Should we talk about the airline pilot shortage?

You do, of course, realize that starting pilots make so little money not because they are paid an hourly wage that would insult a Starbucks barista... but because as a starting commercial pilot it is extremely difficult to get scheduled for seat hours and trips.

You can pay me $150 an hour, but if I'm only working 4 billable hours a week, it's not adding up to the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

I also notice that articles full of outrage always quote corporate profits in absolute dollars, never as ROI or percentage of revenue...

I always thought that the commuter pilot wages were as low as they were because there were plenty of folks that loved flying so much they would do it for nothing. Or nearly nothing. Low wages for them isn't new-- I remember hearing about that at least 15 years ago. If there is truly a shortage and the routes are economically viable such that paying the pilots more makes sense, then demand and fares will be there. The airlines should understand that they can't shrink their way to success.

Xceler8x wrote: * Lowering CEO compensation to sane levels.

I understand the sentiment, but it's a rather silly argument.

If you take Doug Parker (US Airways) compensation (salary +) it's about 5.5 million, reduce it by 4 million and distribute it to the 32,000 employees...

... about $175 an employee...

I fully understand it "looks bad", but the concept that it would in someway really help the company (other then maybe moral) is just silly.

aircooled wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: * Lowering CEO compensation to sane levels.

I understand the sentiment, but it's a rather silly argument. If you take Doug Parker (US Airways) compensation (salary +) it's about 5.5 million, reduce it by 4 million and distribute it to the 32,000 employees... ... about $175 an employee... I fully understand it "looks bad", but the concept that it would in someway really help the company (other then maybe moral) is just silly.

It depends upon the pay of the SVPs, VPs, Sr. Directors, Directors, Senior Managers, Managers... The executive umbrella can cover quite a bit more than the CEO.

These roles may have a very high percentage of their paycheck tied to profitability. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having well-paid leadership is bad; I'm just saying that if the money trail is followed, the situation may be more easily understood. They could easily argue that their pay is at market value, and the pilots' pay is just the same. Companies and individuals are all in the business of making money.

Make no mistake about it the "pilot shortage" is the same as the "truck driver shortage".

There is no shortage of qualified pilots, there is a shortage of willing pilots.

The same as the trucking industry, only those that are willing to work for 2 tacos a day apply.

The industry has created the shortage and they are looking for govt handouts while raking in huge profits.

The airline industry has a bone to pick with the FAA as recently new rules were implemented limiting a pilots flying time just like a truck driver. The airlines now can't run their pilots as far as they used to so they are coming up short.

FWIW, Warren Buffet has repeatedly stated that he will not invest in airlines because they have been a very bad bet over time. Extremely capital intensive, often whipsawed by regulation, sensitive to the business cycle, and generally not profitable over the long run.

Mitchell wrote:

aircooled wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: * Lowering CEO compensation to sane levels.

I understand the sentiment, but it's a rather silly argument. If you take Doug Parker (US Airways) compensation (salary +) it's about 5.5 million, reduce it by 4 million and distribute it to the 32,000 employees... ... about $175 an employee... I fully understand it "looks bad", but the concept that it would in someway really help the company (other then maybe moral) is just silly.

It depends upon the pay of the SVPs, VPs, Sr. Directors, Directors, Senior Managers, Managers... The executive umbrella can cover quite a bit more than the CEO. These roles may have a very high percentage of their paycheck tied to profitability. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that having well-paid leadership is bad; I'm just saying that if the money trail is followed, the situation may be more easily understood. They could easily argue that their pay is at market value, and the pilots' pay is just the same. Companies and individuals are all in the business of making money.

I also wonder if the $5.5 million is his base salary, or including stock options and profitability bonuses.

I know the CEO-level of the big corp that owns us have pretty reasonable salaries for a multi-billion dollar corporation (all in the $500-600k range), but that is only their base. I think last year with options and bonuses most broke $10 mil.

I'm not sure what is behind the pilot shortage, but I was shocked to find out how little beginning pilots get paid. Living here in Daytona, we're near Embry Riddle flight academy-- so pilots and aeronautical folks are everywhere. For a job where the starting pay is so low, their cost of education is extremely high. Most regional pilots I've met make between $15-$25K to start. Once they become captain (usually takes 3-5 years) their pay goes up to $40K or so. That's about the same as a decent bartending job, or a full-time waiter. Although if a waiter has a bad day, your food may not get there on time. The pilot has a bad day.....you may not get there at all.

Many students at Riddle start out wanting to be pilots, but decide to go the air traffic controller route, as there seem to be more jobs at a higher pay scale.

mad_machine wrote: I wonder what the revolution will be like?

i wonder if the revolution will be televised?

z31maniac wrote: ...I also wonder if the $5.5 million is his base salary, or including stock options and profitability bonuses...

His salary is $500,000, the rest was the result of exercising stock options that year (taxed at a much lower rate of course).

AngryCorvair wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I wonder what the revolution will be like?

i wonder if the revolution will be televised?

yeah, but 911 is a joke....

Joe Gearin wrote: ...Many students at Riddle start out wanting to be pilots, but decide to go the air traffic controller route, as there seem to be more jobs at a higher pay scale.

I think the "smart" way to do it is to join the military, fly transports there (or better yet, tankers), then transition over. I hear Delta is mostly ex-military.

Datsun1500 wrote: Another "The rich are getting richer on the backs of the unfortunate" thread?

Quoted for truth. It's almost like a broken record.

Maybe they should form a union...

z31maniac wrote: Well they should just get different jobs then! No one told them they HAD to be pilots! /sarcasm

I completely agree. The only deal is that if we don't pay pilots enough to do the job...then we don't have any pilots. Which is really how we started talking about this in the first place.

