Higher 2nd Year Pay At Regionals
05-01-2014 | 09:58 PM
#21
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 0
If you have people "bailing" during or after expensive training, then you need to examine the compensation package and quality of life that you offer. If you have people washing out, then you need to examine your training department and curriculum. It's as simple as that.
When a company like Boeing or Lockheed hires an engineer right out of college, what documentation do they have? What standardized practical tests has the person completed, outside of course work? When a company hires and trains a pilot, there is already a massive paper trail that exists for that pilot.
If your HR department is at all smart or competent, there should be very little risk associated with hiring a pilot. If the only applicants you're getting are of the "high risk" type, then again... follow the trail of breadcrumbs to your compensation.
Would it be more practical to advocate higher 2nd year pay as opposed to 1st to offset this risk?
Example of a current fictional pay scale:
24,33,35,40...
Example some people are advocating (double first year pay):
48,50,52,55...
Example weighted towards 2nd year and up:
30,56,59,60...
Obviously these kinds of raises might seem highly optimistic and out of reach in light of todays low regional wages. Just toying with a general direction we might take, the net gains posted above are all equal.
Example of a current fictional pay scale:
24,33,35,40...
Example some people are advocating (double first year pay):
48,50,52,55...
Example weighted towards 2nd year and up:
30,56,59,60...
Obviously these kinds of raises might seem highly optimistic and out of reach in light of todays low regional wages. Just toying with a general direction we might take, the net gains posted above are all equal.
During your "probationary" year, the company is getting the same product out of a pilot that they're getting out of the guy who's #1 on the list: The metal tubes move. Why should we subsidize their business with our labor?
05-02-2014 | 05:31 AM
#23
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: and Hold
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOGIII
I think it is safe to say that the airlines (regionals mostly) assume some risk by training many new hires with no prior 121 time and likely have some pilots bailing/washing out after expensive training..
No. A pilot is a well documented commodity, regardless of 121 experience. There are PRIA records for every previous employer, there are FAA records of check ride attempts and busts, and there are training records from the person's education. If there is a college degree, there are transcripts for that as well. An ATP rated pilot with a multi-engine rating has shown multiple times (usually at least 5) that they are capable of being trained to a standard, and performing at that standard. With each passed rating ride, a person becomes less and less an "unknown" or "risky" applicant.
If you have people "bailing" during or after expensive training, then you need to examine the compensation package and quality of life that you offer. If you have people washing out, then you need to examine your training department and curriculum. It's as simple as that.
When a company like Boeing or Lockheed hires an engineer right out of college, what documentation do they have? What standardized practical tests has the person completed, outside of course work? When a company hires and trains a pilot, there is already a massive paper trail that exists for that pilot.
If your HR department is at all smart or competent, there should be very little risk associated with hiring a pilot. If the only applicants you're getting are of the "high risk" type, then again... follow the trail of breadcrumbs to your compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOGIII
Would it be more practical to advocate higher 2nd year pay as opposed to 1st to offset this risk?
Example of a current fictional pay scale:
24,33,35,40...
Example some people are advocating (double first year pay):
48,50,52,55...
Example weighted towards 2nd year and up:
30,56,59,60...
Obviously these kinds of raises might seem highly optimistic and out of reach in light of todays low regional wages. Just toying with a general direction we might take, the net gains posted above are all equal.
Take option B or C, and draw a line through the first number. That should get you close to what the first 3 years should be like.
During your "probationary" year, the company is getting the same product out of a pilot that they're getting out of the guy who's #1 on the list: The metal tubes move. Why should we subsidize their business with our labor?
Originally Posted by DOGIII
I think it is safe to say that the airlines (regionals mostly) assume some risk by training many new hires with no prior 121 time and likely have some pilots bailing/washing out after expensive training..
No. A pilot is a well documented commodity, regardless of 121 experience. There are PRIA records for every previous employer, there are FAA records of check ride attempts and busts, and there are training records from the person's education. If there is a college degree, there are transcripts for that as well. An ATP rated pilot with a multi-engine rating has shown multiple times (usually at least 5) that they are capable of being trained to a standard, and performing at that standard. With each passed rating ride, a person becomes less and less an "unknown" or "risky" applicant.
If you have people "bailing" during or after expensive training, then you need to examine the compensation package and quality of life that you offer. If you have people washing out, then you need to examine your training department and curriculum. It's as simple as that.
When a company like Boeing or Lockheed hires an engineer right out of college, what documentation do they have? What standardized practical tests has the person completed, outside of course work? When a company hires and trains a pilot, there is already a massive paper trail that exists for that pilot.
If your HR department is at all smart or competent, there should be very little risk associated with hiring a pilot. If the only applicants you're getting are of the "high risk" type, then again... follow the trail of breadcrumbs to your compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOGIII
Would it be more practical to advocate higher 2nd year pay as opposed to 1st to offset this risk?
Example of a current fictional pay scale:
24,33,35,40...
Example some people are advocating (double first year pay):
48,50,52,55...
Example weighted towards 2nd year and up:
30,56,59,60...
