Martin Tamme re: Teplitsky

[Dockjock]

Single company "global" solutions (oxymoron isn't it?) aren't the answer. There will always be another startup company ready to ride in and do something for cheaper. If ACPA and Jazz ALPA merge, then Georgian or CMA will ride in to operate the DH8's for less- look at CMA's Dornier 328 program as the perfect example.
The company now has a 705 license, and the Dornier was brought in on the same pay scale as the 1900D's, AND pilots are bonded for $20,500! Who would agree to those conditions? Not me...but some did, and here we are. Worth noting that CMA's 1900D pay scale was already in the range of 20-25% lower than GGN's. So there are right now people operating a 30-seat turboprop in 705 operations for $43,500 (Captain) and $25,000 (F/O). Crazy.
Anyhow, to relate this to the current topic, I don't feel that any kind of one-company solution will solve anything. It will provide temporary artificial boundaries, fences, or restrictions, but the problem will still be there. That problem is oversupply of pilots. We have way too many pilots in Canada. And the reason is that it is far, FAR too easy to obtain a commercial pilot's license- so easy in fact that one can do it almost on a whim if desired and complete zero-to-commercial in about 6 months.
The best solution in my view is for pilots to control licensing and standards in Canada, not Transport. New pilots should have to apply to the professional regulatory body for licensing, with the ATPL exams sat only twice per year, and graded on a curve with only the top 50% accepted. Furthermore, one should only be eligible for an ATPL if one has completed a professional pilot diploma or degree program at an accredited college. In the interim, airlines (and this is where unity would come in handy), should ONLY hire pilots that have an aviation college or military background. ONLY. Nobody else. Elitist? Yes, but that's the point. By increasing the barriers to entry to the profession, and raising the standards of licensing, only then will the vast oversupply dwindle. Conditions will improve, organically, over time. There is no other way.

[Four1oh]

good post Dock, that is, until you proposed your 'solution'. If I actually thought you were joking, I'd be laughing, but I'm not. Pilots controlling how many and who get's to become a pilot? WHAT?!

[DLB]

Ridiculous.

How about let the market decide? If there really are too many pilots in Canada to the point where a career as one is no longer worth it then the number of people in our profession will decline naturally and working conditions will have to improve. The idea of restricting jobs to those who have taken half-assed aviation diploma programs or who have a military background (not the be all and end all I can tell you from experience) is laughable. If CMA pilots arent being compensated properly for what they do they can organize and try to force their employer to pay more; the law (CLC) provides protection for them should they decide to do so, but that is their decision. Communizing our profession is certainly not the way to go.

[RB-211]

DJ is correct about the licence bit in Canada. Many of the idiots I flew with back home in my early days would never pass a JAA battery of exams. This would help the numbers game but we are talking about Canadian aviation. A very large industry with the majority of aircraft in the 'Pack of gum with wings variety'. Many pilots never climb out of the lower ranks as there really are not that many jobs at the top as in other countries. Solidarity in aviation in Canada is zilch. This will never change.

[balls]

DJ is correct about the licence bit in Canada. Many of the idiots I flew with back home in my early days would never pass a JAA battery of exams. This would help the numbers game but we are talking about Canadian aviation. A very large industry with the majority of aircraft in the 'Pack of gum with wings variety'. Many pilots never climb out of the lower ranks as there really are not that many jobs at the top as in other countries. Solidarity in aviation in Canada is zilch. This will never change.

What would you suggest would change that?

[Traf]

Ridiculous.

How about let the market decide? If there really are too many pilots in Canada to the point where a career as one is no longer worth it then the number of people in our profession will decline naturally and working conditions will have to improve. The idea of restricting jobs to those who have taken half-assed aviation diploma programs or who have a military background (not the be all and end all I can tell you from experience) is laughable. If CMA pilots arent being compensated properly for what they do they can organize and try to force their employer to pay more; the law (CLC) provides protection for them should they decide to do so, but that is their decision. Communizing our profession is certainly not the way to go.

Great thinking genius. Just because you didn't go through an aviation program does not mean that there shouldn't be a selection process in the future.

The market will stabilise a lot lower than I would like to see it so in reality, that part of your idea should be tossed.

