Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Future Hiring at Legacy Carriers


JohnnyCochran
09-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Now that most "Legacy" carriers are hiring, or at least getting ready to hire what could be a massive amount of pilots over the next 5 years due to retirement, I pose a question or two.

1) How many regional captains will not be able to "afford" to move on to the majors due to the signifigant cut in pay seen in the first few years of the jump?

2) With many legacy carriers PIC turbine time is not a requirement. Does anyone forsee current regional F/O's that have more than the published requirements as being able to obtain positions at places such as US Airways, NWA, and the like.


I do understand that the majors leave some of their minimums lower so that the men and women who serve our county flying in the military are not at a disadvantage (due to less overall flying time/year vs airlines), but there are going to be plenty more spots open than what just these folks will fill. So this is more tailored towards the civilians. I pose these questions b/c I know of more than a few "mainline" pilots who were hired in 1999, having no PIC turbine time or the like. Just curious to see everyone's thoughts or comments.


aircraftdriver
09-12-2007, 06:21 PM
Now that most "Legacy" carriers are hiring, or at least getting ready to hire what could be a massive amount of pilots over the next 5 years due to retirement, I pose a question or two.

1) How many regional captains will not be able to "afford" to move on to the majors due to the signifigant cut in pay seen in the first few years of the jump?

2) With many legacy carriers PIC turbine time is not a requirement. Does anyone forsee current regional F/O's that have more than the published requirements as being able to obtain positions at places such as US Airways, NWA, and the like.


I do understand that the majors leave some of their minimums lower so that the men and women who serve our county flying in the military are not at a disadvantage (due to less overall flying time/year vs airlines), but there are going to be plenty more spots open than what just these folks will fill. So this is more tailored towards the civilians. I pose these questions b/c I know of more than a few "mainline" pilots who were hired in 1999, having no PIC turbine time or the like. Just curious to see everyone's thoughts or comments.

Yeah, I think some guys won't go the the majors since it'll be a paycut for a few years at best. Especially when you consider how many people took out ARM loans on high valued homes etc... But on the other hand, guys will make it work when they present their wife with a cost benefit analysis...you betcha they will.

I forsee airlines going to a flowthru that works. You see XJT/CAL doing it now (though not a good flow), US Air talking about it, NWA and CPZ (XJ?? - though I'm not sure that is a done deal yet), and Eagle - though that one hasn't worked out..time will tell.

JoeyMeatballs
09-13-2007, 01:24 AM
Yeah, I think some guys won't go the the majors since it'll be a paycut for a few years at best. Especially when you consider how many people took out ARM loans on high valued homes etc... But on the other hand, guys will make it work when they present their wife with a cost benefit analysis...you betcha they will.

I forsee airlines going to a flowthru that works. You see XJT/CAL doing it now (though not a good flow), US Air talking about it, NWA and CPZ (XJ?? - though I'm not sure that is a done deal yet), and Eagle - though that one hasn't worked out..time will tell.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO "FLOWTHRU" BETWEEN CAL AND XJT.................


tone
09-13-2007, 02:33 AM
Now that most "Legacy" carriers are hiring, or at least getting ready to hire what could be a massive amount of pilots over the next 5 years due to retirement, I pose a question or two.

1) How many regional captains will not be able to "afford" to move on to the majors due to the signifigant cut in pay seen in the first few years of the jump?

2) With many legacy carriers PIC turbine time is not a requirement. Does anyone forsee current regional F/O's that have more than the published requirements as being able to obtain positions at places such as US Airways, NWA, and the like.


I do understand that the majors leave some of their minimums lower so that the men and women who serve our county flying in the military are not at a disadvantage (due to less overall flying time/year vs airlines), but there are going to be plenty more spots open than what just these folks will fill. So this is more tailored towards the civilians. I pose these questions b/c I know of more than a few "mainline" pilots who were hired in 1999, having no PIC turbine time or the like. Just curious to see everyone's thoughts or comments.

As far as the massive amounts of hiring, it may not be so massive; Unfortunately age 65 passed yesterday

HercDriver130
09-13-2007, 02:59 AM
its starting to pass....its along way from law yet.

And you just might be surprised how many DONT stay on..... I personally know several guys who took early retirements and wouldnt have stayed to 65 even if given the chance. Certainly probably even a majority of those who can will... but will they stay the whole 5 or just a few... only time will tell.

tone
09-13-2007, 03:18 AM
That's true. And even if it SLOWS hiring a little, it won't stop it. Also, it will be tricky for the airlines as they try to feel out how many will stay so they can keep staffed and not hire too much! Wonder what the time frame is till we get to see if "Jorge W " will Veto the bill it goes with...

HercDriver130
09-13-2007, 03:50 AM
While it is most certainly an eventuality..... it may... or may NOT happen this political year. And even when it does there are many variables to be considered as to just what the effect will be.

Cleared4Option
09-13-2007, 04:35 AM
Unfortunately age 65 passed yesterday

Another nail in the coffin from the Baby Boomers to the Gen-X'rs and Gen-Y'rs. Thanks a-lot.

First you artifically drive up the real estate market so I can't afford a house in a decent neighborhood.

Then, you drive up health care costs.

The Dollar is worthless, gas is expensive, groceries cost more than ever... "Don't you smart off to me you young whippersnapper, I was flying through the skies while you were in diapers" ...Right, my exact point, the same pay, 20 years ago flying the same equipment that is 20 years older. When everything costs more and the dollar is worth less and I can't even afford to save for my retirement, much less be able to pay for my rent without my wife working.

Someday, you are going to have to let me work (at a lower paying job with no scope and no work rules because you spent the last 25 years pulling up the rope) so I can pay for your retirement too.

Ok, end of Tired and PO'd RANT... it's too early in the morning.

Flames anyone?

Lifeisgood
09-13-2007, 05:38 AM
Cleared4option,

I don't think the 65 is such a big deal:

1. Not that many will stay and especially for that long. I fly with a lot of old guys and 90% is planning on going at 60, the rest at 61-62. The new medical scares them to death, but most are exited about the LTD deal - bailing out as far as flying the line is concerned, thus forcing the airlines to hire.

2. Overall about demographics. It is a good thing to keep money in the pockets of the baby boomers. It turns out that the most money people spend is when they are between 46-52 years of age. Once people retire the spending goes down drastically (fact, even though most of us think the opposite)
Since our economy is spending based the whole thing sits OK with me. The economic slide will be more gradual and at the end less deep if the government finds more ways to keep the BB gen. working.

Just my 2 cents.

Bucking Bar
09-13-2007, 05:59 AM
Cleared for Option:

You assume just because Age 65 is in process that things will change immediately. That might not be true.

Consider that the majority of pilots see this as holding them back. Management looks at age 65 as "expensive" pilots with lots of longevity and sick time sticking around. At some operators, the Pilot Working Agreements do not have provisions allowing age 60+ pilots. I think it will still take a while to get this implemented and there will probably be a few law suits before all the dust settles.

At FedEx, or UPS, this age 65 thing could be around a $2,000,000 difference in career earnings and retirement, per pilot. I have not even read their contracts, but some of my friends who fly at these carriers say that age 65 is not a done deal, even if the law passes.

rickair7777
09-13-2007, 07:40 AM
1) How many regional captains will not be able to "afford" to move on to the majors due to the signifigant cut in pay seen in the first few years of the jump?

There are a few that legitimately can't afford the cut due to alimony, etc. But most of the ones who say they can't afford it really mean they don't want to leave their happy place and adjust their lifestyle for a year or three.




2) With many legacy carriers PIC turbine time is not a requirement. Does anyone forsee current regional F/O's that have more than the published requirements as being able to obtain positions at places such as US Airways, NWA, and the like.


There will be a few low-time FO's with family connections, but ultimately I think airlines prefer experience and there should be enough regional CA's willing to do it (maybe not many 10 year CA's, but certainly the younger ones).



I do understand that the majors leave some of their minimums lower so that the men and women who serve our county flying in the military are not at a disadvantage (due to less overall flying time/year vs airlines), but there are going to be plenty more spots open than what just these folks will fill. So this is more tailored towards the civilians.

Actually most military pilots can accumulate 1000 turbine PIC during their initial 10 year committment...that's why 1000 TPIC was historically the standard.

An airline willing to to accept 1000 hours of SIC is basically leaving themselves a backdoor for legacies, affirmative action ticket-holders, and anywone else they may want to fast-track. But I don't think you'll see wholesale hiring of regional FO's into the majors...you'd end up with a whole generation of pilots with no prior CA experience.

Blkflyer
09-13-2007, 11:05 AM
There are a few that legitimately can't afford the cut due to alimony, etc. But most of the ones who say they can't afford it really mean they don't want to leave their happy place and adjust their lifestyle for a year or three.





There will be a few low-time FO's with family connections, but ultimately I think airlines prefer experience and there should be enough regional CA's willing to do it (maybe not many 10 year CA's, but certainly the younger ones).




Actually most military pilots can accumulate 1000 turbine PIC during their initial 10 year committment...that's why 1000 TPIC was historically the standard.

An airline willing to to accept 1000 hours of SIC is basically leaving themselves a backdoor for legacies, affirmative action ticket-holders, and anywone else they may want to fast-track. But I don't think you'll see wholesale hiring of regional FO's into the majors...you'd end up with a whole generation of pilots with no prior CA experience.

Rick elaborate on what you mean by Affirmative Action ticket-holders..

Lighteningspeed
09-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Now that most "Legacy" carriers are hiring, or at least getting ready to hire what could be a massive amount of pilots over the next 5 years due to retirement, I pose a question or two.

1) How many regional captains will not be able to "afford" to move on to the majors due to the signifigant cut in pay seen in the first few years of the jump?

2) With many legacy carriers PIC turbine time is not a requirement. Does anyone forsee current regional F/O's that have more than the published requirements as being able to obtain positions at places such as US Airways, NWA, and the like.


I do understand that the majors leave some of their minimums lower so that the men and women who serve our county flying in the military are not at a disadvantage (due to less overall flying time/year vs airlines), but there are going to be plenty more spots open than what just these folks will fill. So this is more tailored towards the civilians. I pose these questions b/c I know of more than a few "mainline" pilots who were hired in 1999, having no PIC turbine time or the like. Just curious to see everyone's thoughts or comments.


I have talked to more than a few Regional CA who said they will not go to Majors because they cannot afford to financially. Those who said they will not go to Majors are married with kids and have financial obligations. On the other hand I have talke to few checkairmen with nearly 10 years seniority who said they will go despite major paycuts, but only under certain coditions (ie. flowthru program, retaining of certain seniority privileges etc).

I suspect a number of FOs with adequate fixed wing hours will be picked up by Majors who do not have PIC turbine requirements as long they meet minimum Fixed wing Multiengine PIC time. I know a number of pilots who got hired at Majors prior to 2001 with no PIC turbine time. I think that will still be the case now that Majors are starting to hire.

