Wage Fallacies
10-30-2009, 07:13 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by satchip
So quit and go get a real job. Stop expecting anyone to do squat for you and get off your butt and do it for yourself. If you are eating rice and beans then become something else. Quit yer you know whating.
The RLA is there for one reason and that is to keep the trains and planes running on time. It was enacted in the wake of a railway strike 1921. It has nothing to do with your wages. You make crap because you can be replaced in six months by some wet behind the ears puppy mill grad with 250 hours and a commercial ticket. It's pure supply and demand. The seniority system doesn't help either. Makes our skills not portable. But you and I entered this field knowing that. So if you don't make enough to support yourself in the lifestyle in which you have become accustomed, then get the heck out.
The RLA is there for one reason and that is to keep the trains and planes running on time. It was enacted in the wake of a railway strike 1921. It has nothing to do with your wages. You make crap because you can be replaced in six months by some wet behind the ears puppy mill grad with 250 hours and a commercial ticket. It's pure supply and demand. The seniority system doesn't help either. Makes our skills not portable. But you and I entered this field knowing that. So if you don't make enough to support yourself in the lifestyle in which you have become accustomed, then get the heck out.
Couldn't agree more about the comaplaining. We all should have done our due dilagence when we got into this industry. Most of us knew that once you get to a major, you hope they stick around forever because you are stuck with them.
See my previous post about the "portability" of our skills. As you say, they are not.
Also see my previous post about the impact of the RLA. It did have a stated intended purpose. But it also has had other ramifications. I can gaurantee you that the RLA wasn't put into place for "labors" benefit. As you state, it was put into place after a strike... and that hurts the companies, not labor (directly).
10-30-2009, 09:21 PM
#42
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Oh yes, complaining = bad. Flowers and sunshine all around. Labrador puppies are cute. Things are great. PLEASE! America was founded by people who COMPLAINED about taxation without representation, was it not? I feel a little, under-represented at the moment, somebody call me a waaaambulance.
The RLA says our unions cant strike, but mgmt can walk all over us for YEARS before we MIGHT be allowed to do anything at all. "Its pure supply and demand" you say? Well how does a union having the ability to strike affect supply? How does that not affect our wages?
Go get another job, oh wait, whats that? Unemployment is like 20% right now? Damn.. Believe me, i've been looking and not just because of the wages.
The RLA says our unions cant strike, but mgmt can walk all over us for YEARS before we MIGHT be allowed to do anything at all. "Its pure supply and demand" you say? Well how does a union having the ability to strike affect supply? How does that not affect our wages?
Go get another job, oh wait, whats that? Unemployment is like 20% right now? Damn.. Believe me, i've been looking and not just because of the wages.
10-31-2009, 04:59 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by Phuz
Oh yes, complaining = bad. Flowers and sunshine all around. Labrador puppies are cute. Things are great. PLEASE! America was founded by people who COMPLAINED about taxation without representation, was it not? I feel a little, under-represented at the moment, somebody call me a waaaambulance.
Originally Posted by Phuz
The RLA says our unions cant strike, but mgmt can walk all over us for YEARS before we MIGHT be allowed to do anything at all. "Its pure supply and demand" you say? Well how does a union having the ability to strike affect supply? How does that not affect our wages?
Originally Posted by Phuz
Go get another job, oh wait, whats that? Unemployment is like 20% right now? Damn.. Believe me, i've been looking and not just because of the wages.
10-31-2009, 05:19 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght
In several threads on this and the regional forums, I have seen the suggestion that the goverment step in and mandate that airlines not pay some absurdly low wage to highly trained, highly qualified airline first officers. Some have gone so far as to suggest a dollar amount as an "airline pilot minumum wage". From the offset, it may sound resonable.
In reality, most know that we have done it to ourselves. Quite simply, there exists too large a supply of pilots, not enough sustained demand, and the barriers to entry are too low. Obviously employers prefer to keep costs low, and the most controllable expense is business is payroll. They will lower wages to what they believe the market will bear. Some may tend to offer a slight premium in wage or benefits to boost interest, but since theoretically all pilots are homogenized to the same standards, it would be difficult to ensure that merely a wage increase would ensure the best talent.
