exhausting hours for meagre wages
 

A pilot's life: exhausting hours for meagre wages | World news | The Guardian

The old hands say there was never much glamour in piloting several tonnes of metal thousands of feet in the air.

But there's no denying that to the earthbound back in the jet-set era half a century ago – when Pan Am's "Clippers" ruled the air lanes and service was modelled on transatlantic ocean liners – pilots were regarded with an awe just short of that accorded to astronauts.

The exotic blend of international travel, the authority of commanding the ever larger and faster airliners, and those dashing uniforms turned heads, drew autograph hunters and attracted groupies. Pilots also made a lot of money.

Today it is different. Captain Dave Ryter earned so little when he was a co-pilot for a major airline that he lived in a gang area of Los Angeles, commuted for hours to work and made less money than a bus driver.
"I was standing at a gate waiting to commute a few years ago. I was in uniform and a passenger walks over to me and strikes up a conversation as people often do. He said: where's your second home? I looked at him, thinking he was making a joke. He was serious. I said: actually, it's my parents'," said Ryter. "I was living in a very small town home in a gang area and my wife also worked for the two of us to support our family."

Anyone waiting for their underpants to be checked knows that the glamour went out of flying years ago. But nowhere has the cachet fallen so far as in the US, where pilots on commuter airlines responsible for more than half the country's flights now earn pitifully low salaries for long, unsocial hours.
Cachet
Many are forced to fly half way around the country before they even begin work. Others sleep in trailers at the back of Los Angeles airport, in airline lounges across the country or even on the floors of their own planes. Some co-pilots, who typically take home about $20,000 (£12,500) a year, hold down second jobs to make ends meet.

Unless they have come through the military, many pilots also start their first jobs deeply in debt. "Many of them come to these jobs with $150,000 of debt for a $15,000-$20,000 starting job," said Ryter. "It's hard to make the economics of that work out. But there's a theory that one day they'll make a lot more money than that. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But the problem is they are in, for a number of years, quite a hard haul and there's certainly no glamour. That's long since gone."

The result is not only the diminishing of a once coveted profession but increasing concerns about safety as many pilots are worked to the very limits of regulations, leaving them exhausted as well as relatively poor.

The largest union for pilots, the Air Line Pilots Association (Alpa), traces the change back about 20 years, when the smaller domestic airlines stopped selling their own tickets and began competing for contracts to act as local extensions of the major carriers. To win contracts they slashed costs, which included forcing down pay and demanding more of pilots.

Then came the 9/11 attacks, which pushed some airlines into bankruptcy and others to cut costs even further. Many pilots lost their jobs. Even those on some of the biggest airlines saw their pay slashed by as much as half.

But it is the regional pilots who have the toughest time. Ryter's salary rose to $72,000 (£45,000) a year when he was promoted to captain three years ago, but many co-pilots have little prospect of promotion for years.

More than half of all regional pilots commute to work – which often means several hours in the jump seat of another aircraft before they begin their own job – largely because they are not paid enough to be able to afford to live in the major cities, such as New York or Miami, where their employers are based.

Ryter said that smaller airlines also regularly shifted where their aircraft and pilots are based according to the needs of the big carriers, but pilots were reluctant to uproot their families, pull children out of school and sell houses only to be moved again in a year.

"In the post-9/11 world, when companies have done everything they can to reduce costs, there have been changes that have really made the piloting job very challenging, very fatiguing, very demanding.
"With our schedules now it's very common to leave one of the pilot domiciles and not see it for three or four days while you're flying around the nation in multiple time zones. Without doubt the effect is that you are physically and mentally tired.

"The airlines have stayed right on the hairy edge of federal aviation regulations."
The conditions in which commuter pilots now work were laid bare by an investigation into a crash near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people last year. It was revealed that neither the pilot, Marvin Renslow, nor co-pilot, Rebecca Shaw, had a proper night's sleep before the flight.

Shaw, 24, was paid so little – just $16,200 (£10,000) a year – that she held a second job in a coffee shop and lived with her husband at her parents' house across the country in Seattle. The night before the doomed flight, Shaw flew for several hours in the jump seat of two FedEx courier flights to reach her job at Newark airport and slept a few hours in the pilots' lounge. Renslow also slept in the lounge after flying up to work from Florida, even though it was barred by the airline, Colgan Air, because of the regular disturbance from other pilots coming and going.

