fr8av8r_66

I think the sentiment that flyinaway is trying to convey is that there is no place for this in aviation... period. Just because one might be able to find Company B that only charges half of what Company A does to sit right seat and build experience doesn't mean it's a better deal. It's a bad deal no matter what the price. The problem is that as long as pilots are willing to shell out thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars to companies like this to "build experience", then there will always be companies that do this. If a company has to use this sort of "pay for experience" model in order to make money, then I submit that their business plan is flawed.

Operating aircraft in a commercial venture costs money. PAYING pilots to do their job is part of that cost. These costs must be passed along to the customer. If the customer doesn't want to pay what it costs then they can find another, less expensive (and usually less efficient) way. If the operator can't find enough business to support the venture then they should probably find another line of business. It would serve the commercial aviation world well if there was a thinning of the operator ranks, with a resulting drop in overall capacity. This would allow the remaining operators to re-adjust what the paying public views as an acceptable rate and which more accurately represents the cost of doing business.

Oil was closing in on the $150 a barrel mark over the summer. Jet fuel prices were through the roof and the airlines were taking it in the shorts on operating costs. Consumers were feeling the pain at the pump as well, yet for some reason they thought they should still be able to get that $39 fare from Seattle to Miami. To make matters worse... the airlines were giving it to them. The phrase "We're losing money, but we're making up for it in volume" never rang so true.