As for CMA demanding more, there already exists a group of pilots making more, they are called Jazz. The only reason CMA got the DOrnier was because they could do it cheaper and not because the company figured they were deserving of an X-mas present. They ask for more money, the company will simply park it and move a dash onto the job.

It isn't a communist movement it is a protection system designed to protect our careers. Doctors do and so do lawyers. You don't see them taking paycuts do ya?

Stop thinking like a Liberal polatician and get inthe game. Things are headed south fast and it will take some radical moves onthe part of the pilots to stop the destruction of a once rewarding occupation. (please, don;t come back with " I love flying, that is the satisfaction" BS. SHow me the money!)

[Dockjock]

Thank you Traf, for recognizing that this is the way many other professions (and trades) operate. Almost nobody outside of transportation is licensed by the government.

Canadian Bar Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Chiropractic Association
American Medical Association
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors
Canadian Electrical Contractors Association
Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada

Get it yet? These bodies determine the education and training required to join the profession, set the standards, control the exams, and control who becomes a member in good standing of the organization. They set codes of conduct and bylaws, resolve disputes and complaints, and lobby the government on behalf of their members. They are not "unions" so we can get rid of that dirty word right off the bat- but many members of the above associations are also members of trade unions that represent specific groups.

As for the 'half assed college course' comment- you need to get with the times. Every other profession requires an educational component to become certified. And it's a hell of a lot more than 100 hrs of groundschool (what's that, not even 3 weeks total?!) or whatever pathetic number it is these days. Higher licensing standards and control over the profession benefits those within it. How hard is that to understand?

Do yourself a favour and visit a couple of those sites. Particularly the History, Vision, or Mission parts. Imagine if we, as pilots, actually represented ourselves PROFESSIONALLY.

[prop2jet]

I always get a kick out of comparisons made between pilots and doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. Sorry but there is no comparison. These are professional bodies that have had historical ties and routes within what were elitist circles. Of course today that is not necessarily the case, however you go through a lot more to become a doctor, lawyer or engineer than you do to become a pilot. The pilot profession got it's routes from the bush - not exactly the most sophisticated lot, but they had skills and were pioneers in their day.

Fast forward to todays environment and you see the level of technology that is incorporated into newer generation aircraft have ensured that todays modern airline pilot need only understand how to manage the system. Yes there is a lot to be learned, but the finer art of decision making is made easier by the technology that is present. Fact is, aircraft are piloted by human beings because human beings are not yet ready for pilotless aircraft.

The real money should be in the bush, and it is if you are working for the right company. The solution is not to create an elitist system. Sure one can elevate the standards required to obtain the licence, but get real - do you really need to know how to dismantle and re-assemble a radio set? Nice to know but is it relevant?

The key is solidarity. The problem today is a major lack of it! Until everyone stops looking out for themselves and focuses their attention on what is good for all, conditions will be as they are. For those working under collective agreements, that means sticking by them and not undermining what so many before us fought for.

[balls]

I always get a kick out of comparisons made between pilots and doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. Sorry but there is no comparison. These are professional bodies that have had historical ties and routes within what were elitist circles. Of course today that is not necessarily the case, however you go through a lot more to become a doctor, lawyer or engineer than you do to become a pilot. The pilot profession got it's routes from the bush - not exactly the most sophisticated lot, but they had skills and were pioneers in their day.

Fast forward to todays environment and you see the level of technology that is incorporated into newer generation aircraft have ensured that todays modern airline pilot need only understand how to manage the system. Yes there is a lot to be learned, but the finer art of decision making is made easier by the technology that is present. Fact is, aircraft are piloted by human beings because human beings are not yet ready for pilotless aircraft.

The real money should be in the bush, and it is if you are working for the right company. The solution is not to create an elitist system. Sure one can elevate the standards required to obtain the licence, but get real - do you really need to know how to dismantle and re-assemble a radio set? Nice to know but is it relevant?

The key is solidarity. The problem today is a major lack of it! Until everyone stops looking out for themselves and focuses their attention on what is good for all, conditions will be as they are. For those working under collective agreements, that means sticking by them and not undermining what so many before us fought for.

Could you give us a bit of overview of your background please?

