Colgan leaving lounge lights on in response to fatigue issue

[Wilbur]

My guess would be that leaving the lights on is something driven by the lawyers. If the company knows commuting pilots are trying to sleep in their lounge, are fatigued because the practice doesn't provide adequate sleep, and do nothing about it, the company's liability goes through the roof. Leave the lights on, prohibit the practice, and tell people to get adequate sleep in a bed, and they have no way of knowing if there is a fatigue problem.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The root of the very low pay at the entry levels is the very high pay at the top end. There are few other careers a person can persue with nothing more then grade 12 and a few months of training, and still be able to achieve a solid 6 figure income with great perks and benefits. As a result, there are legions of young people keen to give it a try, giving entry level employers a very deep labour pool. The only way the wage gap between top and bottom will narrow is if the top comes down enough that fewer people are attracted to the field.

[Cat Driver]

There are few other careers a person can persue with nothing more then grade 12 and a few months of training,

When did they raise the education requirements?

[mattedfred]

wouldn't it make more sense to establish a dim and quiet place for any employee to rest? all the company would have to do is make sure that they create, educate and enforce a policy that employees are no allowed to obtain legal rest in such a facility.

somedays some of us show up with our required legal rest but cn't make it through a 14 hour day for some reason. perhaps the opportunity to have a dimly lit and quiet location to have non-legal rest may make all the difference.

i would rather fly as a passenger on an airline that has such a policy rather than forcing pilots to sit or stand in a noisy and bright crew room or terminal between flights.

but i'm weird like that

[Tanker299]

I agree their are people who make far less then we do and are able to live just fine. I think where pilots get a slight thought of entitlement of higher then minimum wage is based on the fact that they have gone out got an education, and that their job carries with it a little more responsibility, liability and personal risk then that of the average minimum wage worker.

This is such an everyman for himself industry with no safety net, rather hard to believe how people dont think their actions will affect others down the road. However it sure is hard to consider others when you will be hurting your self. I am now down to 7000 a year from 20 and some one else jumped at my open spot. What good did I do the industry? what good did I do for my self? Not taking the job is not always an option some of us HAVE to work and what you get for standing up is offen a hoof in the balls that drops you right back in place.

[RatherBeFlying]

Colgan gets pilots because if all goes well, i.e. the fatigue does not kill you and a bunch of people behind, you get the mythical jet job that finally provides a decent living.

I recommend the Drug Dealers living with their Moms chapter in Freakonomics. The authors show that drug dealing is not an occupation that provides a living, but a tournament for promotion to the next level where you get to make serious money. The occupational similarities between flying and drug dealing are striking.

Anyway, I've got to find a quiet spot in the hangar to unroll my sleeping bag

[Doc]

wouldn't it make more sense to establish a dim and quiet place for any employee to rest?

somedays some of us show up with our required legal rest but cn't make it through a 14 hour day for some reason. perhaps the opportunity to have a dimly lit and quiet location to have non-legal rest may make all the difference.

Wow! What a concept. Something less than bare 100 watt light bulbs in a quiet area, where you can catch a few Z's between flights.
Sometimes, I forget how good I have it. I have no problem getting through my biannual 14 hour duty day.
All the remarks about moving next door to your job were, I hope, tongue in cheek. Personally, I can get a pretty good sleep curled up in my sleeping bag, in a dark corner.
Bottom line though, always has been the pilot's responsibility to stay on the ground if you're fatigued. Easier said than done, I fully realize.
Two pilot crew can be a huge help if your ass is dragging, though.
I'm not familiar with the company, type of aircraft or operation in question here...help.

[Carrier]

Quote: "I always wounder about someone who takes a job at a base, and decides to live elsewhere for whatever reason."
Quote: "If you can't afford to live closer then find a new job."

