Elvis has been seen flying into Las Vegas on JetBlue!

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 10:41:28 PM Jeff G wrote:

BTW, if UAL, DAL or AMR had the same labor cost per ASM, then they'd all be profitable. we're on the way down to your level, where are you gonna go?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Up![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

----------------
[/blockquote]

Man I hope so, protecting the profession has gotten REALLY tiring[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif']

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 741 PM eagleflip wrote:

It's called the free hand of economics. You build a widget, I build a slightly better or different one. What's wrong with that? As for pay, just because we're not unionized doesn't make us underpaid. We're just three years old--with the other forms of compensation provided, there aren't too many folks here that are worried about pay. Obviously, it bothers you.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You are correct, free enterprise. but lets not stop there. It's free enterprise when 6 year olds make nike shoes in Indonesia. In a truely free market there are no borders. Why not have cuban citizens do your job for 1/5th the price? There are quite a few who are qualified. This is a great career. There are currently lot's of top quality individuals at all the airlines. why? Cause it pays good. I just hope that we can keep the payrates at a level that keeps quality folks. When they get bid down, less quality folks decide to make this a career.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 8:59:38 PM KCFlyer wrote:

On the other hand, maybe you should also pimp Southwest pilots for accepting less money than you and therefore providing similiar significant pressure. Oh, I forget...SW is unionized, therefore they're ok.[/b][/P]


If you've read many of busdrivers comments, SW pilots are also dregs since they make less and as a consequence, are dragging down the pilots of the other major carriers. It really has nothing to do with unions.


Yeah, what message board has he been on!!!


[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]Bad analogy busdriver....Yep Nike pays 6 year olds a buck a day to make their Air Jordans. However, when they come to the states, they price them as though they paid the kid $75 an hour to build them. JetBlue (and Southwest, Airtran, and the other low fares) are paying a fair wage (at least their pilots are not in line for food stamps) and charging a fare that makes them a profit, but reflects their lower costs. [/P]
[P]Without the changes in the pricing model, I see UAL, U, AA and the others becoming the Nike of the skies...paying wages on a par with the low fares (which when you get down to the brass tacks aren't all that much lower than what you are currently making), yet charging fares as though costs are significantly higher. [/P]
[P]Oh...FWIW, I won't buy Nike's - can't justify paying top dollar for slave wage work. [/P]
[P] [/P]

 

[eagleflip]

Busdriver--

In response to:
There are currently lot's of top quality individuals at all the airlines. why? Cause it pays good. I just hope that we can keep the payrates at a level that keeps quality folks. When they get bid down, less quality folks decide to make this a career.

We both agree that quality is important to our futures and the futures of our passengers. I can't go so far as you do and argue that when the pay goes down the quality of the pilot decreases.

Are Atlas pilots making $60K a year flying 74's around any less qualified to be there than a Delta pilot making $90K? By your analogy, JetBlue Captains making $140K a year are less quality than United Captains making $180K...Nope--I know a lot of folks on both sides of the fence, and most pilots are the same; sex starved, ever-skinflintish and slightly balding denizens of the airport lounge.

Sorry, but your logic escapes me. Pilots want to fly because it is a great job with the potential to earn a decent wage. Those with talent and skill, aka quality, are selected and hired by some of the most arcane and bizarre HR practices known to man. In most cases though, airlines hire folks of equal quality.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/6/2002 10:09:22 PM eagleflip wrote:

We both agree that quality is important to our futures and the futures of our passengers. I can't go so far as you do and argue that when the pay goes down the quality of the pilot decreases.

It will not happen overnight, there are still guys in the pipeline. Do you think if the government mandated that all Doctor salaries get cut in half that the quality of people entering medical school would go down?

Are Atlas pilots making $60K a year flying 74's around any less qualified to be there than a Delta pilot making $90K? By your analogy, JetBlue Captains making $140K a year are less "quality" than United Captains making $180K...Nope--I know a lot of folks on both sides of the fence, and most pilots are the same; sex starved, ever-skinflintish and slightly balding denizens of the airport lounge.

Do you think the Atlas guy started on his way planning to be an Atlas captain, getting whipsawed daily by his on company? he likely planned on a career at one of the majors and was sidetracked. he may even like what he's doing and have no plans to move to another airline, but the simple truth is MOST pilots don't enter the profession to be an 18K a year RJ driver. Ask the Jet blue guys. did they plan on working forever for Jetblus original contract? NOOOO. Due they think they will get more wage increases in the future that will bring them to parity, OF COURSE!! The problem is, in the meantime there is downward pressure on wages. As for whose more qualified, you'll have to ask the hiring departments. If you were an HR dept who would you hire? The guy who has exhinited a propensity to fly for food? You'd think, but in fact, they usually take the better trained more qualified guy. I know, ask Paul Wellstone, he'll tell you...

