Dropping ATP requirements passes comittee
09-18-2017, 08:40 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by hindsight2020
All great, but we're conflating topics. You can keep the barriers to entry as they exist, it still doesn't account for the land grab FFD departures attained in the industry. The 1500 hours rule didn't create a shortage. The opportunity cost of being stuck making regional money for life in a career where 45% of domestic lift is paid under said de facto C-scale IS what did it. People are gonna look at that and run the numbers and say: "meh, too protracted of a compensation scale with too little assurance I'll make it to the A-scale for the same job performed (especially after 5 years) to make it worth my while". And then add to that no lateral income portability like what 99% of pedestrians in the work force do enjoy? And y'all are surprised? Jesus....
That's what's happening. I know it's the hobby du jour to cartoon millennials as want-it-now myopics, but this goes beyond the "pay your dues" fallacy. This is a monster of a gamble for someone who doesn't believe in principle that a poorly paid apprenticeship should last 10 years. Let's bark at the right tree here. Don't shoot the messenger either, the FFD hiring numbers speak for themselves.
I also don't agree with you that present circumstances (increase of regional pay via bonus, classes short of pilots) will create an environment where you will see a reversal of the domestic lift % flown by mainline to CY 2000 levels, let alone 1978 levels. I'd love for you to be correct on that account, I just don't see that out there. Which is to say, the optics will remain the same at the level where the "pilot shortage" canard is being exploited at its loudest.
The prior poster merely scratched at the topic and some mainline folks immediately blew their tops off. Think about that for a second. Unity is a party punchline during section 6 negotiations in the airline pilot demographic, nothing more. They know damn well what would happen if the industry returned to the days of 85%+ domestic lift being flown under mainline level contract, and they want no part of that. F to the U to the I got mine.
As a mil guy I have no dog in the fight. But when I was a civilian I did have one, and I chose to bypass the profession for exactly the points I've illustrated. I believe the calculus is similar to other bright folks with multiple career options, who could thrive as airline pilots if the incentives were there. Never mind the monster shadow inventory of ATPs who won't come out the shadows to fly FFDs at current market price. I digress. To each their own.
That's what's happening. I know it's the hobby du jour to cartoon millennials as want-it-now myopics, but this goes beyond the "pay your dues" fallacy. This is a monster of a gamble for someone who doesn't believe in principle that a poorly paid apprenticeship should last 10 years. Let's bark at the right tree here. Don't shoot the messenger either, the FFD hiring numbers speak for themselves.
I also don't agree with you that present circumstances (increase of regional pay via bonus, classes short of pilots) will create an environment where you will see a reversal of the domestic lift % flown by mainline to CY 2000 levels, let alone 1978 levels. I'd love for you to be correct on that account, I just don't see that out there. Which is to say, the optics will remain the same at the level where the "pilot shortage" canard is being exploited at its loudest.
The prior poster merely scratched at the topic and some mainline folks immediately blew their tops off. Think about that for a second. Unity is a party punchline during section 6 negotiations in the airline pilot demographic, nothing more. They know damn well what would happen if the industry returned to the days of 85%+ domestic lift being flown under mainline level contract, and they want no part of that. F to the U to the I got mine.
As a mil guy I have no dog in the fight. But when I was a civilian I did have one, and I chose to bypass the profession for exactly the points I've illustrated. I believe the calculus is similar to other bright folks with multiple career options, who could thrive as airline pilots if the incentives were there. Never mind the monster shadow inventory of ATPs who won't come out the shadows to fly FFDs at current market price. I digress. To each their own.
09-18-2017, 09:19 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: Boeing 737 FO
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Chakerik
Don't disagree with anything you say. My point is, as line pilots, how do we fix this? An industry that has been this way since before many of us were born. It's not simple. My only point is I think the rule has been aiding in reversing that trend. It has at my own shop anyways. CRJ-200 flying up gauged to CRJ-900/E175 and eventually 717 and the like. Our regional lift has been decreasing, and seems to be on the path to continue to do so.
09-18-2017, 09:24 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by JTwift
Why does a 777 FO make more than an A320 FO? We all have to deal with LGA, we're in the same airspace.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
09-18-2017, 09:37 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by DrunkIrishman
Why does a Cardiologist make more than a General Practice doctor? Same job right? They're both doctors, yet one makes three times more than the other.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
And you're comparing one doctor who does checkups to another that cuts out and replaces your heart?
09-18-2017, 09:57 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by DrunkIrishman
Why does a Cardiologist make more than a General Practice doctor? Same job right? They're both doctors, yet one makes three times more than the other.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
09-18-2017, 10:31 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by JTwift
Oh, c'mon. I've flown in literally the worst country for ATC (Djibouti), and it still isn't that hard.
And you're comparing one doctor who does checkups to another that cuts out and replaces your heart?
And you're comparing one doctor who does checkups to another that cuts out and replaces your heart?
Of course the real reason there is a difference in pay, as the airplane size increases, has to do with the unions attaching the number of seats to the paycheck many decades ago.
Now that we've had this highly educational discussion, I hope you have emailed your Representatives about keeping the 1500 hour limit.
Fly safe
09-18-2017, 12:52 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,032
Originally Posted by DrunkIrishman
Why does a Cardiologist make more than a General Practice doctor? Same job right? They're both doctors, yet one makes three times more than the other.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
320's fly one continent, 777's fly one globe. Big difference there in skillsets. IMHO there is a good reason to make more.
09-18-2017, 01:04 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
Productivity must be there in order for the pay to be there. Productivity doesn't guarantee pay but pay is not sustainable without productivity. For pilot pay, productivity is cost per available seat mile (CASM). We can simplify that to cost per seat.
A 777 crew at a US Major would make around $325/hr (CA) + $215/hr (FO) = $540/hr. UAL's new 777-300 has 366 seats so that's $1.47 per seat.
If we pay a ERJ145 or CRJ200 crew the same $1.47 per seat you only have $73.50 to divide between the Captain and First Officer.
On the balance sheet, the RJ crew is more expensive to the airline than is the 777 crew even though they are paid far less. The difference is productivity measured as the number of sellable seats each pilot produces. That's also what makes the <120 seat airplane difficult to justify at mainline. The pilots see the pay rates as too low while the company sees the CASM as too high and they're both right.
A 777 crew at a US Major would make around $325/hr (CA) + $215/hr (FO) = $540/hr. UAL's new 777-300 has 366 seats so that's $1.47 per seat.
If we pay a ERJ145 or CRJ200 crew the same $1.47 per seat you only have $73.50 to divide between the Captain and First Officer.
On the balance sheet, the RJ crew is more expensive to the airline than is the 777 crew even though they are paid far less. The difference is productivity measured as the number of sellable seats each pilot produces. That's also what makes the <120 seat airplane difficult to justify at mainline. The pilots see the pay rates as too low while the company sees the CASM as too high and they're both right.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Atrain77
Flight Schools and Training
10
02-09-2006 02:11 PM