Toyman01 wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Another "The rich are getting richer on the backs of the unfortunate" thread?

Quoted for truth. It's almost like a broken record. Maybe they should form a union...

They'd get zapped by the ghost of Ronnie Ray-gun. Just ask the ATC.

chrispy wrote: A high school friend just left Air Tran, after 12 years of flying 717s, for Southwest. He mentioned spending 9640 hours flying that plane. Now, if thats the case, its 15.4 hours a week flying, figure double for paperwork, etc. I only offer it as a data point. I admire pilots as much as first responders. He didn't mention why he left but now he's based out of Dallas rather than Atlanta.

He left because airtran was purchased by SWA. They merged.

N Sperlo wrote:

nocones wrote: I like to think that pilots should be payed well as they take care of the safety of their travelers. I'm not sure what wage is fair but it seems more is necessary if there is shortages of talent. Flight attendants are the face of your company and probably should be paid well too. How many of you are willing to pay 10% more for air travel to make it possible though?

I have to argue. The only way in which the pilots are in charge of your safety is by flying the craft. Once those doors shut, the FA is in charge of your safety. If anything happens, the pilots are locked in that cockpit and the FA is all you have.

I disagree, if a pair of pilots making $27K or less per year is flying 35-50 people at a time. If anything bad happens those 35-50 people could be dead. I think the $27K a year pilot has a lot more to do with keeping you alive during each flight than a $45K a year garbage man has picking up your garbage. Therefore every commercial pilot should be paid more than a waitress or a garbage man.

BTW: It's not just the passenger carrying airlines that are dangerous to us all. Have you been reading about the UPS jockeys killed while flying into a hillside because they didn't have enough time to rest between flights. THE HILLSIDE THAT UPS PLANE HIT COULD HAVE BEEN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MY/YOUR HOUSE, OR ANOTHER SKY-SCRAPER!!

The FAA is important, sure. For one thing the FAA are the ones that allow airlines hauling freight, such as UPS, to enforce less allotted rest hours. If a pilot tells his/her airline she/he is too tired to fly, that pilot gets charged with a sick day!

When I'm a passenger in the air and since I live under a UPS flight path, the pilot/s is much more important to me most of the time. Leading up to Christmas every year the sky above my house is often alight all night with UPS planes flying at the legal minimum distance apart stacking up to land at the UPS World-port near here. I often worry whether those pilots have had enough sleep and can miss my house.

aircooled wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: ...Many students at Riddle start out wanting to be pilots, but decide to go the air traffic controller route, as there seem to be more jobs at a higher pay scale.

I think the "smart" way to do it is to join the military, fly transports there (or better yet, tankers), then transition over. I hear Delta is mostly ex-military.

I'm pretty sure that most airlines are staffed with ex-military. I'm a military pilot considering it, but to tell you the truth, if the commercial pilot forums are any indication, I want no part of being in a fraternity of whiny bitches (I'm looking at you, airlinepilotcentral.com!). For selfish reasons, I wouldn't mind the pay being higher, but as stated above, we choose our jobs and the pay that goes with them. If you don't like being a pilot, become a garbage man.

Garbage men get paid more because that's what it takes to motivate someone to become a garbage men. Eventually the pool of pilots will dry up to the point that airlines will have to pay more or they will run out of them.

As this is somewhat relevant to my interests:

What about non-airline pilots? If the first year commuter airline pilot is qualifying for food stamps, what about a first year UPS pilot? Or other similar but non-airline pilots?

That would show if the airlines are really under paying their pilots or not.

This whole thing is no different than the shortage of trained techs. Everybody wants 'em, nobody wants to pay 'em worth a E36 M3 and the higher ups in the car companies are raking in multimillion dollar bonuses. So a whole generation is currently telling their kids 'if you have any sense you won't turn wrenches for a living' and THAT chicken is gonna come home to roost in about ten or fifteen years. Thankfully I will be retired by then, or at least out of the business.

I have some well educated friends with various jobs making the same or a bit less than me. If they hear what I make the first comment is that we are paid too much. No one woke up saying the want drive a bus, so they had to make a reason for us to come. We have people with all kinds of degrees that were being paid little so they came here. To some extent I'm glad I only paid for three semesters of college before, I'd hate to be like some of my coworkers paying off expensive degrees they will never use.

Wally makes a good point: I make more money than most of my customers. No, really: it's a proven demographic and that includes the ones with degrees. I have some college but no sheepskin.

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: As this is somewhat relevant to my interests: What about non-airline pilots? If the first year commuter airline pilot is qualifying for food stamps, what about a first year UPS pilot? Or other similar but non-airline pilots? That would show if the airlines are really under paying their pilots or not.

I have a horse in this race and my understanding is that the freight guys aren't hiring at the moment. If anyone knows more, please speak up.

Curmudgeon wrote: This whole thing is no different than the shortage of trained techs. Everybody wants 'em, nobody wants to pay 'em worth a E36 M3 and the higher ups in the car companies are raking in multimillion dollar bonuses. So a whole generation is currently telling their kids 'if you have any sense you won't turn wrenches for a living' and THAT chicken is gonna come home to roost in about ten or fifteen years. Thankfully I will be retired by then, or at least out of the business.

All the great automotive techs I know are getting up there. I predict that wage is going to go up in the next ten years or so. Same for HVAC and other domestic 'working with your hands' type work.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts on the blue collar to earn a living.

I was just thinking that if the freight guys are being paid more starting out than the airline guys, then there is a problem. If all starting pilots are paid the same, then less of a problem.