Lighteningspeed
09-13-2007, 11:43 AM
As far as the massive amounts of hiring, it may not be so massive; Unfortunately age 65 passed yesterday

What will be is anybody's guess, and not to disagree with you specifically,but I have a more optimistic view on this in view of looking at future airline business trend in the next five to 10 years.:) I think the hiring will be massive depending on what your definitioin of Massive is. Let me just say that I think there will be a steady hiring going on at every Majors for the foreseeable future.

Age 65 rule has passed but it will be at least 2 years before it takes into effect. And I have spoken to quite a number of senior Captains at Majors who said they do not want to go on flying past age 60 unless they have to.

tone
09-13-2007, 02:12 PM
What will be is anybody's guess, and not to disagree with you specifically,but I have a more optimistic view on this in view of looking at future airline business trend in the next five to 10 years.:) I think the hiring will be massive depending on what your definitioin of Massive is. Let me just say that I think there will be a steady hiring going on at every Majors for the foreseeable future.

Age 65 rule has passed but it will be at least 2 years before it takes into effect. And I have spoken to quite a number of senior Captains at Majors who said they do not want to go on flying past age 60 unless they have to.

I know, my post did sound negative, and was a little pre-mature in my disgust with the news I had read. I read on the bill that it would go into effect in 30 days, but now I hear that there is language attached to it, so you're probably right that it would be 2 years? Do you, or does anyone know the conditions of it? Is there a phase-in time, will it be a couple of years till its in effect? You're probably right that it may not be so bad for the future hiring forecasts----

Lighteningspeed
09-13-2007, 03:03 PM
Tone,

That's OK, buddy. I know how hard it is to be optimistic in our profession. My friends and my flying career took a big slow detour when 9/11 hit. Now I am slowly trying to pick up the pieces.

I have some experience in the aviation regulatory process, and it usually never becomes a defacto regulation overnight. 2 years is what I have read before it take into full effect. The reason for this rule is the ICAO has changed its rule due to pressures from foreign and domestic airlines and now the FAA is being pressured to change the age 60 rule.
I don't know where you are at your flying career, but I suspect 2 years should give both of us plenty of time to be picked up by Majors by then.

Also, as I am a commuter and I have to jumpseat a lot, I have the opportunity to talk to a lot of senior CAs at majors and a majority of them have told me that airline pilot career is not what it used to be for those guys and they are more than willing to retire at age 60, unless they are forced to work due to family financial obligations (ie. kids in expensive colleges, alimony payments, etc.) A vast majority of them are super nice guys with tons of experience, so I am anxious to get on with majors and get the opportunity learn from those pros before they retire.

Apart from the whole hiring issue for us, I for one will be sad to lose a lot of those guys to retirement. My mentor was a retired major airline pilot and he was the one who always encouraged me to pursue my flying career. He has since passed away, and I always will regret that he will never get a chance to see me flying for his old airline.

flyguy1
09-14-2007, 04:23 AM
And I have spoken to quite a number of senior Captains at Majors who said they do not want to go on flying past age 60 unless they have to.[/quote]

Don't believe everything you hear. I am guessing 50% of the Captains that I ever flew with said they were "gone" at 55 or at the latest 58. Guess what, they have stayed on until 60, and many will stay here past if allowed. At 60 these guys are at there maximum salary and maximum vacation. In other words, they are making more and working less. I hope most retire, but I'll believe it when I see it.

tone
09-14-2007, 06:41 AM
And I have spoken to quite a number of senior Captains at Majors who said they do not want to go on flying past age 60 unless they have to.

Don't believe everything you hear. I am guessing 50% of the Captains that I ever flew with said they were "gone" at 55 or at the latest 58. Guess what, they have stayed on until 60, and many will stay here past if allowed. At 60 these guys are at there maximum salary and maximum vacation. In other words, they are making more and working less. I hope most retire, but I'll believe it when I see it.[/quote]

But when you've planned on retiring at 60 your whole career, it may be different to go to 65, as opposed to just saying you'll retire at 58 instead of the normal 60. COULD be kind of hard as a family to just say that plans have changed--Instead I'm working an extra 5 years, forget the lake house, forget retirement, etc..Then again, money does talk...My point, forget the guys you talked to in the past--This is a new "test market" if you will, and only time will tell-----

7576FO
09-14-2007, 07:43 AM
Don't believe everything you hear. I am guessing 50% of the Captains that I ever flew with said they were "gone" at 55 or at the latest 58. Guess what, they have stayed on until 60, and many will stay here past if allowed. At 60 these guys are at there maximum salary and maximum vacation. In other words, they are making more and working less. I hope most retire, but I'll believe it when I see it.

But when you've planned on retiring at 60 your whole career, it may be different to go to 65, as opposed to just saying you'll retire at 58 instead of the normal 60. COULD be kind of hard as a family to just say that plans have changed--Instead I'm working an extra 5 years, forget the lake house, forget retirement, etc..Then again, money does talk...My point, forget the guys you talked to in the past--This is a new "test market" if you will, and only time will tell-----[/quote]


Here at AA it looks like we'll have to be more productive on the next contract. So I think you'll have some 60 year olds that even with Max Salary and max vacation still won't be able to or want to fly that much.

I don't know. We'll have to see.

Once we get all the recalls back, and hopefully have a new contract. If you're 30 yrs old or younger you might want to work here.

A lot of the Senior CA's will tell you how bad it is. And it can be. But remember, they've seen better days where we worked less and easier trips.

This part here,
On the other hand I have talke to few checkairmen with nearly 10 years seniority who said they will go despite major paycuts, but only under certain coditions (ie. flowthru program, retaining of certain seniority privileges etc).

I've worked at the Regionals, I have tons of respect for regional pilots. I'm thinking that's ego talking there.
Check airmen at ALL airlines have HUGE egos!

Hoping for better days.

Lighteningspeed
09-14-2007, 07:48 AM
But when you've planned on retiring at 60 your whole career, it may be different to go to 65, as opposed to just saying you'll retire at 58 instead of the normal 60. COULD be kind of hard as a family to just say that plans have changed--Instead I'm working an extra 5 years, forget the lake house, forget retirement, etc..Then again, money does talk...My point, forget the guys you talked to in the past--This is a new "test market" if you will, and only time will tell-----[/quote]

Good point. We are in a new ball game. It's anybody's guess. Just do the best you can and hope for the best and try not to think about it too much as we have no control over it. It's good to vent among fellow aviators, though.

7576FO
09-14-2007, 07:51 AM
I'm surprised at how many pilots say i'll wait for here or i'll go to "ABC" Airlines.
My phone rang once. Only once. And I went there. And I was lucky. I'm not a "Gift to aviation"

Would I recommend AA? If you're ex air force I would. Civilian guys like me just shake your heads and go "Wow none of the other airlines do that/do it that way" alot.
Man I just work here.

One of my bud said "the secret to happiness is don't read anything, don't read the Company crap don't read the Union crap. Just go home after landing and read Berenstein bears to your kids"

flaps 9
09-14-2007, 07:52 AM
Age 65 rule has passed but it will be at least 2 years before it takes into effect. And I have spoken to quite a number of senior Captains at Majors who said they do not want to go on flying past age 60 unless they have to.

I'm guessing none of those folks worked at Southwest :confused:

Lighteningspeed
09-14-2007, 07:58 AM
I do not jumpseat with SWA as it is not convenient for my commute and I have only spoken to a few SWA pilots. Sounds like you are at SWA so why don't you tell me how it is at SWA.

I am not too concerned about how many major CAs will retire or not retire at 60 because I have no control over it and I am sure when you are at age 60 you may not want to be pressured to retire either.

flaps 9
09-14-2007, 08:23 AM
I do not jumpseat with SWA as it is not convenient for my commute and I have only spoken to a few SWA pilots. Sounds like you are at SWA so why don't you tell me how it is at SWA.

I am not too concerned about how many major CAs will retire or not retire at 60 because I have no control over it and I am sure when you are at age 60 you may not want to be pressured to retire either.

I've flown with ONE guy who leaves in six months and can't wait, other than him everyone else says they'll stay till at least 62 and probably till 65.

Southwest is leading the charge to repeal the age 60 rule. Our union spends time in DC and lobbys hard for the change.

Things are different at WN. No one has taken a pay cut and those approaching 60 have benefited from at stock program and profit sharing program which has made them worth millions. Most of these guys made Captain in 2 years. I think it's time for them to move on, enjoy their millions, and let others have a piece of the pie.

Spartan07
09-14-2007, 09:17 AM
I don't really understand how the airlines can afford to keep their highest paid employees on for an extra five years. Does anybody have any speculation on what this might do to the pay at these carriers? Anyone foresee any paycuts anywhere on the scale? Or maybe, just maybe, could it go the other way and expand the top step?

Lighteningspeed
09-14-2007, 09:55 AM
I don't really understand how the airlines can afford to keep their highest paid employees on for an extra five years. Does anybody have any speculation on what this might do to the pay at these carriers? Anyone foresee any paycuts anywhere on the scale? Or maybe, just maybe, could it go the other way and expand the top step?


Flaps9 thanks for SWA input. I don't disagree with you in that if you are worth millions, maybe they should retire and let the new generation have our piece of the pie.

Spartan07, I have no idea what it is pushing this age 65 rule. All I know is that ICAO which governs the international aviation regulations was pressured hard by European airlines to change the age 60 rule and ICAO did change its rule. Many European carriers as well as Asian, and Emirates airlines have changed their retirement age to 65. The FAA was pushed hard by airlines (senior pilots at ALPA and from Flaps9 it looks like SWA senior CAs are one those at the front) to increase the retirement age to 65 and they succeeded, it looks like because it is a done deal. I think it will still take about 2 years before it becomes a reality.

As far as paycuts are concerned, I don't see how we can take more paycuts. We have taken enough cuts as it is. It should go up but that is wishful thinking on my part.

Beagle Capt
09-16-2007, 02:21 PM
From the ten year RJ captain pay level, I can tell you there's plenty of room for improvement. It's nice to think maybe we're finally valuable to someone out there at the major level. As long as majors can offer more than 12 or 13 days off a month, less than six legs a day, and airplanes that don't cause every other passenger to complain about low headroom walking in (like mine), then there is going to be a desire to move up. My family deserves the best I can provide, and in this day and age (and market), a lifetime ceiling of $100,000 a year is unfortunately not enough. (With max OT, IOE pay, etc.) What I won't do is subject my family to commuting, and so here I am, waiting for the last airlines that domicile here to start hiring (or resume hiring). I pray the demand for experienced pilots would have an effect on first and second year pay, that certainly would help decision making for people like me.......

scrapdog
09-16-2007, 02:24 PM
There is ABSOLUTELY NO "FLOWTHRU" BETWEEN CAL AND XJT.................

