Pre-9/11 Pay scales
 

I have heard a lot of people make reference (saabarowksi) to the pay scales before the attacks of September 11, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. I find the odd reference to a yearly amount, but no actual scale anywhere. Does anybody have a link or the scale itself that they can post so I can get some perspective. I would like to see SkyWest, ExpressJet, Republic, etc. as well as the majors. Thanks.

Saw this link in the Majors forum, very disheartening...........

http://www.landings.com/_landings/st...ainicarus.html

Comair 6/01 50 seat payrates (the ones they struck for)
CA FO
1. $54.40 21.00
2. $56.09 33.53
3. $57.81 34.57
4. $59.61 35.64
5. $61.45 37.88
6. $63.35 39.06
7. $65.31 40.25
8. $67.33
9. $69.41
10. $71.56
11. $73.77
12. $76.05
13. $78.41
14. $80.83
15. $83.33
16. $85.83

Those same CMR CBA 2001 50 seat rates, effective 6/05.

1. $63.02 24.45
2. $64.98 38.85
3. $66.96 40.05
4. $69.06 41.29
5. $71.20 42.56
6. $73.39 43.90
7. $75.66 45.26
8. $78.01 46.64
9. $80.41
10. $82.91
11. $85.47
12. $88.10
13. $90.84
14. $93.64
15. $100.00
16. $101.75
17. $103.25
18. $105.55

Comair 2001 CBA CRJ-700 rates (6/05)
CA FO
1 $69.32 $24.45
2 $71.48 $42.89
3 $73.66 $44.20
4 $75.97 $45.58
5 $78.32 $46.99
6 $80.73 $48.44
7 $83.23 $49.94
8 $85.81 $51.49
9 $89.26
10 $92.86
11 $95.73
12 $98.67
13 $101.74
14 $104.88
15 $108.12
16 $111.36
17 $114.71
18 $118.22

AWAC 2001 CBA BAe-146 rates (8/05)

CA FO
1 ------ $25.50
2 $78.76 $47.26
3 $81.18 $48.71
4 $83.70 $50.22
5 $86.29 $51.77
6 $88.96 $53.37
7 $91.71 $55.03
8 $94.54 $56.73
9 $97.47 $58.48
10 $100.48 $60.29
11 $103.59
12 $106.79
13 $110.10
14 $113.50
15 $117.01
16 $120.52
17 $124.14
18 $127.86

This is what 50 seat pay should look like, with the adjustment of inflation for the last 6 years.......... Could you imagine how much better life would be at this level...............we have to step it up boys.............

Disheartening, yes, but not unreasonably so. I'm not sure that I can argue that even the minority most senior pilots should be earning close to a million dollars a year. And I don't think average airline pilot pay is $100k.

Raising fairs is also a dangerous game. While I definitely agree that the latest rush of decreasing ticket prices just to get as close to 100% load factor is financially irresponsible, the Supply Demand curve works both ways. Give out too much supply and your revenues decrease. Take away too much supply (effectively price people out of flying, and for more people than you'd think, $60 does make or break the deal), and your revenues decrease. There needs to be a happy medium. Let's say an airplane has 100 seats. If you sell 90 seats for 100 dollars, you make $9000. Sell 80 seats for $120, you make $9600. Yes, you priced 10 people out of flying, but you retained the other 80 people, for whom $120 isn't too much money. Why do you think WN does so well with it's 60-75% load factors, while Herb says "We aim for load factors in the mid 60s to 70%"? It's because WN is able to still price competitively and OPTIMIZE its load factors to provide the maximum revenue.

Anyway, back to pilot pay: yes, you're absolutely right that, especially at the bottom end, they've become criminally low, especially considering the responsibility on pilots' shoulders. But does that mean that a 15% biannual pay raise per year should be sustainable? I don't know about that.

A great pilot I know once said to me "Pilots don't get paid to fly the airplane while it's working. Pilots get paid to fly the airplane when **** hits the fan." And that's absolutely right. While you may pay 100 pilots $100,000 a year for 25 years (my math brings up $250m), think about the impact of those well rested, well paid, competent, happy, and intelligent pilots during just one hairy situation in those 25 years(hitting the runway on a CATIII/II, or performing checklists correctly). It doesn't even have to be a hairy situation per pilot. If because you have that competent and happy pilot in the cockpit you only avert one accident in those 25 years, you've saved money, seeing as accidents are measured in the range of about a billion dollars (internal study, will not cite source) when you count all collateral damage, liability, and actual loses, you've just saved yourself $750m. Of course, you need to figure out exactly how many pilots you have and what their actual average salary is, but keep in mind, this is still a very real and very valid example, because while you increase your pilot pool, you increase your flight numbers, which just increases your chances of a crash. Worth it? Worth it.

excellent post!

