Wow, some powerful articles in the news
02-23-2014, 02:58 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by RV5M
A long time ago I had another "passion job" in a different industry. Starting pay was low - $28k - and earning potential wasn't as good as it is for a career pilot on the airline track. Young, college educated, employees accepted the salaries in order to get in the door, paid their dues, and eventually moved up into better paying roles. Nobody expected to use this income to raise a family, and if things didn't work out, people left to go do other things. This is how the system works for many passion jobs - sports, TV/film, PR, fashion. Starting pay in many of these industries is right on par with what a first year regional pilot makes with per diem. And second and third year it's probably less. Pilots at all but the lowest paying regionals seem to make around $40k to $50k in year two and three. I just don't understand how this is unjust.
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
If Captain Sully decided that in his 20th year with US Airways that he wanted to move to the other coast and work for say American, he would start out at year one pay as an FO. He doesn't come into the job as a 20 year Captain with all the pay etc..
02-23-2014, 03:23 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by tom11011
I think you are forgetting one important thing in your calculations. You can't just leave one airline job for another and expect your longevity and experience to just resume where they left off.
If Captain Sully decided that in his 20th year with US Airways that he wanted to move to the other coast and work for say American, he would start out at year one pay as an FO. He doesn't come into the job as a 20 year Captain with all the pay etc..
If Captain Sully decided that in his 20th year with US Airways that he wanted to move to the other coast and work for say American, he would start out at year one pay as an FO. He doesn't come into the job as a 20 year Captain with all the pay etc..
02-23-2014, 03:28 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,899
Originally Posted by The Juice
I hope you are not one of the many regional pilots who tell people they work for their mainline partner and not for the actual regional airline. They will say "People dont know who XXXX airline is, so I just keep it easy and say I work for (Insert Legacy) Airline. We all know these pilots, some even have the nerve to wear a lanyard with the legacy airline on it.
If you want the flying public to start becoming aware of the 2nd class wages at regionals, stop blurring the line between the two when dealing with passengers.
02-23-2014, 04:04 PM
#64
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by RV5M
Is a three year upgrade a crazy idea in the current market? I don't know what's normal because it hasn't existed for the past 12 years due to 9/11 and the recession. Upgrade or not, the idea of getting hired at a major or LCC five years from now doesn't seem all that far fetched to me as a first year FO.
Opps. Already happened.
Okay. It isn't as far fetched as say the cost of oil doubling in a few months for no real reason, and hiring at regionals going from gangbusters to zero in days.
Opps. Already happened.
Get the idea?
Oh. And perdiem isn't pay. Its there to help cover tips and the higher cost of meals at the airport or hotel.
r
02-23-2014, 04:11 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by RV5M
A long time ago I had another "passion job" in a different industry. Starting pay was low - $28k - and earning potential wasn't as good as it is for a career pilot on the airline track. Young, college educated, employees accepted the salaries in order to get in the door, paid their dues, and eventually moved up into better paying roles. Nobody expected to use this income to raise a family, and if things didn't work out, people left to go do other things. This is how the system works for many passion jobs - sports, TV/film, PR, fashion. Starting pay in many of these industries is right on par with what a first year regional pilot makes with per diem. And second and third year it's probably less. Pilots at all but the lowest paying regionals seem to make around $40k to $50k in year two and three. I just don't understand how this is unjust.
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
02-23-2014, 04:40 PM
#66
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: looking for both
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by RV5M
My timeline is totally realistic. Go on LinkedIn, search for a regional, then select American, US Airways and United as 'current employer'. You'll find plenty of people who spent less than 7 years at a their regional, and that's in a terrible job market.
Yes, the stagnation in the industry has been hard on a lot of people but, as I mentioned before, when there's movement, is the current pay structure as low and unreasonable as it's made out to be?
Somebody explain it. Or is the argument "I don't get paid good, so gimme more muney!". Saying my post is dumb and wrong when it's perfectly reasonable and spewing typical APC negativity doesn't answer the question. Does everyone on this site believe they should get paid more just because?
Yes, the stagnation in the industry has been hard on a lot of people but, as I mentioned before, when there's movement, is the current pay structure as low and unreasonable as it's made out to be?