The investigation revealed that Shaw's text messages just before the flight said she felt exhausted. Both pilots can be heard yawning on the voice recorder. During the flight, Shaw told Renslow that her husband, a soldier, was paid "more in one weekend of drill than I make [in a fortnight]".

The co-pilot also reflected her relative inexperience by commenting that she had never seen so much ice on a plane, as it made its way through freezing weather. That was to prove an ominous observation. As the plane came in to land in bad weather at Buffalo the pilots did not notice their speed slow too much until an alarm sounded.

Renslow did the opposite to what he should have done and caused the plane to stall. Experts told the investigation that Renslow's and Shaw's evident lack of comprehension as to why the alarm was sounding suggested insufficient training.

One of the inquiry officials, Kitty Higgins, said she believed that the two pilots' working conditions had contributed to the accident. "When you put together the commuting patterns, the pay levels, the fact that the crew rooms aren't supposed to be used [for sleeping] but are being used, I think it's a recipe for an accident," she said.

The head of the National Transportation Safety Board, Mark Rosenker, said that paying very low wages, knowing that it would result in pilots commuting long distances to get to work, was "winking and nodding" at safety.

Accident
Alpa's vice-president, Captain Paul Rice, a 35-year airline veteran now flying transatlantic routes, says that the industry still remains extremely safe compared with other forms of travel. But he is concerned that it has driven out more experienced pilots while giving the legal minimum of training to new recruits to cut costs.

"If you constantly remove elements of training, and training that once took three weeks is down to one week, it's easy to see how there's less time to pass knowledge along, practise certain manoeuvres, things like that," he said.

"The public needs to ask the question: is it worth it to always look at prices as the driving factor? Our managements and the investors in the airlines need to think about what is the cost of safety."
Many of the more experienced pilots who lost jobs on major airlines got out of the industry because they faced working for entry-level wages if they shifted to smaller carriers.

"If you can go down the street and get a job at Home Depot or in real estate where wages are substantially higher than at a regional carrier, that's probably where you're gonna go," said Ryter. "Our new entry pilots are right down at the food stamp wages. They can't afford to start over at a regional carrier."

Yet while the glamour may have gone, there remains a certain pull for pilots such as Ryter.
"It's all I ever wanted to do. I know we're talking about the negatives, of which there are many, but I still love what I do – being able to get into an aircraft that you could never afford to rent on your own, and be able to pilot it around the nation. I still love the business," he said.

===============

Even the Brits are talking about it.

Good Read....

good article. the worst thing about the profession is that this is nothing new and the right(read wrong) people know about the problems with the industry but won't fix it. (FAA, RAA, etc)

Why would they? They've got a nice semi slave operation going. The real problem is that the unions haven't been able to stop them. Two backward steps and one forward step. I'm not talking about Mesa's 08 TA union, I'm talking 10 20 years go. And part of the problem is that the most powerful regional airlines either do not have unions or have very weak ones with an interest in getting 99 seaters... So naturally the smaller guys are left to make their own terms which their bottom feeder management naturally is going to refuse and the cycle continues. Management is laughing to the bank while we're left fighting each other.

At least the FAA is proposing the duty times and I don't know where they are in that but that will hopefully force the airlines to bring in more warm bodies.

the new regs are not that promising - I say we start taking tips!

Great Article, this needs to be published in USA Today. I like how it references wages. In all reality that is what is wrong w/ the industry low wages for regional FO's. It needs to be addressed more than anything. Under $20K for an airline pilot with people's lives literally in your hands is unacceptable.

Of course ALPA had nothing to do with this, all the fault of those damn smaller carriers.

Not to mention those pesky alter-ego airlines, right? And the people who support them?

Best newspaper article I've seen on regional airlines to date.

In the words of Jason Bourne, "Look what they make ya give."

Wages may need to be addressed, but you've noticed (even in this article) the Feds and ALPA have both started steering the issue to more of a training problem than a pay problem. My guess is that the low wages issue will be squashed by the RAA and ATA in exchange for a week longer in training.

IF our goal really is SAFETY, then better training may be a reasonable trade off. At my company, stall training events, for example, have changed from basically recovering from slow flight to actual stall recovery.

I want more money, but at the end of the day, I want to go home in one piece, and I want the guy/gal next to me to be up to snuff. And higher standards will eliminate some people: eventually higher standards should lead to higher pay.

