The whole Walmart effect is like the "chicken and the egg" question. What came first: the thousands of people who needed jobs, and went to Walmart to look for work and improve their quality of life? Or, the thousands that lost their jobs, as a direct result of Walmart, and needed to go to Walmart to look for work, to avoid living on the street? The world will never know....

 

Don't you think the education and experience of a pilot should be compensated as such? Education and experience are well-compensated for any other "professional position". The "free-market" doesn't work for pilots, as airline management can dictate minimum experience requirements, at their will, which drastically alters the supply and demand curve. If they are in a bind for pilots, they just lower the mins to a pulse and a wet-ink multi-commercial ticket. Are you looking at it from the perspective of management, which is to do whatever it takes to turn a profit? Or, are you looking at it from the perspective of a pilot, who has worked hard to attain the experience and education required to become a professional aviator, and feels he or she should be compensated as such?

 

I didn't understand the need for pilot unions until I got my first flying job at a part 135 operation.

Anyone who thinks the FAA, OHSA, and the likes makes flying "safe enough" is crazy. "Pilot pushing" still exists.

 

I am looking at it from a supply and demand viewpoint.

If there are more people willing to do the job, than there are jobs, then pay will go down. Yes there are people willing to do the job for less, so by definition I am overpaid.

I know it doesn't appear that way because 20 years ago pilots made a lot more money than they do now, but times change. There is a large supply for pilots and low demand, which means that the price of labor is lowered.

Yes it sucks for all of us, but that's how it is, when the economy bounces back in 10 years or so, we can leave the industry for a more profitable one. Or perhaps the pilot shortage will return, and then we'll be the first to take advantage of a low supply of pilots.
----------
You mention to whatever it takes to turn a profit as if it's a bad thing.

I would rather be paid market wages for a successful company, than be overpaid at a company that just closed its doors.

I hope we can keep this discussion civil, I know it's a touch topic. I've done a lot of reading on economics and the free market is like mother nature, you can hold it off for a while, but eventually she'll break through the levees.

 

What can I say, you answered yourself and showed a complete lack of understanding.

WalMart comes into towns proclaiming goodness and light, puts smaller businesses out of business, killing the economy. But wait! Come to work for WalMart! We'll pay you full time to get the store opened, then cut you back to part time so we don't have to pay benefits. What a deal.

They come to town with big plans and demand tax breaks to set up shop. Who pays for the tax breaks? The customers who are getting a "deal."

Who pays for the employee or their family when they get sick and have no health insurance? The taxpayer, when the employee takes them to the local emergency room with no insurance...but wait! When they APPLIED for the job, WalMart told them how to go get FREE INSURANCE from the state and federal govenrments! Who pays? The taxpayer.

When they go to a supplier and buy up their entire production line at below production cost, who loses jobs? Taxpaying Americans! because WalMart pushes the manufacturer to move the production to a plant in China. Not true, you say? Look it up. the owner of LawnBoy (or Toro, I forget which), got that squeeze play two years ago. Told WalMart he couldn't put Americans out of work like that. And who would service his product? WalMart said don't worry about the employees and when it breaks, it'll be so cheap, they'll buy another one.

He told them to pound sand.

And when the local economy craps? WalMart pulls down the signs and leaves. Leaving yet another town with no small business infrastructure and folks out of jobs.

If you want to support this kind of company, be my guest. I'll gladly pay the extra $$ to keep money in my community with businesses who keep it here too. I have not set foot in a WalMart in 15 years and will not.

Now you blame unions for our educational system.

As to the kind of pilot you will be? Well, you've made that pretty clear. Opportunistic, self centered, and willing to suck up to anyone to get ahead, or bust minimums to get in and earn extra brownie points.

Management is gonna LOVE you....