[Dockjock]

Technological advances have nothing to do with it. One can argue that medicine has had more technological advances in the last 100 yrs than aviation has. The professional responsibility of the doctor has not changed- the methods have. Likewise for pilots.

As for the relevance of the curriculum at aviation colleges- ever think that as a member of a professional pilot association that set the standards for licensing and education that one might have a say as to what goes on in those programs?

Solidarity is a fool's game. It may work temporarily but does not address the broader problem of supply far exceeding demand.

[Martin Tamme]

Do yourself a favour and visit a couple of those sites. Particularly the History, Vision, or Mission parts. Imagine if we, as pilots, actually represented ourselves PROFESSIONALLY.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that some of you are getting an idea of where we are going with this. We want to start a Professional Association (not a union), that represents the pilots in this country.

Andy Wilson has been working on this diligently by himself for the past year. He has extended his hand out to all pilots to make this a reality. The Jazz MEC is interested and is forming a committee to deal with this. ACPA has already a committee in place (with Andy as Chair). The WestJet pilots have already expressed an interest in this. The same goes for the Air Transat pilots.

It will require a lot work, and would most probably take at least 5 years to complete.

As I stated before, the 'next generation' is at the helm of the various Unions/Associations across this country. We've made a deliberate decision to bury the hatchet and start working together for the future of our profession. We are not our enemies; that right belongs to the employers that attempt to abuse us.

Let's start here...




Canadian pilots battle fatigue
Jun. 7, 2006. 05:34 AM
ROBERT CRIBB, FRED VALLANCE-JONES AND TAMSIN MCMAHON
TORSTAR NEWS SERVICE


It's a possibility few Canadian air travellers consider when they step onto a plane: The pilots about to take them into the sky may have already worked a long, tiring shift even before preparing for takeoff.

That can lead to mistakes, which are happening in growing numbers, federal aviation records show. Long duty periods, combined with the complexity and pressure of air travel, are a key factor behind pilot mistakes, say many commercial pilots across Canada.

An investigation by the Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region reveals that Canada's aviation safety system is at a critical juncture. More than 80,000 passengers have been put at risk during the past five years when airplanes came dangerously close together in Canadian skies. Meanwhile, mechanical malfunctions and alleged violations of air regulations are on the rise.

Even the country's aviation regulator — Transport Canada — acknowledges that maintaining air safety will be a challenge with passenger traffic expected to double over the next decade.

One issue, pilot fatigue, is a major threat to safety, according to the country's largest pilot union. It charges that Canada's regulations — which allow pilots to work up to 20-hour days, much of that in the air — means that those behind the controls of many Canadian commercial planes are tired.

"Canada's flight time duty rules are among the worst in the world," says Brian Boucher, an Air Canada pilot and safety chair with the airline's pilot union. "Our pilots can technically go to work at 8 o'clock in the morning and then come back that same night at 10 o'clock and be faced with the weather we get here in Toronto. ... No other country allows that ... Canada is known among pilot groups around the world as whores in aviation."

Pilot on-duty hours, set by Transport Canada, exceed the rules in the United States and many Western nations. In standard commercial two-pilot situations, Canadian pilots are allowed to fly 1,200 hours a year. The U.S. limit is 1,000 hours. Pilots in the United Kingdom and Australia are capped at 900 hours.

Where Canadian regulations allow pilots to fly 40 hours in seven days, the limit in the U.S., U.K. and Australia is 30 hours. Also, in the U.S., New Zealand and Australia, pilots can only be at the controls for eight hours a day.

Pilots in Canada are allowed to work a total shift of 14 hours that can be further extended to 17 hours for unforeseen circumstances such as weather or mechanical delays. By adding an extra pilot, a shift can be increased to 20 hours.

Theoretically, almost all of that time can be spent at the controls, and it does happen.

Following a First Air plane running off the runway in Edmonton in 2004, the Transportation Safety Board — Canada's federal agency responsible for studying air safety mishaps — found the crew had been awake "for almost all of the 24 hours before the time of the occurrence, and these long periods of wakefulness could have produced some degradation in their performance."

"It could not be determined to what degree fatigue played a role in the occurrence," the board said. "However, degradation of a commercial flight crew's performance is a significant risk to the safety of flight operations."

