Originally Posted by
pete2800
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOGIII
I think it is safe to say that the airlines (regionals mostly) assume some risk by training many new hires with no prior 121 time and likely have some pilots bailing/washing out after expensive training..
No. A pilot is a well documented commodity, regardless of 121 experience. There are PRIA records for every previous employer, there are FAA records of check ride attempts and busts, and there are training records from the person's education. If there is a college degree, there are transcripts for that as well. An ATP rated pilot with a multi-engine rating has shown multiple times (usually at least 5) that they are capable of being trained to a standard, and performing at that standard. With each passed rating ride, a person becomes less and less an "unknown" or "risky" applicant.
If you have people "bailing" during or after expensive training, then you need to examine the compensation package and quality of life that you offer. If you have people washing out, then you need to examine your training department and curriculum. It's as simple as that.
When a company like Boeing or Lockheed hires an engineer right out of college, what documentation do they have? What standardized practical tests has the person completed, outside of course work? When a company hires and trains a pilot, there is already a massive paper trail that exists for that pilot.
If your HR department is at all smart or competent, there should be very little risk associated with hiring a pilot. If the only applicants you're getting are of the "high risk" type, then again... follow the trail of breadcrumbs to your compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOGIII
Would it be more practical to advocate higher 2nd year pay as opposed to 1st to offset this risk?
Example of a current fictional pay scale:
24,33,35,40...
Example some people are advocating (double first year pay):
48,50,52,55...
Example weighted towards 2nd year and up:
30,56,59,60...
Obviously these kinds of raises might seem highly optimistic and out of reach in light of todays low regional wages. Just toying with a general direction we might take, the net gains posted above are all equal.
Take option B or C, and draw a line through the first number. That should get you close to what the first 3 years should be like.
During your "probationary" year, the company is getting the same product out of a pilot that they're getting out of the guy who's #1 on the list: The metal tubes move. Why should we subsidize their business with our labor?
Interesting debate so far.
I have thought about my original post and I am beginning to agree with the members expressing dismay at the under appreciation and compensation during year 1 specifically and subsequent years in general.
I also agree that high pay and qol will lessen the amount of pilots leaving from the bottom of the lists. But even if pay for year 1 was substantially higher across the board - this would not prevent training washouts or stop pilots from jumping to other high paying regionals, chasing an upgrade, going to a LLC or whatever other motive. Better hiring practices would definitely help in regards to training pass rates like some here have said. But what if you see it as I do, a shortage of both people willing to work at our ridiculous wages AND a candidate problem? Companies, and I hate this, will not be more selective as their hiring quotas rise.
Guess my direction with 2nd year pay is guided more by a realistic approach to our problem in light of the atmosphere of the industry right now (low wages, retirements, 1500, new ATP rule etc).
Notice how in my original post I used some key words like "would it be more PRACTICAL" or "Companies assume SOME risk".
I am not trying to play devil's advocate for the companies, just trying to figure out their angles - this could increase the chances of getting some much needed relief and improve our position in the game.
I would not say no to a scale starting at 55/hr, but since I don't think that will happen overnight- intermediate steps are necessary.
Guess I am at a point of 'better to be smart than just'.