Whats the attraction

rezassasain · Post by **rezassasain** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:43 pm

Just curious as to why guys are so interested in flying for a company like CMA for little to no money. I'm Sure this subject has been beaten up but I've had co pilots on a king air making almost 30 g's a year. which is substantially more than the measly 22,500 than you make at CMA. with the cost of aquiring ones licences i would take this as an insult, a kid at McDonalds makes more in a year than the CMA pilot. Oh well boys enjoy the peanuts in the commissary with a wage like that you can't afford to eat anything else.

rezassasain · Post by **rezassasain** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:46 pm

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines ... n_air.html

gonfly'n · Post by **gonfly'n** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:16 pm

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:30 pm

That was an interesting link. Not only for this airline, but all the Canadian airlines for anybody doing some career planning.

As an aside, it might be of interest to any pilot planning to apply as a first officer based on the minimum requirements, to check out the requirements for Captain upgrade and ask themselves how sitting in the right seat is going to get them the required PIC time.

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:07 pm

Excellent point rezassasain, Kule, I dont think its too smart to try to get on with CMA right out of school or anytime for that matter. That pilot will never move over to the left seat (no pic), plus your getting paid less then minimum wage. There's not too many companies out there that even pay that great, however there are some AC teir 3 operators that pay much more then CMA to fly the same or similar aircraft. Pilots that pay to fly or practically fly for free should be shot.

Not Even

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:48 pm

The funny thing is CMA could pay its FO's $10,000 per year, and they'd still get a million applicants.

CMA may as well go all the way and do a US Style "FO Program" where people pay to sit inthe right seat. If I owned CMA, that's what I'd do.

... · Post by **...** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:52 pm

rezassasain
Rank 0

Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Location: avcanada blows

yer not too bright are ya?

CX-2 · Post by **CX-2** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:24 pm

Kelowna Pilot wrote:The funny thing is CMA could pay its FO's $10,000 per year, and they'd still get a million applicants.

CMA may as well go all the way and do a US Style "FO Program" where people pay to sit inthe right seat. If I owned CMA, that's what I'd do.

ARE YOU TRYING TO GET YOUR SELF SHOT?

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:33 pm

CX-2 wrote:
Kelowna Pilot wrote:The funny thing is CMA could pay its FO's $10,000 per year, and they'd still get a million applicants.

CMA may as well go all the way and do a US Style "FO Program" where people pay to sit inthe right seat. If I owned CMA, that's what I'd do.
ARE YOU TRYING TO GET YOUR SELF SHOT?

LMFAO

What more could a guy in camp ask for? This should be entertaining.

STL

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:30 pm

CMA is business, and one thing pilots often forget is that businesses exist to make money for their owners and nothing more.

CMA (or any airline for that matter) does not exist to provide jobs to pilots. Rhetoric about serving the community aside, CMA exists to make as much money as possible.

I'm surprised they don't charge FO's to sit in the right seat; they could easily do it and get away with it and increase their profit.

Would safety of the operation be compromised? I doubt it, because the pilots still want to keep the hours rolling in and get good references...

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:36 pm

Kelowna Pilot wrote:CMA is business, and one thing pilots often forget is that businesses exist to make money for their owners and nothing more.

CMA (or any airline for that matter) does not exist to provide jobs to pilots. Rhetoric about serving the community aside, CMA exists to make as much money as possible.

I'm surprised they don't charge FO's to sit in the right seat; they could easily do it and get away with it and increase their profit.

Would safety of the operation be compromised? I doubt it, because the pilots still want to keep the hours rolling in and get good references...

I do have to ask this... is it wrong?

I believe so.

-Guy

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:58 pm

I do have to ask this... is it wrong?

I believe so.

Will lightning bolts come down out of the sky and kill the CMA managers?

Nope.

If pilots consent to "pay to play" (aka an FO program), then there is nothing wrong.

