Plan for higher pay scales?
 

I may be beating a dead horse im not sure. Im wondering if anyone here sees any way or any plans in the future for airlines to start paying pilots a bit more. Given that this new stupid bill the congress is getting ready to try to pass (1500 hr minimum for new FOs) they will have to pay more to get pilots. But say by some miracle this doesnt pass..is there an end in sight for low pay?

First I don't think 1500 hours is a bad idea at all. It is still a very small amount of experience to have the lives of the paying public in their hands. That aside, unfortunately I don't think it will have any effect on wages. It wasn't all that long ago no regional would even look at you until your experience was at least in the 1500 hour range, and the wages were even worse then.

There is no shortage of pilots with 1500tt.

There never has been - at least not in the RJ era.

There has only been a shortage of pilots with 1500tt willing to work for the compensation offered at regional airlines. THAT is why hiring minimums dropped in 2006-2007...not a true, actual lack of aviators.

Right i understand that by increasing minimums you have to increase pay or you wont attract pilots, i know there are plenty with the 1500 tt but not many willing to work for 19k a year.

Personally i think we need to treat our pilots like the professionals we require them to be. I am biased because im a pilot but not many people can take 50 thousand pounds and grease it onto a 75-foot wide slab of concrete going 180+ MPH with 60-90 people behind em. Thats just my 2 cents.

Dont get me started on this bill :p i really dislike it simply because i dont think lack of flying experience led to that buffalo crash. NTSB reported the FO was sick and sleepy but couldnt afford a hotel and opted not to sleep in the airport so she did not call in looking forward to that hotel room payed for by the airline.

Thats besides the fact that a garbage man (no offense) in NY makes more than a 1-3 year FO at the regionals...Sad sad sad.

Although there are plenty of pilots with over 1500TT, I think you will see a sharp decline in the number of people approaching 1500TT and getting their Commercial/ATP. If you're looking at the flight universities of the world and thinking of enrolling, you'll now realize that it'll be approx 4 years and 6 digits of debt, followed by several years of flight instructing to get to a job that pays 20k a year first year, if you're fortunate. Arguably for the same amount of time and money, you could be a doctor. I'd like to imagine things will change and there will be a pilot shortage and our payscales will go up to reflect that. What I believe is more likely though is that this bill will greatly reduce the number of people who want to go to school and become aviators.

Pay is still determined by union contracts. Companies don't care if they have the most qualified newhires, just that they have qualified newhires. No matter what the pay, companies will continue to pay low and fill seats. Union carriers are locked contractually into negotiated payrates. Non-union carriers have no incentive to pay more than the average union carrier. A $1 per hour raise is all a non-union carrier needs to do to stand out as higher paying compared to a union carrier.

Why is this bill "stupid"? A lot of people, myself included, KNOW it WILL be the best thing for aviation we've seen in a long time. Creating barriers to entry make the path harder to follow. Only the dedicated will be able to walk the walk. Diminishing the pool of qualified applicants to 121 positions would have an inverse proportional relationship to pay and work rules. It is simple supply and demand. I have already written my state representatives urging them to support this bill. You want pay and work rules for the better? This is step one.

Well like so many others my concern is that what incentive to people have to put 100k into training or close to it and spend 2-5 years doing it then another 2-3 years instructing living off scraps to get to a regional that is gonna pay 19-25k for the first 2-3 years.... Its not worth it. The first thing that needs to change is the pay scale...THEN the requirements. just my opinion.

That will never happen. The inverse needs to take place. We got a glimpse of what it could be like in 2007 hiring craze when airlines were offering signing bonus' and other perks like paying for apartments during training, etc. It went short of raising overall pay, but if we see a long term shortage because of these requirements, pay scales will have to be adjusted to attract corporate pilots, military pilots, CFI's and new students to start down the path.

Well the new student part is where this bill will fail... How do you attract people to this industry when you tell them..

