4 ms·

Does anyone else worry from a safety perspective that the pilots flying these "subcontracted" flights are probably paid very low? I read somewhere that even Cap

Does anyone else worry from a safety perspective that the pilots flying these "subcontracted" flights are probably paid very low? I read somewhere that even Captain pay at some of these guys can be 60-70K. I know FAA license requirements are stringent but I would have a hard time believing that working for shitty, bankrupt or nearly bankrupt low-cost airlines that don't pay well has to affect your performance to some degree?

Naritai 10y ago
Are you trying to say that 60k is low?
- tw04 10y ago
  For the amount of time and effort it takes to become a pilot? Not to mention the constantly being away from your family, and having the lives of thousands of people in your hands month in and month out. 60k is absolutely low.
  - rollingRelease 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree, excepting for indirect compensation that might not appear as part of taxable salary. Considering how much expensing for (airline) food and (corporate rate) hotels enters the picture, there's probably a substantial additional cost lurking behind that salary. Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone. But, the 10 or 300 souls on the plane are absolutely a good reason to pay pilots a little bit more. But then again, teachers should be paid more for working with children. And airplane mechanics are every bit as important as the pilots. So I guess it comes down to how much passengers care about whether their plane crashes, and how much they'll spend to gamble on getting somewhere faster than by boat or train or bus. Passengers don't have to fly, do they?
    - tw04 10y ago
      >Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone. I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in my life. I have never once had any company ever try to pitch travel as a "perk". There's a reason why they call out the amount of travel in the job description, and there's a reason any job I've ever had that has a lot of travel they make sure you realize it's part of the job due to the burden. Furthermore, every job I've ever had that included lots of travel compensated you MORE because they understand that burden. If you're ever in a position where you're a hiring manager and you try to fill a travel-based position by telling candidates that they're getting a lower salary due to the "perks" of travel, you'reg going to be searching for a LONGGGGGGGG time.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  $60k is probably not a good estimate. In the US, a pilot's wages are determined almost exclusively by seniority with the airline. And working at a regional means you're at the very bottom of the bottom of the seniority scale. Starting pay at a regional have clocked in under $30k/year for quite a while. A lot of this is because crews aren't paid for all the hours they spend working -- they're usually only paid for the time from closing the door of the flight they're operating to opening it at the other end. On the junior end of the scale, pilots sometimes go days without sitting behind the controls of a plane because their duties consist of sitting on standby in an airport in case some other pilot can't make a flight. Throw in the inconsistent flight hours when they do fly, the fact that they usually come in with six figures of debt from flight school, and have limited mobility since switching airlines kicks them right back down to the bottom of the seniority ladder, and you're talking about effectively poverty-level living conditions for the first few years of a pilot's time with an airline. This is where the alleged "pilot shortage" in the US came from: airlines mistreated their junior ranks so badly, for so long, that they started running out of people willing to put up with it. There are some signs of adjustment at the regionals, but they run on such razor-thin margins that it's not clear they'll really be able to fix this.
HappyTypist 10y ago
First Officers are paid as low as 25k.
diminoten 10y ago
I'm not worried, because the incidents aren't there to support any concern. Flying is safe if a poorly paid pilot is flying the plane, too. It seems like flying commercial flights has a "good enough" bar that the US government does a good job of making sure everyone who operates flights is over.
- chinathrow 10y ago
  One such incident was Buffallo. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 "Members of the board said that the crew of the twin-engine turboprop that crashed, killing all 49 people on board and one on the ground, was set up for fatigue and inattention before they even took off, partly because of the structure of the commuter airline business. "
  - dingaling 10y ago
    But that wasn't related to their remuneration, rather the structure of the commuter airline business. The copilot was fatigued by living in Seattle but working in Newark for a paltry $24k. Paying her more wouldn't have helped, in fact it might have encouraged more new pilots to try the same. On the contrary side in Ireland last month we had two experienced pilots, each earning > 120k Euros, inadvertently and fatally fly a Coastguard helicopter into a rock at night. Accidents happen regardless of pay grade.
    - chinathrow 10y ago
      Paying more could help relocate and live in a comfortable distance to where you are based as a pilot. Renumeration is part of the structure.
      - rollingRelease 10y ago
        But she didn't have to take that job. No one can account for the fact that someone from Seattle didn't have the resources to take on the job she desperately fought for. You know what I wanna be? A movie star! Pay me more than other entry level movie stars because I can't afford to become one on my own, please. I don't want to work at the Starbucks down the street. I want to move to Hollywood, but can't afford it, so pay me more money now to make me the star I know I am going to become once I have the money.
SyneRyder 10y ago
Is that all? That's ridiculously low. Here's a news article [0] pointing out that Qantas pilots earn up to $536K a year, with second officer roles beginning at $110K. (At the time of the article, 1 Australian Dollar was worth more than 1 US Dollar [1].) [0] http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-than-the-pm-20111012-1llqb.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-t... [1] http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=2011-10-13 http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=20...
- dmh2000 10y ago
  you are comparing US regional airlines to an international airline. apples to oranges
dmh2000 10y ago
how many of them have crashed in the last 10 years? 20 years? Ever? Republic has never had a fatal crash. American Eagle has had 2 in the last 20 years. none in the last 10. after 11 million flights.
- jliptzin 10y ago
  Colgan Air 3407 crashed and many reports cited very poor pilot pay and poor pilot skill as probable cause
lolsal 10y ago
Unless 60-70k is some sort of regulated minimum salary, that's exactly what the market will bear, isn't it? Seems appropriate.