Even more reason, some would cry, for the goverment to step in and create a price floor on the commodity of airline pilot. They argue that would give struggling but experienced/talented pilots incentive to remain in the industry. It would guarantee a "livable wage" (words of another poster who must not be alive). Obviously this increase in payroll expense would be passed along directly to the customer, either directly through price, or some form of "fair pay tax".
Perfect! they cry... what's a few extra dollars... I want to get paid! I'm worth it. Well, first every contract would have to be renogotiated.. and with new higher first year pay scales to match the guarantee, it would almost be certain that large structured pay increases would be a thing of the past, ($2 bump on $20 an hour is a 10% raise) a few percent a year at most, perhaps merit-based like every other employer, now that's scary. Of course, big daddy goverment may deem it necessary to step in from time to time and give a little bump to pay.
What about on the other end of the scale. Many banks have been demonized lately for paying out enormous bonuses to high level employees. These aren't just the highest level fat cats, but more junior execs who's salary is based off performance. Ok, so the bank must not have been performing that well if they needed bailout money... but two points 1) Many of those junior execs work for very profitable sections of the bank, and 2) they had abosolutely no say, vote, influence what-so-ever in deciding whether that bank accepted federal bailout. Still bonuses anger the taxpayers, and politicians concerned about votes step in with threats of bonus (read: salary) caps.
My point is, if we allow the government to step in and mandate how much we get paid on the bottom end, what is to stop them from doing the same on the upper end? If they can bypass contract language and re-establish low end pay, why not upper end as well? When you allow the goverment to control your wages, you allow politics and knee-jerk lynch mob mentality to control it as well. Airline in chapter 11? Uncle Sam steps in and cuts your wage to help make the company solvent... or sets a cap on what you can possible earn. What about the next Buffalo, the next Atlanta/MSP, or some other incident? Public opinion sways politician's vote on what you are worth.
Maybe that sounds a little too far fetched of a conspiracy theory for some of you, but I am willing to accept that there will be a lower low end to pilot pay scales than to openly allow goverment to determine what pilots are worth. They already control enough of my wage through taxes.
In reality, most know that we have done it to ourselves. Quite simply, there exists too large a supply of pilots, not enough sustained demand, and the barriers to entry are too low. Obviously employers prefer to keep costs low, and the most controllable expense is business is payroll. They will lower wages to what they believe the market will bear. Some may tend to offer a slight premium in wage or benefits to boost interest, but since theoretically all pilots are homogenized to the same standards, it would be difficult to ensure that merely a wage increase would ensure the best talent.
Even more reason, some would cry, for the goverment to step in and create a price floor on the commodity of airline pilot. They argue that would give struggling but experienced/talented pilots incentive to remain in the industry. It would guarantee a "livable wage" (words of another poster who must not be alive). Obviously this increase in payroll expense would be passed along directly to the customer, either directly through price, or some form of "fair pay tax".
Perfect! they cry... what's a few extra dollars... I want to get paid! I'm worth it. Well, first every contract would have to be renogotiated.. and with new higher first year pay scales to match the guarantee, it would almost be certain that large structured pay increases would be a thing of the past, ($2 bump on $20 an hour is a 10% raise) a few percent a year at most, perhaps merit-based like every other employer, now that's scary. Of course, big daddy goverment may deem it necessary to step in from time to time and give a little bump to pay.
What about on the other end of the scale. Many banks have been demonized lately for paying out enormous bonuses to high level employees. These aren't just the highest level fat cats, but more junior execs who's salary is based off performance. Ok, so the bank must not have been performing that well if they needed bailout money... but two points 1) Many of those junior execs work for very profitable sections of the bank, and 2) they had abosolutely no say, vote, influence what-so-ever in deciding whether that bank accepted federal bailout. Still bonuses anger the taxpayers, and politicians concerned about votes step in with threats of bonus (read: salary) caps.