And there absolutely shouldn't be one ever again...or any other carrier for that matter.

CALPilotToo
09-16-2007, 03:10 PM
And there absolutely shouldn't be one ever again...or any other carrier for that matter.

Typical military comment. I didn't flo thru as I was a 90 hire as they call us but it is guys like you why the airline managements have been successful in seperating this profession into two, three, and four groups weak as opposed to one airline pilot group strong.

Why is Delta weaker?
Comair, ASA, and Skywest. Delta pilots mostly military felt they weren't an issue.

Why is American weaker?
Because of 5 Eagles that gradually became one but still seperate. And AA pilots, mostly military didn't see the threat.

Why is CAL weaker?
Express Jet and Chittaqua (spelling). SCABS are stupid and self serving to begin with and many others here didn't see the writing on the walls.

Why is JetBlue gaining ground?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Why is AirCanada strong?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Your mentality is right behind the SCABS in my opinion.

Riddler
09-16-2007, 05:05 PM
Typical military comment. I didn't flo thru as I was a 90 hire as they call us but it is guys like you why the airline managements have been successful in seperating this profession into two, three, and four groups weak as opposed to one airline pilot group strong.

Why is Delta weaker?
Comair, ASA, and Skywest. Delta pilots mostly military felt they weren't an issue.

Why is American weaker?
Because of 5 Eagles that gradually became one but still seperate. And AA pilots, mostly military didn't see the threat.

Why is CAL weaker?
Express Jet and Chittaqua (spelling). SCABS are stupid and self serving to begin with and many others here didn't see the writing on the walls.

Why is JetBlue gaining ground?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Why is AirCanada strong?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Your mentality is right behind the SCABS in my opinion.


Sounds like you have some beef against military guys.

Ftrooppilot
09-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Typical military comment. . . .
Your mentality is right behind the SCABS in my opinion.

Sounds like a case of ***** envy to me.

FliFast
09-16-2007, 06:07 PM
And there absolutely shouldn't be one ever again...or any other carrier for that matter.

Humbly, I disagree. And no, it has nothing to do with the folks in the military.

FF

scrapdog
09-16-2007, 06:28 PM
Typical military comment. I didn't flo thru as I was a 90 hire as they call us but it is guys like you why the airline managements have been successful in seperating this profession into two, three, and four groups weak as opposed to one airline pilot group strong.

Why is Delta weaker?
Comair, ASA, and Skywest. Delta pilots mostly military felt they weren't an issue.

Why is American weaker?
Because of 5 Eagles that gradually became one but still seperate. And AA pilots, mostly military didn't see the threat.

Why is CAL weaker?
Express Jet and Chittaqua (spelling). SCABS are stupid and self serving to begin with and many others here didn't see the writing on the walls.

Why is JetBlue gaining ground?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Why is AirCanada strong?
Their pilots fly all jet equipment.

Your mentality is right behind the SCABS in my opinion.

Whoa - WTF A**hole? I make one comment on flowthru (which many other Civ folks I've talked too agree) and I'm the downfall of DAL, CAL, and AA? You've got to be ******ing kidding me!! Before you judge me as the bad military man - I'm as much about making the airlines strong as the next proud union guy. I'm almost as bad as a SCAB? Pathetic - those are about as close to fighting words as you can get. Hey d*ckhead - I'm that guy fighting for our country. Get a clue.

When did you get screwed over by the military in the past? Did some mil guy steal your g/f? Oops, I'm sorry - another "typical military comment."

bla bla bla
09-16-2007, 07:27 PM
Relax yall, Retire at 65? I plan on 40...

Eric Stratton
09-16-2007, 08:05 PM
And there absolutely shouldn't be one ever again...or any other carrier for that matter.

why not? you seem kind of passionate about it...

SharkyBN584
09-16-2007, 08:41 PM
Rick elaborate on what you mean by Affirmative Action ticket-holders..

Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to say "Anyone that's not a white male".

Blkflyer
09-16-2007, 08:43 PM
Whoa - WTF A**hole? I make one comment on flowthru (which many other Civ folks I've talked too agree) and I'm the downfall of DAL, CAL, and AA? You've got to be ******ing kidding me!! Before you judge me as the bad military man - I'm as much about making the airlines strong as the next proud union guy. I'm almost as bad as a SCAB? Pathetic - those are about as close to fighting words as you can get. Hey d*ckhead - I'm that guy fighting for our country. Get a clue.

When did you get screwed over by the military in the past? Did some mil guy steal your g/f? Oops, I'm sorry - another "typical military comment."

Whats a Typical Military Comment, enlighten me .. And before you start on me I am a Desert Shield/ Storm/ Just Cause Vet..

PS I support Flow Tru .....

Blkflyer
09-16-2007, 08:48 PM
Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to say "Anyone that's not a white male".

I hope to Heavens Rick didnt mean that. LOL I because that would mean everyone who is Not a white male has advanced in this industry because of Affirmative Action, that would be painting everyone with a broad brush which is prejudice ""sp"" And I challange Rick or anyone to Tell me what their Definiton of Affirmative Action is, Remember when Red Tails Got back from WWII they were denied flying by most Companies because they had too much melanin in their skin..

SharkyBN584
09-16-2007, 08:57 PM
I would loosely define affirmative action as the preferential inclusion or hiring of historically repressed groups (i.e. women, minorities, etc.). To me, it's a racist practice but you and I have been down this road before and we'll never agree. Any law that gives one group an advantage over another is racist no matter how you slice it. It wasn't right when white guys did it 50 years ago...so what makes it right now?

Blkflyer
09-16-2007, 09:10 PM
I would loosely define affirmative action as the preferential inclusion or hiring of historically repressed groups (i.e. women, minorities, etc.). To me, it's a racist practice but you and I have been down this road before and we'll never agree. Any law that gives one group an advantage over another is racist no matter how you slice it. It wasn't right when white guys did it 50 years ago...so what makes it right now?

Not trying to SLICE it anyway but My definition is that our country should be Ashamed that Fairness had/has to be legislated ""sp"" Affirmative Action was created to give QUALIFIED minorities a chance that was not given, Ask me is the Playing field Level, I dont think so, but thats just my opinion I think that alot of people think that Affirmative Action was a Quota Based, I Dissagree I know we all come from diffrent backrounds but, any Minority in Medicine or Law or our industry will tell you that for the most part they have to work twice as hard to get to where they are, cause all to often the rope they give to save a white male is the same rope they will use to Hang you pun intended, I say this if I have to keep tighter tolorances and work harder not because of lack of skills but because as Minorities we feel we have No Room for error so if I have to work twice as hard Then Consider that I am Twice as Better cause I have more to loose, I think we have come along way but we still have a long way to Go as a Country.

PS I have not to My knowing been given pref treatment because of the abundance of Melanin in my skin,

SaltyDog
09-16-2007, 09:11 PM
And there absolutely shouldn't be one ever again...or any other carrier for that matter.

Would be interesting to hear your reasoned thoughts on your opinion. I too humbly disagree. Mostly because you say "absolutely" There are advantages for individual pilots and the business. Definitely management advantage to split pilots. Read Bethune on the matter. Ornstein has it mastered. Reason legacy pay has diminished is largely built on the low wages new hire pilots accept to get in the industry. Not there fault. Like new school teachers, just the way the business is at this time. I was at "COEX" and was given a flow through number at CO. But at the time you had to pass the CO HR process. There were 12 new hires in my EMB new hire class. 10 were 2000+ hour mil guys who flew Eagles/Vipers/C-5's etc. 2 were civ background. Yeah, early 90's when the industry was tanking. Being in the 10, was glad for the flow through. I did not use the option, but I voted for the IACP vice ALPA based on the ALPA roadshow that said they did not care about Pay For Training (PFT) which was around the corner at COEX. We commuter pilots did not want to see that inflicted on those following us. Sadly, ALPA said they had no control and effectively did not care. When it went IACP and joint negotiation, well, needless to say, PFT was instituted at COEX. Summary: I believe it is up to those who have seniority to defend the "defenseless" from predatory management practices we see so prevalent in the industry. I believe you may see the value of that philosophy. But it isn't strictly altruistic, it also has a self serving aspect. Protecting the new hire with high wages/working quality at the entry level benefits me as I progress. In contract negotiations, management uses everyone elses yardstick to say why you should take lower wages and more flying hours.
Personally, we are all better off if the regional bubbas had CO starting wages. I could flow through from that payscale and be more secure knowing I wouldn't have to make another huge career move and start at the bottom again. What a lousy crapshoot. You and I busted our a$$ and it worked out successfully. I would propose one could produce a business model that allowed flow through that would benefit the pilot and the company as well.
No military animosity,was privileged to fly Navy jet cockpits for 21 years and still serving (albeit I am envious of your drill weekends vice mine)

SharkyBN584
09-16-2007, 09:19 PM
We're hijacking the thread, and we'll never agree. I think Affirmative Action (or any other type of racial segregation) is wrong, you think it's right. Oh well.

SaltyDog
09-16-2007, 09:20 PM
Repost deleted

Blkflyer
09-16-2007, 09:26 PM
We're hijacking the thread, and we'll never agree. I think Affirmative Action (or any other type of racial segregation) is wrong, you think it's right. Oh well.

Not necessary about race remember women were excluded in some career fields,

I am going to finish here I pose the question because of the Comment Rick made.

scrapdog
09-17-2007, 06:54 AM
Whats a Typical Military Comment, enlighten me .. And before you start on me I am a Desert Shield/ Storm/ Just Cause Vet..

PS I support Flow Tru .....

I don't know what a typical military comment is...hence why I was being facetious to the clown that rebutted me initally.

scrapdog
09-17-2007, 07:08 AM
Not trying to SLICE it anyway but My definition is that our country should be Ashamed that Fairness had/has to be legislated ""sp"" Affirmative Action was created to give QUALIFIED minorities a chance that was not given, Ask me is the Playing field Level, I dont think so, but thats just my opinion I think that alot of people think that Affirmative Action was a Quota Based, I Dissagree I know we all come from diffrent backrounds but, any Minority in Medicine or Law or our industry will tell you that for the most part they have to work twice as hard to get to where they are, cause all to often the rope they give to save a white male is the same rope they will use to Hang you pun intended, I say this if I have to keep tighter tolorances and work harder not because of lack of skills but because as Minorities we feel we have No Room for error so if I have to work twice as hard Then Consider that I am Twice as Better cause I have more to loose, I think we have come along way but we still have a long way to Go as a Country.

PS I have not to My knowing been given pref treatment because of the abundance of Melanin in my skin,

I'll have to disagree with you here. (BTW - 1 S in disagree...but no worries). Affirmative action kills morale in a workforce and often hires the candidate that is not quite a qualified as the other because it does indeed fill a quota - at least to an extent.

