Originally Posted by
hockeypilot44
I believe the new hire should make the same as the guy that has been here 25 years if they are both in the same category. They are doing the exact same job. We are more than experienced by the time we get here. I never believed in a pilot starting over every time he/she switches jobs. That is unique to our industry. It keeps wages down and keeps us desperate to making sure our company survives. I believe the 25 year guy is rewarded enough with everything else seniority related (vacation, schedule, etc.). I am not sure I will ever fly the bigger metal. I just don't think longevity pay is the answer. It is not my job to worry about pilot retention. If the pay rises enough, quality applicants will apply. You and I both know the pilot shortage is a farce.
I strongly disagree...and it flies in the face of economics.
Should a new lawyer make the same as a partner?
Should a new-PhD assistant professor make the same as a "full" professor?
The bottom line is that newbies into many industries work much harder, but make much less, than the "old heads." This system actually incentivises the old heads to stick around. There is never a problem finding "newbies."
I do acknowledge in the example that I gave that you can move "laterally" (i.e famous professor is "stolen" by another university and starts at the top of the heap over at his new school).
But I am sure that we attempted to eliminate longevity into the pay considerations, management would want the old guys to make LESS, not the new guys make more.