Virgin America
12-07-2007 | 09:10 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Additionally, I believe it is unfair, or at least counter-productive to compare a start-up airlines pay with those of established carriers. It does nothing for the discourse and it does not accomplish the most important task of APC which is to inform current pilots or prospective ones.
I think a more realistic and serviceable argument would be to lump the LCCs, Legacies, etc (any identifiable group) and compare starting pay at a start-up against starting pay at the others in the group when they were start-ups. with this kind of data you can look at several ratios: compared to legacy pay at the time, purchasing power, etc. With this kind of hard data, you could truly tell who the bottom feeders were and it would serve to remove some of the emotion from the argument. Simply saying "they are lowering the bar because of...." is short and to the point, but it lacks anykind of hard data that would give the argument relevance. JMHO.
I think a more realistic and serviceable argument would be to lump the LCCs, Legacies, etc (any identifiable group) and compare starting pay at a start-up against starting pay at the others in the group when they were start-ups. with this kind of data you can look at several ratios: compared to legacy pay at the time, purchasing power, etc. With this kind of hard data, you could truly tell who the bottom feeders were and it would serve to remove some of the emotion from the argument. Simply saying "they are lowering the bar because of...." is short and to the point, but it lacks anykind of hard data that would give the argument relevance. JMHO.
12-09-2007 | 09:15 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Likes: 0
Additionally, I believe it is unfair, or at least counter-productive to compare a start-up airlines pay with those of established carriers. It does nothing for the discourse and it does not accomplish the most important task of APC which is to inform current pilots or prospective ones.
I think a more realistic and serviceable argument would be to lump the LCCs, Legacies, etc (any identifiable group) and compare starting pay at a start-up against starting pay at the others in the group when they were start-ups. with this kind of data you can look at several ratios: compared to legacy pay at the time, purchasing power, etc. With this kind of hard data, you could truly tell who the bottom feeders were and it would serve to remove some of the emotion from the argument. Simply saying "they are lowering the bar because of...." is short and to the point, but it lacks anykind of hard data that would give the argument relevance. JMHO.
I think a more realistic and serviceable argument would be to lump the LCCs, Legacies, etc (any identifiable group) and compare starting pay at a start-up against starting pay at the others in the group when they were start-ups. with this kind of data you can look at several ratios: compared to legacy pay at the time, purchasing power, etc. With this kind of hard data, you could truly tell who the bottom feeders were and it would serve to remove some of the emotion from the argument. Simply saying "they are lowering the bar because of...." is short and to the point, but it lacks anykind of hard data that would give the argument relevance. JMHO.
what's the difference between an LCC and the legacies today?
12-10-2007 | 02:03 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
That is a great question, particularly since I just purchased a ticket on a legacy carrier for $63.00 and another two weeks ago during Thanksgiving peak for $49.00...anyone?
12-10-2007 | 05:08 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Do not know the answer to this. Probably pick a point at which the "Start-up" moniker no longer applies. An arbitrary figure - say 15 or 20 years. Long enough to be estabished, and at 15 years the line is obviously succesful - at 10-15 or 20 years the airline, if successful, needs to pay in accordance with the industry stalwarts. Again, this should be an arbitrary figure to produce a good argument. It is foolish to say "lowering the bar" on a start-up, simply because NO start-up can pay industry leading wage. SWA did not pay industry leading wage at first. If they STILL lagged, it would be a sin, and the pilots that flew for them would be "lowering the bar"...as it is, the first pilots for SWA were pioneers (and well compensated with Stock Options).
12-12-2007 | 06:12 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Likes: 0
Do not know the answer to this. Probably pick a point at which the "Start-up" moniker no longer applies. An arbitrary figure - say 15 or 20 years. Long enough to be estabished, and at 15 years the line is obviously succesful - at 10-15 or 20 years the airline, if successful, needs to pay in accordance with the industry stalwarts. Again, this should be an arbitrary figure to produce a good argument. It is foolish to say "lowering the bar" on a start-up, simply because NO start-up can pay industry leading wage. SWA did not pay industry leading wage at first. If they STILL lagged, it would be a sin, and the pilots that flew for them would be "lowering the bar"...as it is, the first pilots for SWA were pioneers (and well compensated with Stock Options).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
