cptlflyer

Let's end this quality and safety debate. IF the proposition of some on this thread is that regional airliners are less safe than mainline jets due to differences in the flight crew, that's a serious issue that needs to be addressed--but it just doesn't have anything to do with mainline pilot contracts.

The fact of the matter is that scope clauses weren't put into mainline pilots' contracts by the pilots' unions in an effort to cut down on the number of passengers put at risk by being subject to flying aboard regional aircraft piloted by unsafe crews.

To claim "safety is at risk" at this stage of the negotiations is plain fear mongering.

fastair

So then are 99% of CEO's, the presidents of most countries, most celebrities, and pretty much anyone making over 30k a year, because there are people in the US as well as 2nd and 3rd world countries that would do all of these jobs for that, and even less.

Does that mean that I should be POTUS because I would do it for 1/2 as 30k a year (plus the benies) and that the taxpayers should elect me as I am a bargain, or better yet, elect an unemployed homeless schizophrenic with no education as they might do it for even less than me?

Supply and demand is not the only factor in determining a salary for a position. Often there are other requirements, objective, as well as subjective that modify that the simple supply/demand relationship curve.

And as to this:
"That's not a flaw, that's a feature! The unions demand that arrangement so their members don't get rid of the union, as the first airline pilots to vote out their union risk having to find a job at one of the remaining unionized airlines where they start out at entry-level pay.

The only people to blame for having to start over at a new airline is the unions who demand pay by seniority with the same airline. That's not a policy the airlines even want. (Well, I suppose they don't mind it if they are stuck with a union, but I'm sure they'd be happy to get rid of the union pay contract and pay pilots by experience in general as opposed to experience at a given airline.)"

I disagree, with example to support my disagreement. Airlines DO want employees trapped by this system. It makes their ability to leave much harder. AIrlines want a stedy predictable stream of employees at predictable rates of pay.

Do you have any clue how expensive training a pilot on a widebody plane is for an airline? It is staggeringly expensive. For example, when UA had a pension plan, would allow a sr pilot to get paid for whatever they could bid, even if they choose not to fly it, for the last so many months of their career is the cost of paying them (and retirement pay was based on a formula that counter years, and average pay the last xxx months) and paying them in retirement was far cheaper than taking them out of service for months to train them, paying for the training, only to have them retire without ever generating a return on that company investment.

Predictable and controllable cost structures are very very very much in the interest of airlines, and keeping people locked into such a pay scale, making it difficult for them to leave without serious consequences to their income, is very desired by airlines. That's also 1 reason they hedge fuel, not only to make a great investment, as it is, after all, just a gamble, but also, to have a predictable cost structure for a period of time. The more variables known/under control, the better the company can plan it's future.

raehl311

While I won't argue with you on the CEO front, I have to disagree on the other fronts. You can't pay me to sub in for Paris Hilton at your new night club opening. I simply can't do the job. You also can't pay me to replace Tom Cruise in your next action movie. Nor, for that matter, could you hire me to replace a pilot. I don't have the necessary skills/experience/reputation/whatever. Now, you COULD pay me to go to flight school, fly for enough hours, get certified to fly commercial, and THEN fly, but you probably couldn't get me to do all that for $30k a year (although, I bet there are a lot of people who WOULD do all that for $30k a year, because unlike me, they really like flying.) For $80k/year, I would almost certainly do it. And for $180k/year, I might even be convinced to off a family member if that were necessary.


There are plenty of QUALIFIED pilots who will work for less, and the airlines would be very happy to pay less money to have those pilots fly those planes. But, the people paying those CEOs, celebrities, etc, seem to think they can't find someone as qualified to work for less money. If they did, I'm sure they would hire those people instead.

MCI Guy

I hear ya. Having a schedule change 3 times in a month, it's a wonder any of us knows what is operating. It's all a big shell game anyway my friend.

MyTravels

In today's WSJ:

ssullivan

IAH-IAD on UAX was replacing ERJ-operated COEX service. UA was already operating that route with mainline equipment pre-merger, but on CO it was all-ERJ.

waterfalls123

Are you serious? Did you read the accident report?

Every pilot in the business knows exactly what happened up there that night. You had an airline that hired two pilots that likely would never have been hired at a major airline with their background. Heck, the Captain might not even have been hired had Colgan actually spent a little effort (read:money) investigating the background of the pilots they hired. They both made a fundamental "stick and rudder" error. I would bet my life that had Colgan actually hired experienced, seasoned pilots on their hire dates this accident WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But experienced, seasoned pilots don't work for peanuts, so Colgan hired "the best they could get" for under $20K per year. Seems like they got quite a bargain, huh? And yes, had Colgan been paying 180K per year, this accident definitely WOULD NOT have happened. Heck, had Colgan paid a "reasonable" salary and had a reputation as treating it's pilots with respect, their applicant pool would have been quite a bit deeper and this accident likely would not have happened.

