My Airline Safety Letter
10-07-2009, 11:26 AM
#11
I love my job!
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 276
That is a great letter. You might want to add a little bit about the courts abrogating union contracts and eliminating retirements. Also, that anybody with a little money can start an airline and undercut current operators by charging less for its services than it actually costs to provide them.
Although safety is the primary importance in the airline business, there are a lot of factors which compromise the total package besides training and experience. If a pilot loses his/her retirement then they have to work longer and harder to get to the end game. More stress, more illness and a greater propensity for accidents. Same with pay and benefits. Losing pay may mean losing your house (or your Porsche; I’m not sure which is more stressful). All kidding aside, you hit the nail on the head. Regional airline pilots are paid an abysmal wage for the responsibilities they hold. Major airline wages do not keep pace with the rest of the economy and thus we continue our downward trend. If I had to do it over again, I would not have come to the airlines after my military service. In the current environment I wouldn’t recommend it to anybody.
Although safety is the primary importance in the airline business, there are a lot of factors which compromise the total package besides training and experience. If a pilot loses his/her retirement then they have to work longer and harder to get to the end game. More stress, more illness and a greater propensity for accidents. Same with pay and benefits. Losing pay may mean losing your house (or your Porsche; I’m not sure which is more stressful). All kidding aside, you hit the nail on the head. Regional airline pilots are paid an abysmal wage for the responsibilities they hold. Major airline wages do not keep pace with the rest of the economy and thus we continue our downward trend. If I had to do it over again, I would not have come to the airlines after my military service. In the current environment I wouldn’t recommend it to anybody.
10-07-2009, 12:00 PM
#12
At home on the maddog!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by Boneman
Although safety is the primary importance in the airline business, there are a lot of factors which compromise the total package besides training and experience. If a pilot loses his/her retirement then they have to work longer and harder to get to the end game. More stress, more illness and a greater propensity for accidents. Same with pay and benefits. Losing pay may mean losing your house (or your Porsche; I’m not sure which is more stressful). All kidding aside...
The stress and distraction that went along with the massive blows we all suffered to our careers cannot be overemphasized. Airline management took an extreme risk with safety when they decided to hammer airline pilots to the extent they did.
I remember when we had just taken our second pay cut (bringing the total pay cut to 42%) and lost our pension. I was taking off out of IAD on runway 30 (10,000'+ runway) on a nice day. At 60 knots, the right engine abrubtly failed (as it turns out, it sheared a shaft in the fuel control unit). No big deal really... we discontinued the takeoff and taxied back to the gate. We hadn't been back to the gate for 10 minutes when a phone call came in from the Chief Pilot's Office. They wanted to know if we, as a crew, were "okay to continue" with our flying for the day. Anytime something like that happens, it is Delta's policy that they contact the crew and make sure no one is too shaken up or distracted to safely continue. That made me think of an interesting question: Which is more stressful? Losing an engine at 60 knots on the takeoff roll on a 10,000' runway? Or having your pay cut by 42%, losing your pension, and having thousands of your company's pilot jobs outsourced, which on top of everything else kills your career progression? Hmmm... It seems the airlines only care about safety as long as it doesn't cost too much!
10-07-2009, 01:27 PM
#14
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Falcon 50EX Captain
Posts: 21
Great letter. Right on target. I think it builds on what Captain Sullenberger conveyed during his congressional testimony earlier this year. I certainly don't have all the answers, but recognize there are huge problems out there in terms of morale, safety, and concern with the future of the industry. You can hear it on the radios. Stress associated with job security and frustration with the system, has begun to spill over into the safety arena despite the professionalism exhibited by the majority of flight crews on a daily basis.
I comment from a different perspective. I retired from the military 10 days prior to 9/11. Had fully intended to pursue a Part 121 career. After a few interviews (which I was fortunate to even get during the ensuing 2.5 years) I decided to shift gears and was recruited by a Fortune 200 flight department. I won't bore you with the details, but I have a very nice quality of life right now with a great company. No unions, no seniority number. Most of the pilots who preceeded me have been with the company over 20 years. I know it's comparing apples and oranges, but .....it is very difficult to even bring up the subject of seniority or unions as possible areas requiring change. Do they really serve the best interests of all pilots in the long run? I am convinced that nothing will ever change as long as skilled and experienced aviators are regarded as labor commodities and antagonists by management and U.S. corporations are viewed as the enemy (instead of the employer) by unions and their leadership. I have learned, over both my military and civilian careers, that taking care of your people is priority number one for any successful organization. Your industry is driven by the economy (as is mine). How in the world will wages ever have a chance of achieving a reasonable level until earnings (profits) are generated to finance them? Perhaps some level of government re-regulation is required given the importance of the transportation sector to our nation.
No easy answers and change is always difficult. Your input to our elected representatives is critical. If we don't get the response/action we want from them, we need to elect new ones.
I comment from a different perspective. I retired from the military 10 days prior to 9/11. Had fully intended to pursue a Part 121 career. After a few interviews (which I was fortunate to even get during the ensuing 2.5 years) I decided to shift gears and was recruited by a Fortune 200 flight department. I won't bore you with the details, but I have a very nice quality of life right now with a great company. No unions, no seniority number. Most of the pilots who preceeded me have been with the company over 20 years. I know it's comparing apples and oranges, but .....it is very difficult to even bring up the subject of seniority or unions as possible areas requiring change. Do they really serve the best interests of all pilots in the long run? I am convinced that nothing will ever change as long as skilled and experienced aviators are regarded as labor commodities and antagonists by management and U.S. corporations are viewed as the enemy (instead of the employer) by unions and their leadership. I have learned, over both my military and civilian careers, that taking care of your people is priority number one for any successful organization. Your industry is driven by the economy (as is mine). How in the world will wages ever have a chance of achieving a reasonable level until earnings (profits) are generated to finance them? Perhaps some level of government re-regulation is required given the importance of the transportation sector to our nation.