Think of all the money the owners of CMA could put in their pockets if they could make pilots buy their own type ratings (very common in Europe) and on top of that pay to build hours (also common around the rest of the world).

It's a business arrangement and a very common one. It's not feel-good arrangement, but whoever said business was supposed to be a feel-good, lovey dovey affair?

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:22 am

Kelowna Pilot wrote:Will lightning bolts come down out of the sky and kill the CMA managers?

Nope.

That is a rather silly statement.

Kelowna Pilot wrote:If pilots consent to "pay to play" (aka an FO program), then there is nothing wrong.

Is that really the industry that you would like to work in?

Kelowna Pilot wrote:Think of all the money the owners of CMA could put in their pockets if they could make pilots buy their own type ratings (very common in Europe) and on top of that pay to build hours (also common around the rest of the world).

I say again:

Is that really the industry that you would like to work in?

Kelowna Pilot wrote:It's a business arrangement and a very common one. It's not feel-good arrangement, but whoever said business was supposed to be a feel-good, lovey dovey affair?

I say again:

Is that really the industry that you would like to work in?

And, I stand by what I said originally:

TC Guy wrote:I have to ask this... is it wrong?

I believe so.

-Guy

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:59 am

Guy,

The lightening statement was a metaphor meant to imply that when it comes to business, there is no absolute morality. An owner's chief ethical obligation is to his shareholders and to maximize profit... that's the way the system works. CMA is not a make-work project for pilots, or some kind of co-op.

I say again:

Is that really the industry that you would like to work in?

No, but I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of a worker bee, but rather as an owner. Whether or not I want to work in this kind of industry is totally irrelevant to the question.

The fact is in aviation it's doesn't matter how much lower the working conditions sink, there will always be some guy out there who gets stars in his eyes at the sight of a B1900D and a shirt with gold bars on it, and who will glady accept whatever is dished out at him.

Owners already capitalize on this, but why they don't take it to the next level I don't know... and if they over step their bounds the market will correct them... but I don't see the market correcting FO programs... I think the market would support them.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:28 am

Kelowna pilot..

I've been on both sides of the fence and in my humble opinion, you will get more out of a well paid employee than a poorly paid one..

What that translates to in this industry is that if you pay someone well, they will do their best for you, if you pay them crap, they will do the minimum necessary to keep their job...

I'm no economic major, but to me, I'd rather have a happy employee than a pissed off one..

Wacko · Post by **Wacko** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:10 am

You know, having ~200 hours I completely understand CMA’s mentality. Kelowna Pilot is right. At a certain point there is such a huge pool of low/no timers that you have to make yourself stand out somehow.

Most of you probably nostalgically remember what it was like to get into the industry. Kind of like when adults always tell children that school is a peace of cake…. it’s relative to which side of the fence you’re on!

Personally I will try go get myself in through ramp but at least I know there’s another option in. Do I want to whore myself? No. At the end of the day it’s not the young pilots but the industry that dictates how the new arrivals get treated. It starts all the way up at Transport. There is no barrier to entry. Anyone with a few bucks and a crop duster can get a CPL (less the instrument time).

What frustrates me is watching these low timers get into flying jobs because they are chummy with the Chief Pilot or owner and not on merit.

Just my two cents.

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:53 am

What that translates to in this industry is that if you pay someone well, they will do their best for you, if you pay them crap, they will do the minimum necessary to keep their job...

I would say this is true with most regular "jobs" that people just consider to be oridinary jobs that they really don't care about and would leave in two seconds for the smallest of reasons.

But aviation is different. It's fueled and driven by strong emotions for the most part, and not economic reason or common sense. Aviation is really quite unique in that way.

It's one of the few industries where you can make employees pay you to let them work for you.

I would bet that you could make the CMA FO's pay for type ratings, pay to build hours, and they'd still be happy as pigs in sh*t just because they get to fly a 1900D and wear a pretty uniform.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:12 am

Is it really fair to only single out CMA FO's in this regard?