My point is, if we allow the government to step in and mandate how much we get paid on the bottom end, what is to stop them from doing the same on the upper end? If they can bypass contract language and re-establish low end pay, why not upper end as well? When you allow the goverment to control your wages, you allow politics and knee-jerk lynch mob mentality to control it as well. Airline in chapter 11? Uncle Sam steps in and cuts your wage to help make the company solvent... or sets a cap on what you can possible earn. What about the next Buffalo, the next Atlanta/MSP, or some other incident? Public opinion sways politician's vote on what you are worth.
Maybe that sounds a little too far fetched of a conspiracy theory for some of you, but I am willing to accept that there will be a lower low end to pilot pay scales than to openly allow goverment to determine what pilots are worth. They already control enough of my wage through taxes.
10-31-2009, 05:48 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
You are correct.
I was addressing the previous poster that said that 10 year FO having more experience warranted higher pay, and that's wrong because it only takes into account time spent at that particular carrier... NOT the true experience.
I was addressing the previous poster that said that 10 year FO having more experience warranted higher pay, and that's wrong because it only takes into account time spent at that particular carrier... NOT the true experience.
10-31-2009, 06:00 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
The RLA puts up road blocks (cooling off periods, etc) to hinder that so that "the greater good" is not hindered. And the Union does it because it says, "sure you can leave your job, but if you try and come over here with your 747,767, MD80, DC-9, DC-10, 737 types and 18,000 hours you will start on the bottom at first year pay and benefits."
As for the second part of your post regarding first year pay, that too is in large part to what the union votes for. That could be fixed very easily. However, it would come at the expense of smaller increases in pay for everyone else. i.e., the company presents a sum of money and part of the union's job in negotiations is to determine how that money is divvied up.
First year pay could be increased, but few people are going to sacrifice on the mid-to-top end of the pay scale for that to happen.
10-31-2009, 06:05 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght
In several threads on this and the regional forums, I have seen the suggestion that the goverment step in and mandate that airlines not pay some absurdly low wage to highly trained, highly qualified airline first officers. Some have gone so far as to suggest a dollar amount as an "airline pilot minumum wage". From the offset, it may sound resonable.
In reality, most know that we have done it to ourselves. Quite simply, there exists too large a supply of pilots, not enough sustained demand, and the barriers to entry are too low. Obviously employers prefer to keep costs low, and the most controllable expense is business is payroll. They will lower wages to what they believe the market will bear. Some may tend to offer a slight premium in wage or benefits to boost interest, but since theoretically all pilots are homogenized to the same standards, it would be difficult to ensure that merely a wage increase would ensure the best talent.
Even more reason, some would cry, for the goverment to step in and create a price floor on the commodity of airline pilot. They argue that would give struggling but experienced/talented pilots incentive to remain in the industry. It would guarantee a "livable wage" (words of another poster who must not be alive). Obviously this increase in payroll expense would be passed along directly to the customer, either directly through price, or some form of "fair pay tax".
Perfect! they cry... what's a few extra dollars... I want to get paid! I'm worth it. Well, first every contract would have to be renogotiated.. and with new higher first year pay scales to match the guarantee, it would almost be certain that large structured pay increases would be a thing of the past, ($2 bump on $20 an hour is a 10% raise) a few percent a year at most, perhaps merit-based like every other employer, now that's scary. Of course, big daddy goverment may deem it necessary to step in from time to time and give a little bump to pay.
What about on the other end of the scale. Many banks have been demonized lately for paying out enormous bonuses to high level employees. These aren't just the highest level fat cats, but more junior execs who's salary is based off performance. Ok, so the bank must not have been performing that well if they needed bailout money... but two points 1) Many of those junior execs work for very profitable sections of the bank, and 2) they had abosolutely no say, vote, influence what-so-ever in deciding whether that bank accepted federal bailout. Still bonuses anger the taxpayers, and politicians concerned about votes step in with threats of bonus (read: salary) caps.