The regulator concluded neither the company manual nor Canadian aviation rules provide protection from fatigue. In response to this investigation, First Air revised its charter schedule. Flight crews no longer change from day to night flying within the same schedule.

An internal newsletter for Air Canada pilots published in March cites a "sharp" increase in breaches of Canadian aviation rules over the previous several months, "primarily from pilots exceeding duty periods."

Even Transport Canada doesn't always know how often pilot duty time limits are breached.

A Transport Canada audit of Air Canada last year, obtained under access to information legislation, found 107 instances in one month alone (January 2005) where its pilots exceeded Canada's 14-hour duty day limit. Airlines are responsible for reporting their pilot duty limit breaches to the regulator but Air Canada only reported eight of those 107 instances, the audit says.

Jim Dunnett, Air Canada's manager of standards, says those figures are the result of the airline's computerized flight time monitoring system, which may flag breaches in duty day limits that had not actually occurred.

"Our system is conservative. It flags situations where there may not have been an actual (duty day time) exceedance take place," he says. "My assumption is that the exceedances weren't in fact actual flight time exceedances."

There is a "difference of opinion" between the airline and the regulator over the audit finding, says Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola. In response to the finding, the airline has filed a "corrective action plan" with the regulator, which has yet to be approved, she says.

The audit of Air Canada records by Transport Canada investigators also found 28 instances in the same one-month period in which pilots exceeded the limit of 40 hours flying time in seven consecutive days. None of those incidents had been reported to Transport Canada.

"We had a software glitch at that time and that has since been corrected," says John Bradshaw, who manages the airline's safety management systems. "There are going to be the odd flies in the ointment. It's identifying them and fixing them as quickly as you can."

Alertness can depend on more than the sheer number of hours worked. If pilots are scheduled to work during hours when they are normally sleeping, studies show they will be more tired than usual.

Dr. Drew Dawson, a leading sleep deprivation researcher who consults with Transport Canada, has likened moderate levels of fatigue to drunkenness.

After 17 hours of being awake, cognitive performance declines to levels similar to someone with a blood alcohol concentration of .05 per cent, his research found. After 24 hours without sleep, the equivalent blood alcohol rate rises to .1 per cent, he found. (The legal blood alcohol limit for Canadian drivers is .08.)

Dawson says it's difficult to draw specific conclusions on how fatigue impacts aviation safety. But he says one thing is clear: "There are certainly occasions, from the data we've collected, where pilots are getting into planes extremely tired."

Much of modern flying has been automated, but there remains a long list of detailed responsibilities and constant vigilance in case of emergencies.

After checking for maintenance issues, fuel requirements and going over the flight plan, pilots board the aircraft and check emergency and navigational equipment before going through a takeoff checklist.

Takeoff is a critical part of the flight. A problem at this stage could require a fast decision to reject a takeoff. Once in the air, pilots navigate to the appropriate cruise altitude and direction with guidance from air traffic controllers. Throughout the flight, they conduct repeated checks on position, the amount of fuel being burned and overall condition of the aircraft.

If problems arise, such as equipment malfunctions, bad weather or sudden conflicts with other aircraft, pilots react by referring to checklists and, in some cases, taking control of the plane in order to change direction or altitude quickly.

Before landing, they calculate the amount of distance required for landing, review any unique aspects of the airport and check for equipment problems.

Pilot fatigue has become more pronounced at the country's biggest airline in the past couple of years, some Air Canada pilots say.

Since the airline emerged out of bankruptcy protection three years ago, pilots are being asked to fly more hours than ever before in the interests of greater productivity, says Boucher.

"We're flying more hours in a year that we didn't do prior to (bankruptcy). You're working more and working harder, longer days. A lot of conditions we had in our contract have been changed so that they can get a lot more productivity out of us."

Air Canada officials say pilot hours are well within contractual limits. "There are times when airlines are doing well and carrying a lot of passengers and the demand is there and there are times when that's not happening," says John Bradshaw, Air Canada's manager of safety management systems. "From a safety point of view, I don't think safety has been compromised in any way, shape or form."

Ken Green disagrees.

There's intense pressure to "work your butt off" that compromises safety, says the recently retired veteran Air Canada pilot based in Vancouver.

Green filed five written complaints to Air Canada last year over the airline's handling of pilot fatigue on the Hong Kong-Vancouver route he began flying about seven years ago.