Sorry, but your logic escapes me. Pilots want to fly because it is a great job with the potential to earn a decent wage.

Uh, DUH! that's my point! If the potential to earn a descent wage goes away QUALITY WILL GO DOWN!!!

Those with talent and skill, aka quality, are selected and hired by some of the most arcane and bizarre HR practices known to man. In most cases though, airlines hire folks of equal quality.

In most cases maybe, BTW, how many of the recent rash of drunk pilots came from the best paying airlines? One bad apple... As for arcane HR practices, I haven't really seen them. Usually though I hear those stories from guys who weren't successful, kind of an it's everybody elses fault mentality.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/6/2002 7:07:07 AM KCFlyer wrote:


Bad analogy busdriver....Yep Nike pays 6 year olds a buck a day to make their Air Jordans. However, when they come to the states, they price them as though they paid the kid $75 an hour to build them. JetBlue (and Southwest, Airtran, and the other low fares) are paying a fair wage (at least their pilots are not in line for food stamps) and charging a fare that makes them a profit, but reflects their lower costs. [/P]


Without the changes in the pricing model, I see UAL, U, AA and the others becoming the Nike of the skies...paying wages on a par with the low fares (which when you get down to the brass tacks aren't all that much lower than what you are currently making), yet charging fares as though costs are significantly higher. [/P]


Oh...FWIW, I won't buy Nike's - can't justify paying top dollar for slave wage work. [/P]


[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]


FWIW, I guess you'd prefer the 8 year old go hungry? Or do you just buy the cheaper shoes made with slave labor

As for wage rates, you'd be surprised. Airtran in particular (along with FRNT) were paying nearly foodstamp wages for F/Os. Is not on food stamps wages your definition of fair? The payscale was built with the carrot that if you made Capt, you could make a minimal existance. Prob is, every airline can't grow at 10% per year forever. FRNT is having SEVERE growing pains, as is ATA, and SWA isn't booming like it used to be.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]DAmned if I do, damned if I don't. If I buy the Nikes, I'm exploiting a 6 year old. If I DON'T buy Nikes, I'm starving a six year old. Just can't win. [/P]
[P]Funny thing busdriver - As you know, I work in the government sector. It's not known as being the highest paying field in the country, but there are a lot of us who chose to work there. FWIW, I'm in health and human services - that means we help those who really do qualify for food stamps. And I watch some of the social workers, nurses and others who chose to work at a government position because they enjoy helping others. It's sort of like pilots flying because they love to fly. Chuck Yeager could most like fly rings around you and some of your brethern at UAL, but he opted to make a career out of the military. Does that make him a lesser pilot, or does it just mean that he loves what he does and appreciates the opportunity to fly? Pay has nothing to do with the quality of individual - especially when it comes to pilots. [/P]
[P]There really are people out there who are flying for the low fares because they have the opportunity to fly, and they also have something that many of the higher paid airline pilots don't have - a measure of job security. That means they get to actually do what they love - fly aiplanes - while their higher paid buddies at other airlines are out getting their real estate licenses to keep the money coming in while they are furloughed. Careers that allow folks to do what they love to do have a tendency to attract quality individuals, regardless of the money. If you want the money, sell stuff. You might hate it, but it does bring in the bucks. And a lot of less than quality individuals have chosen this for a career. [/P]

 

[MileHighGuy]

What does all of this have to do with Elvis???

 

[eagleflip]

BTW, how many of the recent rash of drunk pilots came from the best paying airlines? One bad apple...


Ergo, drunk pilots are a result of low paying airlines...

YGBSM! Lets see, Northwest had at least one too. Maybe they should simply achieve pairity in their contract and resolve that blasted alcohol problem.

By that logic, any low paying flying job would have a greater rash of drunks. Give me a break.

Downward pressure on wages due to non-union airlines? EXACTLY! I don't think an airline Captain HAS to make $230K a year...how much is enough? Is a decent wage (which is the word I used in my previous post) sufficient?

Again, I'm in favor of a pilot making as much as he or she can request and get. BUT--there comes a time when the economic model you are operating under no longer works as well as it once did. What causes it? Competition. People who are willing to do things a bit differently and still earn a decent wage, with potential (big) income down the road directly tied to performance.

Comparisons to children working to produce Nikes is a blatant attack on Kathy Lee Gifford, which won't be tolerated on this board.