Man, looks like Comair makes a pretty penny. They are getting mainline pay. US Airways E-190 FO pay is $41/hour. I guess I should went to Comair.

Comair isn't making those rates anymore after the concessions they took during Mother Delta's bankruptcy...and the fact that you think that was "mainline pay" speaks volumes about the compensation expectations of current-day small jet pilots.

I thought the one I read said 6/05. Is that not current? I am assuming that means June 2005.

Those rates are from the last effective year of their 2001 CBA.

After BK and a concessionary agreement, they don't exist anymore.

For context for my post above, let's look at MAG. Looking at their most recent financial data (includes subsidiaries), their block hours for the year stand at 571,827. Let's say that they stay in business for the next 25 years with no change, positive in negative, in either their pilot numbers or pilot efficiency (aka, pilot numbers stay the same, block hours stay the same). That equals out to 14,289,295,675 miles flown. Now, in 1996, the NTSB approximated that carriers experienced fatal .026 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, or about 3.8m flight hours between fatal accidents. It can certainly be argued that pilots make or break a carrier when it comes to accidents, simply on the statistics of pilot error vs mechanical concerns (I know, I know, if 8 things break that the pilot is supposedly able to deal with, and he/she can't and crashes, that's pilot error, but bear with me). So take those statistics, and Mesa will be exposed to about 3684 "potential accidents" (14b divided by 3.8m). It can certainly be argued that pilots make or break a carrier when it comes to accidents, simply on the statistics of pilot error vs mechanical concerns (I know, I know, if 8 things break that the pilot is supposedly able to deal with, and he/she can't and crashes, that's pilot error, but bear with me). So let's say that with any reasonable training (.026/100000 includes foreign countries too, so let's give MAG the benefit of the doubt) and maintenance, 95% of these situations can be averted. That still leaves 184 situations over 25 years where pilots make the difference. Let's assume that MAG is a much, MUCH less liable company than mine, and that they've figured that with all things considered, an accident will cost about $100m (that's basically the cost of the AC and 1.5m per pax, so no future loss of revenue, no realistic liability numbers, no raised premiums, etc) . That works out to about $18.4b in potential losses, or about $441k of potential savings PER PILOT PER YEAR! Of course, should pilots be paid that full amount? No, because of acceptable levels of risk, but should pilots at any carrier lay down and accept $20k salaries under the excuse that they aren't valuable enough of assets to earn more? Absolutely not.

Your name is boilerpilot but I'm not sure we went to the same school...you're way more smarter than I am, reasoning stuff out and everything...

My only hope is that maybe somebody who will, in the future, be in a position of power will take some of my arguments into consideration and really make a difference where it counts.

And it doesn't have anything to do with being smart, it's just forcing yourself to take a different perspective. Or being really anal. Or nitpicky. Or obsessive. Unfortunately, I think because of being at least slightly anal (hey now, all pilots are a little!) and.... picking nits, I've forced myself to have a different perspective. I'm not sure that's a positive thing :).

Thanks for all the comments. They have been insightful and have opened a good discussion.

I am still looking for SKW's pre 9/11 pay scale. If anyone out there has it, I would like to see it. I am unsure if it has really changed all that much. I understand that there hasn't been the same increase in pay that the pilot group should have received due to historical increases, but how far away from that are we?

ACA rates that were negotiated in 2001. The below rates are for the year 2004, as that is when the contract would have been up for renegotiation;

CA
1 59.71
2 61.56
3 63.47
4 65.43
5 67.45
6 69.54
7 71.69
8 73.91
9 76.19
10 78.55
11 80.98
12 83.48
13 86.06
14 88.72
15 91.47
16 94.21
17 97.04
18 100.00

The 18th year being the biggest highlight. It was the first CBA to see $100 for a 50 seat CA.

F0

1 23.17
2 36.81
3 37.95
4 39.12
5 40.33
6 41.57
7 42.87
8 44.18

Like I said, these are 2004 rates. IF the agreement would have been re-negotiated in 2004, and there was no "raising the bar" done, do the math. If the only gains were the usual 4-5% yearly raise due to DOS/longevity, the rates would be higher than just about every current 70/90 seat operator.

