I would say great! Then ask you how you got the job. All I am saying is that this exact situation is an exception, not the rule.

If you take the job.

I think maybe I did not explain myself clearly enough. What I am saying is that in professional non-aviation jobs, you are not always going to get the same or better pay for moving to another job or losing the one you have. Ask any professional with a good bit of experience who was making great money and lost their job. Most of them are taking jobs way below their previous pay level if they can get a job at all.

 

What you are missing is that in professional non-aviation jobs, it is possible to get the same or better pay for moving to another job or losing the one you have. Nobody said it's going to happen in every situation (nothing's guaranteed in life) but it is possible, and the outcome can be influenced by the individual's experience, track record, work ethic, motivation, etc. As an airline pilot, this kind of a lateral move is not possible.

 

Yep-had a buddy who was a "lifer and ultimate professional and team player" just ousted from a $170K/year corporate CA job only to be replaced by the much less experienced buddy of the new chief pilot in a very difficult location and job market. He and his family have been there for 20 years. He's now 55 and been looking for anything, anywhere for a year. It seems that he's now considered "too old and too expensive" and thus too great of a risk.
A seniority list cuts both ways as he passed on both DL and WN in the early 90s as instead he listened to friends who made the same arguments about being able to easily change jobs for the same pay with little down-side risk.

 

No it's not possible to make a leteral move in the airline industry (unless of course, you're talking about year one), however, there are risks with either route. Yes, it's possible to move to other jobs/cities, etc with potentially no downside in pay, benefits, QOL, etc. outside of the 121 world, however, don't always think it's easy to do this or even find a job in an economy similar to the one we have now. I can't tell you how many friends who have gone through rollercoaster careers having been fired, furloughed, downsized or even leaving to chase a "better deal." Many of these guys are smart, motivated, etc, but some were simply victims of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time."
In our annual gathering (including spouses, more than a few were quite envious (spouses too) of the relative stability and job protections which come with a 121 seniority list. They understood UAL/CAL, pensions going away, but all in all, they generally agreed that the long term stability/job protections to at least age 60 was worth the risk. As they said, losing a job with kids after 50, especially in this economy, is darn near unrecoverable.

 

All true. I don't think anyone was saying it's easy. But the difference between airline pilots and most other professions (in terms of the possibilities for a lateral move) remains.

 

[QUOTEWhat you are missing is that in professional non-aviation jobs, it is possible to get the same or better pay for moving to another job or losing the one you have.][/QUOTE]

True, it is possible, much more possible than in the aviation business.

[QUOTEYep-had a buddy who was a "lifer and ultimate professional and team player" just ousted from a $170K/year corporate CA job only to be replaced by the much less experienced buddy of the new chief pilot in a very difficult location and job market. He and his family have been there for 20 years. He's now 55 and been looking for anything, anywhere for a year. It seems that he's now considered "too old and too expensive" and thus too great of a risk.
][/QUOTE]

I literally watched this as they fired my boss and I became the replacement, younger and I don't get paid nearly what he did. The payscales in corporate america have been downsized just like the airlines, unfortunately we are not going to have the same earning potential as the previous generation.

100% agree, I was not trying to dispute this.

 

Pielut, that's really a shame, and it speaks volumes of ethics on account of that department, and I am sorry for your friend.

Perhaps your friend had a reasonably nice discrimination/wrongful termination lawsuit available to him, or I hope at least he got a nice severance package.

However, the fact remains and the history is littered with failed airlines, and I don't mean just startups - I'm talking established carriers: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, Aloha, ATA, etc. Let's not even get into start-ups or mergers. Tough sh*t, right?

Well, it is... in a way. But bear something in mind... all of those airlines had some very experienced pilots who were making a pretty good living. Now that their airlines have gone under, their resume indicating their experience, loyalty to one company, other professional experiences doesn't amount to squat - $3000/month, right seat, and that's if you're "lucky."

Here's the thing... seniority should have its place, but in my opinion, the difference between the top FO and the bottom FO shouldn't be more than 5%-10% difference in pay. Why? You're doing the same damn job. I was making $95/hour as a 737 FO, and my counterpart who was hired after me and was still on probation, was making something like $30/hour. Experience? Nope... this person was furloughed from another airline and he had been in the industry way longer than me, had way more total time and time in type than me, yet I was making 3 times what he was making doing the same exact job. Why? Seniority... Even back then when we were hiring, I thought the whole concept was grossly flawed and cheapened us as a whole.

When we were taking paycuts, we were asked... do you want to risk having to start over at year 1 somewhere else or take this additional 10% paycut and forego your annual cost-of-living 'raises'? I suspect that was the driving force behind the post-9/11 concessions, all the while the airline management and executive compensation skyrocketed.

This 'seniority for pay purposes' has been used against the pilots time and time again, yet we're still swearing by it.

I am simply at a loss that seemingly well-educated self-proclaimed professionals would allow themselves to keep getting taken advantage of in this fashion time and time again. Yet, here we are...

 

RJSaviator brings up a very good point.

Why such a wide disparity in pay compensation between a newhire pilot and a more senior line pilot?

Our industry has one of the widest compensation gaps compared to other professions. When you take into account starting FO pay at some majors is currently around 30-50K and the cap is around 100-120K, it is easy to see what a substantial difference exists for doing the same job.

I have always thought that pilots are, at times, there own worst enemy.

If a pilot has scrapped by on a measly 40K starting pay while slowly working his/her pay towards that 100K mark, do you think that pilot would be willing to take a pay cut in order to "level the playing field" between senior pilots and newhire compensation?

I would venture to guess, No, most pilots would not be willing to take that pay cut. I think the past airline pilot labor groups throughout the years has shown us that at times the senior pilots will look out for themselves while the bottom half of the seniority list is left to suffer.

I think these instances have been exploited by Frank Lorenzo management types that thrive on slicing up pilot group unity whenever they can.

Bottom line is, that the entire discussion about a senior pilot being able to move their compensation package from one company to another at will, is a silly debate. I'm sure that the closer one gets to retiring the better this notion becomes, but it is just not realistically feasible.

This is not to meant to be insensitive to that 55 year old forced into retirement mentioned a few pages back, but it is also not fair to push out an established pilot who has been at a company for sometime.

Pilots will always look at things from biased eyes, it's impossible not to. If something looks good, they will be for it, if it looks detrimental to their career, they will detest it.

National seniority list or not, you will never be able to force any company to hire a specific pilot. Each and every company reserves the right to hire who they please, and those companies will always hire the pilot who seems to be a balancing fit between expertise and cost.
Why would they pay more for something if they don't need to?

This is where we come in, and it is also where ALPA national has failed as an organization. There needs to be more stability and less volatility in the industry. While the airline industry is, by it's own nature, volatile and unforgiving to bad management, the pilot's compensation plays a pivotal role.

If we as pilots, continue to support and get behind a company that is doing nothing more then predator pricing there competitors out of business only to gain market share, we will forever be sentenced to ongoing volatility.

ACL, brought up the difference between us and doctors/lawyers, and I think the main difference is "professional courtesy" when it comes to setting their own individual rates. Furthermore, you will know very quickly when you are dealing with a experienced lawyer or doctor, but I doubt a passenger would ever know the difference between an experienced/inexperienced pilot from the back of a plane.

 

Oh yeah they will; but by the time they figure that out, its too late....

 

Emirates, Korean, Turkish, are all airlines that do not have a ready supply of qualified pilots in their own country. They have to pay more to get qualified pilots to go to their country.

I don't care how much they pay, I'm not leaving Atlanta to move to Istanbul.