The paradigm of making huge bucks in your senior years as a Captain, all the while getting a huge A and B fund put into place, are going by the wayside. Practically nowhere else in the civilian sector do pensions still exist. I've heard many on these boards justify their huge salary during their most senior years by virtue of the long time it took to attain that position and the number of furloughs endured in the process. How about this? Those same pilots are paid that much because their airline can afford it. When the airline CAN'T afford it, their jobs are at risk. That's where we are now.

Why should an airline pilot make gazillions of dollars a year if that very fact directly contributes to their company's demise? Is zero bucks somehow better than maintaining an arbitrarily high wage, union or not? The wage pressure works both ways, my friend.

How about a compensation system tied directly to performance such as stocks and profit sharing? Economic incentive is imperative in our society--that's one reason why the Soviet system failed, and why our economic system leads the world in productivity.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]eagleflip - Part of the reason given to justify high pilot pay is, as you cite, the time it takes to get the ratings and work your way thru the system. That's fine, and in many ways, I can agree with that argument. They also cite the age 60 rule, which basically limits the time a senior captain can pull in the big bucks. But they never cite ALPA's stance on the age 60 rule...[/P]
[P]. [/P]

 

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 11:12:47 AM Farley wrote:

Nice touch about Kathy Lee. How Busdrvr turned this into an argument about Nike is hard to fathom. He is hard to fathom.
----------------
[/blockquote]
UA pilots and the Unions that held the Airline hostage during negotiations and all the other ego maniac Unios throughout the Airline Industry are the downfall of AA[UA

 

[Farley]

Nice touch about Kathy Lee. How Busdrvr turned this into an argument about Nike is hard to fathom. He is hard to fathom.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 9:17:56 AM KCFlyer wrote:


eagleflip - Part of the reason given to justify high pilot pay is, as you cite, the time it takes to get the ratings and work your way thru the system. That's fine, and in many ways, I can agree with that argument. They also cite the age 60 rule, which basically limits the time a senior captain can pull in the "big bucks". But they never cite ALPA's stance on the age 60 rule...[/P]


. [/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]


You're in health and human services, tell us, how much additional radiation are pilots subjected to over a career? DYK that pilots have significantly higher level of certain cancers despite frequent medical checkups and, contrary to popular opinion, healthier lifestyles? You think extending the time in the cockpit increases that risk? So not only do you want lower fares, but you want us to die giving them to you? There is a point when the advantages of increased experience are outweighed by the physical slowdown associated with age.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 827 AM eagleflip wrote:

By that logic, any low paying flying job would have a greater rash of drunks. Give me a break.

Do the math. Trust me, show up to UAL, NWA, DAL or AMR with a history of DUI's and tell me how the interview goes.

Downward pressure on wages due to non-union airlines? EXACTLY! I don't think an airline Captain HAS to make $230K a year...how much is enough? Is a decent wage (which is the word I used in my previous post) sufficient?
Again, I'm in favor of a pilot making as much as he or she can request and get. BUT--there comes a time when the economic model you are operating under no longer works as well as it once did. What causes it? Competition. People who are willing to do things a bit differently and still earn a decent wage, with potential (big) income down the road directly tied to performance.

OK, lets take a poll! What do you consider a descent wage? Whats a descent wage in SFO? LAX? DFW? LAS? Want to bet you'll get differant numbers from diff folks? If that's the case, then lowering wages to your descent level, may be below the descent' level some other, more qualified folks have. so then LESS QUALIFIED PILOTS!!! Gosh teaching you freshman economics is tiring!!!
Comparisons to children working to produce Nikes is a blatant attack on Kathy Lee Gifford, which won't be tolerated on this board.

The paradigm of making huge bucks in your senior years as a Captain, all the while getting a huge A and B fund put into place, are going by the wayside. Practically nowhere else in the civilian sector do pensions still exist. I've heard many on these boards justify their huge salary during their most senior years by virtue of the long time it took to attain that position and the number of furloughs endured in the process. How about this? Those same pilots are paid that much because their airline can afford it. When the airline CAN'T afford it, their jobs are at risk. That's where we are now.

Why should an airline pilot make gazillions of dollars a year if that very fact directly contributes to their company's demise? Is zero bucks somehow better than maintaining an arbitrarily high wage, union or not? The wage pressure works both ways, my friend.

Arbitrary? Our wage rates go back to formulas that date to the 40's. I'd say the wage rates at the latest Fly-by-night operation are much more arbitrary. BTW, how many zero's in a gazzillion. You are absolutely correct, wage pressure works BOTH WAYS! We brought your's up, your bring ours down... Don't ya think your's may be on the way down as a result?

How about a compensation system tied directly to performance such as stocks and profit sharing?

You mean like a system that pays directly proportional to speed and TOGW of the jets? or are you foolish enough to base YOU salary on SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROFORMANCE? (ie your CEO).

----------------
[/blockquote]