My brother would love to hear this news (not). He's just been hired as a pilot. Not, luckily, in the US.
Surely the cost of running a plane is vastly larger than the cost of a pilot's salary?
Surely the cost of running a plane is vastly larger than the cost of a pilot's salary?
Basically unions are running a ponzi scheme, where they get juniors to buy in to this crazy scheme under promise that they will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars salary ten or twenty years down the road.
I think that at this time the relationship between senior and junior pilots is pretty representative of how boomers are shafting the younger generations.
Are they though? Senior pilots fly much larger aircraft on much longer routes. The $21k pilot mentioned in the article is flying a 50-seat commuter on low-profit routes. A senior pilot for an international airline (the type that do make $200k) is flying a wide body that seats 350-500 people and flies over oceans. They're making 10x, but also flying equipment that costs 10x, carrying 10x the people and making the airline a lot more money.
Also, senior pilots by definition have a limited amount of time left in their career (thanks to mandatory retirement age), the big paychecks don't last too many years.
Union seniority rules (where pay increases with time of employment, and the cushiest jobs go to the most "senior") are one of the worse parts of unions IMHO, and discredit what should be a positive force for more reasonable, equitable workplaces.
> Also, senior pilots by definition have a limited amount of time left in their career (thanks to mandatory retirement age), the big paychecks don't last too many years.
I'm guessing large pensions for retired senior pilots are also part of the problem.
But how else do you quantify salaries in business?
It's experience, especially in:
- Dealing with foreign ATC
- Meteorological conditions
- Emergency situations
Opposed to non-union workplaces where the inexperienced workers make the most money? Experience always pays more. I understand what you're getting at where it's not fair that a young superstar makes less than an old know-nothing, but in general more years of experience does equal more value.
I'd want the heart surgeon who has 25+ years of experience more than I'd want the kid just off the residency. I'm sure the younger surgeon has the chops, but if the one in a million thing happens during my surgery I want the experienced surgeon. Pilots are very similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
The famous announcement from the latter emergency:
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
An A380 burns 4000 gallons of jet fuel per hour which converts to roughly $24000 per hour. Even if you paid the pilots $100 each and had four of them, (main plus relief), the pilots represent a tiny sliver of the op cost.
The smallest commuter planes cost about $2k per hour total. so paying $20 out of that for the two pilots is a ripoff. I would gladly pay 1% more on my ticket and have all of that go to the better quality pilots and crew.
Airlines should be required to show what portion of their revenue goes where.
Maybe also add a tip jar for the crew.
Are they? I remember reading that the Qantas international routes were unprofitable for the company, and I've been on long haul Singapore Airlines flights where everyone had an entire row to themselves. (Of course, some routes are vastly more profitable than others.)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/moodys-cuts-qantas-credit-rat...
And Qantas was losing $262 Million per year on international, which they've apparently narrowed to a $91 Million annual loss by dropping half of their international routes. For Qantas it was the domestic routes that were subsidizing international:
http://skift.com/2013/02/22/qantas-profits-double-after-auss...
FWIW, that's how most careers work: juniors make small money, seniors make much more. Tech is an outlier in that new grads often make a substantial fraction of the terminal salary for the field. (Which makes some sense given the rampant ageism in hiring.)
I hear from my US pilot friends, that they also must have a college education too.
Compare that to the UK, where training costs more, but is often paid by the company in exchange for 5 years, the wages are a lot higher.
In the US, my instructor was charging pretty much minimum wage, he needed the hours, he was a very good instructor. In the UK I've had terrible instructors who are still demanding $80 per hour. (And some great retired old timers who do it for free, the love of the antique planes!)
The US is very lucky, there is a massive military that pumps out trained pilots, some even with ATP, I think this is one of the reasons why they have been able to pay so little.
However the rest of the world pays more.