Somebody explain it. Or is the argument "I don't get paid good, so gimme more muney!". Saying my post is dumb and wrong when it's perfectly reasonable and spewing typical APC negativity doesn't answer the question. Does everyone on this site believe they should get paid more just because?
The argument is not "just give me money because I don't paid good". The argument is "my responsibility and risk levels are much too high for what I am paid; therefore, pay me more".
And no my friend, it is not the unions who don't allow lateral movement across companies. Companies prefer the system because it always allows them to hire at first year pay regardless of how much experience they are getting. And they prefer the system because they can threaten pilots knowing that most will not want to move to start over somewhere else at year one, which in turn has allowed them to degrade this profession to what it is today. The fact that a line has been reached where enough is enough, for most of us, does not mean that we "want to get paid more just because" as you would put it. It means we want to be compensated in line with the amount of responsibility we take on every day, the amount of risk we are exposed to every day, the instability and uncertainty of the industry we are in, the inability to change companies when we don't like where we are, and probably most importantly, due to all the health issues we are exposed to long term.
Companies could very well choose to pay quality new hires at years of 121 experience rates. No union would stop them. Do you hear anyone knocking on that door?
02-23-2014, 04:44 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: CR7
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by SSMR13
You must be a long lost cousin of RJ4LIFE.
The argument is not "just give me money because I don't paid good". The argument is "my responsibility and risk levels are much too high for what I am paid; therefore, pay me more".
And no my friend, it is not the unions who don't allow lateral movement across companies. Companies prefer the system because it always allows them to hire at first year pay regardless of how much experience they are getting. And they prefer the system because they can threaten pilots knowing that most will not want to move to start over somewhere else at year one, which in turn has allowed them to degrade this profession to what it is today. The fact that a line has been reached where enough is enough, for most of us, does not mean that we "want to get paid more just because" as you would put it. It means we want to be compensated in line with the amount of responsibility we take on every day, the amount of risk we are exposed to every day, the instability and uncertainty of the industry we are in, the inability to change companies when we don't like where we are, and probably most importantly, due to all the health issues we are exposed to long term.
Companies could very well choose to pay quality new hires at years of 121 experience rates. No union would stop them. Do you hear anyone knocking on that door?
The argument is not "just give me money because I don't paid good". The argument is "my responsibility and risk levels are much too high for what I am paid; therefore, pay me more".
And no my friend, it is not the unions who don't allow lateral movement across companies. Companies prefer the system because it always allows them to hire at first year pay regardless of how much experience they are getting. And they prefer the system because they can threaten pilots knowing that most will not want to move to start over somewhere else at year one, which in turn has allowed them to degrade this profession to what it is today. The fact that a line has been reached where enough is enough, for most of us, does not mean that we "want to get paid more just because" as you would put it. It means we want to be compensated in line with the amount of responsibility we take on every day, the amount of risk we are exposed to every day, the instability and uncertainty of the industry we are in, the inability to change companies when we don't like where we are, and probably most importantly, due to all the health issues we are exposed to long term.
Companies could very well choose to pay quality new hires at years of 121 experience rates. No union would stop them. Do you hear anyone knocking on that door?
02-23-2014, 04:56 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by RV5M
My timeline is totally realistic. Go on LinkedIn, search for a regional, then select American, US Airways and United as 'current employer'. You'll find plenty of people who spent less than 7 years at a their regional, and that's in a terrible job market.
Yes, the stagnation in the industry has been hard on a lot of people but, as I mentioned before, when there's movement, is the current pay structure as low and unreasonable as it's made out to be?
Somebody explain it. Or is the argument "I don't get paid good, so gimme more muney!". Saying my post is dumb and wrong when it's perfectly reasonable and spewing typical APC negativity doesn't answer the question. Does everyone on this site believe they should get paid more just because?
Yes, the stagnation in the industry has been hard on a lot of people but, as I mentioned before, when there's movement, is the current pay structure as low and unreasonable as it's made out to be?
Somebody explain it. Or is the argument "I don't get paid good, so gimme more muney!". Saying my post is dumb and wrong when it's perfectly reasonable and spewing typical APC negativity doesn't answer the question. Does everyone on this site believe they should get paid more just because?
