I think there are a 2 totally different things going on here. We all know that pilots are under paid and that we sacrifice a lot in order to do this job for whatever reason. I think that what the article says and what Bryan's message is are two totally different things.

The thread asks people what they think of the article. To be brutally honest it makes him sound pretty materialistic and on a power trip. My thinking was in line with a lot of the other guys regarding this. I do feel much better now that he has come on here and told his side of the story. I do feel much better about the story now that I know that the NYT staff took liberties in twisting his words around.

Now on to the 2nd part. I'm glad Bryan told his story and wish that his words or basically the post he put on here would have been published instead of what the NYT writer published. I think we all know his story because most of has lived it. We all know that this job takes a lot out of you and your family. We used to get compensated with high pay and QOL issues in order to do this, but that is no longer the case. We all need to find a way to get the pay and QOL back up, but I'm not sure how that can be done.

Other things that the media might want to know would be the fact that for some if not most commuting is no longer a choice, but is a necessity. Companies that open and close bases like revolving doors (Colgan did this to me a few times) Companies displacing people from base to base, not paying enough for someone to live in domicile when they are based in high cost cities such as DC LA NY etc. Or the fact that a lot of us have to have 2nd jobs just to make ends meet.

 

Stockholm Syndrome? I was in the industry before there were RJs, and when they came out, I knew I was going to do everything I could to not fly RJs for 1900 wages. But for a generation now people have, voluntarily, and permanently lowering the bar and eroding everyone's security. Yes pilots eat there own, and take away everyone's chance to retain their dignity. People easily forget that it wasn't always that way, and that a shiny jet wasn't always a reward so early in a career, and certainly not the left seat.

I'm glad you cleared up your story here, but man did you ever get skewered by the reporter, and I don't even think that was the intent. The reporter must not understand the difference between true sacrifice and material sacrifice, which is truly sad indeed. Reading the Times' reader comments, of which there were 495 by 6:00 PM, this story was probably actually a set back for the industry.

If the story had featured a former Eastern Airlines pilot, who has since spent 17 years at Midwest Airlines, with two kids in college, and another with medical bills, who is suddenly thinking that the best possible outcome is to get stapled to the bottom of Republic's seniority list, below the very kids who directly replaced him, now that would've been a story that inspired protests.

 

Some thoughts.

With all due respect, attempting to educate the masses is a complete waste of time. With rare exception, the general public is going to read an article such as what was posted, shrug their shoulders and move on to another section. They just don't care.

My non-flying friends usually have no idea as to the pay and QOL that pilots who fly for the Regionals have to contend with. When they do hear about it, the most common response is "why do they put up with that?". Their words and concerns regarding the topic of air travel are usually confined to getting there on time, not losing their luggage, customer service, and of course, price. This is the norm amongst the public - they are more apt to remember a story about safety or who sat on some tarmac for hours instead of salaries, especially when most Americans are just getting by on two incomes.

*not starting a mainline vs regional argument - I have no dog in that fight *

The compensation and QOL used to be very high. The industry used to be very different too. Mainline airlines used to do the majority of the flying, while the commuters connected the hubs with the smaller towns. The commuters were also stepping stones for most, not career destinations.

It cannot be done. What we see today is what I consider the "new normal". It just isn't possible for a regional jet to generate the same amount of revenue as an MD-80 or 737, nor are the operating costs the same. The way things used to be, a person who purchased a ticket on the mainline traveled on one of their airplanes. Now, regional airline managers can't do it cheap enough as they compete against each other for mainline routes, nor is there a shortage of new, low-time pilots willing to take low paying jobs in order to gain experience.

The best that can be hoped for is that unions can negotiate decent contracts with their respective carriers AND the membership approves what is negotiated.

 

I agree that the reason that the conditions are so bad at the regionals is because when most regional contracts were signed they were still stepping stones. It hasn't been until the past few years that regionals have had the appearance that they can turn into a career. Our only hope is that pilots will be willing to fight for the increase in pay and QOL due to the fact that some will never see mainline these days.

I was talking the other day about how everything is now outsourced and the product has gone to hell due to it. Even ground handling is outsourced these days. I find it crazy that United would have Comair run its ground handling at quite a few outstations. I dont see how having a competitor run ground handling can be smart...but I don't see the big picture.

 

Come on, guys! Are any of you commuters? And do all of you believe every word that is written by journalists, especially with aviation??

How many of us have ended a trip on one end of a concourse and radioed to the pilot of your commute home at the other end of the concourse asking them "not to leave early" so you can catch a ride??? It happens a lot, and I am sure this was the intent of Bryan's story. Of course, that gets misconstrued as the other pilot delayed the flight to get Bryan on board. No, the other pilot made sure not to leave before scheduled push to make sure all who wanted to be on the flight could be accommodated.

This was the exact thought that crossed my mind when I read that sentence. There is a big difference.

 

That's the truth, and hopefully your attitude will be shared by many.

I was reading an aviation magazine not too long ago and it had a picture of a UAL 777 undergoing heavy maintenance in China.

 

This is the part that got me “I don’t want to be a 50-year-old pilot earning $40,000 a year,” he said, adding that his wife does not want to be married to a pilot with so little earning power.
Whoa. Seems like he needs to re-evaluate his situation. I sure hope that part was taken out of context as well. I told my wife that part and she just shook her head.

EDIT: Didn't see Mr. Lawlor's reply before submitting my post. Seems like a stand up guy and the media really made a journalistic mess. My apologies. Hope you and your family are doing ok. PS: When you upgrade again, and you will, no more bikes ok

 

I wonder if he doesn't want to be a 50 year-old pilot making $40K/year, or just a 50 year-old in general making $40K/year. Either way it's not a lot of dough.

I assumed the "wife" comment in the article was taken out of context when I first read it. It's the New York Times, and they generally aren't any more correct in their reporting than The Enquirer.

 

Ok broke precedent, one last thought.

My wife never said she didn't want to be married to a pilot with low earning power, nor did I. I don't even know where that came from. It was completely fabricated. We are fine.

I didn't ask a pilot to delay a flight. I asked him to let the agent know I was running and if he could, not to push early. Completely miscommunicated in print.

I don't want to be a 50 yr old pilot earning 40K b/c that is not what this safety sensitive position should be garnering, FOR ANY OF US! A 50 yr old earning 40K is fine if that pay is appropriate for that job and they are happy with that. More power to them.

I am not on a power trip. I never said Captain = power. I think I cleared that up in my earlier post. I enjoy the challenge of the Captain role. I welcome the responsibility. This does not in any way detract from the role of FO. Both are needed. You need both to make a crew.

Tiller envy, please leave the industry. You sound like one of those people who has resigned yourself to the current realities of our industry. It doesn't have to be this way, and it won't if we have the courage to change it. If you don't want to be part of the solution, push the eject button. Thanks for your educated and well thought out input. Fly safe all.

 

^ Right on Brosef. Guys I have had the privilege of working with Bryan on a Union level and he is one of the most selfless guys I know. He puts his heart into our pilot group, as well as our profession and wants this industry to turn around more than anybody I know.........

as fas a flying with him, I was lucky enough to dodge that trainwreck