Time for a Minimum Wage for Airline Pilots
 

Last fall I wrote a piece about the depressing job prospects for students graduating from aviation trade schools. After a couple of years and a hundred thousand dollars or so, these graduates are heading off to an uncertain career market. I take that back. Right now it is certain, certain to be bad for the foreseeable future. Not that there aren’t jobs available for young people (or not so young people). There are some jobs out there flying commuter airliners, starting in the right seat and working your way up from there.

The remarkable thing about those jobs is that anybody will take them. They pay so poorly, little more than $15,000 a year for many starting first officers, that the only people who can afford to take them are people who have nothing to begin with. These are typically very young people or those so desperate to fly that they’re willing to work for less than survival wages to stay in the air some way. The career move is a huge gamble. Will these jobs, that pay roughly as much as migrant workers make, pay off in better paying positions down the line? Maybe. Maybe not. But when you, or mom and dad, have already sunk a hundred grand or more in a career path, there tends to be some motivation to stick with it.

The root of the problem is with the regional airlines. They’ve figured out a way to game the employment market by offering next to nothing to pilots while still knowing that they’ll not only get applicants, but a glut of applicants. They can pay a pittance for pilots who are willing to do the job with hopes of getting on with a major airline down the road.

I'd be all for letting market forces straigten things out--after all, nobody has to take these jobs--if it weren't for the negative impact on safety of putting in the cockpit of a jet a couple of lightly experienced pilots who live under economic conditions that almost guarantee fatigue and low morale. What will happen? Buffalo will happen. Lexington will happen. Can the commuter airlines, which are desperate and existing on the edge themselves, live with a crash like that every few years?

It sure seems like it, and that cynical attitude is dead wrong and it’s time we did something about it.

I say forget about requiring more hours for commuter pilots, or an ATP, and get down to a genuine economic incentive: a minimum wage for pilots.

Now, I’m against a minimum wage for professionals in principle, but here it’s the only solution that makes sense. We’ve long had federal minimum wages for the most humble of workers. That’s because, when jobs are desirable, employers will pay less than what’s humane. Minimum wage laws are designed to protect the poorest of the poor from their own desperation.

That’s what we need to do for pilots by instituting a minimum annual salary of, say $50,000 a year, maybe a little more. The labor market would change overnight, as a lot of highly experienced, highly qualified pilots who can’t afford to take a job in the cockpit today would raise their hands immediately. Then the commuter airlines would hire them. Despite appearances, they do care about safety, though not quite as much, apparently, as turning a profit. Force their hand by mandating a living wage and they’ll hire the best pilots available. The flying public and the pilots who fly them deserve nothing less.

It's Time for a Minimum Wage for Airline Pilots | FLYING Magazine

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..

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.

You could make the limit 10k hours if you wanted to. You would still have regional airlines undercutting eachother to bid for contracts.

Pilots will always be willing to fly for less money each time contracts come around if it means that they WILL retain their job long-term. We suffer through the tough years in hopes of attaining that higher income later.

But as another poster put it, "averages be damned, it only takes one."

Something needs to be done.

Sorry to be so upfront but you don't seem to understand basic economics, if you made the minimum requirement 10,000 hours to be hired by a regional airline, you would have a total of what, maybe 1000 applicants on the street right now willing to take that job versus the 20,000 applicants you would have if it was for commercial minimums. but out of those 1000 people that do have 10k hours, of course they are not willing to work for 20 grand a year, they have spent years and years getting that time and will only take that job if it pays lets say at least 60 grand. the airlines would be forced to raise pay and in response to that be forced to increase their prices when they bid for contracts. majors would then be forced to raise prices to the passengers, it may only be 10 cents per ticket but it would be raised.

The government needs to fix the railway labor act, and this issue would solve itself.

Didn't the CEO of American Eagle state:"Pay has nothing to do with safety".

It's not what i believe but it's what's being told to congress.

That is it, simple thing called "barriers to entry." It will reduce competition for applicants and in turn result in higher wages. This is basic economics, and I challenge anyone to dispute this.