02-23-2014, 05:07 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: CR7
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by RV5M
A long time ago I had another "passion job" in a different industry. Starting pay was low - $28k - and earning potential wasn't as good as it is for a career pilot on the airline track. Young, college educated, employees accepted the salaries in order to get in the door, paid their dues, and eventually moved up into better paying roles. Nobody expected to use this income to raise a family, and if things didn't work out, people left to go do other things. This is how the system works for many passion jobs - sports, TV/film, PR, fashion. Starting pay in many of these industries is right on par with what a first year regional pilot makes with per diem. And second and third year it's probably less. Pilots at all but the lowest paying regionals seem to make around $40k to $50k in year two and three. I just don't understand how this is unjust.
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
When underpaid Sally the Intern realizes that a full-time position isn't going to open up for her at her dream fashion marketing agency, she moves on. Maybe graduate school or a more traditional position elsewhere. This is how careers work for most people. Why then, do pilots expect to be well compensated right out of the gate, and to not be held accountable for poor decisions?
In a normal economy, a first year FO can get their time, then possibly upgrade or find a better paying position elsewhere. But when things have obviously stagnated, why is it the fault of the employer that a pilot who chose to stick around doesn't make as much as he wants?
I mean, we all salivate when these articles are published in the mainstream media, but what they're saying isn't even truth.
Maybe the typical salary progression (with per diem) would look something like this when there's movement in the industry (like now):
First year: $30,000
Second year: $38,000
Third Year: $42,000
Upgrade: $60,000
Second year CA: $64,000
Hired at major: $45,000
Second year FO at major: $70,000
..and so on.
How is a bad thing? Why the outcry?
To think that a 121 Airline First officer position should be paid low just because management would like to make it sound like it is the "first step position" in a career path is not longer accurate.
That argument would be a bit more accepted if it was like back in time when Regionals could hire 250 hours pilots with fresh Commercials but that is not the case anymore. Not only that, the pay for the job should be at a much higher minimum starting out reflecting what it takes to get to the seat, the capital invested by the pilot to gain the profession, the responsibility the seat requires and the sacrifice the job includes for the pilot and his family by him being away all the time.
Not only will the Regionals not find new pilots to hire soon but I believe they will loose most of the pilots they have today and go under if they do not change the abuse and disrespect they show and have for the pilot profession in the name of greed.
Last edited by HermannGraf; 02-23-2014 at 05:18 PM.
02-23-2014, 06:08 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 828
No dog in this fight, but if I understood RV5Ms point, I think the underlying punchline question is: Why do 6-year regional FOs choose to do that job on year 7?
Whether you find the comparison between a clerk/intern job and a regional FO job unreasonable or not, it matters not. The dynamics are the same. A job done to get to the target wage job. Most clerks quit if the position does not yield the nod from the judge in a timely fashion. They recognize it's a tread water job at that point on. My sister did the same thing at a DC health policy non-profit. It was good experience but it went nowhere after that. She's now in grad school again. This is not a new reality for people. The question is why do regional FOs exhibit such inelasticity toward the idea that, good bad or indifferent, timing and luck did not yield a reasonable career progression pay wise in order to be able to do what they want to do for a living in a manner that's financially solvent. No one is owed a job. At least that's what I got out of RV5M remarks about "passion jobs". I don't particularly find that assertion unreasonable.
Whether you find the comparison between a clerk/intern job and a regional FO job unreasonable or not, it matters not. The dynamics are the same. A job done to get to the target wage job. Most clerks quit if the position does not yield the nod from the judge in a timely fashion. They recognize it's a tread water job at that point on. My sister did the same thing at a DC health policy non-profit. It was good experience but it went nowhere after that. She's now in grad school again. This is not a new reality for people. The question is why do regional FOs exhibit such inelasticity toward the idea that, good bad or indifferent, timing and luck did not yield a reasonable career progression pay wise in order to be able to do what they want to do for a living in a manner that's financially solvent. No one is owed a job. At least that's what I got out of RV5M remarks about "passion jobs". I don't particularly find that assertion unreasonable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