There are plenty of companies in this land paying crap for the right seat and getting lots of applicants due to location of the company or the type of plane flown.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:20 am

You make a good point Donald.

May I make mention that there is some very good companies out there who train pilots, pay decently and treat them well. And these companies have a hard time competing because of the low ballers and the idiot pilots who will whore themselves to build time.

Kelowna Pilot · Post by **Kelowna Pilot** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:22 am

As sad as it is, CMA's salary practices are in line with the rest of the industry.

It's almost funny to think of the CMA pilot walking by the Burger King at YVR thinking that he makes just as much money as the girl behind the till...

For CMA to make pilots pay for type ratings and time building was just a hypothetical example of what they could easily do...

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:40 am

Kelowna Pilot wrote: No, but I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of a worker bee, but rather as an owner.

Okay, then. I will be the advocate for the pilot.

Kelowna Pilot wrote:Whether or not I want to work in this kind of industry is totally irrelevant to the question.

Well, it is quite relevent to me. If people don't stand up and say "thats not right" then we will just continue down this road that poisons this industry. Everyone is up in arms about paying for a PPC or training bonds... but this is okay?

Making profit off the backs of the "employees". Making the Captain of said aircraft a "babysitter". Lucky I am with TC-- I will know what companies would use this revenue generating avenue, and made darn sure my family doesn't fly with them (for safety reasons). Wrong on so many levels.

Kelowna Pilot wrote:The fact is in aviation it's doesn't matter how much lower the working conditions sink, there will always be some guy out there who gets stars in his eyes at the sight of a B1900D and a shirt with gold bars on it, and who will glady accept whatever is dished out at him.

You are missing the big picture my friend. Just because some people will accept the situation doesn't make it right!

Kelowna Pilot wrote:Owners already capitalize on this, but why they don't take it to the next level I don't know... and if they over step their bounds the market will correct them... but I don't see the market correcting FO programs... I think the market would support them.

I hope it doesn't happen. The travelling publlic should pay what it costs to fly. The pilots should be paid fairly to fly them.

-Guy

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:54 am

Kelowna Pilot wrote:As sad as it is, CMA's salary practices are in line with the rest of the industry.

It's almost funny to think of the CMA pilot walking by the Burger King at YVR thinking that he makes just as much money as the girl behind the till...

For CMA to make pilots pay for type ratings and time building was just a hypothetical example of what they could easily do...

Well, not to defend companies that lowball their salaries for entry-level positions...

The last time I checked, most of the front end people in the fast-food industry were making minimum wage.

Link: http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blminwage.htm

Lets use $7.50/hour as the median wage... so that working 52 x 40 hour weeks, a person would make $15,600. That is considerably less than the assumed salary of $22,500 ($10.81/hour). So, I don't believe your analogy is valid.

I still find it hard to believe you can laugh about their salaries, and then try and defend taking that salary away and having people pay for the privilege to fly?

Wow.

Just wow.

Thank god none of my kids want to become pilots.

-Guy

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:41 pm

TC Guy wrote: Well, it is quite relevent to me. If people don't stand up and say "thats not right" then we will just continue down this road that poisons this industry. Everyone is up in arms about paying for a PPC or training bonds... but this is okay?

-Guy

TC Guy,

I see your point as it pertains to this thread, as I can also see where KP is coming from. What I do find interesting however, is the above quote.

This is a discussion about wages/paying for jobs etc, but it could quite as easily be about aviation safety, or lack there of as demonstarted by Sonic Blue, Nav Air, etc etc. Why should it be up to the lowest rung on the food chain to "stand up and say 'That's not right?'" Whether we are discussing wages or saftey, what kind of industry are we where we put those least able, through financial situation and experience level, in the position to dictate the moral standard of what's "right" and wrong?