"Our flights from Hong Kong to Vancouver should actually have four pilots. But Air Canada is extremely reluctant to put four pilots (on those flights). ... All of these things relate to the pressure to operate more cheaply."








Heated exchanges with ground reveal cockpit frustrations

A rare, inside look at written — and sometimes testy — exchanges between Air Canada pilots and their managers reveals how pilots can be pressured to work in conditions they say compromise safety.

Flight 052, an A340 commercial airliner carrying 261 people, was behind schedule before it even took off from Delhi in February 2004. While waiting on the ground for instructions to leave the gate, the pilots informed Air Canada dispatch that they might have to land before reaching Toronto.

Instead of a 16-hour scheduled flight, the ground delay meant pilots were looking at a duty day of more than 20 hours — a breach of regulations. "We may be landing short due to crew duty day requirements," the crew wrote in a text communication to airline dispatch in Canada, obtained by the Star. "Or (would you) like us to stay here (in Delhi)?"

Word came back two minutes later: "Press on." Later, while still waiting to take off, the crew messaged dispatch that the plane's flight attendants "will only go 18 hour duty day."

Instructions came back that if flight service attendants agreed to return to Toronto, they would get bonus pay. After takeoff, the pilots responded: "Flight service is not going to (Toronto). (Canadian air regulations) do not, I say not, in any case allow us to go (to Toronto)."

It was too late to make that decision, the pilots were informed by their managers.

"The flight attendants are legal to go to (Toronto) and that is the bottom line. We interpret their contract and they pushed off from gate. That's it. They are coming to (Toronto). ... We will deal with them when they arrive in (Toronto)."

At one point, the clearly frustrated captain sent a message saying he was "weary" of playing labour negotiator with managers. "We are going to (Halifax). I will not deal with (flight) service crew (schedule) any more. ... This ass---- in (crew scheduling) just told me (flight attendants) do not control the airplane, I do. (Please) instruct Mr. (flight crew scheduling manager) to not contact this aircraft again. We are entering Afghan (airspace). Very busy."

There were financial pressures at work, a follow-up message from Canada said. Dispatch pointed out that regional flights "will have to be cancelled in order to get a crew to (Halifax)" if the pilots choose to land there.

The flight crew asked dispatch to contact Air Canada's on-duty pilot for a ruling to ensure Canadian duty time regulations were not being broken.

Dispatch responded with that confirmation, stating the crew's duty day is scheduled for 18 hours and 33 minutes "which is within (air regulations)."

Not so, the pilots responded. "Simple arithmetic shows (that calculation) to be in error." But, with firm instructions coming from managers, the captain agreed to push on.

After the flight, one of the pilots filed a complaint with the airline. "I felt forced into extending my duty day by two things that are compromising the flight safety at Air Canada," it reads. "1. The concern that I would be penalized in some way if I did not continue. 2. Pressured by other crew members citing financial state of the airline for the reason to push on."

The complaint document alleges a violation of duty day regulations of more than an hour. Air Canada claimed it only resulted in a 10-minute breach. Peter Fitzpatrick, an Air Canada spokesman, noted the decision to press on to Toronto was made by the flight's captain.

"The captain did discuss the situation with the crew and elected to continue, but it is important to remember pilots are never pressured to compromise safety out of financial considerations," he said in a statement.

[prop2jet]

Balls: I have been around... from bush to airlines... operating the line to management and back.

Dockjock: Technology does have it's role. It is what ultimately forces people out of their jobs. Dedicated Flight Engineers are no where to be found on todays aircraft because they were replaced by computer monitoring systems. Go back a little further in time and so disappeared the navigator. How long before the FO goes?

If you think soldiarity means nothing then you will never see improved working conditions. Limiting the scope of candidates is not what is truly required, it is changing the mindset of those who choose this profession.

[DLB]

Doctors, lawyers, and engineers belong to professions that can trace their roots back to the middle ages. They have professional associations that are the direct descendants of closed guilds and secret societies. Its not going to happen in aviation, nor should it. Artificial barriers only stand in the way of progress and are, in the long run, always detrimental. Let the market decide what a job is worth. Everyone bitches and complains about how fucked up our legal and medical systems are but the main causes of the problems lie squarely with their all-powerful associations that limit or inhibit innovation. Its great for doctors and lawyers that they make alot of money but its not so great for the rest of society when we have to pay an arm and a leg for often terrible service.