Set out to be a pilot spend 100k 2 years training 3 years working your butt off in little planes teaching others then get hired (if your lucky) and work for little to no money the first few years as an FO...OR go to college get a degree in architecture with your 5 years and make 200k a year out of the gate...

The only good thing i see for this bill is that it i will weed out the not so serious pilots.

raising the minimum requirements wont change the pay. 10-15 years ago you needed 2500TT to even get looked to fly right seat in a Beech 1900. Guess what there was no shortage of applicants and the pay still sucked.

Maybe im being silly but what is stopping most pilots in ALPA from starting an industry wide strike to increase pay? Im not 121 yet so i dont know all the reasoning forgive my ignorance.

Railway Labor Act

That's exactly the point. If the airlines cannot find enough qualified applicants that meet the 1,500 hour law, they will have to make changes in order to attract qualified applicants. Pay would be one of those changes. Pay goes up, more students may be willing to walk the path. The happy little cycle continues.

I really don't see any downside to this law passing, other than a bunch of flight school kids getting whiny about 'how hard it will be' and how they 'deserve a job right out of school'... but talking about the 'generation of entitlement' is for another discussion.

The RLA... if we could get out of that, pilots would probably have more leverage.

EDIT: Sorry flynwmn, you beat me to it!

Hmm i just read about the RLA

It says major strikes are only allowed when all other methods of dispute have been exhausted. And you may only strike on a large scale when you are striking to resolve a major issue.

The RLA seems to have a lot of loose ends :p

My understanding was the whole thing about the bill was to increase the SAFETY on air transport, not the pilot pay. The problem I have with the bill is look at the past major crashes by regionals... did any of them have pilots with less than 1500 hours when they crashed? Yes they got hired with less than that, but once they got 1500 hours, they could have been hired.

If we REALLY want to see pilot pay increase, I would love to see a 4 year degree in aviation, management, or aerospace e. Airlines should also look at activities outside of aviation, volunteer programs/community involvement, and college grades. These are the requirements for just about ANY PROFESSIONAL entry level job.

A garbage man or bus driver just is looked at to see if they can pass the training, then they get trained and payed 20-30k. That's all aviation is now. Can you pass the training? Good, pass it and collect your minimum wage.

However, why would any airline want to require a 4 year degree/1500 hours/volunteering? That means they WOULD have to pay more and why on gods green earth would they want THAT when they are happily paying pilot's nothing!

Disclaimer: I support the ATP rule even though I am a lowly CFI with only 500 hours. I humbly respect everyone who has gotten where they are regardless of their experience and just because our jobs may not be PERCEIVED as professional (argument above), I know everyone here IS. No flame bait, trolling or disrespect in anyway meant.

Careful! I live with a arch grad student and if you told him the perception is archs make 200k out the door, you would have a straight edge to dig out of your skull. It's funny the misconceptions about careers. People think pilot's make 100k out the door and architects make 200k. He said (this is after 5 years of arch undergrad and grad school) in the first 3-5 years expect to make below 40k. Not until your signature goes on the designs do you make more. Hmm, sounds a like aviation, especially right seat vs left seat. I may have just disproved my entire argument above. Your post was made while I was typing the first part. Doggonit.

You're forgetting one thing.., that was back then, when paying dues meant something because something good was waiting for you at the end. No one in their right mind would chase this bus driver job now unless there is significant improvement in everything. Raising mins will only help against past company tactics of hiring SJS labor. You can't blame the low timers we all would do the same if an RJ is dangled in front of us, but we can take away the ability of companies to be able to hire them in an effort to keep wages low. There needs to be a level of respect and sense of worth that management has to feel in order for us to be taken seriously at the negotiating table.

If your aircraft says Express, Connection, Link, Eagle, ect., on the side, your company will have to bid on that flying. Capitalism dictates the lowest bidder will get the contract, so your company had better be VERY competitive in today's market economy. So long as another company will underbid your company, the pay will not go up. Sorry.