Naritai 10y ago

Are you trying to say that 60k is low?

tw04 10y ago
For the amount of time and effort it takes to become a pilot? Not to mention the constantly being away from your family, and having the lives of thousands of people in your hands month in and month out. 60k is absolutely low.
- rollingRelease 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree, excepting for indirect compensation that might not appear as part of taxable salary. Considering how much expensing for (airline) food and (corporate rate) hotels enters the picture, there's probably a substantial additional cost lurking behind that salary. Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone. But, the 10 or 300 souls on the plane are absolutely a good reason to pay pilots a little bit more. But then again, teachers should be paid more for working with children. And airplane mechanics are every bit as important as the pilots. So I guess it comes down to how much passengers care about whether their plane crashes, and how much they'll spend to gamble on getting somewhere faster than by boat or train or bus. Passengers don't have to fly, do they?
  - tw04 10y ago
    >Travel is a choice. That decision is made by the individual. Some people absolutely love being away from their families, believe it or not, and love to travel besides. You adopt that reality simply by taking the job. There's no accounting for that. It's a reality that confronts the individual alone. I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in my life. I have never once had any company ever try to pitch travel as a "perk". There's a reason why they call out the amount of travel in the job description, and there's a reason any job I've ever had that has a lot of travel they make sure you realize it's part of the job due to the burden. Furthermore, every job I've ever had that included lots of travel compensated you MORE because they understand that burden. If you're ever in a position where you're a hiring manager and you try to fill a travel-based position by telling candidates that they're getting a lower salary due to the "perks" of travel, you'reg going to be searching for a LONGGGGGGGG time.
ubernostrum 10y ago
$60k is probably not a good estimate. In the US, a pilot's wages are determined almost exclusively by seniority with the airline. And working at a regional means you're at the very bottom of the bottom of the seniority scale. Starting pay at a regional have clocked in under $30k/year for quite a while. A lot of this is because crews aren't paid for all the hours they spend working -- they're usually only paid for the time from closing the door of the flight they're operating to opening it at the other end. On the junior end of the scale, pilots sometimes go days without sitting behind the controls of a plane because their duties consist of sitting on standby in an airport in case some other pilot can't make a flight. Throw in the inconsistent flight hours when they do fly, the fact that they usually come in with six figures of debt from flight school, and have limited mobility since switching airlines kicks them right back down to the bottom of the seniority ladder, and you're talking about effectively poverty-level living conditions for the first few years of a pilot's time with an airline. This is where the alleged "pilot shortage" in the US came from: airlines mistreated their junior ranks so badly, for so long, that they started running out of people willing to put up with it. There are some signs of adjustment at the regionals, but they run on such razor-thin margins that it's not clear they'll really be able to fix this.

HappyTypist 10y ago

First Officers are paid as low as 25k.

diminoten 10y ago

I'm not worried, because the incidents aren't there to support any concern. Flying is safe if a poorly paid pilot is flying the plane, too. It seems like flying commercial flights has a "good enough" bar that the US government does a good job of making sure everyone who operates flights is over.

chinathrow 10y ago
One such incident was Buffallo. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html?_r=0 "Members of the board said that the crew of the twin-engine turboprop that crashed, killing all 49 people on board and one on the ground, was set up for fatigue and inattention before they even took off, partly because of the structure of the commuter airline business. "
- dingaling 10y ago
  But that wasn't related to their remuneration, rather the structure of the commuter airline business. The copilot was fatigued by living in Seattle but working in Newark for a paltry $24k. Paying her more wouldn't have helped, in fact it might have encouraged more new pilots to try the same. On the contrary side in Ireland last month we had two experienced pilots, each earning > 120k Euros, inadvertently and fatally fly a Coastguard helicopter into a rock at night. Accidents happen regardless of pay grade.
  - chinathrow 10y ago
    Paying more could help relocate and live in a comfortable distance to where you are based as a pilot. Renumeration is part of the structure.
    - rollingRelease 10y ago
      But she didn't have to take that job. No one can account for the fact that someone from Seattle didn't have the resources to take on the job she desperately fought for. You know what I wanna be? A movie star! Pay me more than other entry level movie stars because I can't afford to become one on my own, please. I don't want to work at the Starbucks down the street. I want to move to Hollywood, but can't afford it, so pay me more money now to make me the star I know I am going to become once I have the money.

SyneRyder 10y ago

Is that all? That's ridiculously low. Here's a news article [0] pointing out that Qantas pilots earn up to $536K a year, with second officer roles beginning at $110K. (At the time of the article, 1 Australian Dollar was worth more than 1 US Dollar [1].) [0] http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-than-the-pm-20111012-1llqb.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-pilots-get-paid-more-t... [1] http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=2011-10-13 http://www.x-rates.com/historical/?from=AUD&amount=1&date=20...

dmh2000 10y ago
you are comparing US regional airlines to an international airline. apples to oranges

dmh2000 10y ago

how many of them have crashed in the last 10 years? 20 years? Ever? Republic has never had a fatal crash. American Eagle has had 2 in the last 20 years. none in the last 10. after 11 million flights.

jliptzin 10y ago
Colgan Air 3407 crashed and many reports cited very poor pilot pay and poor pilot skill as probable cause

lolsal 10y ago

Unless 60-70k is some sort of regulated minimum salary, that's exactly what the market will bear, isn't it? Seems appropriate.