Problem is, like 99.12% of companies pay low starting wages, so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's hard to refuse regional airlines' pay because many of us just want to fly for a living and we know that if we refuse the offer handed to us, there are 100 other glassy-eyed kids waiting to take that spot.

 

I flew with several.

 

In terms of having enough money to rent an apartment for adequate sleep, I think they would.

Absolutely yes, at least in my thinking, and I suspect that market forces pressured 3407 check airmen and FAA personnel to lower their standards in service of money and larger markets. Money kills in this case if markets are mostly about money, and I leave it to you to decide if the latter is the case.

That's right and it is why we need boundaries. I think of it as an ILS needle going full scale- when it gets too close to the edge someone needs to either intervene or call missed approach, because the PF is not getting the job done. This would be role of regulation according to my analogy. Nothing happens as long as the needle stays in the middle.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chazbird
ALPA Minimum: 45K for first year FO on probation. 60k second year. 1st Year captain 80k. After that ALPA can negotiate within each carrier.


Didn't read my whole post, maybe you were laughing too hard. I despise the current ALPA. I didn't always, and I'm one of those that "came before you". The last 15-18 years is enough to prove how useless they've become. I merely wrote "ALPA minimum" as some sort of pay example. If a trade union (they hate the term union, nee association) can't establish a basic livable minimum for its members its a plain failure. If ALPA can't do a base minimum then there needs to be a reformed or new union that can. I sort of doubt a single airline or an a membership cabal of airlines would be the slightest bit interested. Besides, most of them have ALPA!

 

And who knows what they may have done with any extra money.
Bought a new car? Gone on a vacation?
Who is too say after the fact? It is just all speculation.

They have those regulations and they are often either abused or ignored - sometimes by the motivation for money! It seems to all tie in doesn't it? The laws right now set out standards for the rest, fitness, fatigue, duty times, etc.... They have been known to be inadequate for some time and it obviously takes a LONG time to turn that ship heading right for the breakwaters! But that is where the change are needed so that the corporates aren't able to abuse the systems in place in the race for money! It is like a lot of other things dealing with gov't - - - if you don't like what is happening, get rid of the ones standing in the way and let someone else have a shot at getting it right.

 

No worries dude. I dig your disdain for ALPA.

 

Well if the question is will corporations voluntarily do the right thing for safety and fair wages, I surely would not bet on it. First and foremost they act for the best interest of the shareholders in the short run, mainly looking to boost stock prices. If and when airplanes start crashing due to a lax safety they run for the hills and file bankruptcy. While not all corporations are poor citizens, enough are which is why the industry needs some regulation. Again, it is like an ILS that has run full stop- nothing happens as long as the needle stays near the center.

 

The industry has already decided the better investment is better planes not better pilots. Thats why they put gadgets in the planes that even the most distracted pilots once who don't crack the book ever to get the plane from point a to b. There are still cases of pilot error and that will just continue until they get rid of the pilots altogether. Getting better pilots I don't think enters into the equation. I fly with few people who can even plan a decent anymore without the FMS.

 

Cubdriver,

Is your argument that business wants to kill their customers? Not a great long-term plan, I'd say. And the facts of history argue strongly that it's not true. Airline travel is safer than virtually any other means of transportation, far safer today than in the regulated era. OEMs, airlines and the regulators have made huge strides in adopting technology that engineers out hazards--EGPWS, weather radars, autoland, glass cockpits.

You state that money forced the FAA to compromise standards in Colgan's case--how? And if they did compromise safety, why won't your desired regulatory body be similarily compromised. Everyone thinks the regulators are unethical, but then turnaround and want more regulators.

I'd think Colgan and its crews were ethically challenged, poor leadership and non-existent culture of adherence to professional conduct that led to the accident. Some things can't be bought with money. More money won't deliver them, either.
GF

 

Good points GF, I am not opposing you. It's a balancing act as opposed to one way or the other. It is not as simple as villains and victors, no one ever wants to crash airplanes- yet it happens. Colgan shifted the pendulum to the left as far as regulation is concerned, but it will eventually swing back by the natural course of time. Sometimes a referee is a hindrance, and others when one is required lest the game be impossible. It depends on the times and the particulars. I do think it is clear that early level regional airline salaries are too low even for the best interests of the markets- whether that needs to be fixed by industry or by government is not for me to say.