7 ms·

Anyone know standard time working per month? I thought these major carriers had pretty cushy hours / benefts - (ie, 80 hrs / month, good flight and other benefi

Anyone know standard time working per month? I thought these major carriers had pretty cushy hours / benefts - (ie, 80 hrs / month, good flight and other benefits).

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
Hookers make good money too.
chrisjshull 7y ago
I don’t know, but does it matter? If an employee group understands how much they are worth, and can get more benefits commensurate with that worth, then I applaud them.
- viraptor 7y ago
  At some point it does. If they're being underpaid, that's one issue. If they're aware that they're currently irreplaceable and able to effectively hold the company hostage, that's a different one.
  - pgodzin 7y ago
    Wouldn't someone irreplaceable be underpaid until they are compensated enough such that they could be replaced for that amount?
    - viraptor 7y ago
      It depends what's the availability of replacements. For example if almost all pilots are employed, you won't get more pilots until they're trained. Paying more than another company just moves the problem temporarily, not solves it. Similar to what happens with expensive cities which don't expand. The prices keep raising and there will still be people who can afford to pay for a long time... until the larger environment either changes or collapses.
      - pgodzin 7y ago
        Sure, but those kinds of structural issues are the airline's problem. BA's pilots are underpaid if they are so in demand, and BA would have to pay a lot more to poach pilots from other airlines.
        viraptor 7y ago
        If they're underpaid, sure. (And I would assume they are) But that was the original question - what are the working conditions? If they were paid $1M a day (of course they're not), would you still say they're underpaid just because they're in demand? What about $300k a year? What about $200k? This article doesn't say what the pay / demand is. Another one (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-to-strike-from-midnight-in-dispute-about-pay https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-t...) mentions BA proposing an increase that would bring "some" over £200k a year. I'm sure that's cherry-picked for PR and doesn't show the whole distribution, but it's at least one number.
        pgodzin 7y ago
        If they were paid $1M and could get more then they are still underpaid and there is sufficient demand. There is no absolute number at which they are no longer underpaid, it is completely relative to how much demand there is and how much companies are willing to pay for that demand.
        viraptor 7y ago
        If the airlines and pilots existed in isolation then maybe. If they were paid 1M, I'd think they're overpaid and the tickets should be cheaper instead. There definitely is a threshold compared to all other salaries / cost of living / economy where the pay would become irrational - regardless of demand.
    - mikekchar 7y ago
      Wouldn't someone who is replaceable be overpaid until they were compensated little enough such that no-one else would work for that amount? I'm not sure if you subscribe to the notice that it's OK for the worker to max out their compensation while it's not OK for the owner to do so, but I think it's a pretty common stance. Admittedly, the reverse is also true (as I'm hoping to point out). Ideally, I would hope that negotiations were conducted in a way that is mutually beneficially to both parties. I'd rather we didn't resort to getting as much as we can at the expense of the other party. Of course in a dog-eat-dog world, what can we expect? All of those bastards on the other side are going to do it to us so let's do it to them first. But is there an advantage to living in a world that isn't dog-eat-dog? Is it possible to encourage a society where neither side "does it" to the other and neither side thinks of the other as "bastards"? I really, really hope so. (Possibly not related to your actual position -- your words just made me think of that)
