If you try to get congress to regulate pilot pay, you will end up with a slew of unintended consequences. Kind of like how we now have to work more days to make less money under 117. There are always unintended consequences. We have the problem with cheap pilot labor in this country because we, the pilots, continue taking the jobs that pay so poorly. It's that simple.

 

I'd just like to see Great Lakes shut down for good !!!! No one should fly for such BS wages !!! I'm glad they're hurting..., they brought it on themselves.
More pay = More applicants

 

I would argue that the quote above is precisely why the GLA pay is simply wrong for current pilots. And, market forces indeed are what will change them to where they should be, or eliminate the company that is unwilling to pay the market driven wage.

In the mean time, the market will not drive up the wage if a sufficient number of pilots accept such low wages, so it once again comes back to the result of the choices made by individuals - are they made with a short term goal in mind, or long term goals, and enough insight to understand the impact of the decision / actions on both goals.

Given the above, the information and communication that is generated on these forums, and the effort to get that information into the general public, can influence the rate at which market forces act on wages by influencing individual pilot decisions. So, keep up the efforts, they are not only important, but necessary and perhaps of critical importance right now given the (potential) inflection point that the industry now faces.

 

Why are you so quick to defend GLA? I works there and know what that place is all about. Step away from the kool aid, just because the FAA approves something, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

This GLA scheme is an end run around the 1500hr rule, which was a law written in blood. There is a reason we don't need low time pilots operating airliners, even a Beech 1900 Airliner. The FAA approving this sets terrible precedent, waters down the law, and detracts from safety.

 

I could not have said it better myself.

 

I would argue that indeed all training contracts are pay to play, up to and including SWA! And the reason they exist is the FAA being too friendly with the airlines in this country.

I was there when GLA was pt 135 in the 90s. The reason we were told to become 121 was safety. You hear that? Safety. A 121 operation is tighter regs. Safety. Now the airline cries uncle and is on the verge of tanking because no one wants to work in that sweatshop with the minimum experience 121 provides and what does the FAA do? Give them a pass! On safety! This not only makes GLA less safe, it also lowers the bar of entry to the industry again, which undermines all our wages. Because let's face it, the government loves business, not labor.

For anyone with a straight face to compare GLA and their operation to a modern part 135 "air taxi" (small freight) or traffic/pipeline operation is so out of touch with reality it isn't even worth debating.

 

The butthurt is strong with this one.

 

I certainly would not mislabel Great Lakes as a pay to play company, but as I pointed out there is not much difference between that and any other cost shifting scheme used to get pilots to take less or even pay to work there.

So that justifies it? I don't think that it does. My only point in this discussion is that entry level airline jobs should keep pace with the pay and working conditions found in similar jobs across the United States, based on things such as skill, education, and responsibility.

Not really. There is a limited value one could port off with say a 737 type, but not much. I would concede it does have some portability though.

What is, how badly you are getting ripped off by your indentured servitude arrangement? I do not deny that training contracts are a reasonable proposition for some jobs to insure fairness, but the fact remains they mostly just the opposite, they tilt the playing field to the company side. For example, when was the last time you heard of someone saying yeah, I signed my training contract but only after I had my contract lawyer change the language in a few places? I certainly never have.

I cannot think of single domestic airline operating passenger ops out of predominantly 121 terminals in the US. I am told it was done in the 1980s and was eventually banned by the FAA due to safety concerns.

Well, I suspect that 135 passenger airline rules are not as safe as 121 rules, but I have not conducted any research on it lately. It's a good topic for discussion.

 

You'll have to show me where I have ever defended GLA. I even stated in a post a few back that I have no dog in this fight. I don't work in that sector of the industry. Maybe you are too close and too emotionally invested to see past the anti-kool aid?

Whether people go to work at GLA - as I guess you did - is a separate issue. We are solely talking about whether GLA starting up a P135 operation is somehow hurting the P121 bar - and I'm saying - from a point of view without a personal emotional attachment - that I don't see how GLA working a P135 certificate is any different than any other P135 operation running around with a 9 seat (or less) aircraft carrying passengers.

You said it again ith what I disagree with. It isn't an end run around the P121 1500 hr because they are beholden to those rules and are operating their P121 airline IAw those rules. The COMPANY (and certainly not the pilots) have decided to open up a separate certificate as a P135 company - just like 'USMCFLYR Airlines' might open up a P135 certificate and hire pilots with appropriate level of experience. How about 'Wheels Up' P135 airline? Are they bringing down the industry if they hire a 500 hr FO?

You are having trouble separating the P121 issue with the P135 issue because GLA seems to have gone about it backwards, having been a P121 airline who then struggles and goes BACK a step and opens up a ?smaller? P135 operation instead of a company GROWING from a P135 operation to a full P121 airline.

You can define pay to play in any manner that you wish if it fits your ideal. That is OK. I'll go with a more traditional definition which includes a person putting up an amount of money and paying to sit in the right seat solely for the time gained - usually without a salary right? Since GLA does not do this - I'll not consider them pay to play and won't lump them in the same category. Training contracts are not pay to play either. I'm sure that you, as a businessman, would have NO thought to regaining a ROI on your investment in a pilot right?
The military is one HUGE training contract right? I certainly don't consider it pay to play either.

P135 and P121 have different rules for whatever reason. You can debate till your blue in the face. As long as an airline is operating under the rules for whatever certificate they are operating then that is the way things are right now. Someone (the FAA?) has decided that P121 is more stringent than P121 - a higher level of safety? I guess so. I imagine, and have always been taught, that P121 was the highest levels of operational safety with the tightest rules - but I'm just becoming familiar with P135-vs-P121 rules. I operate under P135 and many of the rules I operate under seem very similar, if not the same, as P121 rules.

In the end Capt Tony - I'm not defending GLA because I don't need too. I don't work there and I don't plan on applying. I'm looking at it from the outside without any emotional attachment. I have said before, and in this thread too, that I can't agree with how GLA runs their business and treats their employees, but I do say that they need to be called on the carpet for actual business practices and there is no need for trying to make something out of nothing.

 

As we often say about the word 'scab' Cub - the term has a very specific meaning and set of circumstances associated with it which is generally accepted throughout the industry. Pay to play has those conditions and whether a member wants to try and stretch the defintion or try to say that it is somehow more than its' industry standard meaning is the point I'm trying to make.


I missed the point in my post where I said anything is justified. Are we not talking about whether operating a P135 certificate is somehow bringing down the P121 bar?


Unless the FAA takes your type rating off your certificate when you leave a job - I'd say that is pretty portable.

Agreed. Some are good, some are bad, most are written in the company's favor. ALL are voluntary. If you don't like the conditions, don't take the job. I know this falls in the realm of personal responsbility and all and that is in the decline in today's society - so I'll just call this my opinion.


I don't know the definition of predominately P121 terminals. Are you saying that GLA operated mostly out of predominately P121 terminals? Is Garden City KS a P121 terminal/airport? It is a P139 airport which means it has (or had) scheduled air service between 9 and 31 seats (at least that is part of the definition).



I would expect the same, but don't know enough about the differences to make a claim as i related in the previous post. Does that mean that we need to do away with P135 then and any operation that carries even a single passenger (even one CEO) be operated under P121? So P91 must be really unsafe and any pilot or operator that conducts business under P91 is also circumnavigating the 1500 hr and is hurting the industry?