Mesabah

What never seems to get discussed here or anywhere, is it is probably impossible to raise FO pay to a livable wage. Why....because the majority of the pilot group has to vote in favor of it. The company can provide addition capital to the pilot group, however the pilot group has to agree on how that money is distributed....the senior pilots would get the majority of that income. Does any airline have the capital to give 100% across the board raises to all of the pilot group just to bring FO's up to a livable wage?

Unless the government gives an executive order to raise the pay outside of company and union control, it isn't going to happen.

Mason32

You're a Captain? No offense, but that dribble sounded like something a first year FO would say.

You really don't think that if a company had XX dollars to give to the pilot group, they couldn't simply tag it with a qualifier that xx percentage must go to FO pay or the money is not available for anybody.

ANYTHING can be done if people want it to be done.

spank

Right.....

Avroman

You are talking to someone that works at the company that THE COMPANY wanted to raise first year pay and THE UNION SAID NO!!!! because it wouldn't benefit the entire pilot group. Yes I too work there and was absolutly disgusted and made it known so.... Yet the decision stood and NOBODY got any raise.

Convairator

AMEN! Thank you and well put! I am glad that somebody understands what is going on.

rjjunkie

Skiles was a CA ? hmmm

OldSF3Dude

In my experience a airline doesn't really care how cost is divided up between a crew once the total crew cost for all seats is agreed on. In other words, a cost of $100 per hour could be agreed on to pay a captain and a first officer. The union then decides that the captain will get $80 and the F.O. $20, or whatever. So, in a sense, the unions are to blame for the low starting pay as well. New hires, or those yet to be hired, don't get to vote on contracts, afterall.

But, that said, an across the board requirement for all new hires to have a 1500 hour ATP would definately force companies (and unions) to increase first officer wages once hiring kicks into gear again. It's simple supply and demand. During the hiring spurt a year or so ago I'd say that only about 10% of the new hires had ATPs. That means that the 1500 hour ATP requirement would take 90% of potential applicants out of contention for a year or two, and then I doubt half of those would ever make it to getting an ATP. Companies would have to pay more to compete for a smaller eligible group of pilots. Since every airline would have to do it they could all absorb it equally/raise fares roughly the same.

Am I wrong in this?

Plus, safety is a matter of degrees. I don't think anybody can argue that in general it's not better to have a 1500+ hour new hire pilot whos been around the block than a 250 hour pilot. I think any captain who has flown with 250 hour pilots can tell you that. I'm not saying they are un-safe. Just less safe and in need of more grooming. After a couple years on the job there really isn't much difference, but you still have that year or two interim.

Mesabah

My example was a little extreme I will give you that. The company could do that, however, regional whip sawing allows management to not provide that capital to the pilot group. Instead raising FO pay would have to come from the shared sacrifice of the higher paid pilots. However, I doubt they would vote for a pay cut to raise the pay of other pilots. That's why I say that an independent party will have to step in to remedy the troubles in the industry. The pilots have no will to make changes, and the company is certainly not going to provide more capital to the pilot group if it can be avoided.

727gm

What possible difference could this make? Airlines come and airlines go...PanAm, Eastern, WestAir, CCAir....Fine aviators starting over again, or getting into it for the first time. non sequitur.

logic1

What did Mr. Skiles do before US Air?.....where did he get his time?...anyone