The RLA is a complete disaster for us. I am surprised there hasn't been an uprising. What profession do you know of where you're paid less than what someone in the same position made 20 years ago? The RLA assures that.

That's completely false. The company will pay whatever they have to pay to keep their airline running. If the market determines that 30 bucks an hour is the new 1st year pay industry wide, that's what they'll offer. Also, competitive does not have to mean cheap labor, look at the latest round of contract awards along with industry humiliation of Mesa. Also companies don't have to be cost competitive with every single industry bottom feeder just ones that provide the same service, bad deal if you're a t-prop guy.

Typewriter repair?

I would not be so quick to blame the RLA for the pay scales - after all, the unions negotiated them. Do you think a 15 year RJ captain is going to go on strike to raise FO pay? They could raise it tomorrow, as long as they were willing to give up some of theirs - do you think they would ever agree to that?

Point is, the FO pay is like that because the union negotiated it like that - and got higher rates elsewhere...

Market? What market? If somebody is willing to fly a CRJ900 for $21.00/hr., then sombody else will surely do it for $20.00/hr..

This is how it's been in the regional airline world forever. Take a look at Piedmont or Air Wisconsin pay scales in the 1980s. Make sure you're sitting down before you do this!

The only thing the market dictates is that the lowest bidder will usually win a contract.

It's amazing how some people still do not get it. The company is willing to spent X amount of dollars on pilot payroll(totaling pay rate/ benefits/ soft money..etc). It's up to the union to slice up that pie. FO's are paid $35/hr not because the company dictate it, it's because your union wanted $95 for CAs and $35 for FOs. Your company couldn't care less if the rates were $115/$15 or $75/$55 as long as the total pilot payroll is at or below the negotiated overall rate of X.

I remember a few years back when the company wanted to offer FOs more money in terms of sign on bonus and retention bonus. My union would not allow the company to do so unless the rest of the pilot group received something as well.

Anyways, your union has more to do with creating the payscale than your company.

all professions start out w/o licenses and once a group of people get in and get theirs, they ALWAYS try to find a way to keep others out and protect it.
I have flown with some really sharp FO's with low time and great training and some high time FO's that should NEVER be allowed an upgrade.
it does not matter if an applicant has 1500 hrs - did not the Colgan crew have that and more in addition to the specialized training in ice, emerg procedures and the like?

Then why are pay scales low and stagnant? Are you saying that unions suck?

And how exactly do airlines get that person? By lowering mins. That's what happened during the last wave. It's very simple, when you don't earn something, you're happy with anything. On the other hand, if you paid your dues, you expect better. There has to be a shift in fundamental mentality for there to be any change.


That's why everyone is advocating the 1500 rule.

1500 hours will not have that large of an impact at first. Plenty of guys out there on the street have that time, AND are willing to work for peanuts still because the pay and benefits at a regional right now is better than what they are currently doing. So you can count out the 1500 hour rule to effect pay. Lets also not forget that back before the huge hiring spree the likes of Mesa had 1000 total 100 multi set at minimums and they were having no problem attracting people with that time. An extra 500 hours or so is not going to be an earth shattering change right away. Down the road yeah it has the chance to prove helpful for us.

That's what it's all about. I don't think anyone expects higher mins to have an immediate effect on contract pay.

Only one side of the pay scale is low. Wages across all industries have been stagnant. Unions certainly do not suck but they did set the structure of the pay scale.

You know there are alot of us that did just that now. Teaching in little planes, working your butt off.....all called paying dues and learning.

I see this is a huge blow the the 250 hour wonder at Riddle Diddle. That is no more, and for good reason. I predict good companies will have no problems with staffing, but companies like TSA will be unable to attract anybody to work there, they couldn't even keep up with people quitting when their mins were 250tt.

Flame away.

i have already said it would discourage the lesser serious pilots and that that was a good thing. The post you just quoted was to explain that if most people are going to put 5 years into preparing for a career it would be a career that gave them more than 20k a year for the first few years.