It is up to the people in the industry in positions of power, and the regulatory bodies who are supposed to be overseeing them, to lead the way - this simply is not happening in Canadian Aviation. Where was Transport 5 years ago on Nav Air/Regency? Where are they now on the list of companies that are not acceptable from a safety standpoint, in both FW and rotary? Where is the Labour Board when it comes to wages, working conditions and and Duty?

The answer of course is nowhere to be found. So, Status Quo it is - feed the low-timers to the Wolves, and the rest of us that have "made it" can sit back and criticize those now doing the only thing they can. If you've ever read any of my previous posts on the topic of CMA/West Jet, or the Low-time F/O issue, you'll know I'm one of the most critical. I'm really starting to rethink my harsh personal stance however, as I'm beginning to see that it is a much deeper issue than a 22yr old 200hr kid with stars in her/his eyes accpeting a $22,500/yr position, or a 737 for $40K.

I think Kelowna Pilot has a valid point, in so far as his opinion that we are not far from these types of "paying to work" situations. And if we continue to let those least equiped fight the good fight, we'll be there sooner than we'd like to think. We all know who these outfits/individuals are, we just chose to keep our heads in the sand until there is overwhelming pressure not to, ie. the Sonic Blue situation. Something IMHO needs to change with the way we're all doing business, from pilots/engineers, to Operators/Managers, to Transport Canada and the Gov't in general.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but just wanted to point out how these issues are linked.

STL

prang one · Post by **prang one** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:10 pm

I have been flying for a few years and I am now semi retired

Had a job this winter that payed 1st year 18.50 hr(goes up every season infact more so this year to increase employee retention

)
worked 3 on 4 off
full medical and dental
If I worked all year round I would make 32000 (gross) on normal hours for my 1st year

Thats more than a 4th year F/O at CMA and 2 year F/O at Bearskin

The average age of the people I worked with was 24 and most had just finished university.

WE WERE MAKING SNOW

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:13 pm

Fair enough, my friend.

Honestly, if this is the direction you wish to take the industry, go ahead.

sky's the limit wrote:This is a discussion about wages/paying for jobs etc, but it could quite as easily be about aviation safety, or lack there of as demonstarted by Sonic Blue, Nav Air, etc etc. Why should it be up to the lowest rung on the food chain to "stand up and say 'That's not right?'" Whether we are discussing wages or saftey, what kind of industry are we where we put those least able, through financial situation and experience level, in the position to dictate the moral standard of what's "right" and wrong?

I think we have beat that one to death. And will continue to do, I am sure. I am just not going to.

sky's the limit wrote:It is up to the people in the industry in positions of power, and the regulatory bodies who are supposed to be overseeing them, to lead the way - this simply is not happening in Canadian Aviation. Where was Transport 5 years ago on Nav Air/Regency? Where are they now on the list of companies that are not acceptable from a safety standpoint, in both FW and rotary? Where is the Labour Board when it comes to wages, working conditions and and Duty?

I would suggest that the everyone take some responsibility. If you don't like it, fight back. You want the Labour Board? Call 'em! You think something is unsafe? don't fly it, contact the company, TC, whoever...

It is easy to blame anyone else. It is hard to take the resonsibility.

sky's the limit wrote:I think Kelowna Pilot has a valid point, in so far as his opinion that we are not far from these types of "paying to work" situations. And if we continue to let those least equiped fight the good fight, we'll be there sooner than we'd like to think. We all know who these outfits/individuals are, we just chose to keep our heads in the sand until there is overwhelming pressure not to, ie. the Sonic Blue situation. Something IMHO needs to change with the way we're all doing business, from pilots/engineers, to Operators/Managers, to Transport Canada and the Gov't in general.

LOL... you know what? I am tired. Going to take a break from Av Canada for a bit. Like Cat, I am finding this is too much frustration. I can only beat my head against the wall for so long.

sky's the limit wrote:Don't mean to hijack the thread, but just wanted to point out how these issues are linked.

I think is was hijacked some time ago.

Have at 'er.

Fly safe,

-Guy