My point is, if we allow the government to step in and mandate how much we get paid on the bottom end, what is to stop them from doing the same on the upper end? If they can bypass contract language and re-establish low end pay, why not upper end as well? When you allow the goverment to control your wages, you allow politics and knee-jerk lynch mob mentality to control it as well. Airline in chapter 11? Uncle Sam steps in and cuts your wage to help make the company solvent... or sets a cap on what you can possible earn. What about the next Buffalo, the next Atlanta/MSP, or some other incident? Public opinion sways politician's vote on what you are worth.
Maybe that sounds a little too far fetched of a conspiracy theory for some of you, but I am willing to accept that there will be a lower low end to pilot pay scales than to openly allow goverment to determine what pilots are worth. They already control enough of my wage through taxes.
In reality, most know that we have done it to ourselves. Quite simply, there exists too large a supply of pilots, not enough sustained demand, and the barriers to entry are too low. Obviously employers prefer to keep costs low, and the most controllable expense is business is payroll. They will lower wages to what they believe the market will bear. Some may tend to offer a slight premium in wage or benefits to boost interest, but since theoretically all pilots are homogenized to the same standards, it would be difficult to ensure that merely a wage increase would ensure the best talent.
Even more reason, some would cry, for the goverment to step in and create a price floor on the commodity of airline pilot. They argue that would give struggling but experienced/talented pilots incentive to remain in the industry. It would guarantee a "livable wage" (words of another poster who must not be alive). Obviously this increase in payroll expense would be passed along directly to the customer, either directly through price, or some form of "fair pay tax".
Perfect! they cry... what's a few extra dollars... I want to get paid! I'm worth it. Well, first every contract would have to be renogotiated.. and with new higher first year pay scales to match the guarantee, it would almost be certain that large structured pay increases would be a thing of the past, ($2 bump on $20 an hour is a 10% raise) a few percent a year at most, perhaps merit-based like every other employer, now that's scary. Of course, big daddy goverment may deem it necessary to step in from time to time and give a little bump to pay.
What about on the other end of the scale. Many banks have been demonized lately for paying out enormous bonuses to high level employees. These aren't just the highest level fat cats, but more junior execs who's salary is based off performance. Ok, so the bank must not have been performing that well if they needed bailout money... but two points 1) Many of those junior execs work for very profitable sections of the bank, and 2) they had abosolutely no say, vote, influence what-so-ever in deciding whether that bank accepted federal bailout. Still bonuses anger the taxpayers, and politicians concerned about votes step in with threats of bonus (read: salary) caps.
My point is, if we allow the government to step in and mandate how much we get paid on the bottom end, what is to stop them from doing the same on the upper end? If they can bypass contract language and re-establish low end pay, why not upper end as well? When you allow the goverment to control your wages, you allow politics and knee-jerk lynch mob mentality to control it as well. Airline in chapter 11? Uncle Sam steps in and cuts your wage to help make the company solvent... or sets a cap on what you can possible earn. What about the next Buffalo, the next Atlanta/MSP, or some other incident? Public opinion sways politician's vote on what you are worth.
Maybe that sounds a little too far fetched of a conspiracy theory for some of you, but I am willing to accept that there will be a lower low end to pilot pay scales than to openly allow goverment to determine what pilots are worth. They already control enough of my wage through taxes.
10-31-2009, 07:33 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by TOGA LK
You must be MSP based. By the way, we merged with a company called Delta over a year ago.
In doing so it opens my eyes to the tremendous idea that is the USA..
But at the same time it saddens me that so many seem unable, or more discouragingly, unwilling to be accountable for their actions and decisions.
As was stated by others, nothing was guaranteed to you in this industry, or life in general.
I can empathize, as I lived on first year wages, suffered a furlough, and yes.. I actually lived with my parents for a period of time, so I am not being a hypocrite when I say these things.
However, i am willing to suffer those indignities and more in the interest of limiting an increase in governmental control.
10-31-2009, 08:06 AM
#50
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Josephus
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.
Most pilots want the govt to either quit being an impediment to us fixing the problem (RLA), or fix it themselves. As was said earlier -- govt all in, or all out -- enough of the half-a$$ stuff.
PIPE
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