 

Yeah, she'll break through the levees, and leave a path of destruction in her wake. Look what happens when the free market runs wild, with no checks and balances. The entire American economy boarders on self-destruction, and billions are shoveled out in bailouts, just to keep the country's economic system from melting down. I'm all for a free market, but when it's left unchecked, things are bad for everyone. If airlines were all non-union, it would be like an unchecked and unbalanced free market. Management has a lot of say, when it comes to supply and demand. They can lower minimums to a pulse and a multi-commercial, they can lobby for the Multi-Crew Pilot License, etc. If we, as pilots, could do something to affect the curve, unions would not be as much of a necessity. It would be a check and balance on the free market. Without anyway for pilots to limit supply, there is no check or balance, and management has most of the control. Do you have any suggestions for limiting supply? One thing that is different with the pro-pilot position, as opposed to other professions, is that a pilot can become fully qualified through a private business. With other professions, it's necessary to become qualified at an educational institution. Because private businesses are so involved with the qualification of pilots, supply is not well checked at this level. A private flight school is always going to build up the pro pilot profession as being something that it is not. They will not limit the number of people coming into their business who are dreaming of a job as a pro pilot. They will do the opposite. You can still see advertisements about "pilot shortages", with pictures of smiling flight crews and shiny RJs, etc., put out by flight schools who want people to believe that this is some sort of dream job. With the pharmacist profession, for example, qualification is through an educational institution. They purposely limit the supply of people going through pharmacy programs, even though demand is extremely high for pharmacists right now. People who are still in pharmacy school, with still a year or two to go, are getting job offers for positions that pay 6 figures right off the bat. This is one example of where the professional has the upper hand, and unionism is mostly unnecessary. This is definitely not the case with the pro-pilot profession.

 

Yes, doing whatever it takes to turn a profit is a horrible thing. This means that a little thing called "business ethics" is totally ignored. Would you say that undercutting your employees and stabbing them in the back is "ethical"? An airline can pay it's workers a fair wage, yet still remain profitable and viable (See Southwest). What makes airlines unprofitable is horrible mismanagement; making short-sighted moves, with no concern for the long-term viability of the airline. Airline CEOs walk through revolving doors. They come in, decrease losses however they can by undercutting employees, subcontracting their flying, etc., collect their bonuses, and then ditch the place before it self destructs. Their last concern is the long-term viability of the airline.

 

The problem with this is the airlines have a long history of self destructive behavior. Given the opportunity, they will cut corners at virtually every opportunity - from crew qualifications to maintenance. Left to their own designs, they will eventually destroy themselves by creating a situation where flying is no longer as safe as it currently is, demand will drop, and the industry will collapse. The problem with allowing this to occur is once the damage is done, it will take years (and undoubtedly encounter a great deal of resistance) to fix.

The analogy I'd draw would be the habitat destruction caused by overpopulation of a species, for example snow geese - an excerpt from the Audobon society:

...the geese will spread across much of the Arctic, devastating huge areas of tundra, and then millions of them will suffer malnourishment, disease, and starvation, leading to a population crash. But by that time, they will have destroyed the habitat for many other species. Studies show that once degraded, this habitat will take decades, at least, to recover.

While I am very much a capitalist/free market guy, I can't think of any evidence that airlines will manage themselves responsibly given completely free reign. I believe a healthy balance of power (tension) between management, labor, and appropriate regulation creates a stronger and more stable industry.

 

What brought us to this point?

I believe it was the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low. This is what happens when the government interferes with the free market and fixes the price of money (interest rates). If we had no fed (like the constitution dictates) and let the free market control the price of money, we wouldn't been here.

Government isn't the answer, it's the problem
--------------
In response to your question on how do we keep supply low:

We don't. Would you want the price of beef to be kept low so farmers could make more money, at the expense of the consumer? Or the supply of medicine, or milk, or gasoline?

Go to the library and pick up a copy of Economics in one lesson By Henry Hazlitt, it's a good book.

But the bottom line is that airline unions are not going anywhere.

 

Very true, and the problem is not limited to airlines and geese. Prof. Garrett Hardin wrote an influential article called "The Tragedy of the Commons" in 1968. Here's an excerpt: