Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   USA Today Reveals Regional Airline's Low Pay Secret (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/10461-usa-today-reveals-regional-airlines-low-pay-secret.html)

org1 03-10-2007 06:46 AM

It all depends on what you call an experienced pilot. Also, different company culture makes a difference in safety vs experience.


SKyHigh[/QUOTE]
I am one who has been sidelined by low wages and crummy working conditions. If things changed a few thousand like myself would come out of the wood work and get back into flying.

However I don't think that safety requires experienced pilots anymore.

SKyHigh[/QUOTE]

JoeyMeatballs 03-10-2007 07:09 AM


Originally Posted by Freightpuppy (Post 131047)
I DON'T THINK SO! I would say it's the major airline pilots that let it happen when RJs came into the picture.

If the mainline guys weren't "too good" to fly RJs, we wouldn't have this problem right now. Don't even go there buddy. Maybe you should pull your head out of your a$$ and face reality. IT WAS THE MAJOR AIRLINE PILOTS that started this mess.

I love her, best point she has ever made, I agree 100%

JetJock16 03-10-2007 07:42 AM


Originally Posted by VTcharter (Post 130787)
How exactly do the low wages contribute to lack of safety?? A pilot needs the same qualifications whether they are paid 100k or 20k, unless you are thinking that a pilot would get depressed with the low wages and drive an airplane into the ground...not very likely in my opinion.

Excellent point!

Mesabah 03-10-2007 07:43 AM

It's the exact opposite of what you think; when the supply of pilots is low, the pay is high and the experience is low. When the supply is high, the pay is low and the experience is high.

Joeshmoe 03-10-2007 09:10 AM


Originally Posted by pilotrod (Post 131350)
I rest my case. You are the dinosaur I am referring too. You old guys never seem to grasp the fact that you are "employees". You seem to think you own the airline. I hate to break it to you but the "stockholders" own the airline. Management, whom all you guys seem to hate, have an obligation to the stockholders. The unions greed years ago help contribute to the demise of the old greats, TWA, Pan Am, Eastern, Branif, ect. They held a monopoly for years when they were regulated by the govt. then came competition. We live in a free country, to the chagrin of many pro-union democrats. If I want to start an airline, and jump through all the regulatory hurdles, I can. If I want to offer my employees $19 an hour, and they agree to work for it, then so be it. I'm sure if you started a new business, out of the kindness of your heart, and your desire to help your fellow man, you would pay way more than your competition just to help people. Yeah right. I do agree with you on one point however. As long as pilots are willing to work for these low wages, and demand does not increase , then wages will stay low. This is very basic economical principle. I have heard the same argument about flight instructors. Why do they work for starvation wages, why don't they all refuse to work, unionize, and force these scoundrels trying to make money on their investment out of business. Hmmm, does this sound familiar? Delta is a prime example, their union negotiated unrealistic pension plans, there pilots where the highest paid in the industry. The company is dead ass broke because of it. You can cry about managements big salaries, but you are in charge of an asset worth 30 to 100 million, they are in charge of an asset worth billions.

Spoken like a true management pilot. Keep chuggin' the Kool Aid.

org1 03-10-2007 10:06 AM


Originally Posted by JetJock16 (Post 131403)
Excellent point!

It would be a good point, except the qualifications and demonstrated ability for an ATP, type rating, or any other certificate are MINIMUM acceptable.

Can anyone truthfully say he'd as soon have his family flying on an airplane with a PIC with bare ATP mins, and a FO with a brand new commercial certificate as a more experienced crew that has way above the minimum qualifications?

Freightpuppy 03-10-2007 11:41 AM


Originally Posted by org1 (Post 131472)

Can anyone truthfully say he'd as soon have his family flying on an airplane with a PIC with bare ATP mins, and a FO with a brand new commercial certificate as a more experienced crew that has way above the minimum qualifications?

Depends on the ticket price. :rolleyes:

org1 03-10-2007 02:51 PM


Originally Posted by Freightpuppy (Post 131503)
Depends on the ticket price. :rolleyes:


Well...yes. I should have qualified the question: "Can anyone that knows the difference be as happy to have the family fly with somebody that barely satisfies the minimums as with a more experienced crew?"

You're right...the general public doesn't know the difference.

Noah Werka 03-10-2007 03:11 PM

I went to werk for a commuter airline(135/121) back in the 80's. The airline was four yrs. old. The average pilot TT was over 5000 hrs. The pay, based on the USA article was around $4.70/hr. ALPA came on board(not an ALPA fan) and the pay went up(again based on the USA story) to over $7/hr. The with every contract the pay and QOL substantially increased. until it became a "retirement" airline(we had the best contract of any airline in the industry at the time) for many of the older guys because the pay and QOL(some of the more Senior Captains were making $65k flying -8's, for a four day werk week) more than made up for the higher pay and sorry starting QOL at many other airlines. Experience level of newhires continued to be high. 10-12 yrs later rumous of a buy out started. When the smoke cleared and we found out who the buyer was, the flood gates opened and pilots couldn't leave fast enough. That is when the newhire quality went to $hit. They hired guys with minimum time that had no idea what flying was all about. The rumors came to pass. QOL started to suffer and the company started trying to screw with our pay. It ended up with the airline being shut down, and every one of those of us still on the property were suddenly unemployed. Most of the older guys did exactly what ORG1 said. The company that bought us actually had the balls 8mos. later to send applications to those that were "terminated"(not furloughed) even though we werked for the company at shutdown, for a "pilot position". Whose a$$ were they trying to blow smoke up? Mine or theirs? I would shoot any of my children that wanted to become a pilot for an airline.

JetJock16 03-10-2007 04:07 PM


Originally Posted by org1 (Post 131472)
It would be a good point, except the qualifications and demonstrated ability for an ATP, type rating, or any other certificate are MINIMUM acceptable.

There are mins for everything in life. Every job has a min and once the mins are met you're then appointed a position that allows you to grow and learn. Grow and learn, with out qualifications then there would never be anyone qualified.

Most of the airlines that have CA's right at ATP mins are fling B1900's. I don't know of any RJ operators that have CA’s right at ATP mins. At SKW the average initial upgrade has over 3000TT. These numbers used to be higher until Legacy, Major and National airlines started out sourcing their flying. Just remember that our current industry situation wasn’t caused by pilots, it was Mgmnt.

BTW, the safety record in the airline industry is better than it ever has been. Make any argument you will but should-a, could-a, would-a’s mean nothing in this world.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands