Fair wage scale for regionals?
 

What would that be? I know we all want to make 100k our first year but that's not realistic. So what is? I'm asking about a minimum scale for the 37-50 seat planes and for it to go up from there. Yes I know if we made more the regionals would all shut down or fares would go up but let's just say we lived in a Capitalist country where supply and demand ruled the economy and our hands weren't tied to an old RLA law of the 1700s. Personally I like the Jazz pay scale. Same job so why should the pay scale be based on seats?

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/i...y_jazz2012.png

It would be nice to have a pay scale where first and second year FOs can potentially make more money than a high school kid working at mcdonalds does. First year flight attendants at my company make more than a first year FO due to holding lines quicker and not being restricted by duty regs and a FA can get a job with no degree and no prior experience. The pay scale is an insult to someone with a 4 year degree and 5-10 years of job experience.

By third and fourth year pay I think the wage becomes pretty fair. It's still not an amazing paying job but it's enough to live comfortably on. First and second year pay really need to be fixed.

I don't think any regional should start pilots at less than $35 per hour.

How about have a B scale for Prior 121 experience? You figure every pilot will have to start over at another regional why not start over at a 30-35 per hour....just a thought

flat-rate pay with merit-based promotions and incentive bonuses

example:

76 seat jet

All Captains $90,000
All First Officers $50,000

No seniority. No unions. Upgrades will be actual promotions based on merit, knowledge, peer recommendations, and advanced performance tracking. Pay raises or bonuses in each seat dependent upon specific airline performance metrics being met. Cost of living raises to match national average every year.

The present system in place at most any airline is archaic. There is no merit to seniority-based upgrades. There is no incentive to motivate the juvenile and unprofessional to do a good job; moreover, they have endless job protection regardless of their actions and they receive raises annually for no reason.

A new system like the one I have suggested would elevate the people that actually perform well.

Eh, the problem is that a particular airline could quickly devolve into a "drinking buddy club." Also, performance tracking as a part of pay and promotions could easily cause some safety issues.

I think the biggest argument most RJ pilots have is that the pay scale is not proportionate to the major airlines. Yes, RJ pilots fly less people. However, RJ pilots should be paid at a scale that is proportionate to the major airlines in relation to the number of “souls on board”. If a 777 5th year FO gets paid $155 per hour to fly 386 passengers that equates to $.40 per person per hour. A 5th year RJ FO should make that as well. Otherwise, then what the company is telling the RJ pilot, AND his/her customers, is that their lives are not as valuable as the lives on the Legacy airline. Make sense? Let's see if the math checks out.

If you take the first year pay from a Legacy airline's pay table (Delta in this case) and average it per person for the average number of seats on their airframes, you get a number that is the average pay per seat, per hour. Example, let's say Delta's median size aircraft, the 737-900, holds 177 seats. Their first year pay is $66 per hour. If we do that division we get $.37 per seat, per hour. If you apply that figure to a 50 seat RJ you get $18.60. That happens to be less than most regional airlines’ first year FO pay. If you do the same calculation for Delta's smallest aircraft, the 717, that equates to $28.20 per hour for a 50 seat RJ. That is much higher than most regional airlines’ 1st year pay. Let's do the same with the 5th year FO on a 717 at Delta. At $112 per hour that is $1.06 per person per hour, which equates to $52.83 per hour for a 5th year RJ FO at that rate. At AE the 5th year rate is $40 per hour. That's a significant pay difference. If you do the same for a 10 year CA on a Delta 717 that is $1.54 per person per hour which equates to $77.35 per hour for an AE 10 year Captain. Currently that CA gets $82. If we do the same for a 10 yr 777 CA they get $.65 per person per hour, which equates to $32.51 per hour for a 10 year RJ CA. That is obviously way worse than what a 10 yr RJ CA makes ($82).

I agree that a regional airline pilot feels like pay is extremely low, and in some cases there is definitely an argument for that. I also agree that the bigger the airplane the more expensive it is and that cost is factored into the pay for a mainline pilot. But even with that factor, the math tells us that the per person per hour cost for an RJ pilot IRT a mainline pilot isn’t too far skewed. The slap in the face then mainly comes from the fact that it’s a highly specialized field, with very expensive training, that takes many years to attain proficiency, that makes more life saving decisions per day than most professions do in a lifetime, only to be compensated the same as low technical fields that don’t require high amounts of human capital (restaurant worker, retail, bus driver, etc).

I think I just blacked out…..what happened….where are my pants?.....

So if you fly one person, you should get 40 cents/hr?

There's no drinking buddy club if you're looking at data. There is a drinking buddy club if you're part of the sim-buddy club during your seniority-based upgrade to captain. How does that help safety?

