Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
Whoa Nelly... this thread is starting to spiral. I like the idea of staying at a regional long term. The bases are usually smaller, crews are certainly smaller and you fly together for the whole trip. You fly to small towns and get to know the gate agents and even the hotel van drivers. The hotels aren't always as nice but it seems like they give you more, like beater bikes to explore around town. That's what I miss the most about regional flying. What I can't tolerate is that first officer pay is not sustainable. Never has been and everyone knows it. It's the gorilla in the corner of the room. We pretend to ignore it because we convince our selves that an upgrade is just a short wait away. We're our own worst enemy. The bright eyes of young new pilots reflect the same public misperception that airline pay is based on the staggering salaries of wide body captains. The painful truth is that even if you're fortunate enough to get there, when you average out the long years the pay is far less. This explains why an airline pilot can track down a happy hour, free breakfast or USA Today from miles away.
Another point dully noted is that regional flying (although at one time its own brand) is now a subsidiary of a larger carrier. So the flying done today by one regional could be taken away when the contract ends to the next lowest bidder.
But where do you draw the line? Midwest Express was an airline with a great product and loyal customers and it was not a regional. Is it a risk to pursue a boutique airline because you want to live in a certain region or you prefer a smaller airline culture? Is it safer to work for a giant legacy... to have power in numbers? What about the giants of yesterday such as Pan Am, Eastern, TWA? How much impact does a CEO or board of directors have on your career?
I think the answer is, you're never safe. We are all free agents and even the best of intentions could be dashed away by bankruptcy, a bad merger or another Lorenzo-type spin off taking command of your company.
This post is not only excellent (thank you by the way), the profound truth of it is frightening. It is difficult to conclude this career will never truly be stable because we've invested so much into it.
Can we even call this a career then? Doesn't the word "career" express the idea of one exercising their profession in a steady predictable manner of progression? Doesn't the word convey improving one's position in life over time as they advance in their "career" Doesn't the idea of career and some semblance of stability go hand in hand?
I contend that the idea of a "career" for everyone, is a relatively novel concept anyway, and may not have a lasting place in history. Careers have existed forever, but in history only a small percentage of the elite have enjoyed them. The rest were simply workers - and they have always been expendable. We don't have careers - we have a skill set with which to work.
The men & women who hold our fate in their hands are the ones with careers. No?