Traf, genius, the Liberal Party is all for the CMA (the medical association that is, not the airline) and the bar associations; those groups are among its biggest donors. The Liberal Party of Canada wouldnt exist without them...genius. And, unfortunately, the free market wasnt my idea, but I appreciate the compliment. Adam Smith deserves far more credit than I but, unfortunately, he's been dead a couple of centuries so you cant tell him that his idea should be tossed.

Dockjock, your last two examples of professional associations actually represent employers, not employees. You might as well have added IATA to your list.

One other point. Lets not forget what doctors doing their residency or lawyers doing their articling have to go through. They work hours that no pilot in Canada, regardless of the employer, would even dream about. Also, lawyers at major law firms (like Faskens, McCarthy Tetrault, etc...), even experienced ones, put in very long hours. Making $150G's is great if you're working 9 to 5; its not so great if you have to put in a 60-80 hour week on a regular basis. It works out to less than what your average Tier III Captain makes based on hours worked. Then of course you've got your poor defence attorney who didnt graduate with high enough marks to land at a major firm. He/She is also working long hours but is probably only clearing what a Jazz new hire makes once rent, the library, and the receptionist are paid for. The grass isint always greener.

[balls]

Balls: I have been around... from bush to airlines... operating the line to management and back.

Dockjock: Technology does have it's role. It is what ultimately forces people out of their jobs. Dedicated Flight Engineers are no where to be found on todays aircraft because they were replaced by computer monitoring systems. Go back a little further in time and so disappeared the navigator. How long before the FO goes?

If you think soldiarity means nothing then you will never see improved working conditions. Limiting the scope of candidates is not what is truly required, it is changing the mindset of those who choose this profession.

Ok, fine. I just wanted to have some idea of who I was talking to.

I'm trying to get some impression about where everyone is coming from on this topic. It's hard to know, and as one leaving the system soon, I don't really feel that my opinoin has too much value to the young sprogs anyway.

Almost everyone I see in these discussions has a vested interest, so it is hard to get the handle on which information is biased or not sometimes.

[balls]

Doctors, lawyers, and engineers belong to professions that can trace their roots back to the middle ages. They have professional associations that are the direct descendants of closed guilds and secret societies. Its not going to happen in aviation, nor should it. Artificial barriers only stand in the way of progress and are, in the long run, always detrimental. Let the market decide what a job is worth. Everyone bitches and complains about how fucked up our legal and medical systems are but the main causes of the problems lie squarely with their all-powerful associations that limit or inhibit innovation. Its great for doctors and lawyers that they make alot of money but its not so great for the rest of society when we have to pay an arm and a leg for often terrible service.

Traf, genius, the Liberal Party is all for the CMA (the medical association that is, not the airline) and the bar associations; those groups are among its biggest donors. The Liberal Party of Canada wouldnt exist without them...genius. And, unfortunately, the free market wasnt my idea, but I appreciate the compliment. Adam Smith deserves far more credit than I but, unfortunately, he's been dead a couple of centuries so you cant tell him that his idea should be tossed.

Dockjock, your last two examples of professional associations actually represent employers, not employees. You might as well have added IATA to your list.

One other point. Lets not forget what doctors doing their residency or lawyers doing their articling have to go through. They work hours that no pilot in Canada, regardless of the employer, would even dream about. Also, lawyers at major law firms (like Faskens, McCarthy Tetrault, etc...), even experienced ones, put in very long hours. Making $150G's is great if you're working 9 to 5; its not so great if you have to put in a 60-80 hour week on a regular basis. It works out to less than what your average Tier III Captain makes based on hours worked. Then of course you've got your poor defence attorney who didnt graduate with high enough marks to land at a major firm. He/She is also working long hours but is probably only clearing what a Jazz new hire makes once rent, the library, and the receptionist are paid for. The grass isint always greener.

Everyone likes to call themselves a profressional, but in fact are not by definition. Law, medicine, military, clergy, engineer. That's about it. The term 'professional' has lost it's meaning.

