Originally Posted by
BenderRodriguez
This is an interesting side track. To what can you credit "our" high success rate? How many engine failures have you dealt with in your career? (Perhaps we should be cutting checks to P&W or GE) How many real no kidding Cat3 approaches have you flown. (Honeywell?) Had any frozen NDB approaches to minimums lately? (Are they even possible in our modern glass cockpits?) How about Oceanic navigation/communication? Taken any cel shots lately? The newbies today probably won't know what it is to go hours trying to call Shanwick on HF trying to get a position report out. (Position report?)
In reality, to us, the vast majority of our flying is no more challenging than a bus driver's. To us.
I am not in any way degrading what we do. Far from it. We work in a more dense airport environment than any of those that came before us, but to take credit for success rates and expect compensation based on that metric alone is a very slippery slope indeed.
For a guy who isn't "in any way degrading what we do", you sure seem to be degrading what we do, with great enthusiasm. What is it about
less that you find so attractive?
Let's go back to the point I was making:
Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Why would we compare ourselves to an attorney, or a doctor anyway? If we were comparing ourselves to either of those, which we shouldn't, we should be compensated proportionally to the certainty of outcome. We should get paid the same as a doctor that almost never loses a patient, or an attorney that wins the vast majority of their cases.
Imagine a doctor @ 99.999999% success rate, or an attorney that could win above 90% of cases. Either one would be paid 7 figures, not 6.
I was talking about the relative certainty of outcomes. You're talking about challenges. If you don't find your work challenging enough, try the 88.
Originally Posted by
Scoop
I am routinely impressed with the professionalism of my peers.
Me too.