MSNBC article on airline cost cutting
 

Seems like MSNBC may be getting closer to the underlying issues. Not the best article ever, but still fairly good.

Continental crash shows safety may have price - Aviation- msnbc.com

Personally I think it should be re-titled: You get what you pay for...

Its a good article, but many of us already knew this. And I dont think it will change any thing.

Dont go to newsvine if you dont like people talking about things they know nothing about... lol

"we periodically review wages to ensure that we remain competitive"

i just about effing choked and died on my coffee after reading this. This has to be the biggest slap in the face and urinate on your grave quote ever dished out to anyone.
Im sure thats just why pinnacle management has been so eager to get a contract done with pilots. They are just trying to find you all a competitive wage.

Is anybody else getting really sick of reading comments from Roger Cohen??? I am starting to dislike him more than Pinnacle Management :mad:

With Roger Cohen being in the news more often, I am really learning to hate him with a passion.

I think we should furlough him.

I also found it interesting that Cohen was commenting on the effect of deregulation on mainline carriers.

"At the root of the problem, there needs to be changes on a cultural level at the regional airlines," Smith says. End Quote


I hope this means we will still have to read, write and speak english:D.

Sadly there is nothing false about that statement. Periodically, when the contract is up, they review wages to make sure the remain competitive.

Unfortunately for us pilots, it's been paycut after paycut, and the industry average has gotten lower and lower. So, when they review the wages they adjust them to be 'competitive.'

It's a backhanded way of saying we keep our (crew) costs in line because we can.

I don't see any reason why we should get paid less than a 2nd Lt. in the military.

This article, along with every other article that I've read in the last week on this subject omit a major point.

$21/hr sounds like a livable entry-level wage...except that it only will get you a 70-hour guarantee, and legally not more than 120 hours a month. The likes of pinacle management can say..."see, we pay our pilots $21 dollars an hour. That is average compensation."

Every pilot knows the truth.

Is this Flame Mr Duck? are you being sarcastic?

Last time I went to work I didnt have to worry about MOPP Level 4 alarm Black when you put your time as a Butter Bar in a war zone come back make the same comments.

Quote: "Like actors and other artists, pilots are a little too anxious to suffer for their art," says Smith

Well said! All you have to do is read the postings from all the CFI's & Students on this forum telling those who complain about their low pay and min days off, too suck it up or quit.

Most or all of us on the board are aware of the problem, I'm just glad MSNBC is starting to get the news to the public. Hopefully somebody out there will read the article and think:


"10 years ago, Boston to LA was "x" dollars, and today it's $110. Fuel prices have gone up. What are they cutting back on in order to provide me with this low fare? Maintenance, overworked staff?"

Let's not get off on a tangent about mil vs civ but I have to at least defend ToiletDuck. To be fair, you aren't flying around 19 or 50 or 70 or 90 people either.

Actually, some of us in the military did just that.

Some of us have done BOTH.

Every thing that comes out of the mouth of Mr. Cohen is political spin intended to protect the Regional Airline and Major Airline Management from taking the blame they deserve. He is not interested in improving lifestyles for the employees of the Regional Airlines. He is not interested in making radial increases in aviation safety. He is not interested in changing the current modus operendi for Mainline Aircarriers. If he supported and did anything to improve the airline industry for the good of the public he would cut into the bottom line of the balance sheets for the airlines he represents. Mr. Cohen represents the executives, not the pilots.

Here is a thought: Federally mandated minimum wage for all aircraft carrying over 19 passengers, say $35 per flight hour adjusted every 5 years for inflation, the same for aircraft carrying over 50 passengers but set it at $40 per flight hour. ATP licence required to serve as PIC or FO on an aircraft carrying over 19 passengers. Restrict aircraft with less then 75 seats from flying between communities with a metropolitan population in excess of 150,000. Finally, give the NTSB regulatory power to so that they can mandate faults in the Federal Regulations get changed (with an executive veto option).

How did the media pick up on the notion that commuters chose to live out of base to save money? I've never heard any commuter claim that reason, myself included.

Hi!

A lot of people commute to save money.

When I got my job in Detroit, a move would've cost us a TON. Housing and food prices were MUCH higher in DTW, and my CEO would've lost her job if we moved, costing us WAY more than I made.

