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

What should the airlines do?

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
airlines around the world are paying high fuel prices and dealing with competition as well but their pilots are paid well, sorry but I don't buy it
Yes and so as I asked above can anyone explain how they do it. If it were easy to do, someone in this country would have tried to follow that model. I am betting most of these 3rd world countries with high salaries are subsidized by their gov't to get airlines off the ground and build the aviation infrastructure.

Of course we could bring back the CAB from 1938 that was eliminated in 1978 under de-reg. Then airlines could set monopoly prices on routes awarded to them, pilot could strike ask for more money, the CAB would see this as a cost increases and allow higher prices. Of course back then we had what 1/2? Maybe a 1/3? Of the airline jobs we have now, but who cares at least the senior guys would benefit.

BTW. If anyone has the answer to this, it their duty to start an airline and make it the perfect place to work and then attract all the pilots and put the other airlines out of business.
 
Yes and so as I asked above can anyone explain how they do it. If it were easy to do, someone in this country would have tried to follow that model. I am betting most of these 3rd world countries with high salaries are subsidized by their gov't to get airlines off the ground and build the aviation infrastructure.

Of course we could bring back the CAB from 1938 that was eliminated in 1978 under de-reg. Then airlines could set monopoly prices on routes awarded to them, pilot could strike ask for more money, the CAB would see this as a cost increases and allow higher prices. Of course back then we had what 1/2? Maybe a 1/3? Of the airline jobs we have now, but who cares at least the senior guys would benefit.

BTW. If anyone has the answer to this, it their duty to start an airline and make it the perfect place to work and then attract all the pilots and put the other airlines out of business.

How do international airlines pay their people more? I think you actually answered your own question. Regulation!!! Let's compare U.S and Canada for a minute. There was an earlier thread on the Regional section comparing pilot pay for Canadian pilots and how great their QOL was. Compare growth between the countries from 1975-2000, Candian growth was 80% while growth in the U.S. was 225% within the same time frame. In Canada prices remained high while the average U.S. traveler enjoyed a decrease in prices. Compare the number of active airlines in Canada vs. the U.S. and you will find growth comes from competition so the only way airline management can control the large fluctuations in profits is fixed prices such as fuel and labor. What is the first thing an Airline tries to do when faced with a downward fluctuation? Ask for employee concessions and give backs.
You can analyze whether the Hub and spoke route system with extensive down time between flights works within todays competitive market, that would be the right question.
 
With the price our military has paid in human life in the Middle East we should be paying next to nothing for oil. We should be able to pay a substantial discount per barrel of oil.
 
I agree with you but then there's that no blood for oil idea. We had low oil prices after gulf war 1 for ten years. No other president has tried it since.
 
Let's say your flying a 50 seater RJ...On a full flight for one hour, if every pax was to tip $3 the capt. could get $1.50 of that, the FO $1, and the donkey $.50. That would give a rate of $75 per hour to the CA, $50 per hour to the FO, and $25 per hour to shrek in the back.

Of course this simple analogy does not take into consideration health care costs or contributions to retirement but it does make you realize that just for your basic pay on a full flight at current rates, only $3 of the price of a ticket per hour is going to pay your basic wage.
 
Let's say your flying a 50 seater RJ...On a full flight for one hour, if every pax was to tip $3 the capt. could get $1.50 of that, the FO $1, and the donkey $.50. That would give a rate of $75 per hour to the CA, $50 per hour to the FO, and $25 per hour to shrek in the back.

Of course this simple analogy does not take into consideration health care costs or contributions to retirement but it does make you realize that just for your basic pay on a full flight at current rates, only $3 of the price of a ticket per hour is going to pay your basic wage.
who is going to pay the $3?
 
Let's say your flying a 50 seater RJ...On a full flight for one hour, if every pax was to tip $3 the capt. could get $1.50 of that, the FO $1, and the donkey $.50. That would give a rate of $75 per hour to the CA, $50 per hour to the FO, and $25 per hour to shrek in the back.

Of course this simple analogy does not take into consideration health care costs or contributions to retirement but it does make you realize that just for your basic pay on a full flight at current rates, only $3 of the price of a ticket per hour is going to pay your basic wage.

Management is already charging for that 3 it's just that they are keeping the profit for themselves.
 
Profit=bad?

Management is already charging for that 3 it's just that they are keeping the profit for themselves.
and there is something wrong with profit? perhaps they should charge another $3 for the crew, let the pax decide if they will pay it?
 
Supply and Demand.
When a contractor comes to your home to perform a job, you want to pay him as little as possible for the job. If you call around and find out there is anothercontractor who will do the same thing for less, you hire that guy..
Hate to burst your bubble, but I hire the guy that's going to do the best job, get it done on time, is licensed/bonded, has references, etc......I don't mind paying more for his experience, expertise, service, and skill.
The savings from paying less for the above service can then be spent, but not limited to, the following ways: Professional development, education for your children, saving for retirement, rainy-day fund, additional home repairs/additions, paying down mortgage, reducing student loan debt, and...yes..."unnecessary" expenditures to yourself like a vacation or an anniversary gift for your wife.
They can also be spent on bringing someone else in do the job right, fines because the proper permits weren't secured, repairing water damage from the pipe the lowest bidder cut through, replacing the carpet that they walked all over with muddy boots...............
It can't get any more simple than that. I don't know why this is so difficult for our colleagues to understand.
Watch ANY episode of Holmes on Homes and let us know if you want to stick to your simple theories about the benefits of lowest bidder contractors.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top