Wage Fallacies
10-30-2009 | 09:37 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
The fallacy in your argument is that with a minimum wage, the government wouldn't be bailing out the company, and, thus, has no influence on maximum wages. We have a track record of companies entering Chapter 11 for decades, all of them paying a federally mandated minimum wage, with no outcries from politicians or the public to reduce executive salaries (with the notable exception of the workers of said company). The line that has been crossed, it seems, is when the executives are making unbelievable bonuses when the company is in such mortal financial peril.
I'd like to see one documented example of a company that has NOT received federal bailout money with minimum wage employees entering Chapter 11 (or without C11, for all I care), where the government has stepped in a regulated top salaries at all(successfully as well, not just political blustering), let alone regulated salaries to the point where it would effect a lowly airline pilots salary (which in the scheme of executive pay is low). You show me a documented example of this happening EVER, and we'll talk again.
I'd like to see one documented example of a company that has NOT received federal bailout money with minimum wage employees entering Chapter 11 (or without C11, for all I care), where the government has stepped in a regulated top salaries at all(successfully as well, not just political blustering), let alone regulated salaries to the point where it would effect a lowly airline pilots salary (which in the scheme of executive pay is low). You show me a documented example of this happening EVER, and we'll talk again.
As was stated by another poster... they already have enough influence through the RLA.
What was being discussed wasn't pilots making the already existing federal minimum wage, but establishing some new arbitrary HIGHER amount because of the notion that pilots are more special than everyone else, and shouldn't have to hold a second job or live at home with their parents, as Oberon stated.
If you were "duped into this profession" by the promise of big money, and are now upset that it didn't materialize.. then it's up to you to take ownership of the decision you made.
My post was intended to highlight the increased reliance people have on the government to remedy the bad situations or decisions people find themselves in.. and my desire to keep it as far away from my finances as possible.
10-30-2009 | 10:12 AM
#12
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
From: CJ4
The airlines use the promise of earning a high wage someday as bait to seduce decades of punishingly low wages out of their workers.
A better plan would be to have everyone know that they will make mailman wages up front. Then no one would be duped into getting into this profession unless they were able to accept the true pay that a pilot makes.
Skyhigh
A better plan would be to have everyone know that they will make mailman wages up front. Then no one would be duped into getting into this profession unless they were able to accept the true pay that a pilot makes.
Skyhigh
10-30-2009 | 10:36 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
Simple answer. If FO wages are two low for you, go do something else. Go earn a better living. Stop whining and asking the Government to make your life better.
Wages are based on the marketplace. Entry level regional FOs are paid crap because THEY CAN! They can make 'em like potato chips. Crunch all you want, we'll make more! Maybe, just maybe, the new law requiring an ATP and 1500 hours will change the marketplace. There is your government action.
Wages are based on the marketplace. Entry level regional FOs are paid crap because THEY CAN! They can make 'em like potato chips. Crunch all you want, we'll make more! Maybe, just maybe, the new law requiring an ATP and 1500 hours will change the marketplace. There is your government action.
10-30-2009 | 10:42 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
From: Stage Left
10-30-2009 | 11:09 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Right Seat
Remove,
You are, of course, correct. Most pilots I know don't aggree witht he "nanny state." But suddenly when it comes to wages and pilot jobs, we want the government to step in and fix it... without realizing that the RLA is a big cause of why we are in the situation we are currently in. It created, along with airline regulation, the malinvestement of resources (money and pilot interest). It promised more than the career could deliver.
Government action (that is ALWAYS political) does not often have the impact that was intended. In fact, it is usually the opposite (try to reduce poverty-increases poverty). It would be no different in the airline industry.
The Government is not our savior... the evil free market is.
You are, of course, correct. Most pilots I know don't aggree witht he "nanny state." But suddenly when it comes to wages and pilot jobs, we want the government to step in and fix it... without realizing that the RLA is a big cause of why we are in the situation we are currently in. It created, along with airline regulation, the malinvestement of resources (money and pilot interest). It promised more than the career could deliver.
Government action (that is ALWAYS political) does not often have the impact that was intended. In fact, it is usually the opposite (try to reduce poverty-increases poverty). It would be no different in the airline industry.
The Government is not our savior... the evil free market is.
10-30-2009 | 12:31 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Right Seat
Phuz,
You are right. No chance. It is the status quo and will not be changed. If I remember correctly, Leo Mullin tried to push for some major changes some years ago to the RLA (which of course was not a complete removal, but changes that would only help the airlines).
I don't believe he got anywhere.
So, we will be stuck in the current situation for some time to come trying to make it work and complaining about why we can't get this proffession sustainable... and blaming each other for it.
You are right. No chance. It is the status quo and will not be changed. If I remember correctly, Leo Mullin tried to push for some major changes some years ago to the RLA (which of course was not a complete removal, but changes that would only help the airlines).
I don't believe he got anywhere.
So, we will be stuck in the current situation for some time to come trying to make it work and complaining about why we can't get this proffession sustainable... and blaming each other for it.
10-30-2009 | 12:36 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
Now the loony left wants to tinker with the RLA with respect to ramp and service workers. We may all decry the RLA but imagine a country without it. It's easy if you try, just look at France and Italy. Every other day there is a transport worker strike. Does anybody want that here? Sometimes it's not about you. Like it or not the RLA benefits the nation as a whole. Doesn't do us much good, but it is bigger than us.
10-30-2009 | 12:47 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Right Seat
Satchip,
I think you are right. The RLA is not there for us... the worker. It restricts what we can do. It is there for a "greater good." The problem with the "greater good" is that it is collectivist thought. And collectivism leads to private property loss. I don't work for the "United States." I don't serve it. I work for a company. My job is to make a profit for that company. If that so happens to help out the US in general (and it does), so be it.
But the view that the government in general needs to regulate the industry for the "greater good" is part of the problem. Because, as I stated before, it always gets political and inefficient. Which is bad for buisness.
I would argue that Starbucks serves the "greater good" (it is a no-go item for me on an early morning) but it doesn't need to be regulated.
I think you are right. The RLA is not there for us... the worker. It restricts what we can do. It is there for a "greater good." The problem with the "greater good" is that it is collectivist thought. And collectivism leads to private property loss. I don't work for the "United States." I don't serve it. I work for a company. My job is to make a profit for that company. If that so happens to help out the US in general (and it does), so be it.
But the view that the government in general needs to regulate the industry for the "greater good" is part of the problem. Because, as I stated before, it always gets political and inefficient. Which is bad for buisness.
I would argue that Starbucks serves the "greater good" (it is a no-go item for me on an early morning) but it doesn't need to be regulated.
10-30-2009 | 12:53 PM
#20
Day puke
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
We dont need the government getting involved in setting our minimum pay (or minimum level of experience required, same thing). The longevity payscale is a bunch of crap considering the drastic difference between 1st and 10th yr pay at any airline.
If we all got paid according to how much revenue we bring into the company it would be more sustainable for the pilots and allow the company to expand as well.
Maybe use some sort of formula with RPMs (Revenue Passenger Miles). If you have a 100 seat jet with 80 people on it and you fly 1 mile then that equals 80 RPMs.
If we all got paid according to how much revenue we bring into the company it would be more sustainable for the pilots and allow the company to expand as well.
Maybe use some sort of formula with RPMs (Revenue Passenger Miles). If you have a 100 seat jet with 80 people on it and you fly 1 mile then that equals 80 RPMs.
34 pax times 250 kts = 8500 pax miles per hour
19 pax times 250 kts = 4750 pax miles per hour
You must really hate prop guys.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