NO, what CANAM sad is COMPLETELY true. Sorry, after experiencing it firsthand multiple times since 9/11, that's the way it is.

And NO, the company is going to pay what gets negotiated. Whether that's in a "good" economic time and things are on the way up, or during a bad time and things are on the way down. Has NOTHING to do with paying "whatever they have to pay to keep their airline running".

Sadly, O.J. said it best, and it's a paraphrase. "as long as you have pilots showing up for ground school, you're paying too much".

What I am trying to say in " pay whatever to keep their airline running" is that we determine pay, not the company, not JO. Again, if the industry standard for regionals was 40 bucks an hour first year pay, then that's what airlines will pay in a heart beat. The question is how do we get to that point, since there is always someone willing to do it cheaper? Limiting pilot supply, adding barriers and restoring the true worth in being a pilot. This bill they're working on is a small but significant step in that direction. Sounds like your time at Mesa has completely distorted your expectations of this job and maybe your self worth.

No, pay is what your NC can negotiate, NOT what your MEC/NC determines. During ANY negotiation, whether the leapfrogging type, or the concessionary type the company goes low, the NC goes high, and they meet somewhere in the middle.

Why limit an "industry standard" to just the regionals.? Take a look at what CAL, UAL, and NW (pre merger) were paying new hires.

And with that asinine statement, as well as your complete and utter ignorance of the topic as well as where I've worked, I'll have to bow out of the debate with you. Sorry.

Maybe they should include a clause in this bill that will require airlines to pay so much for pilots. Kind-of...minimum wage for pilots...

Thoughts?

Wasn't there a regional wanting to raise new hire pay back around 2007, but the union said no because they wanted pay raises across the board instead of just year one? ASA or Pinnacle?

You're correct.

It's also funny that when it took 2500 hours to get an interview for a regional turboprop job nobody had any problems with that... it was the natural career progression.

Then the bubble burst and we did actually come up against a lack of qualified pilots, so the airlines had to actually dip to the point of hiring people who were just barely "legal" to hire...

that went on for a few years, and lots of college programs and ab initio programs expanded rapidly... so rapidly that nobody noticed the consequences of being able to go from ink wet to shiny jet.... the old way of earning your way up the ladder provided CFI's to teach for a year or two before getting their 135 gig to start them off... those days were now gone, and many flight programs had a hard time keeping instructors around.... just look at Daniel Webster... out of the flight training business.

These schools want to be able to send people right into the right seat of transport category aircraft. The problem is that the regional airline then becomes the training ground for the rest of the aviation industry, when previously you learned your way flying boxes at night.

forcing the license rule change will allow university and ab initio programs to resume the normal path of training, and then employing the best of their students. During the past 6 years the most common complaint I heard from flight students was they had to change instructors like 6 times before they finished their private because the airlines kept hiring them up.
That's a problem. Of course, recently that hasn't been a problem, and most CFIs are just happy to be getting paid to fly since so many folks are out of work altogether.

Yup and thats the problem with the senority system the guys up top dont
give a crap about the guys at the bottom. Look at what happened to scope
with all the majors. Those senior guys gave it all up. Why should they care if it hurts people 10 years down the road, only 3 years till they retire then who gives a crap what happens at the company. Flame away

Here's a plan for you - after 5 years of negotiations all the pilots go on strike. Cripple one of the largest major airlines by shutting down their second busiest hub. Vote down the first two TAs. Stay on strike for 89 days. Work at Home Depot when you aren't on the picket line. Watch your major partner bleed through $600 million to avoid paying an extra $23 million in annual pilot wages. Then sign an industry-leading contract for pay and work rules.

Then watch as your major partner shrinks, dismantles, and gives away your organization to the lowest bidders. Watch 6 other regionals come in to work your hub while you furlough hundreds and park half your fleet.

In the future? That depends on who wants to be the next Comair.