I'm all for better training, but I doubt initial left seat training would have prevented the Buffalo crash. The captain messed up and that is most likely the result of a lack of good prior experience. Whether it was his lack of training as a student or his lack of training others as a CFI (to get memory sticking reaction to a stall) I don't know. However until ALPA gets serious about making 1st year pay at regionals a liveable wage we will never get where we need to be in trying to make 1st year FO's as safe as they can be. I don't remember the pscychologist, but there are certain things a human needs, and in certain order. Safety, Food, Security etc... are all at the top of the list. If an FO can't afford to support those items first then everything after that is negatively affected.

I believe its Maeslo's hierarchy of needs... or something like that.

Until the public is vocal and willing to pay more for a ticket to get a more experienced pilot, pay will not go up. If pay does not go up, a lot of experienced pilots will find other ways to support their families. The only way I'll go to the airlines after I retire from the Air Force is if I get on with a solid airline (doubtful) AND my investments have made it possible for me to support my family if I get furloughed. I love to fly, but I won't make my family eat Ramen to support my hobby. I'll find a higher paying job elsewhere and fly on my own on the weekends. And you know what? There will always be someone else to take that low paying job. I believe our collective love of flying will keep wages low forever...it's simple economics.

I agree for the most part. However, it is disheartening that you referred to our profession as a "hobby"......somewhat telling.

I like to take pride in things I do too, but don't tell me you joined this industry for other reasons like, good pay, benefits, and work rules?:eek:

Why? Whats wrong with picking a profession that pays well? When I began training, pre 9/11 wages were still around. The reason I picked this profession was that it would PAY well, and second, I thought it would be fun. I guess wrong on both accounts.

I really hate it when pilots basically say they 'had to do this', and they would do it for nothing. Its that attitude that has ruined, and will continue to bring this industry down. We all know that flying an airplane is funner than typing up spreadsheets, but is it really worth the cost? I think most of the new generation of future airline pilots (if educated about the realities of the industry) will choose different careers. Economically it doesn't make sense.

Exactly. I don't remember who said it, but he said: "I want my pilot well rested, well paid, and well fed." I can say that about my doctor, dentist, etc also. Anytime my wellbeing and safety are placed in the hands of another, I would want that person to be in a good state of mind. And here I am eating pb and jelly for every meal on a four day, and working on 4 hours sleep from the overnight. I think if passengers could follow a regional fo around for a month, see his work schedule and home life, they probably wouldn't be shopping expedia for their next ticket. In fact, they probably wouldn't get on another plane again.

If every US airline raised ticket prices to what they really should be, I guarantee that people will still pay the price and fly. Loads may drop for a short while, but would pick back up. This is a mobile and global society, people need to travel by air to get business done and for other needs. An airline ticket should never cost less than it would cost you to drive somewhere. Example: JFK-MCO, 1106 miles and 17 hours of driving, given a car that gets 24 mpg, that is 46 gals. of gas (at $2.75= $126.73). Now determine what your time is worth, for this example, we will just use $7.25 per hour (minimum wage). Airline flight is 2 hours, so 15 extra hours of driving= $108.75. So, to drive would actually cost you $235.48 (not including depreciation on the vehicle, oil, etc). You can buy a ticket on an airline for $79.00. I know most people think their time is worth a lot more than minimum wage, but as you can see, even at minimum wage air travel is still way underpriced! I didn't even include a hotel room on the way for those that can't drive the whole 17 hours direct.
Really want to see how cheap airline travel is? Look at JFK-LAX! Only $99! Now, look at the drive: 2813 miles, 43 hours driving ($311.75), 117 gals of gas ($321.75), maybe 2 nights in hotels at $80 ($160)...$793.50 Total! (This is only counting the actual driving as time, if you want to add 8 hours each night in hotels....it's more)
I wish the airlines would stop being such pussies when it comes to raising airfare. Put the price where it should be, people will still fly. If you fly it, they will come.

Another example: First year regional FO (@$22), 50 seat aircraft, full flights, six legs, 8 hours block time = $0.58 per passenger.

My thoughts exactly... Good post!

Which brings us to the next point. There are too may airlines, too much competition between them for a piece of the pie, and there are always a few that help keep the fares low by undercutting the competition and in turn making everyone else do the same, or lose.

Which brings us to yet the next point. Reregulation. :D

While I don't disagree with your line of thinking at all. It should be noted the 'actual' cost of an employee to the employer is approx. double the hourly rate. So, in your example, the FO would actually cost the company $44/hr....the 'hidden' expenses are in insurance, SSI, and stuff like that.

That being said, the actual cost per passenger is still PENNIES! Airline management should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting labor cost is dragging their business down.

