To focus on the "pilot supply" situation as the reason for potential gains is short sighted.yowflyer23 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:47 amYou know, I really like your perspective on that. It makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that kind of perspective would need to come from the very top for that mentality to be adopted on a large scale i.e. C-suite. They're the ones who set the precedence for all departments to follow. I guess when I say that it's not personal, I'm referring to whom are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table, those in finance, revenue management, HR, network planning, etc.; they are just doing their jobs to meet certain targets as directed from above. One could speak up if something didn't make sense, but it would fall on deaf ears from my experience. A lot of senior management is in serious need of CRM training. There were so many occurences in my experience where my team would come to a conclusion that a project wasn't going to work through extensive analysis, but then we'd be told by the VP that we're doing it anyways. Maybe this is a common occurence in HR for discussions on renumeration too. The folks I worked with had a lot of respect for pilots though. I didn't get the impression that they held pilots in contempt. At worst, they were ignorant about the issues facing those in the career and maybe that's half the issue right there. Pilots definitely have a PR issue. The average joe still thinks we all make >$100k from the start and enjoy luxurious lifestyles. I went into management during covid after my flying job disappeared and it sent me on a bit of an identity crisis to say the least. I was in an entry level role making $65k, monday to friday 9-5, great benefits, pension, etc. I was asked every time I met someone new if I ever wanted to get back into flying when things opened up again and I would tell them no. I'd explain to them what it takes to enter and progress in the career and they'd be absolutely shocked at the realities of it. I've since changed my mind of course - it's hard to leave flying when you love it so much...Mach1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:35 am I appreciate your post. I am going to take exception to one phrase that has been pushed so much that it is generally accepted without challenge. It is not directed at you but at the phrase itself.
It is personal. It is one of the most personal things that one can do. You are talking about a person's worth to society, their family, and their ability to survive, pay the bills and hopefully thrive. How is that not personal? It is an absolutely dehumanizing thing to say that we all seem to accept as fact but it wasn't always this way. Throughout history some business owners have valued their employees and those companies have always thrived. Henry Ford was a great example of a business owner recognizing that if his own employees couldn't afford to buy his cars the company wasn't going to survive. The fact that this phrase is thrown around and never challenged goes to show you just how effective management has been at turning human beings into numbers on a balance sheet. It is hard to get more personal than that. The psychopaths running businesses in this nation need to be replaced but since they have rigged the game so only others like them rise to the top, it would almost require a revolution. It is long past time that we start treating people like humans once again. As the 40 year surplus of labour draws to a close and the power dynamic shifts, hopefully we will see a quiet revolution on who runs the companies and the very idea of being a good corporate citizen that contributes to society rather than acting as a drain.
Supply and demand is tried and true. The supply is drying up and there's undoubtedly going to be some gains going forward. There's already been examples of this at Encore, Flair, Sunwing, Porter, etc. I'm optimistic that the trend will continue.
We are NOT business people. We fly planes. Few Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) drivers worry about the economics of running a bus company, or the "supply of bus drivers", yet they earn more than us "per seat mile" by a very, very, very wide margin. They don't stand for crap pay. Why do we?
We need to divorce ourselves from the "business end" of this argument. Business concerns are NOT our problem, nor are they our expertise. Let those who are trained and hired to deal with the economics of a "low yield" competition environment do their job. Our job is exclusively to move aircraft safely from point A to point B. That's it. It is not our job to create or sustain "pseudo economic viability" through low pay and onerous working conditions. That concept is self defeating and unsafe.
The problem is, carriers in Canada factor in "crap pilot compensation" into their business models at the get go. It is THEM, not US that choose to sell seats for $50, creating a "stupid unsustainable environment" of insanely low or even negative yields. That acceptance of ultra low fares has nothing to do with us. Not one thing.
We ----NEED TO STAY IN OUR LANE----, and not be bedazzled and confused by the "business end" of a "low compensation argument" in a field that --REFUSES TO RAISE FARES-- like they should.....like -every other damn field or business- is doing out there.