LOTS of people commute because of lower living costs/job availability where they live vs. where they are based.

cliff
NBO

Are you kidding? In what world do you live that moving from wherever you lived before you got this job to a hub city would save you money?
In fact, to save money is the only reason for commuting. Its why people drive 4 hours each way for a NYC job. You can not afford the lifestyle in Manhattan that you can 2, 3, or 4 hours outside of town.

Likewise, the affordability of an apartment in BOS, EWR, PHL, DCA, MIA, ORD, LAX, etc, etc, is incomparable to your parent's basement, no matter where it is.

Bottom line, there are a lot of regional FO jobs in places a regional FO's wages won't do the trick.

And that's why the truth needs to become known.... People are shocked to find out I only get paid 75 hours per month especially when I put that in the terms of office worker 160 hour a month at work and pay. Me about 300 at work 75 paid......

hehehe. It seems I ruffled a few feathers with that comment!

All I said was that I've never heard anybody claim that before. True statement. Then again, a disproportionate number of guys I fly with live in CA. Now I guess I've heard otherwise.

FWIW, moving into base would have been a wash for me (other than the cost of moving) - so that's the "world in which I live." As much as I hate commuting, I'm not moving my fam away from western WA just so I can fly airplanes. For that reason, I'll be a commuter until I find my way out of this "career."

Now simmer down, Beavis.....

Been saying that for awhile. Most want to keep their heads in the sand. Wake up people 300 hr per diem is 300 hr at work! And yes sleeping in the hotel room is time at work. Does a fireman clock out when he goes to sleep at the station? Duty time payscales people think about it.

A lot of us did exactly that.

Roger Cohen is the worst I want to know what his w-2 looks like. I also want him to take one of the classic 4days complete with maint issues , wx, early shows, reduced rest.

Yeah I should have thought a few seconds longer about it before I posted. But mil guys get awesome benefits and retirement. Regional AND mainline pilots get lousy pay AND no benefits or retirement.

Agree 100%. Would love to see some progress made in this direction. An incentive for more efficient crew utilization may benefit both pilots and airlines. Unfortunately, given how long the current system has been in place, I doubt anything short of government intervention will change it.

Seriously? When I was a butter bar I got an all expense paid trip to jet camp. It was rediculous. Nearly every butter bar gets a year of UPT and 6 months of Graduate pilot training. Nobody does anything usefull until 1st LT. I was told at UPT that the two most useless ranks in the AF are 2LT and Major. 2LTs just learn a job and Majors learn how to manage an operation.

Unfortunately, 0-1 pay does somewhat resemble first year airline pay. The difference is that the benefits in the military are excellent. Airline benefits kinda suck these days.

Mil Guys also get the pleasure of getting shot at aswell I am not going to turn this into a Mil/Civ issue its like comparing apples to grapes. As far as justification for military retirement and benefits, your risk of becoming a POW or MIA or KIA is fairly slim flying 121 if your 121 job merit the same compensation I think you should have to go true SERE training Water Survival and the host of Schools before you even set foot in a flight deck, ok rant over but I hope you see my point.

Fly Safe

"I don't see any reason why we should get paid less than a 2nd Lt. in the military" Ducks QUOTE

I never mentioned untill now Anything about UPT or Pilot training I have several friends who went to UPT as Captains just waiting for a slot some came from different AFSCs as for JET CAMP No comment

"In my experience..."

Then again, some 2LT's hit the sandbox a few months after getting commissioned. Not everybody gets pretty blue uniforms to go to Jet Camp. I believe Blkflyer (love the avatar btw) was trying to put things in perspective. There is more to the military than Jet Camp and Uncle Sam's Armed Flying club. :cool:

Hi!

Mil and the regionals are two different things. Their pay is not comparable. Oh, and when I started as a 2Lt I got paid about $15K/YEAR! (sorry).

It is also why a new guy at 3M or Gulfstream (SAV) should not get the same pay as a new flight instructor in a C-172 at Joe's Flying Service.

cliff
NBO

$15,000/mo? What service what you in?