The airlines aren't competing with cars. Sure, when Southwest started flying in Texas, they were. But, since the jet age, a trip from JFK to LAX doesn't.

They compete against other sources of travel, which are typically other airlines. In Europe, it's a good rail system that competes.

I just bought a ticket, SAN to JFK on JetBlue; $120. I threw in another $40 for a preferred seat. Unbelievably cheap. As long as there is a lot of competition (there is on this route), the price will be cheap in a free economy.

If I want to go to SAN to LAX tomorrow, which I can drive in less time than flying, the cheapest fare is $300.

Competition with cars really has no bearing.

And each pilot accepted the wage he/she receives. Not one was forced to do so.

I hope we never see a CAB again, and I seriously doubt we will, because like a national seniority list, and guaranteed wide body captain jobs for all pilots, it's a wet dream.

Actually, among other reasons, that is precisely why I entered the industry. Currently, I am happy with my pay, bennies, work rules and QOL. (knock on wood)

I wish you well on your personal outcome, but the industry is NOT known for stable employment, competitive pay and "amicable" work rules, so your assertion is disingenuous. Ergo, people who willfully enter the working conditions as known to the median pilot are doing so for the non-economic valuation of getting paid in sunrises and sunsets. In that regard, it IS a hobby job.

Most of the mil dudes I know who are stuck at the regionals only do so because they got the retirement check coming every month and can afford to "spend their time" playing airline pilot. They don't even blink at the assertion. They are no less toxic to the stability of your said "profession" as the starry eyed wonder kid that slept through economics 101 and plunked down six figure debt for the "privilege" of a perma-sub-median-individual income hobby-job. For the rest of us with the required qualifications and a grounded understanding of the aforementioned maslow's hierarchy of needs, we take our skillset home and do something else with our time. Like the other poster alluded to, so that our kids don't have to eat ramen noodles just so I can get my pilot jollies off inside of banking hours.

But that recognition is as much of a pipedream as the re-regulation bit. People will continue to line up to get paid with an emotion and there's nothing you can do at an individual level to stifle that impetus. Cabotage will put an end to it though, at least as it pertains to the american labor pool, just like the cruise ships. Even regional guys and the retirement check crowd will not take a liking to this job when it's flown with a flag of convenience on the side of that aluminum can. There's no indication from my observations of the behavior of the FAA that they'll be able to 180 the airline lobby. So then, where is this job protectionism gonna come from? You, my "vocational peers"? Yeah right. Buffalo was a waste of innocent human lives, and even that fades quickly in our collective attention deficit disorder. I cringe at the idea of working for an organization where people have to die needlessly so that my peers can wake the hell up and recognize there's a social cost to doing things 'just because it sounds fun'.

Notice I did say that ALL airlines need to raise prices. Usually you will see an airline cut fares, and the others follow. They all need to agree to raise prices in unison, or as said, re-regulate the industry.
The example of JFK-MCO is a good example of air vs. car, most families headed to Disney will either drive or fly.

Actually, those aren't Jason Bourne's words. He stole them from "The Professor" when he killed him.

I like your point and wish the same thing would happen.....but they CAN'T legally (agree to raise prices) do that due to the Railway Labor Act if I'm not mistaken. :(

How about the government give the airlines a 1 year break on all tax surcharges that the government adds. How many billions of dollars would that add to the companies? The government sure as hell hasn't taken any of the past taxes paid by airlines and put them to use improving the ATC infrastructure.

You do realize that all that money would go directly to executive bonuses. Just look at what all the banks did with their taxpayer "gift".

When pilots are handcuffed by the government, as to being able to strike, I think we would all be better off if we could go back to regulation. At least we would be paid better. Now, if the gov would get out of our way we could get better rates because we could at least scare the crap out of Mgmt. with a strike threat the week before Christmas or Thanksgiving. ;)

A. I'm well aware of this industry's remarkable instability, hence my saying "knock on wood". B. Your flawed if/then logic lacks information. When I entered the industry, well prior to the mid/late nineties "golden era", there was a reasonable expectation of career viability vs costs to enter. I consider myself as having a median pilot job, at least not too far from it. (no, I don't work for Brown or Purple) So no, there is nothing disingenuous about my assertion. I agree with you insofar as pilots that aren't concerned with wages, this is a hobby. However, with most of us working pilots, this IS a profession and NOT a hobby, no matter how many sunrises/sunsets are enjoyed.

Actually, there are Antitrust laws against colluding to fix prices.

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell the same product or service, or commodity only at a fixed price or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.