Of course there will all sorts of arm flapping and hysteria about what is a profession, but the fact remains that unless you are self regulating and self licencing you are not a profession. There is the 'oldest profession', then there are 'pilots'! Which is more of a profession?

[DLB]

Not to nitpick, but a job doesnt have to be self-regulating and/or self-licensing to be considered a profession; it has to involve 'advanced learning'. But you are right, pilots arent professionals as defined by the dictionary. In fact bankers, who categorize all jobs, consider us to be 'semi-professional'.

[balls]

Not to nitpick, but a job doesnt have to be self-regulating and/or self-licensing to be considered a profession; it has to involve 'advanced learning'. But you are right, pilots arent professionals as defined by the dictionary. In fact bankers, who categorize all jobs, consider us to be 'semi-professional'.

Yes, you are nitpicking. I was too. I was attempting to direct the attention to the classic term of "professional" from my gradeschool educaiton about 50 years ago.

I was also attempting to discern if I had anything to offer in the discussion here. My disillusionment with the new crop, and the industry as a whole, makes me feel that I probably do not.

I was attempting to see whether I had the energy to contribute to the discussions any more, and whether it was worth that effort. I have a few months to go, after a few decades flying, so I'm thinking that I'll let the vested interested people scrap about who is more entitled. There is a severe lack of perspective of many issues related to this industry, with very little background of experience from many of the commentators.

The youngest people into this industry, who were born when I had about 15 or 20 years of flying experience, know they are the most entitled, and will let you know at every turn. If they aren't promoted to 340 skipper in a year or two they are whining about the everytihng. They will let me know that they can do the job far better than I can and know far more than I do.

I certainly get that impression on this forum!

[EyeOh]

Ironically, outside of the cockpit we (all Pilots, not just ALPA vs. ACPA) have always had some of the worst CRM in the professional world. Would lawyers or Dr.'s pay to work or undercut each other at the knees for a job? Are they any more in demand? Maybe on average, but we are certainly in demand right now and we are FARKING IT UP!
Sometimes I think maybe a non-union company would be the way to go, over this bickering. However, then I just see that they just haven't HAD to fight yet. And they will. And it will be equally ugly. This is because they haven’t figured it out yet either. Flying should not equal prostitution or cannibalism. If you get in a bidding war that is going DOWN, go work at Dennys. I promise your career will be far more fulfilling.

[abflyguy]

I find it amazing that ACPA says they want to work together and yet when it comes to negotiating their new contract they will screw Jazz pilots if necessary. By them having it written that Jazz must always decrease in pilots at the same rate as them they allowing guys who have sacrificed a lot for their jobs to get laid off. Pilots that make less and work more would lose their jobs because of this. It seems the only reason that ACPA wants to start a Association is to see what they can get out of it, it has nothing to do with anyone else as the idea above shows.
Jazz and Air Canada are seperate companies and they should not have the right to stipulate what occurs with pilots at a seperate company, especially if it happens to be making money and they are not.
I guess misery likes company and that is why they put it in there.

[Traf]

Jazz and Air Canada are seperate companies and they should not have the right to stipulate what occurs with pilots at a seperate company, especially if it happens to be making money and they are not.
I guess misery likes company and that is why they put it in there.

I can only assume that you are a Jazz pilot by your comments. It does however always baffle me when I hear this argument. There is an old attitude that AC is stopping us from being this great fantastic airline. Maybe so, but everytime this argument is made, they seem to forget that that very same argument could be made for GGN, CMA, Bearskin, Voyageur etc... They could all easily spool up a D8 operation for AC, and it might take a while, but maybe even an RJ or two. Now, what would your argument be to that? They are too inexperienced? Kinda sounds like "AC jets are flown by AC pilots".

The point I am trying to make is that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander and if Jazz thinks that scope clauses are crushing their ability to be a super ailrine, think again. It is scope that is currently keeping the T3s from taking all the turboprop flying from us and making us half of what we are at the current time. It goes both ways and I would sooner work for more money flying the RJ and D8s than having to go even lower to fly an EMB or 320 because all our dashes have gone to the T3s.

