It's hard to admit it but it's true. I was signed up to join ATP this December but after further investigation into a pilot's life style and pay I have decided against it. Making $20,000 per year for the 1st 1 to 5 years is hard to imagine, especially if you have loan payments to make. I love flying with all of my heart but I also like to have food in my mouth, and be able to take my girlfriend out on a date every so often. Now I'm interviewing for a management position with a local distribution company with starting pay above $60,000 per year. I'm planning on flying gliders on the weekends. This way I can still live the dream of flying and not have to worry about how I'm going to feed myself for the next few years. If I had to live in poverty to fly it would take away the fun of it.

I'm not sure what the solution is for pilots. I do believe that things will get better. With the cost of flight school going up and the pay scales at the airlines being so low there are going to be more guys like myself that just aren't willing to do it. The biggest problem is that life is getting harder in general for everyone, more and more people have the mentality that "what the hell I should go for my dreams". They don't think about the reality of the situation. The only way pay is going to get better is to decrease the supply of pilots. One down a few hundred thousand to go.

Pax hate those too. Pax even hate the 757; they don't like long thin tubes. I wish we could return to the days of the wide body. Those are sweet. Still given the choice the public will fly a 737 or A320 long before they will get in to a RJ (70 seats or not).

First let me say I think you made a good choice.

Second, while $20k (or slightly more) is what you'd make as a first year FO, I plan to make in the area of $38k hourly in my second year as an FO. Include per diem and I'm in the $44k range. Not that that means much - you still make more, and are home all the time vs me having 14-15 days off but being home only 8-10 nights per month, and probably have better job stability. I however don't have the Bobs looking over my shoulder , and still have thanksgiving, xmas, new years, birthdays, etc. off, and I've just come into my second year.

Third, you have this option. How many people can "just go get a job" making $60k/yr? Not many. Either you are older (say 26-30) with some work experience or you have some expensive degrees (or neither, you are just a smart mofo that networked into that job on your own). I can say hands DOWN if I could land a management job somewhere making $60k+ I would quit my job as a regional pilot IN A HEARTBEAT as would many others IMO .

agree with you in every aspect, but do the bean counters agree? they have the final say

Until people quit going for the walmart mentality they're going to be stuck flying transcon in RJs. At $300 round trip you get what you pay for.

5 hours in an MD-80 STL-SEA might be the worst thing I've ever experienced. Worse yet was the fact that the plane was full. That route could have likely supported a 757.

Passengers will never get over that mentality of bigger is better and safer. Heck, I despise riding on "regional" aircraft too, but I pretty much hate flying in general unless I'm up front or watching it from the ground. Sitting in the back is absolutely miserable for anyone over 6'2". I can barely stand to go ANC-SEA when its free in coach. And I WILL NOT shop at Walmart. I hate everything they stand for in business.

Northwind, thank you (seriously). You're helping the cause. I hope I am as well, by not working at a typical regional in the 48 states.

not true; how many U.S. crashes have RJ's been involved in? My recollection.....hardly any. I do agree though that they suck riding in.

I dont think they do. Frequency seems to be the name of the game at the moment.

Given the fact that they have lowered their minimums, can any verify or deny the their APC page is correct in terms of pay or is management still looking for a wage concession from the pilots?


atp

I think the point he was making is not that they are less safe, but the public percieves it to be that way. Much of the reason that turboprops have seen a decline is the fact that the public percieves this as old technology. They have no grasp of how a turboprop engine works nor do they realize that the Q-400 they're getting on has 45 years of lessons learned and changes in design philosophy incorporated into it that that DC-9 doesn't have. They see props and they think "unsafe puddle-jumper that are always crashing".

Anybody catch ABC World News Tonight? They ran a story about a system that's in testing at DFW to reduce runway incursions. I noted about 10 errors in the story. Worst of which, an ATC tape along with an animation listed as a "Private Pilot". The aircraft shown in the animation was a jetstar and based on the callsign and the pilot's accent english was not their primary language. The media doesn't help this perception one bit but the public is too ignorant to care. Why should they? They don't care who or what they're flying as long as they get from point A to B on time and safely.