Airline Pilot Central Forums - Time for a Minimum Wage for Airline Pilots

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - Time for a Minimum Wage for Airline Pilots (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/48135-time-minimum-wage-airline-pilots.html)

Mod note:

Thread title changed for clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC ALL (Post 762215)

Mod note:

Thread title changed for clarity.

Shouldn't you have removed the apostrophe in "Pilot's"? :D:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha (Post 762176)

Just thinkin' out loud here, but how about this. If the FAA mandated that all airline crew members must have an ATP and the minimum requirement for an ATP was 3000 hours, then in theory supply would decrease and airlines would have to raise wages to attract people. I dunno..

Having a 3000 hour requirement to sit in the right seat of a commuter turboprop would probably reduce supply, but you end up with a problem of people getting the hours necessary for that job. You'd probably see a huge suppression of wages for 135 freight operators, an explosion in pay-for-pay 135 first officer programs, and CFI wages dropping to near nothing (the same instructors entrusted with the development of the next generation of pilots).

The only people who would end up sticking through that to end up as regional and commuter first officers would be the kids with super rich parents who don't mind dropping $100,000 for their kid's training while they also pay for their room and board, and the fools with dollar signs in their eyes who will end up so far up to their elbows in debt (from the training and years of deferred rent and food costs) that even the higher regional pay won't be able to pay it off (and they'll be thoroughly screwed when the next round of furloughs come)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha (Post 762176)

In logical theory, sure. But as we've seen, logic has no place in this career field, especially when it comes to pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyby1206 (Post 762186)

Minimum wage will help us all to pay the bills, but it wont have a direct effect on safety(You can still pay a 200hr pilot $50k to fly a plane). If the government raises the minimum requirements to fly for a 121 carrier then that will directly effect safety by requiring more experience/knowledge in order to get into the cockpit. The higher required experience/knowledge will have an indirect effect on wages as well.

We can go round and round all day with this, let's see; AA at LIT and Columbia, DAL (N) overflight, DAL (S) taxi way landing, CAL taxi way landing, UAL 744 in SFO, etc.

Experienced, well trained, higher compensated pilots screw up and kill people just as easily as those that aren't, end of story. It's been happening for years, and probably won't change since pilots being human beings are the weakest link in the safety chain.

I am a CFI paid hourly so I only have a basic idea of how pay works in the 121 world. I don't think a minimum wage is either a workable or a good idea. I do however think there should be a change in the way work/duty time is calculated. No more getting paid only when the ac is moving. If you have to be there then you get paid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lab Rat (Post 762212)

I have to respectfully disagree that the root of the problem is with the regional airlines. Not unlike any other aspect of the free market system, the reason for the low wages is because airline managers can pay what they do and be successful at it.

With regards to low pay, I see two reasons for it in the above quoted statement.

First,

No shortage whatsoever of potential workers.

Second,

Willing and hope. Even though the wages are very low, workers are willing to accept them. Why? Because of the hope that it will lead to a more prosperous and fulfilling job one day. It's a gamble that has been as much a part of aviation history as has the law of physics.

What can be done?
Negotiate. When a pilot group's collective bargaining unit agrees with management contractually as to what should appear on the paycheck, then and only then will wages come up.

How does an airline manager keep costs down when salaries increase? Two choices:

1: Raise ticket prices.
2: Do more with less.

Is the traveling public willing to pay double or more to fly from A to B when cheap fares have more or less become the norm and not the exception? That would lead to a lessening of a demand for air travel and thus necessitate a lesser need for air transport. In other words, most airlines would shrink to meet the demands of the market.

Doing more with less is certainly an option too. To compensate for the increased salary expense, airlines would simply decrease the size of their labor force and/or the size of the airline. Most major airlines might just opt to do less business with their regional partners and more with their own assets. Would that lead to more opportunities at the majors? Maybe, maybe not.

Same game, different location. If more jobs opened up at the majors due to less business with their regional affiliates, this would not be job growth in the industry but rather a shift of where those positions are required. And my guess is that for every one job created at a mainline (under this particular scenario) would probably equate to at least the loss of two jobs at the regional level. In other words, you create an even lesser demand while increasing the supply. And as mentioned in the above quote, there are "a lot of highly experienced, highly qualified pilots who can't afford to take a job in the [regional] cockpit today."

I will take what's behind door #2 for $50 bucks, bob!

I think they have to do something to atleast raise the wages for FO's. They need to raise the bar atleast to ATP minimums for anyone sitting right seat in the airlines. That would atleast weed out 1,000's of pilots that have no business flying at an airline with 250hrs. I love how airlines have all these 9/11 and security taxes that they add on to airline tickets to protect passengers against out side threats. How about they add an "In Flight Passenger Safety Tax" tax also. To protect passengers from in flight threats. So, when the IOE captain dies of a heart attack the FO can actually land the plane. Instead of a wet commercial pilot warming the seat, who has 2 hours sitting right seat and has never flown into class B airspace more than three times.

-This is just a rant. I'm not trying to bash the wet commercial pilots flying for airlines....I'm sure there are plenty that are far more competent than some pilots holding an ATP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Striker (Post 762239)

Overall, sure. But the round and round circular debate/discussion continues. We've all flown with pilots that had lot's of time and/or reputable training, and they still sucked. As well as guys with not much time, and they were sharp.

The government will NEVER institute such a minimum wage EVER. Even they think it would be a good idea, it would open up a pandora's box...every other worker group in the nation who could remotely relate their job to public safety would demand the same amount.

Paramedics, lifeguards, school crossing guards, bus drivers, janitors, jiffy-lube technicians, etc, etc

The only way pay will go up is due to market forces...which could be an indirect result of hire experience/certification standards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha (Post 762176)

Agreed. But I still don't support a gov't mandated minimum wage.

Just thinkin' out loud here, but how about this. If the FAA mandated that all airline crew members must have an ATP and the minimum requirement for an ATP was 3000 hours, then in theory supply would decrease and airlines would have to raise wages to attract people. I dunno..

Just to be clear, the author wrote that. Not me.