They were probably living "elsewhere" before taking the job and they probably took the job because there was no job available where they were living. It costs a lot to relocate, especially for married people if the spouse has to give up a job for the move, and it costs a lot and is inconvenient to commute long distance. Do you people really think they do this from choice?

Quote: "Taking the job in the first place was the first mistake."
It's good to see someone on here is independently wealthy and has no need to earn an income to pay the usual living expenses! They probably did not WANT these jobs but took them because they were the least worst on offer. They NEEDED them. Doh!

Quote: "...but I live on far less then 16k a year"
Too many pilots live ten to a house and run clunker cars to make ends meet. This squalid lifestyle is unacceptable for single pilots and there is no way married pilots and their spouses should have to endure it. Pilots should be paid a wage that will give them a reasonable standard of living.

This is the typical "I'm all right Jack" attitude of aviation that is the reason why pilots in particular will never stand together to obtain decent pay and working conditions. How about showing some consideration and compassion for those who are unable to find suitable employment where they presently live?

[Meatservo]

The root of the very low pay at the entry levels is the very high pay at the top end. There are few other careers a person can persue with nothing more then grade 12 and a few months of training, and still be able to achieve a solid 6 figure income with great perks and benefits. As a result, there are legions of young people keen to give it a try, giving entry level employers a very deep labour pool. The only way the wage gap between top and bottom will narrow is if the top comes down enough that fewer people are attracted to the field.

You could accomplish this by raising the entry-level requirement as well. Like Cat says, there isn't any legal requirement for Grade twelve either. Anyone who fancies becoming a pilot can just go ahead and do it. Personally I like the fact that it may be possible to make a six-figure income with some benefits some day. I like the top end where it is. I don't mean to insult anyone who didn't go to College, it has nothing to do with your ability to fly or think, but I did go to a college back in the days when it was pretty difficult to get accepted into one. They selected people based on high school grades and scores on entrance examinations, and then worked pretty hard to kick the successful applicants out of the program. When I graduated, there was fourteen of us out of a class of fourty or so left. I'm not even talking about the college in Toronto, which had even greater attrition rates. THEN, I went to my first job, and wound up competing with a bunch of other dockhands for the coveted "camp check" pilot position. Some of these guys had been to College, but most hadn't, and I thought to myself, why did I bother?

A higher education requirement for any new commercial pilot licensed after some effective future date, wouldn't hurt any of us who are already licensed, so you can't squawk about that. What it WOULD do is curtail the number of new pilots appearing on the scene, and drive the pay levels up. I can think of all kinds of drawbacks as well, the flight instruction industry would suffer, and so would the 703 segment, but only because they would be forced to pay people more, which is ultimately good after the initial growing pains. I don't think there can be any kind of change without someone having to suffer, hopefully temporarily because pilots will become fewer, thus the demand for licensed guys will eventually go up.

There are lots of careers that have unnecessarily high entrance requirements that are intended to "weed out the weak", as it were. For instance, the Armed Forces currently has a standard ("officership 2020"?) that all regular forces officers have at least an undergraduate degree. I've been told, that for aviation officers a diploma from a recognized aviation college will suffice, but I'm not sure about this. At any rate, can you imagine why ALL officers require a university degree? There are degrees and then there are degrees, after all, I feel this is simply an attempt to raise the entrance standards. Maybe it's time for aviation people to look at this.

I know those of you without a college or university ticket will object to this idea on principle, as I'm sure I would. But it's just one idea about how we could do something about the waves of new guys willing to work for peanuts, and hurting everybody. Currently, my employer is trying the "Let's see how little we can pay this guy before he gives up and quits" game. What do I really have to fight back with? Threatening to leave and subject my whole family to having to move somewhere else, when there are probably people out there willing to do my job for less? Hoping my employer will eventually recognise the value of long-term experienced pilots over the cheap and easy new guys? Hoping someday to become so damn good at what I do that no-one else will ever be able to do it? THAT's a slippery slope, I can tell you.

