Let me briefly explain a little about the economic argument. When Airlines had the ability to price discriminate among it’s customers, pilots had the ability to to do the same with airlines. Now travel is considered a commodity. Even if UAL or any other legacy carrier, were able to offer a superior product, in many cases the person making the purchasing decision (the company travel office) is not the one who is traveling. The travel Dept guy is trying to be the man by keeping the cost in his dept down. He frankly doesn’t care if the employee he books finds himself on an 8 hop, 24-hour affair when he could have booked him non-stop for $10 more. All he cares is that he saved $10. Because of this new dynamic, like fuel, airlines can not afford to pay it’s employees more than what other airlines pay. The prevailing rate is established by the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR. When the company argues for lower pay rates in BK, they cite YOUR rates as what they should get to pay. After all, you are willing to work for it. We have become price takers.
Now what would be the effect on pilot demand in the U.S. if we ALL raised pay by 50% on the same day? Would the total demand for pilots go down? Maybe, but by a very small amount (the demand for hours flown may go down, but not necessarily the number of pilots). Personally I think fares are now to the point that the demand for air travel is relatively inelastic. I think the trends in fares and demand over the last year would bear that out. Now consider that pilot pay is around 10% of total cost. Even if demand for air travel were relatively elastic, a 50% pilot raise would only increase total cost by 5%. Now back to the number of pilots demanded at the higher rates. I think you could rationally make the argument that much of the latest changes have been to the work rules. Given that raising pilot pay 50% across the board would actually INCREASE the total amount spent on pilot pay, better work rules would result in MORE pilots at HIGHER pay rates. However, as long as there are folks out there who have no job and no prospects, and are willing to work for any pay rate as long as they get to wear their uniform around the trailer park, then we can’t get rates up to the place they should be. Are economics at play? sure. Likewise, if we removed all rules on who could call themselves a Dr. and who could call themselves a lawyer, those rates would go down also. Unfortunately, the qualifications to be an airline pilot are so low, that we have no control over who gets to be one. As rates stay low, ex-military pilots will increasingly choose other careers, as will the quality civilian pilots. This industry will be the refuge of H.S. grads with a little cash to get a license. It’s too bad we don’t; have enough spine to prevent this from happening.
Enough time to have another job? Show me an industry where some people don’t hold two jobs. Unfortunately, it used to be an option, now it’s becoming a requirement to pay the bills. FWIW, Edwardson was not at UAL when C2K was negotiated, and I want to know who thinks 280 hours away from home gives one a lot of “time off’ (old rules), and now that the new rule is 380 hours, if that’s just a bunch of time off also.
Now what would be the effect on pilot demand in the U.S. if we ALL raised pay by 50% on the same day? Would the total demand for pilots go down? Maybe, but by a very small amount (the demand for hours flown may go down, but not necessarily the number of pilots). Personally I think fares are now to the point that the demand for air travel is relatively inelastic. I think the trends in fares and demand over the last year would bear that out. Now consider that pilot pay is around 10% of total cost. Even if demand for air travel were relatively elastic, a 50% pilot raise would only increase total cost by 5%. Now back to the number of pilots demanded at the higher rates. I think you could rationally make the argument that much of the latest changes have been to the work rules. Given that raising pilot pay 50% across the board would actually INCREASE the total amount spent on pilot pay, better work rules would result in MORE pilots at HIGHER pay rates. However, as long as there are folks out there who have no job and no prospects, and are willing to work for any pay rate as long as they get to wear their uniform around the trailer park, then we can’t get rates up to the place they should be. Are economics at play? sure. Likewise, if we removed all rules on who could call themselves a Dr. and who could call themselves a lawyer, those rates would go down also. Unfortunately, the qualifications to be an airline pilot are so low, that we have no control over who gets to be one. As rates stay low, ex-military pilots will increasingly choose other careers, as will the quality civilian pilots. This industry will be the refuge of H.S. grads with a little cash to get a license. It’s too bad we don’t; have enough spine to prevent this from happening.
Enough time to have another job? Show me an industry where some people don’t hold two jobs. Unfortunately, it used to be an option, now it’s becoming a requirement to pay the bills. FWIW, Edwardson was not at UAL when C2K was negotiated, and I want to know who thinks 280 hours away from home gives one a lot of “time off’ (old rules), and now that the new rule is 380 hours, if that’s just a bunch of time off also.