Obviously these kinds of raises might seem highly optimistic and out of reach in light of todays low regional wages. Just toying with a general direction we might take, the net gains posted above are all equal.
Take option B or C, and draw a line through the first number. That should get you close to what the first 3 years should be like.
During your "probationary" year, the company is getting the same product out of a pilot that they're getting out of the guy who's #1 on the list: The metal tubes move. Why should we subsidize their business with our labor?
I have thought about my original post and I am beginning to agree with the members expressing dismay at the under appreciation and compensation during year 1 specifically and subsequent years in general.
I also agree that high pay and qol will lessen the amount of pilots leaving from the bottom of the lists. But even if pay for year 1 was substantially higher across the board - this would not prevent training washouts or stop pilots from jumping to other high paying regionals, chasing an upgrade, going to a LLC or whatever other motive. Better hiring practices would definitely help in regards to training pass rates like some here have said. But what if you see it as I do, a shortage of both people willing to work at our ridiculous wages AND a candidate problem? Companies, and I hate this, will not be more selective as their hiring quotas rise.
Guess my direction with 2nd year pay is guided more by a realistic approach to our problem in light of the atmosphere of the industry right now (low wages, retirements, 1500, new ATP rule etc).
Notice how in my original post I used some key words like "would it be more PRACTICAL" or "Companies assume SOME risk".
I am not trying to play devil's advocate for the companies, just trying to figure out their angles - this could increase the chances of getting some much needed relief and improve our position in the game.
I would not say no to a scale starting at 55/hr, but since I don't think that will happen overnight- intermediate steps are necessary.
Guess I am at a point of 'better to be smart than just'.
Last edited by DOGIII; 05-02-2014 at 05:41 AM.
05-02-2014 | 06:20 AM
#24
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 0
Interesting debate so far.
I have thought about my original post and I am beginning to agree with the members expressing dismay at the under appreciation and compensation during year 1 specifically and subsequent years in general.
I also agree that high pay and qol will lessen the amount of pilots leaving from the bottom of the lists. But even if pay for year 1 was substantially higher across the board - this would not prevent training washouts or stop pilots from jumping to other high paying regionals, chasing an upgrade, going to a LLC or whatever other motive. Better hiring practices would definitely help in regards to training pass rates like some here have said. But what if you see it as I do, a shortage of both people willing to work at our ridiculous wages AND a candidate problem? Companies, and I hate this, will not be more selective as their hiring quotas rise.
Guess my direction with 2nd year pay is guided more by a realistic approach to our problem in light of the atmosphere of the industry right now (low wages, retirements, 1500, new ATP rule etc).
Notice how in my original post I used some key words like "would it be more PRACTICAL" or "Companies assume SOME risk".
I am not trying to play devil's advocate for the companies, just trying to figure out their angles - this could increase the chances of getting some much needed relief and improve our position in the game.
I would not say no to a scale starting at 55/hr, but since I don't think that will happen overnight- intermediate steps are necessary.
Guess I am at a point of 'better to be smart than just'.
I have thought about my original post and I am beginning to agree with the members expressing dismay at the under appreciation and compensation during year 1 specifically and subsequent years in general.
I also agree that high pay and qol will lessen the amount of pilots leaving from the bottom of the lists. But even if pay for year 1 was substantially higher across the board - this would not prevent training washouts or stop pilots from jumping to other high paying regionals, chasing an upgrade, going to a LLC or whatever other motive. Better hiring practices would definitely help in regards to training pass rates like some here have said. But what if you see it as I do, a shortage of both people willing to work at our ridiculous wages AND a candidate problem? Companies, and I hate this, will not be more selective as their hiring quotas rise.
Guess my direction with 2nd year pay is guided more by a realistic approach to our problem in light of the atmosphere of the industry right now (low wages, retirements, 1500, new ATP rule etc).
Notice how in my original post I used some key words like "would it be more PRACTICAL" or "Companies assume SOME risk".
I am not trying to play devil's advocate for the companies, just trying to figure out their angles - this could increase the chances of getting some much needed relief and improve our position in the game.
I would not say no to a scale starting at 55/hr, but since I don't think that will happen overnight- intermediate steps are necessary.
Guess I am at a point of 'better to be smart than just'.
If a company cannot (or will not) be selective with their hiring, and are therefore having wash-outs... I only see a couple of possible solutions.
1) Be more selective. Choose to do so, even if you think you can't, and adjust your compensation until it allows you to be selective.
2) Be willing to improve and lengthen your training. This will cost money as well.
You can't hire "just anybody" and run them through an abbreviated training curriculum and expect to have repeatable results. That isn't a pilot shortage issue or a pay issue, that's just a logic issue. Either get better candidates, or provide more thorough training. There's no other way around it.
I also agree with you that a company does assume some risk when they hire a pilot, and this risk is almost 100% financial. It costs a lot of money to run a pilot through a training event, and this is something that is unique to our industry. Going back to my engineer example, it doesn't cost so much to hire an engineer and get them up to speed on what you need from them. It is the cost of doing business, but it's also unreasonable to expect a company to not attempt to mitigate this risk in order to protect their investment. The absolute best way to mitigate your risk is to ensure that those you hire are capable of meeting the required standards. This goes directly back to hiring practices, compensation, and quality of applicants. Sometimes you have to spend some money to protect your investments. When was the last time that Delta had a person wash out of new-hire training? If you are a place worth working, you'll have applicants worth hiring. Act accordingly.