Here's the skinny...anyone can do anything with their life if they set their mind to it. It's too cliche right? Wrong! That simple saying is totally true. If you look at a school in Beverly Hills or one in Harlem - they both do the same thing...they provide you an education that will enable you to better yourself in life. What you choose to do with it and if you choose to use it is an entire seperate matter. Unfortunately there is certainly more peer pressures in Harlem to do drugs, get involved with crime, join a gang, etc...(and for the most part those areas tend to be minority heavy [black and hispanic]) but it is solely up to each individual on which course they want to pursue. You want to do drugs and ****** up your life? Fine - however that education was there (my tax dollars are paying for it). You want to take advantage of that education and be the best you can be - that's great as well. Again, it's the choice of each individual.

As a matter of fact - affirmative action has actually become the downfall of reverse discrimination. A classic example. My graduating class at highschool. Valedictorian - white (varsity volleyball, head of the nat'l honor society and key club). Saluditorian - hispanic minority (no extracuriculars). Number 3 grad - hispanic minority (no extracuriculars). Scholarships for the valedictorian..absolutely nothing...she had to pay her full way through Notre Dame. Both number 2 and 3 got full scholarships (both MINORITY ONLY scholarships as well).

When I was at the Air Force Academy I was absolutely sickened that we had a Minority Affairs office. If there is ONE place where affirmative action should be 100% completely absent...it's in the military. We need the best person - black, white, yellow, green, purple...whatever to fill that spot for a pilot, soldier, or sailor - one day the next guy's life or the security of our country depends on it.

You have not knowlingly recieved special treatment because of the melanin in your skin because no one has told you. But it has probably happened multiple times - and it's not your fault...it's the fault of our system and affirmative action in the first place.

Affirmative action has absolutely no place in today's academic world or workforce - the best man/woman should get the job everytime...regardless of color.

gcsass
09-17-2007, 07:25 AM
Age 65 rule has passed but it will be at least 2 years before it takes into effect. .

I'm fairly sure that there is language in the bills (as currently written) that put it (Age 65 Law) into effect 30 days after signing. Could change, but we'll have to wait to see.....

JungleBus
09-17-2007, 07:47 AM
I'll have to disagree with you here. (BTW - 1 S in disagree...but no worries). Affirmative action kills morale in a workforce and often hires the candidate that is not quite a qualified as the other because it does indeed fill a quota - at least to an extent.

Here's the skinny...anyone can do anything with their life if they set their mind to it. It's too cliche right? Wrong! That simple saying is totally true. If you look at a school in Beverly Hills or one in Harlem - they both do the same thing...they provide you an education that will enable you to better yourself in life. What you choose to do with it and if you choose to use it is an entire seperate matter. Unfortunately there is certainly more peer pressures in Harlem to do drugs, get involved with crime, join a gang, etc...(and for the most part those areas tend to be minority heavy [black and hispanic]) but it is solely up to each individual on which course they want to pursue. You want to do drugs and ****** up your life? Fine - however that education was there (my tax dollars are paying for it). You want to take advantage of that education and be the best you can be - that's great as well. Again, it's the choice of each individual.

As a matter of fact - affirmative action has actually become the downfall of reverse discrimination. A classic example. My graduating class at highschool. Valedictorian - white (varsity volleyball, head of the nat'l honor society and key club). Saluditorian - hispanic minority (no extracuriculars). Number 3 grad - hispanic minority (no extracuriculars). Scholarships for the valedictorian..absolutely nothing...she had to pay her full way through Notre Dame. Both number 2 and 3 got full scholarships (both MINORITY ONLY scholarships as well).

When I was at the Air Force Academy I was absolutely sickened that we had a Minority Affairs office. If there is ONE place where affirmative action should be 100% completely absent...it's in the military. We need the best person - black, white, yellow, green, purple...whatever to fill that spot for a pilot, soldier, or sailor - one day the next guy's life or the security of our country depends on it.

You have not knowlingly recieved special treatment because of the melanin in your skin because no one has told you. But it has probably happened multiple times - and it's not your fault...it's the fault of our system and affirmative action in the first place.

Affirmative action has absolutely no place in today's academic world or workforce - the best man/woman should get the job everytime...regardless of color.

That's great in theory, but to you think that even without affirmative action, our system would result in the best person getting the job every time? How do you define best? Most experience? Best work ethic? Is it quantifiable? The reality is that the airlines have never hired the "best" or "most qualified," they hire people with connections. In this industry, being a good networker is far more important than being a good stick, so far as your career is concerned. Mind you, I have somewhat similar views on affirmative action, I just don't think "the best person should always get the job" is a realistic statement or an effective argument against affirmative action.

7576FO
09-17-2007, 08:55 AM
SaltyDog wrote

Reason legacy pay has diminished is largely built on the low wages new hire pilots accept to get in the industry. Not there fault.

Salty,
Could you elaborate on this?
Not trying to Flame anyone. But I fly for a Legacy Carrier.
That is not the reason Legacy Pilots have had their wages cut.

flaps 9
09-17-2007, 09:19 AM
I'll have to disagree with you here. (BTW - 1 S in disagree...but no worries). Affirmative action kills morale in a workforce and often hires the candidate that is not quite a qualified as the other because it does indeed fill a quota - at least to an extent.




How do you know this? unless you're the person doing the hiring you have no idea what a persons qualifications are.

What it comes down to is the reason for affirmative action in the first place, PERCEPTION.

When you see someone who is not white or male preforming a job in which you feel requires education and skill, you assume that person was a quota hire. That's a problem.

Until peoples perceptions change, nothing will :(

ghilis101
09-17-2007, 09:56 AM
When I was at the Air Force Academy I was absolutely sickened that we had a Minority Affairs office. If there is ONE place where affirmative action should be 100% completely absent...it's in the military. We need the best person - black, white, yellow, green, purple...whatever to fill that spot for a pilot, soldier, or sailor - one day the next guy's life or the security of our country depends on it.
Affirmative action has absolutely no place in today's academic world or workforce - the best man/woman should get the job everytime...regardless of color.

Your perception of that Minority Affairs office at AFA is slightly skewed I would think. I worked closely with them and I can shed a little light since your comments are running borderline racist. Their goal is not just to fill some quota with some minority. Their goal is to find well qualified applicants with an avenue to apply and learn more about the academy. Every single applicant or candidate is qualified.

You think its very easy for people of all races to just go do whatever they want? Thats cute but lets be realistic here it is a long way from being a level playing field. There are times where affirmative action is necessary, and it should never make you sick. There are still plenty of examples I could point out where only white males are considered for employment/admission. But nobody ever wants to talk about that, they just talk about how minorities get an "unfair advantage." seriously you have got to be sh*tting me if you think thats true.

you may not care or worry about skin color on a daily basis because youve never had to! but for a lot of us (yes im a minority) we are FORCED to think about it every day, and not because we want to. have you ever thought about that.

scrapdog
09-17-2007, 11:07 AM
Your perception of that Minority Affairs office at AFA is slightly skewed I would think. I worked closely with them and I can shed a little light since your comments are running borderline racist. Their goal is not just to fill some quota with some minority. Their goal is to find well qualified applicants with an avenue to apply and learn more about the academy. Every single applicant or candidate is qualified.

You think its very easy for people of all races to just go do whatever they want? Thats cute but lets be realistic here it is a long way from being a level playing field. There are times where affirmative action is necessary, and it should never make you sick. There are still plenty of examples I could point out where only white males are considered for employment/admission. But nobody ever wants to talk about that, they just talk about how minorities get an "unfair advantage." seriously you have got to be sh*tting me if you think thats true.

you may not care or worry about skin color on a daily basis because youve never had to! but for a lot of us (yes im a minority) we are FORCED to think about it every day, and not because we want to. have you ever thought about that.

Listen, I appreciate your candidness. Before going any further - let's cut the racist bullsh*t ok? I'm far from racist...I grew up on a border town and was constantly called "whitey" and "quedo" (derrogatory for white boy in spanish). As I said about 3 times in my earlier post, I could care less what color you are, and that's the 100% truth.

I will stand by my words on the affirmative action deal regarding the military. I don't think it's cute - I think it should be the downright standard. If you have better grades and you're black you should get a UPT slot sooner than me. If you're white and you have better grades than me, again you should get that UPT slot sooner than me. If you're polka-dotted, etc, etc....you get my point. There should be a standard for every job in the military (and there pretty much is) and if you're more qualified to get that job IN RELATION to the standard than the other fellow - you get the job. If you're not, you don't. We can even take it one step further...have the applicants stand behind a curtain...I just don't really care. I only want the best guy for the job. But again - absolutely, positively there needs to be no special programs to further one person over the other (in relation to their color, race, or religion).

I think it's sick if only white males are considered for the job. And for that, it upsets me just as much as you. But in the military, we're pretty darn fair. I'll tell you every leader I've served under wants his best IP to go to weapons school (as an example). And it upsets me just as much to have any kind of affirmative action programs as well.

I'm sorry if you have to think about your skin color. I honestly don't think about mine. And I don't think about anyone else's. If the guy is a solid guy and he's an upstanding citizen, that's about as far as I think. If you or he is thinking about his skin color in addition, frankly that's his or your problem. You work hard and you're a good dude, well - that's all that's going to matter to me. You have to decide what you need to worry about and that's your personal preference.

BTW - I'm jewish. I've heard my fair share of snide anti-semitic comments. I've even had people give me the whale eye when I told them I was jewish. But I don't want a program or anything special. I just want to work hard and put my best foot forward. 99.9% of the time that's going to get you the success you desire - regardless of any ethnicity or religious convictions/backgrounds.

Skyone
09-17-2007, 12:07 PM
The reality is that the airlines have never hired the "best" or "most qualified," they hire people with connections. In this industry, being a good networker is far more important than being a good stick, so far as your career is concerned. Mind you, I have somewhat similar views on affirmative action, I just don't think "the best person should always get the job" is a realistic statement or an effective argument against affirmative action.

Now that's a load of crap, IMHO. Maybe at some of the airlines, smaller ones. But from my almost 30 years in this industry, knowing someone might help you get your app. pulled, but that's as far as it goes. Yeah, sure, if you're dating the CEOs daughter, or whatever. Or using your premise, name one private industry that doesn't hire connections. There are so many numbers invovled with hiring pilots (numbers of pilots, ie.), everyone can't have connections. And if you don't have the right "numbers" (hours, size of aircraft, credentials) the better numbered candidate will get the interview.

Blkflyer
09-17-2007, 09:21 PM
[QUOTE=scrapdog;231936]I'll have to disagree with you here. (BTW - 1 S in disagree...but no worries).

Thanx for the Spelling Lesson

Blkflyer
09-17-2007, 09:23 PM
How do you know this? unless you're the person doing the hiring you have no idea what a persons qualifications are.

What it comes down to is the reason for affirmative action in the first place, PERCEPTION.