The SkyWest EMB rates have been the same since June of 2002, and if things stay the same will be that way until 2011. Absolutely no change in 5+ years. If I remember correctly there was a 2% increase between 6/01 and 6/02. The only change in the jet rates since then as well was the 1% at the beginning of this year. Nothing is planned for change in the rates until after 2010. The BHO will see a minor increase each January. Newhire pay was $19hr. back in 2000 when I started and still is. I didn't have to fly a 76 seat jet for it however.

Don't look for anything to change at SkyWest either as 65% of the pilot group just sent a strong message that they're happy with things just the way they are.

I just don't get it why isn't everyone ticked off more over what has happened to this industry. I tried living on an FO salary at a 121 carrier that paid about 25000 a year with my wife working full time and we were not saving any money. I left after 6 months and went to a 135 charter outfit making 11000 more a year with a lot less BS involved. And my salary is still below industry standards. Come on everyone wake up Housing cost have doubled, gas cost have doubled and our salaries have decreased. My sister in law will graduate college with a nursing degree and immediately make more money then an RJ captain, ridiculous. Well enough ranting I will not fly anyones jet for 19 dollars an hour but to each his own, if this is what you think your worth go ahead.

I fly because that is what I have always wanted to do. I know that the industry has really taken some hits in the last few years, but so has every other so-called high-paying job. Oil problems and terrorism have seen to that; but more than that our economy is slowing and foreign markets are out pacing us. The corporate side can be either very very good, or very bad. I'm glad you found a good one. I started this thread because I wanted to get some perspective as to why all the people on the forum seem to be ticked at what they are getting paid. I think we should be paid enough to stay off of government assistance though.

good for your sister, her pay is minuscule compared to 2nd year UPS, SWA, DAL etc............. the only good thing about your sister being a nurse is the white thigh-highs and the hats, other then that I see no good that can come out of being a nurse

And so it goes, just keep saying to yourself that you will be working for UPS SWA etc, only of few more years of crap pay. Well not everyone is going to make it to those jobs in fact alot of us won't, not for a lack of trying but because their are not many of those jobs. Why not try to make it better at the lower levels, you may be there awhile. I know there are alot of people trying very hard to make things better and I applaud you, we can make things much better.

I hear ya, Im running for F/O rep here in EWR, well see where it goes from here!

no way they let some monkey from the dirty jerz represent a respected pilot group!! :eek:

disregard...

Just a thought, but a feature that could help some out would be a graph of the pay scales over the years. Update the graph every time the pay scale is updated for that particular airline. It could easily be put on the airline profiles on APC.

Well, some people seem to be drawn to the whole saving lives thing :)

Saab. Thanks for the link to that article. It certainly got me down. I've been bumming around watching t.v. ever since, thinking about calling the local college of massage therapy so I could get a "job that pays and helps people" ;). The one thing that the article oversteps though is that the cost of doing business has really increased since the 70's for the airlines. Fuel costs, and maintenance along with insurance and fees for airport usage must have all increased dramatically since those days.

Fuel, believe it or not, adjusted for inflation really hasn't increased since the 70's. Sadly, it is about where it should be, inflation adjusted of course.

I'm with Lear 31, it is hard to understand why so many pilots are so accepting of the horrible pay at regionals. I don't blame the majors, they essentially had their current rates rammed down their throats in bankruptcy court. I think many of the pilots who think 60k a year is a lot of money must live in rural America because on the west coast and the northeast, say Virginia to Boston and north, that 60k is dog****! In many of those areas, a 450k home is a beat up 3 bedroom that needs work. Without a trust fund or some sort of inheritance, how long will it take you to come up with the 100k in cash you need to pay 20% down, avoid PMI and pay closing and moving costs? All while making 60k, 65k, 68k, year on year.

Mr. I.

Mr. I.

When I was working outside NYC a lot of folks commuted from PA into the city because of the COL. 2+ hours of driving every day. That was in 2003, I really feel for them now w/ gas prices doubling. These people were making $50k, $60k+/year.

If you want to live in a part of the country with half million dollar homes on your income alone you should find a job that will pay you what you need. Working for a regional isn't going to allow you to live in a large city comfortably. It never has, although the pay is a lot better now than it was in the past.

Pilots have the luxury of either commuting long distances or driving to work. If you drive 2-3 hours outside most domiciles you can get a darn good place to live on $60k/yr. Luckily you only have to do this once every 4 days, unlike most professions.

I agree, $60k isn't a lot of money, but for those of us who worked up the ranks it is a lot of money. It's 4x what I made my first year instructing.