[Dockjock]

I'm as much a capitalist as the next guy, DLB, but I have a problem with purely letting the market decide about my career and working conditions- when the supply side of that market is controlled by the government. It is unwise to ignore the fact that while the market is deciding...the "other" side is doing their best to make it decide in their favour, while we do nothing. But of course, you're an owner aren't you, so your bias is clear.

A professional pilot association at it's core doesn't need to be, nor should it be, about pilot pay though. It should be about our professional responsibility for the safety of our aircraft and passengers- everything else stems from that. Let unions and as you said, "the market" worry about pay. From that perspective, I find in embarassing that there are some out there that are that oppose higher training and educational standards as a general concept.

I was talking to my realtor last week and we got onto the topic of professionalism and qualifications. A couple years back there was a huge uproar in the real estate community because of a movement by some agents to restrict entry into the profession to high school graduates only. Many opposed this restriction as too onerous!

[Jeremy Kent]

My disillusionment with the new crop, and the industry as a whole, makes me feel that I probably do not... The youngest people into this industry, who were born when I had about 15 or 20 years of flying experience, know they are the most entitled, and will let you know at every turn. If they aren't promoted to 340 skipper in a year or two they are whining about the everytihng. They will let me know that they can do the job far better than I can and know far more than I do.

I don't think that's fair, balls. I know that people go a little squirrelly on this forum and the bickering over everything from trivialities to big issues is as prolific as it is childish... but a blanket statement condemning an entire generation of pilots is a bit much, wouldn't you say? For having spent an awful lot of time amongst the very people you're describing (and being one!!), I have yet to see the attitude you describe.

[Long Keel]

There has been some great discussion here. Traf, MT and others,well done on your commentary.

As a Captain I've never turned down the jumpseat to anyone period regardless of corporate history. Until the we let the past be the past forgive and move on nothing gets better. Exbengal, you are one angry dude. I have no doubt that some of your anger is justifiable but we have all lost in the last few years. The only variable is by how much.

I applaud ACPA for taking a step many of us post Picher pilots want which is taking steps to protect the ENTIRE pilot profession while still taking care of internal union/company business.

Anyone who thinks that holding onto past grudges and not moving on is good policy should look at the middle east. The collateral damage will far exceed what is gained by either side if victory is ever possible. Aviation in Canada is much the same. I would love to see new hire f/o's earning no less than 60k on B1900's on up. This is about what a beer truck driver earns at the LCBO but some self loathing wannabe pilot economists will say even that is too much. We must realize our own worth, and demand fair compensation with safe working laws and fast.

Look at the CRJ 705 or Embraer 175. Both cost around 30 million. Both carry over 70 people great distances in all weather. Both need pilots that have enormous skill and good judgement to be flown well in all seasons. Both require operators with leadership and interpersonal skills since they will interact with many employees and paying customers throughout their daily tasks. Both could cause huge loss of life, and possible corporate solvency issues if they are not extremely good at their job. Both make less than branch bank managers, city councillors, members of parliment, and plumbers. We as pilots totally talk our own profession down when in fact our false modesty costs us respect. (Who hasn't joked the airplane flys itself, instead of discussing landing on an ice covered runway, with 1800 ft visibility at hour 13 of a 14 hour day. Talking our profession down only hurts ourselves.) We have flight attendents out earning many pilots within the same company. We have baggage loaders out earning pilots. Yet some still have their heads planted so far up their respective asses that they don't see that attacking each other has only made our situation worse. We have to quit raiding each others backyards, show a little respect for one another. In short we have to act like both professionals and trade unionists if we choose to improve our lot in life.

Picher is dead. The Mitchnick award is dead. The 2002 ACPA collective agreement is dead. Jazz gained jets and lost wages. ACPA is a house of cards in a huricane. Milton looks like a genius. Who in their right mind can't see that we must all change how we interact, and that we must all accept the present situation and move forward together or else more doom is ahead? Maybe when pilots can show more solidarity towards each other than their respective companies things will improve. I'm ready for peace amongst pilots. Am I alone?

[bcflyer]

Probably the best post I've seen on Avcanada!! Peace among pilots. Maybe there's hope for this industry yet!!

[Gurundu the Rat]

Better late than never. I hope for everyones sake that this movement gains momentum. A very small percentage of pilots read these forums so we're going to have to get it out there or this will just become another lost thread.