When you see someone who is not white or male preforming a job in which you feel requires education and skill, you assume that person was a quota hire. That's a problem.

Until peoples perceptions change, nothing will :(

Well Said, thats all I was trying to say,.. BTW i am still waiting on Rick to answer me..

CALPilotToo
09-18-2007, 06:10 PM
I don't know what a typical military comment is...hence why I was being facetious to the clown that rebutted me initally.

Never did I use a curse word or call you a direct name. Maybe the scab comment was a bit out of line but in my opinion your comment only caters to management and what they've been able to do with keeping airlines, flying,and airplanes seperate as opposed to being one entity. And that is a SCAB mentailty in my opinion.

You then respond with WTF, clown, D head and many others. And no I've never had a problem with military pilots. Either in or out of the cockpit. Alot of my FOs are military. But when it comes to flo thru they are more aginst it than anybody. Biggest reason is because it makes it harder for them to get their buddies from the squadron on.

Typically, military pilots are against any type of regional flo-thru. Tell me I'm wrong. Hence, the typical military comment. Never stated anything negative about military commitment or military service to the country and several military guys here respond with how big their "johnson's" are when hangin out in the desert. Get over yourselves. But thanks at the same time.

Your statement was very direct and I responded but you lash back with a red neck cursing diatribe. Take care.

CALPilotToo
09-18-2007, 06:16 PM
When I was at the Air Force Academy

I would think with your education you could get your point across without having to curse all the time. Always one in the bunch.

CALPilotToo
09-18-2007, 06:19 PM
Whoa - WTF A**hole? I make one comment on flowthru (which many other Civ folks I've talked too agree) and I'm the downfall of DAL, CAL, and AA? You've got to be ******ing kidding me!! Before you judge me as the bad military man - I'm as much about making the airlines strong as the next proud union guy. I'm almost as bad as a SCAB? Pathetic - those are about as close to fighting words as you can get. Hey d*ckhead - I'm that guy fighting for our country. Get a clue.

When did you get screwed over by the military in the past? Did some mil guy steal your g/f? Oops, I'm sorry - another "typical military comment."

Going back to your original statement about flo thrus why don't you pick debate my comments for each airline and how a flo thru is not a good thing. Just try and do it without so many bleeps this time.

ladder1423
09-18-2007, 06:22 PM
Spare us all the BS. I am a minority and the only thing affirmative action and preferential hiring for minorities and people of color do is cripple the very people it is trying to help. It tells minorities that they are not smart enough and motivated enough to find themselves a job and instead we should be handed things. I find it insulting when someone says to me I should get a job easily because I am minority. What they are actually saying is that things are handed to minorities, that we do not have to work as hard as "ole whitey" to get a job and basically it is the truth. Minorities mainly blacks and mexicans have crippled themselves and helped widen the racial gap because they always want preferential treatment for past injustices. Personally, I take pride in the fact I am minority but more importantly I take pride in the fact I am American and can easily hang with any one person in this country:)

Your perception of that Minority Affairs office at AFA is slightly skewed I would think. I worked closely with them and I can shed a little light since your comments are running borderline racist. Their goal is not just to fill some quota with some minority. Their goal is to find well qualified applicants with an avenue to apply and learn more about the academy. Every single applicant or candidate is qualified.

You think its very easy for people of all races to just go do whatever they want? Thats cute but lets be realistic here it is a long way from being a level playing field. There are times where affirmative action is necessary, and it should never make you sick. There are still plenty of examples I could point out where only white males are considered for employment/admission. But nobody ever wants to talk about that, they just talk about how minorities get an "unfair advantage." seriously you have got to be sh*tting me if you think thats true.

you may not care or worry about skin color on a daily basis because youve never had to! but for a lot of us (yes im a minority) we are FORCED to think about it every day, and not because we want to. have you ever thought about that.

sigtauenus
09-18-2007, 09:36 PM
Where does "affirmitive action" actually come from?

The way I understand it, is that current US hiring practices utilizing "affirmitive action" are to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Communism under the former Soviet Union is to Marx.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice… to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

as well as
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html (about 1/4 of the way down)

True "affirmative action," in that case, would be simply to give everyone a fair shot on a level playing field. Application of "affirmative action," as we know it, seems to be to artificially level the playing field in regard to real or perceived injustices by effectively violating Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it was written.

Who knows, I could very well be full of crap on this.

sigtauenus
09-18-2007, 09:48 PM
Spare us all the BS. I am a minority and the only thing affirmative action and preferential hiring for minorities and people of color do is cripple the very people it is trying to help. It tells minorities that they are not smart enough and motivated enough to find themselves a job and instead we should be handed things. I find it insulting when someone says to me I should get a job easily because I am minority. What they are actually saying is that things are handed to minorities, that we do not have to work as hard as "ole whitey" to get a job and basically it is the truth. Minorities mainly blacks and mexicans have crippled themselves and helped widen the racial gap because they always want preferential treatment for past injustices. Personally, I take pride in the fact I am minority but more importantly I take pride in the fact I am American and can easily hang with any one person in this country:)

That mentality is representative of almost all of the minorities I know in my community (Marine fighters). The few exceptions are women who have used their gender to their advantage in situations of substandard performance. BTW, one of the best pilots in my peer group in advanced jet training was black, and he went Prowlers instead of Hornets because of quotas. Yes, it was actually overheard by the students when the senior Marine was discussing aircraft assignments with the monitor and the squadron CO, that they needed more minority representation in the Prowler community. The reason it was overheard is that it turned into a pretty heated discussion with the senior Marine and the squadron CO trying to override the HQ guy in that this particular pilot was number one in his class and had earned a Hornet slot. "Needs of the Marine Corps" won that fight. Most amazing thing... the guy was clearly disappointed but never complained one bit...took the assignment as if he had requested it.

Lighteningspeed
09-19-2007, 06:30 AM
How do you know this? unless you're the person doing the hiring you have no idea what a persons qualifications are.

What it comes down to is the reason for affirmative action in the first place, PERCEPTION.

When you see someone who is not white or male preforming a job in which you feel requires education and skill, you assume that person was a quota hire. That's a problem.

Until peoples perceptions change, nothing will :(

Well said, Flaps 9. I agree 100% with everything you said.

A320fumes
09-19-2007, 06:55 AM
Spare us all the BS. I am a minority and the only thing affirmative action and preferential hiring for minorities and people of color do is cripple the very people it is trying to help. It tells minorities that they are not smart enough and motivated enough to find themselves a job and instead we should be handed things. I find it insulting when someone says to me I should get a job easily because I am minority. What they are actually saying is that things are handed to minorities, that we do not have to work as hard as "ole whitey" to get a job and basically it is the truth. Minorities mainly blacks and Mexicans have crippled themselves and helped widen the racial gap because they always want preferential treatment for past injustices. Personally, I take pride in the fact I am minority but more importantly I take pride in the fact I am American and can easily hang with any one person in this country:)

Great attitude Ladder! I share your experiences, military/major, and agree with your post. I would, however, expand the stance that AA weakens minorities exclusively. AA cripples the weak, minority or not. Believe it or not, there are a ton of whites guys out there who think that they can't get a job because they are white. At this point in my career, I seek validation only from the training department or Stan/Eval. Couldn't care less if Joe Pilot thinks I got my job through AA. I am, however, very concerned that they might think such of a new-hire minority, especially with all of the sons and daughters of Captain so-and-so filling the ranks @ CAL. These said sons and daughters being one of the reasons for AA in the first place. Keep that attitude and you can go as far as you want in this industry.

scrapdog
09-19-2007, 07:46 AM
Never did I use a curse word or call you a direct name. Maybe the scab comment was a bit out of line but in my opinion your comment only caters to management and what they've been able to do with keeping airlines, flying,and airplanes seperate as opposed to being one entity. And that is a SCAB mentailty in my opinion.

You then respond with WTF, clown, D head and many others. And no I've never had a problem with military pilots. Either in or out of the cockpit. Alot of my FOs are military. But when it comes to flo thru they are more aginst it than anybody. Biggest reason is because it makes it harder for them to get their buddies from the squadron on.

Typically, military pilots are against any type of regional flo-thru. Tell me I'm wrong. Hence, the typical military comment. Never stated anything negative about military commitment or military service to the country and several military guys here respond with how big their "johnson's" are when hangin out in the desert. Get over yourselves. But thanks at the same time.

Your statement was very direct and I responded but you lash back with a red neck cursing diatribe. Take care.

I apologize for the cursing. However, I don't apologize for my rant. When you say I have a "scab" like attitude because I was against-flow though is absolutely ridiculous. The two have absolutely nothing in common and to even compare them is a farce. Because some of your FO's are military - now it's a "typical military comment." Give me a break. Nice generalization. You have no idea about the military nor how it's individuals think. I'm thoroughly disgusted by your comment. You call someone out that has a scab attitude - when I couldn't be further from it...and those are about as close to fighting words as you get. Shame on you dude - especially since you're a captain. Your attitude is far sub-standard. Scab my a$$.

newKnow
09-19-2007, 08:57 AM
Wow,

AA and Civilian v. Military in the same thread. This one will go on forever.....

Why not throw in some Democrats v. Republicans, too? :rolleyes:

Blkflyer
09-19-2007, 09:42 AM
Wow,

AA and Civilian v. Military in the same thread. This one will go on forever.....

Why not throw in some Democrats v. Republicans, too? :rolleyes:

why not mix Gender in there too

It will not go on forever, to all who I have offend I didnt mean to start any hard feelings. This all started because of comment Rickair said and I asked for clarification, I have yet to get a response, If anyone read the way the tread developed in the first place you can see why some of us are so passionate about this issue, RickAir I am Still Waiting on an Answer to your comment

Blkflyer
09-19-2007, 09:47 AM
There are a few that legitimately can't afford the cut due to alimony, etc. But most of the ones who say they can't afford it really mean they don't want to leave their happy place and adjust their lifestyle for a year or three.





There will be a few low-time FO's with family connections, but ultimately I think airlines prefer experience and there should be enough regional CA's willing to do it (maybe not many 10 year CA's, but certainly the younger ones).




Actually most military pilots can accumulate 1000 turbine PIC during their initial 10 year committment...that's why 1000 TPIC was historically the standard.

An airline willing to to accept 1000 hours of SIC is basically leaving themselves a backdoor for legacies, affirmative action ticket-holders, and anywone else they may want to fast-track. But I don't think you'll see wholesale hiring of regional FO's into the majors...you'd end up with a whole generation of pilots with no prior CA experience.




This is what Hijacked the Tread

Rickair7777 I am still Waiting on an Explanation what do you mean by ""affirmative action ticket-holders, and anywone else they may want to fast-track""

Lighteningspeed
09-19-2007, 10:04 AM
Blkflyer,

I know you have a reason to be offended by rickair7777's comment. It offends a great number of people whether they are minorities or not. I would not waste anymore time on this as obviously rickair7777 does not plan on responding. Comments like that is a flamebait and shows an underlying prejudice camouflaged as facts.