No easy answers and change is always difficult. Your input to our elected representatives is critical. If we don't get the response/action we want from them, we need to elect new ones.
10-07-2009, 02:59 PM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,346
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
The only good thing I see is that the frequent fliers are starting to catch on and book away from these flights.
10-07-2009, 04:04 PM
#16
At home on the maddog!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Don't give 'em too much credit... they are only doing so to avoid the discomfort of being jammed into a little RJ, not out of some safety concern. As the next the generation of "widebody" RJ's deploy they'll be back in droves.
I commute out of LIT to ATL (now 100% RJ's) and I can tell you from extensive first hand experience that the product sucks and many of our customers know it. In fact, I've found it so unreliable myself that, unless the flights just happen to be wide open on the day I need to go, I drive 2+ hours over to MEM to get on a real Delta flight. It's a way more reliable and comfortable way to get to work.
When the "next generation of RJ's" deploy, we better be flying them! I think this pilot group is just about fed up with the total lack of effective scope, and I'm hoping that will be reflected in the upcoming LEC election results.
10-07-2009, 05:03 PM
#17
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Yeah, that's actually what I meant. I think it's the discomfort, the unreliability, and also the inconvenience of having to stand in a jetway (sometimes in uncomfortable temperatures) for several minutes waiting for bags that they would have been able to carry onto a real Delta flight.
I commute out of LIT to ATL (now 100% RJ's) and I can tell you from extensive first hand experience that the product sucks and many of our customers know it. In fact, I've found it so unreliable myself that, unless the flights just happen to be wide open on the day I need to go, I drive 2+ hours over to MEM to get on a real Delta flight. It's a way more reliable and comfortable way to get to work.
When the "next generation of RJ's" deploy, we better be flying them! I think this pilot group is just about fed up with the total lack of effective scope, and I'm hoping that will be reflected in the upcoming LEC election results.
I commute out of LIT to ATL (now 100% RJ's) and I can tell you from extensive first hand experience that the product sucks and many of our customers know it. In fact, I've found it so unreliable myself that, unless the flights just happen to be wide open on the day I need to go, I drive 2+ hours over to MEM to get on a real Delta flight. It's a way more reliable and comfortable way to get to work.
When the "next generation of RJ's" deploy, we better be flying them! I think this pilot group is just about fed up with the total lack of effective scope, and I'm hoping that will be reflected in the upcoming LEC election results.
10-07-2009, 05:17 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Yeah, that's actually what I meant. I think it's the discomfort, the unreliability, and also the inconvenience of having to stand in a jetway (sometimes in uncomfortable temperatures) for several minutes waiting for bags that they would have been able to carry onto a real Delta flight.
I commute out of LIT to ATL (now 100% RJ's) and I can tell you from extensive first hand experience that the product sucks and many of our customers know it. In fact, I've found it so unreliable myself that, unless the flights just happen to be wide open on the day I need to go, I drive 2+ hours over to MEM to get on a real Delta flight. It's a way more reliable and comfortable way to get to work.
When the "next generation of RJ's" deploy, we better be flying them! I think this pilot group is just about fed up with the total lack of effective scope, and I'm hoping that will be reflected in the upcoming LEC election results.
I commute out of LIT to ATL (now 100% RJ's) and I can tell you from extensive first hand experience that the product sucks and many of our customers know it. In fact, I've found it so unreliable myself that, unless the flights just happen to be wide open on the day I need to go, I drive 2+ hours over to MEM to get on a real Delta flight. It's a way more reliable and comfortable way to get to work.
When the "next generation of RJ's" deploy, we better be flying them! I think this pilot group is just about fed up with the total lack of effective scope, and I'm hoping that will be reflected in the upcoming LEC election results.
10-07-2009, 05:36 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
Serious question....in your opinion (and anyone else who would like to comment), do you think the industry would turn around for the positive w/ some form of re-regulation? I do!
From my perspective, the airlines have shown they do not have an ability to regulate themselves in a responsible manner.
From my perspective, the airlines have shown they do not have an ability to regulate themselves in a responsible manner.
Referencing the last part of your statement first, "regulate" seems to be subjective. Is regulated per FAR's implied, or as pertaining to what one would deem fair and honest business practices? Technically, while every airline should comply with FAR's, it is the job of the FAA to oversee that and make certain that any given air carrier is complying with FAR's. Thus, the airlines themselves aren't expected to self-regulate while they are obligated to fully comply with the regulations. If there are shortcuts being had then the real question to be asked is how and why are they cutting corners with regards to safety?
As far as operating within the bounds of fair and honest business practices, you will probably get as many different answers as the amount of times you ask the question. Who's definition of fair? Who is asking and who is answering? I don't think it is possible to get a definitive clarification on this.
In my opinion I don't believe re-regulating the industry would turn the it around for the positive. Under regulation like we saw pre-1978, it was the federal government (i.e., the taxpayer) who subsidized the airline industry. Given the public outcry with government bailouts of private companies in the recent past, I don't think you would garnish much sympathy nor support from the public when it comes to saving an airline from liquidation.
Would it improve safety? The safety aspect is supposed to be regulated now anyway. If that is lacking then the issue that needs to be addressed is how to make that oversight more restrictive.
The one thing I do agree with is the fact that most of the airline managers out there couldn't run a hot dog stand successfully. Years of lousy decisions, leveraging of assets, and poor long-term vision and planning and it is no wonder the industry is in the mess it is currently in. Maybe we need better business schools instead of more regulation?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
