Come on man! Don't go there! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif You know what I mean... and I've yet to meet a bus drive that just spent 6 years and $100,000 on school learning to drive a bus! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I have enjoyed this debate UAL Traveler, and look forward to hearing more views in the future! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
preez mine da pratform gahp.

[This message has been edited by ChuckDEE (edited 07-30-2001).]

No problem...

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I have enjoyed this debate...&lt;snip&gt;

---

Me too http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

ChuckDee- let's not try and justify outrageous salaries for pilots by the cost and years of education. Teachers (my daughter for one) have had a $100,000 and five year education and never ever will make even 1/3rd of what a pilot makes. In addition, few pilots have a $100,000 education, unlike doctors. You indeed may, but I suspect you are a rare exception.

I'm not justifying such a huge salary from the beginning of a career, what I've meant in these posts is maturity of salary over time. Just like as a doctor, or even teacher, over time become more experienced, get into different fields (brain surgery or become a university professor) or higer levels of whatever it is that they're doing, a higher salary is justified.

Just like a pilot starts off flying commuters for minimum wage and over 20 years becomes a captain of a 747-400 making $200K+, so do doctors raise in skill and knowledge and become department heads, and teachers become professors, head of Harvard etc.

I'm all for putting in your time and earning a great salary over time, that's what we usually aim for in life.

What I've been trying to explain is that the paths, and levels of responsibility and knowledge between pilots and other high skill professions are very similar, and do justify a higher salary over time... as with any career, albiet on differing levels.

There is also cost of living adjustments, as well as other adjustments in pay depending on demand in the field that need to be considered (which are some point in this dispute). 20 years ago a computer science major fresh out of college wouldn't have made as much as a fresh graduate today (or yesterday when the market was in high demand). Maybe my example isn't the best as there are a lot of CS on this board, but I think you get the jist.

If, however, one would like to look at the bigger picture in the CX dispute with regards to money, the pilots are just trying to get back SOME of what they lost when the company went to differing pay scales. A more normal way of 'pilot' life is the bigger point I think.

Cheers! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
preez mine da pratform gahp.

I'd beg to differ. I would hate to count how much your average air force pilot (where many pilots at least in the U.S. come frm) costs to train. Even purely commercial training isn't cheap.

But I thought the main AOA complaint was unfair rostering affecting their lifestyle ( a fair complaint I would say) , not money ?
By the way, someone buy that bloke Findlay a razor before he goes public again.
Having just got off Dragonair from Shanghai I had a good flight but the landing on KA in Shanghai was diabolical, with 2 gweilos at the wheel. I have flown many Chinese airlines with good flights in the 33 years I have been in HKG, and Air Siam (ouch) and a few other very "iffy" outfits in Asia and Russia etc. You cannot judge every pilot's ability by his choice of employment or ethnic origin.
I have had some ropey flights + landings on CX too which reminded me of CAAC back in the 70's.