Blkflyer
09-19-2007, 10:40 AM
Blkflyer,

I know you have a reason to be offended by rickair7777's comment. It offends a great number of people whether they are minorities or not. I would not waste anymore time on this as obviously rickair7777 does not plan on responding. Comments like that is a flamebait and shows an underlying prejudice camouflaged as facts.


Point Taken.. Ill give it a rest...

Fly safe Yall

SaltyDog
09-19-2007, 10:53 AM
SaltyDog wrote

Reason legacy pay has diminished is largely built on the low wages new hire pilots accept to get in the industry. Not there fault.

Salty,
Could you elaborate on this?
Not trying to Flame anyone. But I fly for a Legacy Carrier.
That is not the reason Legacy Pilots have had their wages cut.

7576FO,
Great Question: First consider this question.
If tomorrow the regional airlines magically had to pay newhire pilots the same first year pay as received at your legacy carrier, do you believe your wages would remain the same or be higher in the future?

To simplify, everyone agrees management wants cheapest price and highest productivity. That's business. You are correct it is not the only reason, but consider management overarching basic premise: If the market of pilots accept low wages to start, and labor contract codifies this wage in the contract, management mentality is pilots are cheap, just have to find best practice to wring it out of them over there career. Keep the starting point low!. Without the long discussion on tactics used (bankruptcy, furloughs, market conditions which affect your particular airline) the basic mindset is that 1. majority of new hires come from the regionals. 2. That they are accepting of low wages to get in the door.(just like me). One example: Jonathan Orenstein recognizes this and was matter of fact in his practice of, market permitting, charge new hires to pay for training and paying a ridiculously low wage. The footprint and perception is set and appreciated by all airline managements. "Pilots will pay nearly any price to be an airline pilot" Regional wages to fly big airplanes (at time maxed at 50 seats due to contracts was simply another benchmark management needed to get rid of when market allowed) but price of pilot was already established. Pilots can be brought in the market at very low cost. It certainly carries over to every airline (legacy, cargo, regional, corporate, etc) when considering wages. We cannot seperate ourselves when we negotiate contracts from these facts.
In my community: cargo, during negotiations it is frequently used what the lowest cost airline pilots across the board are paid, it is an argument to consider only same size aircraft, then management argues benchmark is the LCC cargo operators which diminshes the value of the higher paid airline cargo folks. That is reality. Low wages are the norm, high wages an aberation that management seeks to cripple at future opportunities (just smart business) Difficult for us is the reference of inexpensive regional pilots. I believe it is vital for the senior folks to raise the lowest wages in the beginning to highest possible to move the leverage and reference point higher.
Reconsider my question. It is not magical, but if the senior pilots can achieve a higher market starting price for any pilot, the professional pilot gains are more favorable long term.

CALPilotToo
09-19-2007, 12:33 PM
I apologize for the cursing. However, I don't apologize for my rant. When you say I have a "scab" like attitude because I was against-flow though is absolutely ridiculous. The two have absolutely nothing in common and to even compare them is a farce. Because some of your FO's are military - now it's a "typical military comment." Give me a break. Nice generalization. You have no idea about the military nor how it's individuals think. I'm thoroughly disgusted by your comment. You call someone out that has a scab attitude - when I couldn't be further from it...and those are about as close to fighting words as you get. Shame on you dude - especially since you're a captain. Your attitude is far sub-standard. Scab my a$$.

Anything that allows management to whip saw pilot groups lends itself to the SCAB mentality. And what does me being a CA or a number of my FOs being military have anything to do with the "typical military comment"? I simply said that a majority of military pilots are against regional type flo thrus. Again, I ask you to tell me I'm wrong. So when it comes to that, yes, typical military. Instead of commenting why you are so against flo-thru options you do nothing but spit, curse and use the term, "those are fighting words" in two of your posts. Get over yourself. And once again you prove you do not have the intelect to post without cursing even in a post where you start by apologizing for cursing. BTW, it's time for you to look in the mirror at yourself again. And as far as my attitude, while your staring at yourself in the mirror be sure and take a good look about far sub-standard attitudes.

JoeyMeatballs
09-19-2007, 12:45 PM
Your perception of that Minority Affairs office at AFA is slightly skewed I would think. I worked closely with them and I can shed a little light since your comments are running borderline racist. Their goal is not just to fill some quota with some minority. Their goal is to find well qualified applicants with an avenue to apply and learn more about the academy. Every single applicant or candidate is qualified.

You think its very easy for people of all races to just go do whatever they want? Thats cute but lets be realistic here it is a long way from being a level playing field. There are times where affirmative action is necessary, and it should never make you sick. There are still plenty of examples I could point out where only white males are considered for employment/admission. But nobody ever wants to talk about that, they just talk about how minorities get an "unfair advantage." seriously you have got to be sh*tting me if you think thats true.

you may not care or worry about skin color on a daily basis because youve never had to! but for a lot of us (yes im a minority) we are FORCED to think about it every day, and not because we want to. have you ever thought about that.


Good point, but I have a very BIG problem with you................your an Eagle fan??????? haha Go Giants :)

HercAC
09-19-2007, 06:25 PM
Technically speaking the only non-minorities in this country are those that are at least 50.1% Native American.

newKnow
09-19-2007, 08:15 PM
Technically speaking the only non-minorities in this country are those that are at least 50.1% Native American.
Herc,

Do you fly for CAL now? Were you with AC before?

dojetdriver
09-19-2007, 10:31 PM
Spare us all the BS. I am a minority and the only thing affirmative action and preferential hiring for minorities and people of color do is cripple the very people it is trying to help. It tells minorities that they are not smart enough and motivated enough to find themselves a job and instead we should be handed things. I find it insulting when someone says to me I should get a job easily because I am minority. What they are actually saying is that things are handed to minorities, that we do not have to work as hard as "ole whitey" to get a job and basically it is the truth. Minorities mainly blacks and mexicans have crippled themselves and helped widen the racial gap because they always want preferential treatment for past injustices. Personally, I take pride in the fact I am minority but more importantly I take pride in the fact I am American and can easily hang with any one person in this country:)

WOW, that has got to be one of the most spot on opinions about AA that I have ever heard. I commend you for having the nutsack to say it.

If AA was executed the way it was intended, it would be a great program. Sadly, it seems to become exactly what you have described.

Watch, I'm going to to get flamed by somebody because I'm white and agree with you. Since I am white and agreeing with a certain view point, I will be seen as "racist".

dojetdriver
09-19-2007, 10:36 PM
Technically speaking the only non-minorities in this country are those that are at least 50.1% Native American.

Well, "technically speaking", they are a minority as they do not make up the majority of ethnic break down among the populace of this country.

They can, however, say that they are the only population demographic that is truly native of this land.

HercDriver130
09-20-2007, 12:20 AM
Even the natives came across the Bearing Sea.....LOL

HercAC
09-20-2007, 02:49 AM
Well, "technically speaking", they are a minority as they do not make up the majority of ethnic break down among the populace of this country.

They can, however, say that they are the only population demographic that is truly native of this land.

Well I guess that means in the next few years all non-Hispanics will be minorities in this country.

HercAC
09-20-2007, 02:52 AM
Herc,

Do you fly for CAL now? Were you with AC before?

Yes to CAL and no to AC. Herc (C-130) AC (Aircraft Commander). Former ASA.

7576FO
09-20-2007, 04:06 AM
7576FO,
Great Question: First consider this question.
If tomorrow the regional airlines magically had to pay newhire pilots the same first year pay as received at your legacy carrier, do you believe your wages would remain the same or be higher in the future?

To simplify, everyone agrees management wants cheapest price and highest productivity. That's business. You are correct it is not the only reason, but consider management overarching basic premise: If the market of pilots accept low wages to start, and labor contract codifies this wage in the contract, management mentality is pilots are cheap, just have to find best practice to wring it out of them over there career. Keep the starting point low!. Without the long discussion on tactics used (bankruptcy, furloughs, market conditions which affect your particular airline) the basic mindset is that 1. majority of new hires come from the regionals. 2. That they are accepting of low wages to get in the door.(just like me). One example: Jonathan Orenstein recognizes this and was matter of fact in his practice of, market permitting, charge new hires to pay for training and paying a ridiculously low wage. The footprint and perception is set and appreciated by all airline managements. "Pilots will pay nearly any price to be an airline pilot" Regional wages to fly big airplanes (at time maxed at 50 seats due to contracts was simply another benchmark management needed to get rid of when market allowed) but price of pilot was already established. Pilots can be brought in the market at very low cost. It certainly carries over to every airline (legacy, cargo, regional, corporate, etc) when considering wages. We cannot seperate ourselves when we negotiate contracts from these facts.
In my community: cargo, during negotiations it is frequently used what the lowest cost airline pilots across the board are paid, it is an argument to consider only same size aircraft, then management argues benchmark is the LCC cargo operators which diminshes the value of the higher paid airline cargo folks. That is reality. Low wages are the norm, high wages an aberation that management seeks to cripple at future opportunities (just smart business) Difficult for us is the reference of inexpensive regional pilots. I believe it is vital for the senior folks to raise the lowest wages in the beginning to highest possible to move the leverage and reference point higher.
Reconsider my question. It is not magical, but if the senior pilots can achieve a higher market starting price for any pilot, the professional pilot gains are more favorable long term.


Salty with respect I do not understand this.
I twice have started at 1st year pay. 2 airlines.
Looking at AA pay guide. It only shows 2nd year pay
Keep in mind this is 23 % less than it used to be
before 2003.
2nd year S80 FO $73.47 hr
2nd Year 757 FO $79.20
2nd Year 767 FO $81.74
if you're on reserve you get 767 FO 73 hours pay.

I'm not totally sure but I think AA is 35K first year pay.
If you break guarentee, you make more.

So why would you say that Legacy Carriers are driving down regional
wages?

You are a DC8 CA, you must have started at 1st wages at some point?
Would you mind stating what they were?

So much stuff has been written about the Legacy's demise, loss of work rules, loss of pay, loss of retirements and vacations.
I do think things will be better.

I too was once a CFI teaching in Beechcraft Skippers. I too, once was a new hire regional FO $1,200 month
I too was once a regional CA 28K then got up to 48K b4 AA.
I'm right now at the top 12 yr FO max pay scale. I make $124.18 an hour.

Would I recommend this profession to people that are CFI's ?
Prior to 9-11-2001 simple answer was YES.
Now it's a long discussion with a maybe.

First year pay at many Fortune 500 desk jobs can be 28K year to start.

If I had to do it all over Yes i'd apply to SWA yes to Fedex yes to UPS.

2nd year pay at any major still rivals a 2nd year raise at a Fortune 500 corp.