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 think I do.

I think you have to account for more than just supply and demand here. You are not wrong in thinking that higher requirements would result in fewer applicants. I agree. A sudden restriction in supply most deffinitely would increase wages as well.

Read on, if you can handle it;

Things that will not change by implementing 'barriers to entry' are things like the seniority pay scales and pic requirements at majors. These two items alone are enough to cause Colgan pilots to be willing to work for less than Comair pilots, for example. If it means 'fast upgrade, fast track to higher wages' then pilots will continue to undercut eachother for the same reasons, and eventually you will lose any and all gains associated with increasing the barriers to entry.

So lets call eachother idiots and pretend nobody knows what they are talking about some more.

Mod note:

Thread title changed for clarity.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree with you that a lot of pilots are looking for a fast upgrade and fastrack to the majors, and I agree that some pay will be lost because of that mentality, but the point is that if the requirements to become a first officer at a regional are raised, then there will be a reduction in pilots available. Lets say all airlines are hiring at a steady rate and at the same time the barriers to entry were raised. where you once had lets say 3000 applicants competing for 500 jobs you now only have 400 applicants available willing to work for 20k a year. the airlines now have a 100 position void to fill. where will they get these pilots from? they would need some incentive to get people to work there, typically $$$. those qualified pilots that have left flying to go work at the local cement factory, quit to take care of the kids at home, etc...these guys need the will to come back to aviation and when they weren't willing to go for 20k maybe they will for 30k. so airlines will be forced to raise pay. think of it this way, if the faa raised the minimum requirement to be an airline pilot to "former space shuttle commander," do you think pay would remain at 20k a year.

Yup I agree wages would increase. I don't agree that they would stay increased.

Lifeguarding in High School and College got me 15 dollars and hour.

That's the sad part...some of my examples get paid more than regional FO's. It's hard to think of jobs which are much worse besides illegal farm worker.

I've enjoyed reading the different perspectives on this subject matter.

I believe it wasn't long ago that the hour requirements for a new FO were in fact around the 2500 hour mark. Pay back then, was in fact STILL shabby. Many argue that this is because 'back then' the flying was done in smaller aircraft and the pay scale reflected that......well guess what Mr. CEO there Is nothing regional about a RJ......only the name. I'm up for anything to get our pay where it needs to be. Back when I did my Aero degree we always had heated discussions on the pros and cons of the deregulation of '78. I'm all for the free market....but when all the players in our small world are a bunch of crooks something has got to give.

You need to include, some 135/turbine time, as well as a healthy chunk of change for the PFT that the "better" companies had. That was the norm back then, NOT the exception. BIZEX/ACA/Express1 (PCL), JetStream (PSA), ACA, ASA, COEX (ExpressJet), etc. I believe WestAir had it as well, can't remember about COMAIR and SkyWest. TSA/GLA never had it.

AWAC and AE's mins USED to be 2500tt, 1000 multi, preferably 500 turbine with some prior 121/135 experience. Allegheny/Piedmont's were pretty similar.

Paying that money all for the privilege to be an FO on on a 19 seat turbo prop making $12-13-14/hr. And heck, if you were lucky enough to get hired into the 120/SAAB/-8, you hit the big time!

I still think all they need to do is repeal the RLA and let the pilots finally negotiate for themselves...

Contract's up tomorrow? Sign something or deal with the strike. Don't like paying your pilots more? Then be shut down. Simple.

Good point, but something you have to understand, the RLA isn't specifically for airlines, hence it's name.

But yeah, the thing needs to go away, and sliding the airlines out from underneath it would be a good start.

Best idea I've heard today.

But there was one HUGE difference back then...those pilots were truly paying dues with a reasonable expectation of a six-figure income in a couple short years.

If a major FO got $100K back in say 1980, that actually works out to about $260K in todays dollars :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'd pay some dues even for a fair shot at that deal!

