Pathetic Pilot Salaries

Bill Hale wrote:

So you can see his new book, "Structured IFR" which is a real
winner. He wrote that during his spare prof time.

You' talking about Eckalbar?

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

On 8/29/04 10:02 AM, in article
, "TJ Girl"
wrote:

I think what he's doing is from your web page, clicking on the google
ad link to animal clipart. That goes to that register.freeze.com
site.

Shawn, instead of clicking on the google ad at the top of the page,
scroll down to the bottom and use the links such as "Toons" and "Small
toons"

I thought that might be the case also, but it's hard to tell since the
Google ads rotate with every visitor. Thanks.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:zRHXc.126

Salaries will always be low in an occupation considered to be glamorous.

The people paying the salaries, and the pilots earning them, ought to know
better. Salaries should always be high in an occupation considered (by
the
general public) to be dangerous.

-c



Has there ever been a shortage of people wanting to be movie stars or
airline pilots? I think during WWII, even though the military needed
buckets of pilots yesterday, they could still afford to be selective.

--
Scott

"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he
excites among his opponents." - Sir Winston Churchill

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message

When was the last time a large segment of the population considering
flying a Beech 1900 or CRJ glamorous?

People in general consider piloting to be a glamorous, romantic occupation,
primarily because the have no understanding of airplanes or of the industry.


To be fair, I'd love to have my brother-in-law's job. He flies 767s
for UPS all over the world, spending two days at a time in downtown
hotels in Manila, Bangkok, Singapore, Bombay, Dubai, Copenhagen, etc.
Good pay, expenses, etc. I'm 28 and single, he's 42 and has an
adorable 2 year old son.

Been there, done that, went home. Be careful what you wish for, 'cause you
might get it. It always sounds glamorous to start, but how many 3-day
layovers in HKG or SYD do you want? How many times do you want to visit
Brussels for a day and a half? Ask your brother-in-law how many nights a
year he spends in hotels. In a few more years, ask him how many birthdays,
anniversaries, school events, family events, etc., he's missed. Bottom line
is that in the airline business, the absolute best deal most pilots will
wind up with after many years seniority is that they'll be away from home
*only* 20% of the time, and that's rare. Now calculate the price a family
pays for all that glory.

"Dan Luke" wrote
Southwest is a very special case. It's the child of a brilliant
manager/founder.

Nothing brilliant about it. Southwest is an actual business, and run
as such - the goal being to make a profit. Most airlines are run more
like model railroads - the goal being to be able to get more and
bigger stuff. Southwest is pretty much the Greyhound of the air. I
avoid them like the plague - no direct flights anywhere, cattle-call
boarding, no possibility of an upgrade to first class because they
don't have it, full flights, no food. Of course I'm not paying for my
ticket, either. Southwest is not targeted at getting the people on
corporate expense accounts - it's targeted at gettting the people who
will use alternate transportation (most often drive) unless the price
is right. They are the Greyhound of the air.

Such individuals are rare - vanishingly scarce in
publicly traded corporations.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it...

Your point is valid, though: management likes to blame unions for
competitive disadvantages, but management agreed to those contracts.
Often this is a case of throwing money at unhappy people because it's
easier than dealing imaginatively with the workforce.

Imagination doesn't cut it - you need money. The Southwest pilots I
know are often unemployable elsewhere - in fact, every Southwest pilot
I know has crashed at least one airplane. Small sample, but still...
Does that make me concerned about the safety of flying Southwest? Not
in the least. As one of them put it, there are so many rules and
procedures in place, it just doesn't matter.

Historically, airline pilot salaries were high because it DID matter.
In the age of the piston airliners and the steam gauge cockpits, when
airliners flew in the weather rather than above it, pilot skill and
experience mattered a lot. It was important to attract the best
through a winnowing process, where the winnowing only killed a few
people at a time rather than dozens or hundreds. That's no longer
important.

My bet is that is stabilizes right around $100K in today's dollars for
major airline captains, and the quality of the pilots (as measured in
accident rate) will not change.

I'll bet you lunch at Carl's that it will be ~$75K in today's dollars in
10 years. Hope I can still fly in to collect.

You're on.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:

Southwest is a very special case. It's the child of a brilliant
manager/founder.

Nothing brilliant about it. Southwest is an actual business, and run
as such - the goal being to make a profit. Most airlines are run more
like model railroads - the goal being to be able to get more and
bigger stuff. Southwest is pretty much the Greyhound of the air. I
avoid them like the plague - no direct flights anywhere, cattle-call
boarding, no possibility of an upgrade to first class because they
don't have it, full flights, no food. Of course I'm not paying for my
ticket, either. Southwest is not targeted at getting the people on
corporate expense accounts - it's targeted at gettting the people who
will use alternate transportation (most often drive) unless the price
is right. They are the Greyhound of the air.