Yeah, that's the only difference. Oh wait, what's up with that 10-yr commitment after UPT? How about we see how well a 10-yr training contract will go over with regional pilots? Then there is that no say in where you live, little say in what aircraft you fly, little say in whether you even fly an aircraft (UAV, staff, etc) - just like those regional seniority based systems. Also, others have mentioned the going to war thing - forgot about that. As long as we are at it, ask all of those fighter wingmen how many of them have 13 or more days off per month.

Are you sure you were in the USAF? I can't tell from how you framed your post - either you never were or you served in the '50's. (jetcamp?, butter bar?). If you were from the old school, UPT was nowhere near jetcamp unless the average camp has a 30% or more washout rate.

I'll have to say the introduction of military pilots into the regional discussion was a sign that the poster had nothing useful to lend to the discussion.

Edited: Gator, I found one of your previous posts that had this quote: "Yes sure I looked into Active duty....but I never desired to be in South Korea as a 10 year indentured servant. Especially if there was a better option."

Really, as an ANG person who was afraid to commit 10-yrs of your life away, you are going to attempt to comment on how "cake" and AD 2LT's life is? Priceless!

One does not serve for fiscal reward.
 

Historically, the armed forces have not paid as well as a comparable civilian position. (I do not mean combat arms per se, but a young college graduate entering the work force.) The financial rewards of service have always been sorely lacking. There has never been any argument that a junior ad exec or accountant is 'worth more' than some shave tail Lieutenant. But they certainly will bring home more bacon.

The idea that a civilian of roughly equal training should make less than their peers in uniform is absurd! Ten year commitments, hardship deployments, combat; these are not arguments to support higher pay - they are the conditions of service to the nation.

If you are making less to start than a 2nd louie, there is something seriously, grotesquely wrong with your situation.

Forgive my ignorance but when you're in the service don't they usually pay for room and board? I have a few friends who are officers in the USAF and I think they get a hefty stipend for housing.

If my company paid for my house I'd be making bank even if they paid me half what I currently make!

Really, well how about this: Isn't crappy pay and crappy schedules a condition of service to the regional airline? Regional pilots are sacrificing in order to build hours towards a further career, with that in mind how about they pay for their own training and suffer those long hours and low pay as a service to the company that is giving them the opportunity to move on to bigger and better things? As a further sign of their gratitude, how about they sign agreements that they will serve minimum term lengths? We can call them conditions of service to the employer.

Let's refresh - some regional people think that their pay should be indexed off of 2LT pay? Since you mention "roughly equal training", would you care to elaborate? USAF pilots are paid as officers (not pilots), they got officer training, they have officer responsibilities, they get officer pay - officer pilots get a small flight pay increment in addition to their officer pay. Those hardships that you call service, that is why the pay is what it is. The military set's pay to whatever it takes to get the most qualified candidates to agree to endure those hardships in exchange for that pay (just as regional airlines set their pay to that which is required to get the candidates they are willing to live with). There are many who think that the salary of a 2LT is not worth the enduring of those hardships, including the majority of those who are reading this very discussion - otherwise they would have raised their right hand.

When you can't think of a reason why your conditions should be improved on its own merits, you try to tie your pay to a completely different industry. I tell you what, I had 6 years of college (M.S.) and had 13 years of experience (training) before I went to work with my current employer - maybe I should index my pay to that of a surgeon? After all, we have similar durations of education and training.

For those who continue to compare their pay to those of other industries, you can always quit and switch to that industry. Unlike the military, you have the freedom to come and go as you wish. If you don't like your work conditions and you can't formulate the argument of why you should be compensated better or have better work rules - leave. If you want to articulate why you should be paid commensurate to your responsibilities, fine, you'll have a productive discussion. If you want to say that you should be paid what X or Y gets paid, then I'll have a simple answer - go be X or Y.

iPilot: It's called salary. Due to the nature of the gov't system, the pay of anyone in the military is comprised of base pay plus allowances. There is no overtime, there are no bonuses (except for ACIP and other pays that we incorrectly call bonuses - they are really re-signing payments), etc. Housing pay is a way for the gov't to modify one's pay based on rank and dependent status. In reality, it would be no different if your company reduced your base pay, and they added some portion back and called that portion "housing pay", and another "subsistence pay", etc. It would be like someone saying "if I got per diem like you do, I'd be able to eat for free."