Unfortunately us regional pilots inherited that commuter dues-paying mentality...of course what we didn't inherit was the spectacular opportunities that used to come with it. A lot of regional CA's can't afford the pay and/or QOL cut they would incur if they took a major job...

Roger Cohen and Phil "We fixed it" Trenary said the same thing.

I think one of the biggest problems is the mentality that pay should be based on what you fly. I don't care if it has 19 seats or 500 seats, you should be paid to fly as a professional pilot accordingly. It should be a longevity pay scale across the board. If you've been with the company 20 years and want to fly an RJ, you should have that option and still have the ability to make a decent living. If that means the junior guys are stuck flying across the pond making a lower wage until they build up their seniority, then that's how it should be since that's what their seniority holds. Personally, I have no desire to ever fly international routes, and I enjoy flying 5-6 times a day if it's an efficient schedule, but since the highest paying jobs appear to be long haul international flights (ignoring southwest in this example), that kind of forces people into them. Lets be honest, we all essentially do the same thing regardless of the size of the A/C (although I'm sure plenty of people on here are about to tell me otherwise).

Just wanted to add that I am against a minimum wage set for pilots. That's not to say I don't want pay to go up, but I want as little government involvement in this industry as possible. If we fix a number of deficencies in the overall setup of the seniority system, the pay issue will fix itself. It's not an easy fix, but I am holding on to the hope that changes for the better are coming.

Not one being in the industry I would have **assumed** (and we all know what that can lead too) that the pay went up with the bigger toys because you were reponsible for a more expensive piece of equipment, more lives (crew and pasengers), more risk (ETOPS), probably in the past the systems and knowledge might have been more complex, and it was just the way the airline went - start out on *smaller* equipment and strive to fly the heavy iron.

I like the idea of same pay based on senority I guess. I have always like the smaller, sleeker looking planes - probably why I have always been attracted to the corporate planes. But then there was a time when I didn't know what I knoew about the Regionals when I would have enjoyed (or thought I would have) gaining seniority in a good regional and staying on there, flying the CRJs/ERJs on shorter legs and because everyone was wanting to move up and out I would be able to gain the seniority that allowed me bid the best route fairly quickly.

But the more time I have spent on this forum in the last few years I have seen, heard, and learned more than I ever did beofre and am now much more knowledgeable about the realities of the industry.

Wags - why do YOU think that the higher pay goes to the bigger equipment?

USMCFLYR

The justification has always been that bigger equipment generate more revenue, which is not an unreasonable method. No practical business model could pay both seats in an RJ six figures...the necessary price increase would scare away a significant percentage of the pax. Conversely any 747 operator should easily afford solid six figure salaries for all crewmembers...if they can't then they are seriously mismanaging their business.

If pay went up strictly with seniority (ie UPS) the company might be hampered if it needed to downsize gauge...less revenue but same labor cost. Alternatively, the company might buy A380's...more revenue, same old labor cost.

This one-payscale system works at UPS because they only fly two types of airplanes...large and larger. For the pilots, seniority is used only for domicile/seat/schedule. Since they are not likely to need to change to smaller airplanes, the system works. If they replace all of the planes with A380's, the UPS pilots are going to be looking for a raise on the next contract (maybe they already have a provision, or a 747 cap)

It would be absurd to pay the cashier in the express lane 1/3 the wage as the cashier in the regular lane at the same store because the orders aren't as large.

Hi!

The cashiers are probably processing the same amount of $ per day, it is just the express cashier will have more customers.

cliff
NBO

Just trying remember 15+ years ago to when I worked a crappy retail job, but was heavily unionized and had way better benefits than I've ever had in the airline world, and paid well enough so I could afford college/flight training. Your statement is correct. Of course, it depended on the individuals efficiency.

Some were very efficient, didn't matter which station they worked on. At the end of the day and the report average was run, it could be in the $2000-2000/hr range intake with 27-30 items a minute scanned.

The inefficient down around the $1200-1400/hr with 20-22 items a minute scanned.

Like I said, that was an average report run, and those dollar figures are for early to mid 90's.

Imagine if that pay was based purely on efficiency?