I call that brilliant - I didn't say it was sexy.

Such individuals are rare - vanishingly scarce in
publicly traded corporations.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it...

Your point is valid, though: management likes to blame unions for
competitive disadvantages, but management agreed to those contracts.
Often this is a case of throwing money at unhappy people because it's
easier than dealing imaginatively with the workforce.

Imagination doesn't cut it - you need money.

Well, you need air, too. Just paying people more will not make for a
high-morale workforce.

The Southwest pilots I know are often unemployable elsewhere
- in fact, every Southwest pilot I know has crashed at least one
airplane. Small sample, but still...
Does that make me concerned about the safety of flying
Southwest? Not in the least. As one of them put it, there are
so many rules and procedures in place, it just doesn't matter.

SW's safety record would seem to support that. I know only one SW pilot,
and he's the best pilot I know.

Historically, airline pilot salaries were high because it DID matter.
In the age of the piston airliners and the steam gauge cockpits, when
airliners flew in the weather rather than above it, pilot skill and
experience mattered a lot. It was important to attract the best
through a winnowing process, where the winnowing only killed a few
people at a time rather than dozens or hundreds. That's no longer
important.

....and will become less so as cockpit automation increases; that's why I'm
betting on a large decline in salaries. Which brings up another question:
can the airlines can get to single-pilot operations? Imagine the market
advantage an airliner certified for single-pilot would have, and what *that*
would do to salaries.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On 30 Aug 2004 10:29:58 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

Southwest is an actual business, and run
as such - the goal being to make a profit. Most airlines are run more
like model railroads - the goal being to be able to get more and
bigger stuff. Southwest is pretty much the Greyhound of the air. I
avoid them like the plague - no direct flights anywhere, cattle-call
boarding, no possibility of an upgrade to first class because they
don't have it, full flights, no food. Of course I'm not paying for my
ticket, either.

Well, there you have it! For my part, I am actually giving up Frequent
Flier programs because I find it's just as easy most of the time to
pay for a ticket on Southwest. It helps of course that the nearest
airport to me with scheduled service is Manchester NH, from which
Southwest flies to Baltimore, which is a one-hour mass transit ride
from DC, which is where I am generally going.

Obviously you haven't ridden Southwest often enough to appreciate the
brilliance of its biz model. I enjoy the aircraft, the flight
attendants, and the open seating. I admit that boarding in BWI is a
bit wearisome (though nothing like boarding the Greyhound in New York,
which is something else I often do: anyone comparing SW to the Hound
just hasn't ridden the Hound lately). But the BWI stand-in-line is
hardly worse than sitting around, and anyhow it's made up for by the
ease of boarding in Manchester outbound.

Southwest is the future.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:36:22 -0500, "tscottme"
wrote:

Has there ever been a shortage of people wanting to be movie stars or
airline pilots?

Or writers?

Or actors?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

In article , leslie wrote:
Every technology-related job in the United States would be moved to
overseas destinations within a decade as relocation of jobs to

That's hyperbole. There are still and always will be a large number of
tech jobs that require someone be on-site.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall (and although I'd love to telecommute
and get rid of commuting costs), I've moved my focus from a job which
could easily be done by telecommuting to one which needs my presence
on-site most of the time. If I can telecommute, so can someone earning
1/10th of my salary abroad. When looking for tech jobs from now on I'll
be looking at ones that need frequent on-site presence.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Here to there wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:56:17 -0500, Bill Denton wrote:
May I suggest that you take your hiring blinders off?
Bx

I didn't even BECOME a developer until I was 38.

I didn't even finish junior college (I got hired after 1-1/2 years)

But by that very fact, you're showing that you're not
a traditional developer. Let me put it this way - how many people
do you know who took IT/software development courses in college,
graduated by age 23, and are still active developers, with current
knowledge, 20 years later? Not many, I'd wager.

And those that are are the BEST developers around, and have always been
good developers since they started. Those who 'stagnate at 30' probably
never were good developers - they probably did it because it looked like
easy money. People with a passion for software development will always
be learning, even after they've retired. If you hire a passionate
developer who's 25, you can bet he'll still be at the forefront of
technology at 45 most likely. If you hire one that age without the
passion - sure they'll stagnate.

Of course, most hiring managers don't see that because they are obsessed
with youth.

The best developer I've known I met when I was 23, just out of college.
He was approaching 60 years old and his knowledge was as fresh and
current as mine - except he could back it up with real experience. He
had the passion for it.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"