But let's argue your point. Let's say this accident was really caused by "insane working conditions" as you suggest and not more directly by salary. What "insane working conditions" are you talking about? Is it the fact that both commuted in the night before? They likely had to commute in because they couldn't afford to live in the base they were domiciled in.....but that has nothing to do with salary, right? Heck, the F/O was living in her parent's basement and commuting on an all-nighter! Wonder why she just didn't have an apartment or a crash pad in base? I mean, 17K goes a long way these days!

You're right, none of the circumstances that lined up had to do with low salaries. Colgan hired the "best and the brightest" pilots the industry had to offer at the time. They paid a reasonable salary to their employees that allowed them such luxuries as allowing them to live in base and/or afford a clean, safe Newark area hotel for proper rest. What am I thinking? But hey, if thinking that low salaries and low pilot experience makes no difference when you climb into the cabin during the next economic upturn when regionals like Colgan start having to hire the "best and the brightest" again from a small pilot pool then hey, more power to you. It's your money. Fortunately for airline passengers right now, it's not a problem with many experienced pilots on the street looking for work.

If the FAA doesn't get this 1500hr. rule passed by the next economic upturn, it wouldn't surprise me to see an accident like this "red herring" Buffalo crash happen again somewhere else.

mduell

Yet they've maintained it for decades, because they wield a very strong economic power - the ability to shut the airline down.

Are you talking about upgrading a E120 captain to A388? I thought modern transition training for the usual upgrades was days, not months.

DXjr

There's a running joke about how people only work at Boston-Maine (ex. Pan Am III) and Colgan only after everyone else has rejected them.

The opposite of that are those whose FIRST CHOICE were these airlines.

waterfalls123

He-he. C'mon. I agree with your Paris Hilton point, but the executive suites of these airlines are good 'ole boys clubs. There are PLENTY of people that could do a CEO's job for less money, especially with everyone on the street nowadays. I personally know of TWO pilots at my airline who have MBA's from top 10 business schools. They both have over a decade of military experience leading men and women, sometimes under fire. They have worked at my airline for over 15 years so they know their way around the biz. Either would HAPPILY fill the CEO position of our airline for a fraction of what our current CEO makes.

Do you think they'll get a call for an interview? How about for a Board seat? Certainly they're qualified for a Board seat, considering many of the executives that sit on airline boards aren't even airline people. Heck, I was shocked at how LITTLE Creighton knew about the business when he was our interim CEO. He would go to employee Q&A's and display little detailed knowledge about how the airline operationally ran- and he had been on the board for years!

In my opinion, these Board members and airline executives have the best union on the planet! They sit on each other's boards, don't make too many waves, and get to determine each others salaries, which in my opinion do not reflect market wages for their services. Take a look at CEO salaries in other countries compared to what ours make. Imagine if a board of pilots got to determine what the next pilot contract looked like. A sweet deal for these executives, indeed.

TWA Fan 1

We need to keep things in perspective too.

Plenty of mainline pilots today make about $65k a year. I wonder who out there thinks that is "big money?"

Also, the promise of the bigger salary at the end of a long, grueling career is the incentive that drives young people to fly for airlines like Colgan at McDonald's wages.

Finally, regarding the comments about CEO's pay. Let's not forget that the very first step taken by $mi$ek as CEO od UaCo was to nearly double his own salary, and that of half a dozen of his closest pals.

He also put in place an incentive package, that if the conditions are met, would pay the 32 or so top executives of the company $60 million.

The next step was to violate the company's CBA with its pilots and bring in UaEx planes to CO.

And the next step will be to eliminate E+.

When Smisek talks about "changes you will like" in his greeting video, I think he made a mistake on the script, which actually read:

"changes I will like."

That's all...just a little one word error...

UAL awesome

I have to wonder if $mi$ek was so adamant about the merger because of the salary. He "waived" his salary and had no stock options at CO because they were not profitable. Was the merger his way of getting a paycheck again? Sure seems like it...

tallywacker

Okay, how about non-anectodal evidence. From the NTSB website: since 2002, there have been no mainline accidents resulting in a complete hull loss, however there have been 4 regional airline accidents which resulted in a loss of all passengers and crew on board.

channa

Is that accurate? The CO incident in DEN a couple years ago was certainly a hull loss, and I believe the final report attributed it to pilot error.

rob_flies_ua

How about AA 331? Does that count as a hull loss (though thankfully no fatalities)?