Pro Pilot Article from CNBC
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fero's
Posts: 472
Pro Pilot Article from CNBC
#2
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 584
"Believe me, it's doubtful you'll be getting any Sullenberger's flying planes in this new joint venture."
If only the author had mentioned the 21 year old kids getting hired at regionals a few years ago with temporary comm MEL tickets....
If only the author had mentioned the 21 year old kids getting hired at regionals a few years ago with temporary comm MEL tickets....
#4
Am not blasting you just pointing out that these were the only people applying for the jobs. At the very least you know they want to be pilots and not here just cause its a well paying secure career choice.
#5
#6
Yes, apparently the history of hiring low time pilots to fly heavy metal, only goes back a few years
Was 1549 about the best crew situation you could get? yeah probably. Will people really check to see if they're going to have a 55+ year old crew next time they get on the plane...no. What would have happened if instead of making the amazing ditching he did, we replaced him with a 55+ year old pilot who went brain dead at 3,000 and a dual eng fail. Then killing all 145 pax, maybe he would have been "too old" to be safely flying. It's all about sensationalism and what they can make a story out of. Although it's great to see someone sticking up for our industry, it will never make the front page.
Experience certainly comes with age and duration in the industry, but to say that it's the only factor associated with a safe flight crew would be absurd. I've flown with some guys/gals over the years that I wouldn't feel safe letting cut my grass for fear that they'd somehow kill themselves.
#7
I love the part about getting any "Sullenbergers" flying the planes because they are too expensive! Sully's only making 125/hr and Jeff's making 85. Way to go Dougwiser and Scotch Kirbey!!!!!! You guys should be real proud!
#9
Yes ONLY!
That airline (and most others) can only pony up $1.40 an hour in the flight deck for these guys to save all of its passengers. Pretty sad. Left seat should be at least worth $1.25 per seat while the right should be no less then $.75 per seat.
The bonus not only are they under paid but in the mean time they have lost their retirements and their seniority means nothing after this merger. They are making 40% less then they were 10 years ago while doing the same job as their quality of life continues to suffer worse.
Then there is the fact that the people on the plane may sue them personally for not avoiding the birds or whatever other crazy reason some cocked up lawyer will come up with.
So absolutely yes ONLY!!!
WOW he really said only???
That airline (and most others) can only pony up $1.40 an hour in the flight deck for these guys to save all of its passengers. Pretty sad. Left seat should be at least worth $1.25 per seat while the right should be no less then $.75 per seat.
The bonus not only are they under paid but in the mean time they have lost their retirements and their seniority means nothing after this merger. They are making 40% less then they were 10 years ago while doing the same job as their quality of life continues to suffer worse.
Then there is the fact that the people on the plane may sue them personally for not avoiding the birds or whatever other crazy reason some cocked up lawyer will come up with.
So absolutely yes ONLY!!!
WOW he really said only???
#10
It doesn't really matter how emotional you feel about it, or how unfair this economy is towards aviation professionals, or how super-qualified and cool you perceive yourself at the controls of a passenger-jet, it all boils down to one simple thing: Supply Vs Demand.
What was 20 yrs ago has nothing to do with the way things are today. Just accept it.
Cars used to make people turn their heads in the 1920s. You had to have special skills to be "admitted" to become a driver. Unless you live in a 3d world country, I doubt you would argue that pretty much anybody could get a driver's license today.
Similarly, more and more people fly a airplanes. Standards to become an airline pilot have dropped, yet the safety of the airline industry hasn't gone down. The safety of regional airlines today is probably higher than that of majors in the 1960s or 1970s. Probably even of 1980s as well.
Is it fair to pay pilots 20k a year? I think no, it's not. But it's the market that determines it, not you or me.
Even not your union. The only thing it can do is slow things down. At some point another airline will outbid yours and either force your union to concede, or bring the airline down and make you hunt for a civilian job. (Then looking back you might say to yourself, that pilot life wasn't bad after all).
That's the way it is, brother.
What was 20 yrs ago has nothing to do with the way things are today. Just accept it.
Cars used to make people turn their heads in the 1920s. You had to have special skills to be "admitted" to become a driver. Unless you live in a 3d world country, I doubt you would argue that pretty much anybody could get a driver's license today.
Similarly, more and more people fly a airplanes. Standards to become an airline pilot have dropped, yet the safety of the airline industry hasn't gone down. The safety of regional airlines today is probably higher than that of majors in the 1960s or 1970s. Probably even of 1980s as well.
Is it fair to pay pilots 20k a year? I think no, it's not. But it's the market that determines it, not you or me.
Even not your union. The only thing it can do is slow things down. At some point another airline will outbid yours and either force your union to concede, or bring the airline down and make you hunt for a civilian job. (Then looking back you might say to yourself, that pilot life wasn't bad after all).
That's the way it is, brother.
Last edited by Flying-Corporal; 01-29-2009 at 09:11 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post