Originally Posted by
DOGIII
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'.
I agree with you. We're not going to fix the problem overnight, and we're certainly not going to fix the problem by voting down raises just because they're not big enough. The only time a contract with pay increases should be voted down is if you really think you can soon get something better, or if the duration of the contract is detrimental to future negotiations. Voting down something that is better than what you have just because you SHOULD get more doesn't do anything, unless you're confident that you actually CAN get more. The recent RAH contract is a great example of something that should have been voted down, and was.
If a company cannot (or will not) be selective with their hiring, and are therefore having wash-outs... I only see a couple of possible solutions.
1) Be more selective. Choose to do so, even if you think you can't, and adjust your compensation until it allows you to be selective.
2) Be willing to improve and lengthen your training. This will cost money as well.
You can't hire "just anybody" and run them through an abbreviated training curriculum and expect to have repeatable results. That isn't a pilot shortage issue or a pay issue, that's just a logic issue. Either get better candidates, or provide more thorough training. There's no other way around it.
I also agree with you that a company does assume
some risk when they hire a pilot, and this risk is almost 100% financial. It costs a lot of money to run a pilot through a training event, and this is something that is unique to our industry. Going back to my engineer example, it doesn't cost so much to hire an engineer and get them up to speed on what you need from them. It is the cost of doing business, but it's also unreasonable to expect a company to not attempt to mitigate this risk in order to protect their investment. The absolute best way to mitigate your risk is to ensure that those you hire are capable of meeting the required standards. This goes directly back to hiring practices, compensation, and quality of applicants. Sometimes you have to spend some money to protect your investments. When was the last time that Delta had a person wash out of new-hire training? If you are a place worth working, you'll have applicants worth hiring. Act accordingly.
When a company refuses to mitigate their risk by actually addressing the root of the problem, we end up seeing a variety of mostly ineffective solutions start popping up. Training contracts are a great example.