't be making enough to buy your goods anyway.

So we all go out of business. But if you were ruthless enough to shaft your own country, you're probably unscrupulous enough to pay yourself 7 figures for your ingenuity. So who cares if the whole thing burns?

.

I guess reading comprehension isnt your stongest attribute... What i said was, "pay them as little as possible, while maintaining a productive and satisfied (notice i didnt say happy) work force." There is no contradiction. Let me explain it another way... Pay the employees what they need to be satisfied and productive. Nothing more, nothing less. If the employee goes above and beyond what was asked then that should be rewarded in forms of bouses or other means of compensation.