Not being defensive, just posting to help all the guys at regionals. Major second year pay $73.47 an hour. Used to be more. Will be more in the future. Still pretty good, probalby (not sure here) more than most Regional CA's on say 7 -10 year wages.

Bucking Bar
09-20-2007, 04:23 AM
Yes, but consider that getting hired at a major is not comparable to the second year Fortune 500 job. It is more like leaving an Assistant Vice President position at one Fortune 500 Company when you get hired to be a Vice President and Division Manager at a Fortune 100 Company.

In my new hire class, about half the pilots had Master's Degrees. All had thousands of hours in command of their own little $20 million dollar divisions and some even had been in Command of nuclear weapons and teams of 50 to 100 subordinates. These men were not "entry level" candidates fresh out of college.

Having worked for several Fortune ranked employers (in addition to flying) I can honestly say that a job paying less than low six figures would not consider my background and experience. I'm not being arrogant but hiring someone less experienced costs money in mistakes and bad deals.

Pilots have allwed the profession to go down hill by not pushing for adequate standards. IMHO the ATP rating should be a minimum standard to get a job flying 121 in any seat. The public does not know how many mistakes are made and the airlines think the technology of an RJ makes flying so simple a Babboon could do it.

Secondly, pilots have let their union fall apart. This scope debate is shameful. ALPA needs to pull its MEC's together and develop enforcable brand scope that protects all of its members. The "race to the bottom" has to stop. Only a strong, centrally organised and fair, national union can do it.

Skyone
09-20-2007, 05:24 AM
Yes, but consider that getting hired at a major is not comparable to the second year Fortune 500 job. It is more like leaving an Assistant Vice President position at one Fortune 500 Company when you get hired to be a Vice President and Division Manager at a Fortune 100 Company.

In my new hire class, about half the pilots had Master's Degrees. All had thousands of hours in command of their own little $20 million dollar divisions and some even had been in Command of nuclear weapons and teams of 50 to 100 subordinates. These men were not "entry level" candidates fresh out of college.

Having worked for several Fortune ranked employers (in addition to flying) I can honestly say that a job paying less than low six figures would not consider my background and experience. I'm not being arrogant but hiring someone less experienced costs money in mistakes and bad deals.

.

This part of your post I agree with. As I have said before, this goes back years to where employers could not quantify or verify many of their new hires. It gave them a year to take a look and see what they had. In today's world of background checks, instant checks on training from a previous employer, etc., it makes no sense (other than to save money) to start at $33/hr at somewhere like UPS.

Secondly, take a look at most second year pay (FEDEX, and UPS the exception). Years back most guys from the military could count on making the same amount in their second year, as they were making leaving the military as an O3 or so. Some of you guys leaving the military now, can enlighten me to what year you will equal what you were making on active duty.

And finally, the pilots themselves on the seniorty lists are to blame. The old fraternatiy rush mentality. "Hey, I did it, and it wasn't a big deal, so can you." You are asking the personnel you mentioned above to work for $40,000 a year or less. My first year, around the time some of you young pups were born, I made 25 a year. In today's dollars that's about 64K. Anyone paying that today? Hell, you have captains at Skybus making only that.

Nothing will change, though. The pilots have no vested interest or using negotiating capital in upping first year pay (no dues paying members) and management is only too willing to go along.

Just like the FAA, changes will only happen when things go south. Like when the public gets concerned that 250 hr pilots in the right seat are flying them into ORD and LGA during the winter and such. Hopefully the guy/gal in the left seat has the experience and hours to compensate. I whole heartily agree that an ATP must be the minimum in a 121 operation.

Ftrooppilot
09-20-2007, 06:41 AM
Yes, but consider that getting hired at a major . . . . In my new hire class, about half the pilots had Master's Degrees. All had thousands of hours in command of their own little $20 million dollar divisions and some even had been in Command of nuclear weapons and teams of 50 to 100 subordinates. These men were not "entry level" candidates fresh out of college. . . . .

Give me a 30 year old SAAB Capt who has put eight years and 6,000 hrs flying short legs in all kinds of weather. He/she is far more qualified for the majors then a retiring 0-5 with a Master's degree (a must for promotion to 0-5 not to fly well) and nine years of staff jobs where they flew only for proficiency and flight pay. What does command of nuclear weapons have to do with being a major FO ?

Lighteningspeed
09-20-2007, 07:37 AM
Give me a 30 year old SAAB Capt who has put eight years and 6,000 hrs flying short legs in all kinds of weather. He/she is far more qualified for the majors then a retiring 0-5 with a Master's degree (a must for promotion to 0-5 not to fly well) and nine years of staff jobs where they flew only for proficiency and flight pay. What does command of nuclear weapons have to do with being a major FO ?

Good point. There seems to be too many people who are in this profession to make money and not because they truly love to fly. Pilot pay needs a great deal of improvement, yes. I know it as I struggle with my FO pay. But to compare a Vice President of a Fortune 500 corporation pay to a major airline pilot salary is not a good comparison. If you want to make a lot of money, become a stockbroker, banker, doctors, corporate executive, etc. Leave the flying to people who like to fly. I have nothing against getting an advanced degree. I have one myself, but having a masters degree does not make you a better pilot.

SaltyDog
09-20-2007, 08:08 AM
So why would you say that Legacy Carriers are driving down regional
wages?
.......
You are a DC8 CA, you must have started at 1st wages at some point?
Would you mind stating what they were?
.......
Not being defensive, just posting to help all the guys at regionals. Major second year pay $73.47 an hour. Used to be more. Will be more in the future. Still pretty good, probalby (not sure here) more than most Regional CA's on say 7 -10 year wages.

7576FO,
Backwards, it is low regional wages driving down legacy rates. That was what you asked about originally. Again, Capt's like me need to give up dollars on the high end to get starting wages up. We did that with UPS F/O dollars this past ratification. It was the right thing to do. Second year F/O pay over 6 figures. First year pay at 33k still embarrassing. (But they pay hotel,per diem. full luggage,uniforms, flight kits so that reduces the burden somewhat.)
It comes back to benefit me in the long term. High starting wages gives a good starting point for all other seniority levels. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is one of "you gotta pay your dues" I believe that mentality perpetuates a breeding ground that management exploits very successfully to the detriment of our profession. Take care of the new folks produces extraordinary dividends to the entire profession.
BTW, my starting wages at COEX was 13k in 1993 with a flow through number. Started UPS at 26k in 1996.

JoeyMeatballs
09-20-2007, 08:15 AM
Well if thousands of people , myself included, wouldnt apply to CAL and be more than willing to Fly an A/C for $30.00 an hr they would have no other choice to pay more.......... Probably the same reason DAL has more Apps on file than CAL now, almost twice the pay first year.........

PS Somebody said something about people shoudlnt get into this for the money?????????????? Your right we should cart hundreds of people around on multi-million dollar aircraft for Sh*tty pay because "WE LOVE TO FLY", I love to pay my rent and car insurance on time and be able to feed myself and the love of flying for me is Flying around in a CUB out at some grass strip not holding over Yardley for $22.59/hr................... Its sad that a 2nd year Expressjet F/O makes more money then a 1st Year Continental Airlines Pilot.........................

Skyone
09-20-2007, 08:21 AM
Good point. There seems to be too manypeople who are in this profession to make money and not because they truly love to fly. Pilot pay needs a great deal of improvement, yes. I know it as I struggle with my FO pay. But to compare a Vice President of a Fortune 500 corporation pay to a major airline pilot salary is not a good comparison. If you want to make a lot of money, become a stockbroker, banker, doctors, corporate executive, etc. Leave the flying to people who like to fly. I have nothing against getting an advanced degree. I have one myself, but having a masters degree does not make you a better pilot.

Very good points, but if you have the mins, what does HR look for? They look for things that set you apart from the other thousand with the mins. Does a college degree make you a better pilot? Of course not. Does having a MBA make you a better corporate minion? Of course not. Are the legacies and others hiring just a person to manipulate controls of a piece of machinery? I don't think so. But if you want to sort through all of the chaffe, then there have to be some markers.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement that we shouldn't compare ourselves with VPs. There is no reason that pay shouldn't be on par with surgeons, VPs, etc. It used to be, but what has happened? Do people love to fly any less than they did three decades ago? If the mindset continues to be "I love to fly, that's what's important", then all the complaining on these sites will just blowing in the wind. And think about the cost of a pilot error accident. Not just in material, but also in punitive damages, or the possibility that these punitive damages could shut the corporation down.

And I'm not talking about startups. No startup corporation is going to pay the same as a well established, NYSE listed corporations, in any field. Somehow you guys that are left in the US industry are going to have to figure out how to make it back, both in respect and in pay.

One last thing. In 1980 at most of the legacy airlines, captains made as much as 150k a year. Today that would equate to close to 375k. Pilot salaries and benefits are but a blip on the overall cost of running a legacy. If we all worked for free, it wouldn't change the bottom line that much.

SaltyDog
09-20-2007, 08:24 AM
Give me a 30 year old SAAB Capt who has put eight years and 6,000 hrs flying short legs in all kinds of weather. He/she is far more qualified for the majors then a retiring 0-5 with a Master's degree (a must for promotion to 0-5 not to fly well) and nine years of staff jobs where they flew only for proficiency and flight pay. What does command of nuclear weapons have to do with being a major FO ?

With all due respect. They are equal in many respects. The business reality ignored here is simple. How much liability (read money) is Delta/Comair on the
hook for after the Comair accident in Aug 2006? It will run in the hundreds of millions. The lawsuits are big. HR depts want responsibility demonstrated and basic flying skills. For the mil person, Leading a special weapons team meets that gate. All have the flying proficiency, so the SAAB Capt meets the responsibility gate as well since the Capt has years of proven responsibilty operating the aircraft safely for his employer.

A pilot flying aircraft leaves the entire corporation on the hook for more liabilty for carelessness/ineptitude money than most managers except the executive management can approach. That is why proven responsibilty is equal to the requisite flying skills. Ask any HR department, especially after a "pilot" induced accident.
In any case, with grins I read your comment about the promotion requirements for USAF, certainly not that way in the Navy. I spent 21 years in the cockpit and made out OK but I did lose the brain and spine in the process <bg>

Lighteningspeed
09-20-2007, 08:37 AM
Well if thousands of people , myself included, wouldnt apply to CAL and be more than willing to Fly an A/C for $30.00 an hr they would have no other choice to pay more.......... Probably the same reason DAL has more Apps on file than CAL now, almost twice the pay first year.........

PS Somebody said something about people shoudlnt get into this for the money?????????????? Your right we should cart hundreds of people around on multi-million dollar aircraft for Sh*tty pay because "WE LOVE TO FLY", I love to pay my rent and car insurance on time and be able to feed myself and the love of flying for me is Flying around in a CUB out at some grass strip not holding over Yardley for $22.59/hr................... Its sad that a 2nd year Expressjet F/O makes more money then a 1st Year Continental Airlines Pilot.........................