      - pgodzin 7y ago
        I think both parties try to maximize/minimize for their own benefit, which is healthy and is exactly what determines the market for compensation. Inherently any gain by one side is at the expense of the other, there is no avoiding that aspect. Either than $X is paid to the pilots or it goes elsewhere in the business. I'm not sure what a non-dog-eat-dog world would look like and how it would be able to persist without heavy incentives to take advantage.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I don’t see much of a problem as long as the company is still making a profit. The striking workers could strike until they’re receiving all the company’s profit, at which point it would be as if they’re receiving the actual value of their labor. Not that crazy of an idea.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      Or they don't know when to stop and bring the company down: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/blame-unions-hostess-bankruptcy-james-sherk/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/blame-unions-hostess-b... Maybe the company was failing anyway. I'm not saying they shouldn't strike. Just that we don't seem to have clear numbers to tell if they should or not.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      This is a ridiculous statement. The "actual value" of the striking workers (pilots) labor is "ALL the company's profit?" Nobody else -- mechanics, flight crew, reservations agents, IT staff, marketing, execs -- deserves a piece? What about investors -- by definition, nobody invests in a company designed to not return a profit.
      - rosser 7y ago
        Per another comment in another thread [0] it's not only not a ridiculous statement, but a little bit how things actually work, at least in the US. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915781
        listenallyall 7y ago
        The point of the article is that yes, the scenario where pilots can claim all airline profits is ridiculous, because is it sub-optimal for everyone -- pilots, passengers, and certainly investors. It also never argues that pilots are "delivering value" equal to the airline profits. Only that the pilots are in a position, due to regulation, to claim those profits, because they can shut the airline down (a power that flight attendants, mechanics, reservation agents, etc don't have).
- scatters 7y ago
  What if that employee group are upper management?
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Of course they should have the right to strike too, and they do.
travisjungroth 7y ago
Usually whatever hours per month you see for pilots is just flight time, and pilots work more than that.
_s 7y ago
Depending on which country (ergo the Aviation Org i.e. FAA/CAA/EASA/CASA) is designated the home base for the company; the amount of hours flight crew are allowed to fly and be on standby is legally restricted, and so is the minimum pay they should be given.
bronco21016 7y ago
The 80 hrs/month figure is really more related to pay. Pilots and cabin crew typically are only paid for the time the door is closed on the aircraft. Real hours spent at work and away from home are far greater. I think measuring by days away from home is a more accurate description of how much flight crew work. It depends a lot on where one works and the type of flying they’re doing but it ranges from 12-18 days/month of being on the road working. Flight benefits vary as well but they’re almost always space available and with load factors in the US creeping upwards the value in those benefits has slowly been eroding away. Hard to plan a vacation when you have almost no idea when you’ll get there.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Agreed on flight benefits in US. If flying alone can JS, but with family that doesn't work. Wasn't sure if the Euro market had more standby availability. That said, pilot pay goes up to about $400/hr at Delta as an example including profit share.