When I say performance tracking I don't mean on-time departures. I mean fuel-savings, customer comments, peer reviews, etc.. There's no issue there.

People love to say this is a profession, but hate the thought of it being operated like one. Change is hard for labor groups. Taking away entitlement-based pay raises and promotions will never happen because it's too scary to think you might have to earn your wage. Just a fun thought !

$40,000 for FOs during their first and second years. Let's begin there, and then work our way on up to other issues.

JamesNoBrakes - exactly the point I (poorly I might add) was trying to make. When you try to tie the pay to the responsibility, in our case the number of people we fly, it still doesn't pay us what our training and skills deserve. The problem is, how do we put a number on it? I think $40k is a reasonable place to start, but how do we justify it? What is the basis / reference for our argument? Should the cost of our training be tied to a certain salary so that we recoup those costs within X number of years? I don't know what the right answer is and I don't think many people do. I do think it should be nowhere near as close to the poverty line as it is though.

Now, where's the number to that trucking company?

And then the good ole boys network takes over. No thanks. Turn down a flight or aircraft, get out late cause of maintenance write ups one too many times, call in sick too often.... you get the point.

So, my promotion is tied to whether or not I ground an airplane, push the weather, or never call fatigue or sick? Sounds like a heck of a plan.

Should we really care how many people we fly? The job is harder on an RJ doing 5 legs a day 50 people at a time. I can fly 250 people in a day and that's 250 airline tickets sold. Not saying I should get paid the same as a 777 Captain but the scale is nowhere near fair and the per-passenger scale should not apply.

How often do you see FOs upgrade to captain only because they are next in line because of seniority but have no business being a captain? Does this happen?

Yeah. Sorry Noseeums but your merit based upgrades would create the good old boy system someone else mentioned. Good to discuss though respectfully for a change.

Nope to all of that. Anything else you're afraid of that you'd like to throw in? Being part of a profession could be scary and unfair! Better stick with $19/hr and wishful thinking of a pilot shortage to promote my career instead.

*edit*

I'll just leave this at: Yes. All the time.

anything would be better than the 15K im taking home at republic a year.

You completely missed his point.

Good lord, that's downright criminal IMHO. And then they complain that they can't attract enough qualified applicants. :rolleyes:

A system that ensures accountability and performance does not create a good ole boy club. I think you have the wrong idea about how this could work. In any event, nothing will change. Part of the draw to this business is that you can get raises and upgrades with little to no effort. We don't employ the type of people that would support such a system. Most of the people I fly with can't even have an adult conversation with their manager or chief pilot without a union rep holding their hand. Pretty ridiculous.

Australia has a regulated, minimum pilot pay range based on pax/etc, and they have a much more vibrant economy than we do lately.

The free market determines the minimum scale. The minimum scale is obviously pretty low and therefore that's what it should be. As long as a company is able to attract minimally qualified applicants for a given position that meets its needs, that's what the wage should be.

When the regional airlines (or anyone for that matter) are unable to attract applicants for a given position, then they know their total compensation is too low. They then have the choice of either not filling the position and parking the jet (in the case of an airline) or raising wages.

I think reigonal FOs should start out anywhere between 30 - 45k, that would be a fair pay for a starting regional pilot.

It is sad to see pilots who make less than 20k in their first year, I worked as a Pax Agent and made more than that, it's just not right. But then again, I worked for an Airline where a starting Pilot makes 65.000EUR beginning.

That's funny. So you're saying if mainline paid say 30% less they would have a hard time recruiting pilots. We get paid what management decides will keep us quiet and not do anything about it.

It's all merit based where I work now. There are good and bad things. On the good side most guys have to prove themselves on their recurrent check ride to be considered for upgrade. Along with that the captains are asked about the performance of the FO's. this system has led to long term FO's because they had no business in the left seat. On that note I've seen it held over people's heads if they call out sick which leads to people flying sick for fear of missing that upgrade. It's a good system if your a good employee and work hard but it does jeopardize safety with people wanting to get the job done no matter what.

^^^ This (post #24) with a caveat or qualifier that no salary or wage structure should be allowed to be so low, or high, so as to create attending problems that are worse than the suppressed or inflated market wages. For example, it appears that in the regional airline business, new pilots will work for wages so low they are below even the poverty line, below a reasonable wage. The suppressed wages create problems because the pilots will skimp on sleep quality to get by. A serious laissez faire economist will say it should all balance out so let the sleepy pilots just crash airplanes (I guess), but the government cannot sit by and allow that to happen- we must intervene to establish reasonable wages. If we allow crack to be sold like cigarettes a lot of people will be harmed that could otherwise be kept safe.