When a company refuses to mitigate their risk by actually addressing the root of the problem, we end up seeing a variety of mostly ineffective solutions start popping up. Training contracts are a great example.
Last edited by pete2800; 05-02-2014 at 06:33 AM.
05-02-2014 | 06:46 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,145
Likes: 12
Isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that your union has much to say about what you get paid? There is a pool of money for salaries that gets divided up.
Hypothetical pay scale here.
FO
Year1 = 24/hr
Year2 = 28/hr
Year3 = 33/hr
Capt
Year4 = 60/hr
Year5 = 67/hr
Year6 = 75/hr
Would the pilots agree to the following flatter scale?
FO
Year1 = 34/hr
Year2 = 38/hr
Year3 = 43/hr
Capt
Year4 = 50/hr
Year5 = 57/hr
Year6 = 65/hr
Discuss.
Hypothetical pay scale here.
FO
Year1 = 24/hr
Year2 = 28/hr
Year3 = 33/hr
Capt
Year4 = 60/hr
Year5 = 67/hr
Year6 = 75/hr
Would the pilots agree to the following flatter scale?
FO
Year1 = 34/hr
Year2 = 38/hr
Year3 = 43/hr
Capt
Year4 = 50/hr
Year5 = 57/hr
Year6 = 65/hr
Discuss.
05-02-2014 | 06:59 AM
#26
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 675
Likes: 20
^^In my experience flying with senior guys. Hell no they wouldn't agree to that. Even if you just made a 4yr FO pay scale, took $2'from each captain step and distributed it equally over those 4 years, they wouldn't do it.
The US has some of the lowest cost of living of any developed country. Also, I'm sure everyone knows this, but $50k is the average HOUSEHOLD income in the US.
Now sure I think pilots should definitely get paid more than we do, but let's keep things in perspective. I think 45-60k is a fair wage for sitting right seat in an RJ and many guys who are off of first year pay can achieve that with extra effort. The key is allowing us to get that 45-60k on minimum credit. That's what we should be negotiating for.
Now sure I think pilots should definitely get paid more than we do, but let's keep things in perspective. I think 45-60k is a fair wage for sitting right seat in an RJ and many guys who are off of first year pay can achieve that with extra effort. The key is allowing us to get that 45-60k on minimum credit. That's what we should be negotiating for.
05-02-2014 | 07:48 AM
#27
Gets EVERY weekend off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
From: SIC
My company employees pilots (civil and military) to build aeronautical charts and starts their salaries around $55k....Kinda hard to justify $30-34k starting salary, when the CFI who just graduated college can come over here and get paid $20k more without ever being on the road for four days at a time.
05-02-2014 | 08:11 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,145
Likes: 12
I think what it really boils down to is Year 1 and Year 2 pay need to be a living wage no matter what airline you work for, regional or major. I think the real issue is there is a lack of a standardized career progression. This was brought up in testimony before Congress 2 days ago.
In fact, if you haven't seen the video yet, you should. It just about sums about all the problems and concerns of the regional airlines and its pilots in a neat 90 minute package.
In fact, if you haven't seen the video yet, you should. It just about sums about all the problems and concerns of the regional airlines and its pilots in a neat 90 minute package.
05-02-2014 | 08:20 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,800
Likes: 22
From: 330 B
I think what it really boils down to is Year 1 and Year 2 pay need to be a living wage no matter what airline you work for, regional or major. I think the real issue is there is a lack of a standardized career progression. This was brought up in testimony before Congress 2 days ago.
In fact, if you haven't seen the video yet, you should. It just about sums about all the problems and concerns of the regional airlines and its pilots in a neat 90 minute package.
In fact, if you haven't seen the video yet, you should. It just about sums about all the problems and concerns of the regional airlines and its pilots in a neat 90 minute package.
05-02-2014 | 08:32 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 0
From: 7er
Isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that your union has much to say about what you get paid? There is a pool of money for salaries that gets divided up.
Hypothetical pay scale here.
FO
Year1 = 24/hr
Year2 = 28/hr
Year3 = 33/hr
Capt
Year4 = 60/hr
Year5 = 67/hr
Year6 = 75/hr
Would the pilots agree to the following flatter scale?
FO
Year1 = 34/hr
Year2 = 38/hr
Year3 = 43/hr
Capt
Year4 = 50/hr
Year5 = 57/hr
Year6 = 65/hr
Discuss.
Hypothetical pay scale here.
FO
Year1 = 24/hr
Year2 = 28/hr
Year3 = 33/hr
Capt
Year4 = 60/hr
Year5 = 67/hr
Year6 = 75/hr
Would the pilots agree to the following flatter scale?
FO
Year1 = 34/hr
Year2 = 38/hr
Year3 = 43/hr
Capt
Year4 = 50/hr
Year5 = 57/hr
Year6 = 65/hr
Discuss.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