Anyone know standard time working per month? I thought these major carriers had pretty cushy hours / benefts - (ie, 80 hrs / month, good flight and other benefits).

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago

Hookers make good money too.

chrisjshull 7y ago

I don’t know, but does it matter? If an employee group understands how much they are worth, and can get more benefits commensurate with that worth, then I applaud them.

viraptor 7y ago
At some point it does. If they're being underpaid, that's one issue. If they're aware that they're currently irreplaceable and able to effectively hold the company hostage, that's a different one.
- pgodzin 7y ago
  Wouldn't someone irreplaceable be underpaid until they are compensated enough such that they could be replaced for that amount?
  - viraptor 7y ago
    It depends what's the availability of replacements. For example if almost all pilots are employed, you won't get more pilots until they're trained. Paying more than another company just moves the problem temporarily, not solves it. Similar to what happens with expensive cities which don't expand. The prices keep raising and there will still be people who can afford to pay for a long time... until the larger environment either changes or collapses.
    - pgodzin 7y ago
      Sure, but those kinds of structural issues are the airline's problem. BA's pilots are underpaid if they are so in demand, and BA would have to pay a lot more to poach pilots from other airlines.
      - viraptor 7y ago
        If they're underpaid, sure. (And I would assume they are) But that was the original question - what are the working conditions? If they were paid $1M a day (of course they're not), would you still say they're underpaid just because they're in demand? What about $300k a year? What about $200k? This article doesn't say what the pay / demand is. Another one (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-to-strike-from-midnight-in-dispute-about-pay https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/ba-pilots-t...) mentions BA proposing an increase that would bring "some" over £200k a year. I'm sure that's cherry-picked for PR and doesn't show the whole distribution, but it's at least one number.
        pgodzin 7y ago
        If they were paid $1M and could get more then they are still underpaid and there is sufficient demand. There is no absolute number at which they are no longer underpaid, it is completely relative to how much demand there is and how much companies are willing to pay for that demand.
        viraptor 7y ago
        If the airlines and pilots existed in isolation then maybe. If they were paid 1M, I'd think they're overpaid and the tickets should be cheaper instead. There definitely is a threshold compared to all other salaries / cost of living / economy where the pay would become irrational - regardless of demand.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    Wouldn't someone who is replaceable be overpaid until they were compensated little enough such that no-one else would work for that amount? I'm not sure if you subscribe to the notice that it's OK for the worker to max out their compensation while it's not OK for the owner to do so, but I think it's a pretty common stance. Admittedly, the reverse is also true (as I'm hoping to point out). Ideally, I would hope that negotiations were conducted in a way that is mutually beneficially to both parties. I'd rather we didn't resort to getting as much as we can at the expense of the other party. Of course in a dog-eat-dog world, what can we expect? All of those bastards on the other side are going to do it to us so let's do it to them first. But is there an advantage to living in a world that isn't dog-eat-dog? Is it possible to encourage a society where neither side "does it" to the other and neither side thinks of the other as "bastards"? I really, really hope so. (Possibly not related to your actual position -- your words just made me think of that)
    - pgodzin 7y ago
      I think both parties try to maximize/minimize for their own benefit, which is healthy and is exactly what determines the market for compensation. Inherently any gain by one side is at the expense of the other, there is no avoiding that aspect. Either than $X is paid to the pilots or it goes elsewhere in the business. I'm not sure what a non-dog-eat-dog world would look like and how it would be able to persist without heavy incentives to take advantage.
- baddox 7y ago
  I don’t see much of a problem as long as the company is still making a profit. The striking workers could strike until they’re receiving all the company’s profit, at which point it would be as if they’re receiving the actual value of their labor. Not that crazy of an idea.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Or they don't know when to stop and bring the company down: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/blame-unions-hostess-bankruptcy-james-sherk/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/blame-unions-hostess-b... Maybe the company was failing anyway. I'm not saying they shouldn't strike. Just that we don't seem to have clear numbers to tell if they should or not.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    This is a ridiculous statement. The "actual value" of the striking workers (pilots) labor is "ALL the company's profit?" Nobody else -- mechanics, flight crew, reservations agents, IT staff, marketing, execs -- deserves a piece? What about investors -- by definition, nobody invests in a company designed to not return a profit.
    - rosser 7y ago
      Per another comment in another thread [0] it's not only not a ridiculous statement, but a little bit how things actually work, at least in the US. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915781
      - listenallyall 7y ago
        The point of the article is that yes, the scenario where pilots can claim all airline profits is ridiculous, because is it sub-optimal for everyone -- pilots, passengers, and certainly investors. It also never argues that pilots are "delivering value" equal to the airline profits. Only that the pilots are in a position, due to regulation, to claim those profits, because they can shut the airline down (a power that flight attendants, mechanics, reservation agents, etc don't have).
scatters 7y ago
What if that employee group are upper management?
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Of course they should have the right to strike too, and they do.

travisjungroth 7y ago

Usually whatever hours per month you see for pilots is just flight time, and pilots work more than that.

_s 7y ago

Depending on which country (ergo the Aviation Org i.e. FAA/CAA/EASA/CASA) is designated the home base for the company; the amount of hours flight crew are allowed to fly and be on standby is legally restricted, and so is the minimum pay they should be given.

bronco21016 7y ago

The 80 hrs/month figure is really more related to pay. Pilots and cabin crew typically are only paid for the time the door is closed on the aircraft. Real hours spent at work and away from home are far greater. I think measuring by days away from home is a more accurate description of how much flight crew work. It depends a lot on where one works and the type of flying they’re doing but it ranges from 12-18 days/month of being on the road working. Flight benefits vary as well but they’re almost always space available and with load factors in the US creeping upwards the value in those benefits has slowly been eroding away. Hard to plan a vacation when you have almost no idea when you’ll get there.

privateSFacct 7y ago
Agreed on flight benefits in US. If flying alone can JS, but with family that doesn't work. Wasn't sure if the Euro market had more standby availability. That said, pilot pay goes up to about $400/hr at Delta as an example including profit share.