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the free market determines what wages will be. If a regional airline is paying entry level F/O's $15,000 per year and they have a stack of qualified applicants, then the total compensation they are offering is likely too high. Conversely, if jets start getting parked for lack of qualified applicants, then the compensation is too low.

So what "should" the minimum wage be in the purest sense? The smallest wage that keeps the airplanes flying and meets minimum legal requirements.

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

45K provides barely enough money for a starter family to get by in most areas of the country for a first year - provided they have savings.

My friend is a trouble line-man with the local utility. His base is 104k. He usually makes $150-160k. No, not a new employee. But a first year trouble line main starts at 85K. They generally train you. They have a union. Not an association. Getting rid of the RLA is the critical first step. But that's been said for 30+ years.

Seriously, I've seen (and often experienced) the decline for a long long time. I am amazed people (or are they only pilots?) still walk into the hail of terrible pay like they are Australian soldiers at Gallipoli

And as long as they keep marching in, the wage will remain low. When young people and career changers decide to do something else besides aviation, the wages will rise.

Mainline isn't entry level. When a 23 year old non college grad can fill the position it isn't going to pay a lot to start. Especially when regionals have no problems filling their classes. Will that change in 6 year or so? Maybe.

ALPA?

Sorry friend, I am trying to stop laughing and fight back tears at the same time. The first thing you guys should do is show your AFLCIO lap dog airline manager's union the door.

Then, tell the age 65 fart dust crowd at Delta and United to eat feces and die. ALPA has done nothing but run from every single fight that mattered. Those that came before you had no right to bargain away your future and you guys need to find the stones to walk off the property or quit showing up for interviews. This is a simple concept and yes, its painful, but the only thing you guys have is your feet...

use them.

If I read that and thought "gee, that'd be a higher amount than we're getting paid now" did I miss your point?

I agree with your point 100% that government does play a role in regulation to avoid accidents. But lets be honest, no minimum wage law applies to pilots. The government has truly dropped the ball on that. They would be kidding themselves if they think there aren't sleepy pilots in the cockpit. But to play out your laissez faire economist theory. Lets remember that airlines sell tickets based on their image, and suppose more accidents with underpaid fatigued pilots were happening. At some point the airline would have to address the image problem of underpaid fatigued pilots in order to make more money. Not that I'm advocating for more accidents. I'm just saying if certain companies started having image problems they'd have to address that.

I am not absolutely sure about this but I suspect Colgan 3407 may have been a result of market failure to adequately create reasonable wages for low end airline pilots. It certainly looks that way to me. My point is again, that boundaries need to be defined when and if the markets run afoul of sensible minimums. If a full time worker earns less than enough to sleep and eat each day, something is wrong. We can eliminate the job which is not good for the greater majority, this case the traveling public, or we can regulate wages to a safe minimum. Hopefully the people and their government are smart enough to do this before airplanes crash. This is not always the case unfortunately, as reactive regulation is more common than proactive regulation.

There is only one real way IMO. Less pilots and higher ticket prices. The only way you're going to get there is to strike. That's the only thing powerful enough to make a dent with airlines IMO. Sure, it means losing your job and getting shuffled around in the madness as they try to hire on pilots to fill the void, but that's really the kind of solidarity it would take to do this. This is the only thing that would "scare" the airlines to change or do something different. Most people aren't interested in losing their job and feel that "some kind of job" is better than no job. Until that day where people have had enough, we'll still see fast-food wages.

Why so low? Seriously. They are replacing DC-9's and 737-200's. Those aircraft never paid that low.

It's hard enough as it is convincing pilots to vote on their own and their fellow brethren's behalf in house. I can't even fathom what kind of challenges that we would have to overcome to make the vast majority of regional pilots strike en masse for one another as you so eloquently describe. It's a fanciful scenario though, wish that we could see it happen.

Cubdriver,

Would Colgan 3407 crew been better prepared for the situation, they created, by having a bigger paycheck? Would it be more accurate to say it was a regulatory failure to ensure correct training, a systemic failure to weed out pilots who are not capable of being captains and acting responsibly in matters of rest and adherence to procedure?

Ultimately, money doesn't guarantee professional conduct, only high ethical standards does.

GF

If minimum pay is too low don't take the job. Accepting a job at an airline that pays "too low" insures the rate will not improve. Did anyone get hired and then find out the pay rates. Let the market dictate what's fair. If airlines can't find people they will be forced to adapt. Eventually they will just get rid of pilots altogether but that's another matter. In the meantime don't accept employment at a company that doesn't offer fair wages. Everyone who takes a job and the complains about the wage after the fact should reflect on their decision making ability.