Hey Bro, lighten up. You forgot to mention that in my comment I also wrote I struggle with a first year FO pay as well. If you read further, you would have noticed that I wrote pilot pay needs a great deal of improvement. I am not advocating flying for food. I agree that pilot pay needs to go up a lot just to make us where we were. I was referring to the guy who was comparing a VP salary at a Fortune 500 Corp to a pilot salary.

Lighteningspeed
09-20-2007, 08:44 AM
Very good points, but if you have the mins, what does HR look for? They look for things that set you apart from the other thousand with the mins. Does a college degree make you a better pilot? Of course not. Does having a MBA make you a better corporate minion? Of course not. Are the legacies and others hiring just a person to manipulate controls of a piece of machinery? I don't think so. But if you want to sort through all of the chaffe, then there have to be some markers.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement that we shouldn't compare ourselves with VPs. There is no reason that pay shouldn't be on par with surgeons, VPs, etc. It used to be, but what has happened? Do people love to fly any less than they did three decades ago? If the mindset continues to be "I love to fly, that's what's important", then all the complaining on these sites will just blowing in the wind. And think about the cost of a pilot error accident. Not just in material, but also in punitive damages, or the possibility that these punitive damages could shut the corporation down.

And I'm not talking about startups. No startup corporation is going to pay the same as a well established, NYSE listed corporations, in any field. Somehow you guys that are left in the US industry are going to have to figure out how to make it back, both in respect and in pay.

One last thing. In 1980 at most of the legacy airlines, captains made as much as 150k a year. Today that would equate to close to 375k. Pilot salaries and benefits are but a blip on the overall cost of running a legacy. If we all worked for free, it wouldn't change the bottom line that much.

A VP at a major Fortune 500 Corp makes well over $700,000/yr on salary alone before benefits and bonuses. No airline is going to pay that to pilots today. They could, but then they would have to cut back on $56 million dollar CEO bonuses. I agree pay needs to go up drastically. We are getting underpaid is an understatement. Especially us FOs at regionals. We probably make less than 20% of what you make. So we know full well how low the pilot salary is in today's market. You misconstrued my comment.

sigtauenus
09-20-2007, 08:50 AM
I won't speak for the intention behind the post above about this, but having advanced degrees or command of nuclear weapons may not have anything to do with the stick and throttle, but it does reflect on the caliber of person you are in regards to education, responsibility, trustworthyness, and decision making ability.

That is in no way a lead in to a civ v mil debate, but is more appropriate to the airline seniority system. The comparison above about the VP of a Fortune 500 company wasn't comparing an airline pilot to being a VP in regards to pay, I read it as comparing a VP at a Fortune 500 company moving to be a VP at a Fortune 100 company like a RJ CA moving up to the majors. Right now you can have a RJ CA with 6000 hours or a RJ FO with 2500 hours or a military fighter guy with 1000 hours start off at the bottom of the list as equals with a major. Going back to the VP thing, that's like saying the VP at a Fortune 500 company moves over to the Fortune 100 company but actually has to start over in the mail room.

BTW, why is airline pay the way it is to begin with? Couldn't they keep scheduling, QOL, etc, tied to DOH, ie, seniority, but tie the pay scale to actual experience? IE, 500, 1000, 1500 hrs, etc, each correlates to lines on the pay chart. The more hours you have, the more money you make. You could be a 6000 hour RJ CA and walk in the door and make a decent wage but still have to sit reserve or work weekends since you are new to the company. Sure some things won't be that easy or clean like dealing with military conversion time, etc, but at least you'd level the playing field for pilots moving between companies, mergers, companies going under, etc. You'd also have some things that could be good or bad. More hours you fly, sooner you get to a pay raise. Ask NW how that would work for them in a situation where the company wants to force you to work more. It will literally cost the company more money sooner to work you more, which might help out with work rules. But then the opposite might happen where they don't want to work you enough and pilots start fighting over hours. Of course, if you're fighting over hours, maybe it means you're spending more time at home, so QOL might actually be decent.

Maybe I'm just a wacko with no understanding of the business too, which is more likely the case.

Lighteningspeed
09-20-2007, 09:08 AM
I won't speak for the intention behind the post above about this, but having advanced degrees or command of nuclear weapons may not have anything to do with the stick and throttle, but it does reflect on the caliber of person you are in regards to education, responsibility, trustworthyness, and decision making ability.

That is in no way a lead in to a civ v mil debate, but is more appropriate to the airline seniority system. The comparison above about the VP of a Fortune 500 company wasn't comparing an airline pilot to being a VP in regards to pay, I read it as comparing a VP at a Fortune 500 company moving to be a VP at a Fortune 100 company like a RJ CA moving up to the majors. Right now you can have a RJ CA with 6000 hours or a RJ FO with 2500 hours or a military fighter guy with 1000 hours start off at the bottom of the list as equals with a major. Going back to the VP thing, that's like saying the VP at a Fortune 500 company moves over to the Fortune 100 company but actually has to start over in the mail room.

BTW, why is airline pay the way it is to begin with? Couldn't they keep scheduling, QOL, etc, tied to DOH, ie, seniority, but tie the pay scale to actual experience? IE, 500, 1000, 1500 hrs, etc, each correlates to lines on the pay chart. The more hours you have, the more money you make. You could be a 6000 hour RJ CA and walk in the door and make a decent wage but still have to sit reserve or work weekends since you are new to the company. Sure some things won't be that easy or clean like dealing with military conversion time, etc, but at least you'd level the playing field for pilots moving between companies, mergers, companies going under, etc. You'd also have some things that could be good or bad. More hours you fly, sooner you get to a pay raise. Ask NW how that would work for them in a situation where the company wants to force you to work more. It will literally cost the company more money sooner to work you more, which might help out with work rules. But then the opposite might happen where they don't want to work you enough and pilots start fighting over hours. Of course, if you're fighting over hours, maybe it means you're spending more time at home, so QOL might actually be decent.

Maybe I'm just a wacko with no understanding of the business too, which is more likely the case.

No, you don't sound like a wacko to me. You make some good points. You are right about the fact that RJ CA will have start all over again if he decides to move on to majors. He or she will have start at bottom pay with bottom seniority from making $100/hr with top seniority as RJ CA. That is one reason some like at my airline will never consider making the move to the majors.

One thing that I get asked a lot from non airline pilots is how come we can be on duty for 12 hours but we only get paid for the flight time (variations to this yes but still get way less than 12 hours). In other hourly jobs, which is what our jobs are essentially, people generally get paid for every hour they are on duty. I know this is probably never going to change but if airlines started to pay for every hour pilots are on duty, they are less likely to abuse the duty rest reg and pilots will end up making more at all levels, but airlines will never go for it.

Lighteningspeed
09-20-2007, 09:22 AM
This part of your post I agree with. As I have said before, this goes back years to where employers could not quantify or verify many of their new hires. It gave them a year to take a look and see what they had. In today's world of background checks, instant checks on training from a previous employer, etc., it makes no sense (other than to save money) to start at $33/hr at somewhere like UPS.

Secondly, take a look at most second year pay (FEDEX, and UPS the exception). Years back most guys from the military could count on making the same amount in their second year, as they were making leaving the military as an O3 or so. Some of you guys leaving the military now, can enlighten me to what year you will equal what you were making on active duty.

And finally, the pilots themselves on the seniorty lists are to blame. The old fraternatiy rush mentality. "Hey, I did it, and it wasn't a big deal, so can you." You are asking the personnel you mentioned above to work for $40,000 a year or less. My first year, around the time some of you young pups were born, I made 25 a year. In today's dollars that's about 64K. Anyone paying that today? Hell, you have captains at Skybus making only that.

Nothing will change, though. The pilots have no vested interest or using negotiating capital in upping first year pay (no dues paying members) and management is only too willing to go along.

Just like the FAA, changes will only happen when things go south. Like when the public gets concerned that 250 hr pilots in the right seat are flying them into ORD and LGA during the winter and such. Hopefully the guy/gal in the left seat has the experience and hours to compensate. I whole heartily agree that an ATP must be the minimum in a 121 operation.

Very good point. Very good analysis. My hats off to you. If more senior Captains at majors thought like you did, we will all be in a better position financially. It would certainly make life a lot less difficult for FOs.

newKnow
09-20-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes to CAL and no to AC. Herc (C-130) AC (Aircraft Commander). Former ASA.

Ok,

I thought you were my fraternity brother, CJ.

Take Care.

N618FT
09-20-2007, 03:57 PM
and be able to feed myself...

Ramen noodles 10c a pack @ Sam's... plus 40$ yearly membership... 3 meals a day... 3 x 365 *.10 + 40

HercAC
09-20-2007, 04:19 PM
Ok,

I thought you were my fraternity brother, CJ.

Take Care.

Not CJ but a NUPE (rx '85) nonetheless.

Ftrooppilot
09-20-2007, 05:13 PM
With all due respect. They are equal in many respects. The business reality ignored here is simple. . . . . . A pilot flying aircraft leaves the entire corporation on the hook for more liabilty for carelessness/ineptitude money than most managers except the executive management can approach. That is why proven responsibilty is equal to the requisite flying skills. Ask any HR department, especially after a "pilot" induced accident.

I agree - to an extent. The problem is the "bottom 10% military OR civilian trained / experienced. Theirs is an attitude problem not a skills problem. Perhaps it is "no sense of responsibility." In a UPT class ahead of me, a student on his last flight before graduation flew a T-38 down the main street of Lubbock, Texas tree top level AT NIGHT. He was a USAFA Grad with "political clout" , got his wings and a letter of reprimand.

It's pilots with that kind of attitude (civilian or military) that increase company liability and taint other pilots reputations.

C-17 Driver
09-20-2007, 05:23 PM
I agree - to an extent. The problem is the "bottom 10% military OR civilian trained / experienced. Theirs is an attitude problem not a skills problem. Perhaps it is "no sense of responsibility." In a UPT class ahead of me, a student on his last flight before graduation flew a T-38 down the main street of Lubbock, Texas tree top level AT NIGHT. He was a USAFA Grad with "political clout" , got his wings and a letter of reprimand.

It's pilots with that kind of attitude (civilian or military) that increase company liability and taint other pilots reputations.

He was not representative of USAFA (I did not think you implied that either). Stupidity knows no boundaries. This guy was a moron and was hopefully treated as such. I tell new guys in the C-17 when the upgrade to the left seat and/or as an instructor pilot to say that you should check your pride at the door because pride will take you out quickly. There is no reason to exceed the envelope. It is a breach of integrity, in my opinion, because the AF trusts their pilots to do the right thing and this guy didn't do that. Bad form.

Stupidity knows no boundaries! If that guy got into trouble, he deserved it.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1