How about making it more difficult to get the ATPL? The exams are a joke. I didn't even study for mine and I scored well above 90 on both of them. I am vaguely ashamed of myself. They don't require any real knowledge of anything, except air regs, and not even much of those. Certainly nothing you can't pick up by working for a 705 company for a year or so, or memorize the specific answers to by taking a silly weekend cram session. Why is that? Are we really happy that computers and satellites can do a better job of flying than we can? Do you really want to be that fat union guy sitting there trying to tell other people that "I don't get paid for what I DO, I get paid for what I KNOW." Bullshit! Right now we ARE all getting paid for what we KNOW, and we're all capable of knowing so much more than we bother to! I first heard that saying when I worked for the railway, from some fat stupid hogger sitting in the boss's seat of a switcher, doing nothing in particular. From what I could see, the "locotrol" console was doing much of the real work, and the brakeman (me) was the guy doing most of the grunt work on the ground. I can guarantee you this is how the public, including our non-pilot employers, is coming to think of US. Time to raise the standard from the bottom, not lower it from the top!

[Brewhouse]

Carrier I see you have disected my posts so I will give you a quick reply. In my opinion taking a job on the far side of the country for $16000 a year is retarded... I am not independantly wealthy but have made a pretty good living in this flying industry. My first job 15 years ago was flying a 185 on floats and ski's. I was paid $18000 a year plus milage the first year worked out to about $25000. I had a wife and kids though thankfully my wife worked. I worked about 8 hours away from my home and only got home a few days that first year. What is the point??? I was flying a 185 not a jet, and that was an entry level job 15 years ago. Alot of you are not going to like this but $16000 a year give your bloody head a shake, if you are willing to accept that you are in the wrong line of work.

Sorry, and end of rant....

[Solaris]

Eye mask and earplugs,,,,a nappers best friends,,,,don't forget to set your alarm,,,,

[human garbage]

Re Meatservo's idea of requiring a degree. That will help the situation... Now you have student loan debt to service as well as training debt on $16000 a year. I understand the point of raising the bar but not at the expense of more debt.

Maybe rethink that one dude...

[Doc]

Re Meatservo's idea of requiring a degree. That will help the situation... Now you have student loan debt to service as well as training debt on $16000 a year. I understand the point of raising the bar but not at the expense of more debt.

Maybe rethink that one dude...

While you're at it, take out a nice big car loan. THEN, take the 16K a year job.
Got to ask, though...why DO you call yourself "human garbage"? Are you a manager at Wasaya?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

He has to be a bit above average Doc, just read his tag line below his posts.

[Meatservo]

Actually human garbage has a point, raising the bar from an education standpoint would make it more expensive to become a pilot, but right now plenty of pilots do go to college or university along with their flight training. Since the whole point of requiring higher qualifications is to justify higher pay and lower the number of new pilots being churned out, you would be making more than $16 000 a year. So you could afford to pay for a better education. I don't think I need to re-think it at all, actually. Making it more expensive to become a pilot goes hand in hand with making it more difficult.

[Randleman]

Meatservo:

The theory doesn't make sense. The carriers won't change their wages even if pilots do get degrees. The problem isn't stopping people from being pilots, it's stopping employers for being bad employers. Why go after the pilots, when not only are they the majority, they aren't the problem.
You'll get blasted though, for trying to stand up to employers. It's unfortunate how afraid this world is of truth-they censor all of it if they don't want to hear it.

[Meatservo]

Well, I would love to stop employers from being bad employers. I still think my theory makes sense, though. Tougher qualifications make for fewer new pilots. Fewer pilots makes for increased demand. Increased demand SHOULD make for higher wages. I've been wrong before, but this makes sense to me. Tougher qualifications may make for less crashin' too. Who knows. It will never happen though, I'll give you that. I would never recommend this career to an intelligent young person if I thought they had the brains to do something else. The pilots ARE the problem. Half the people on here think it's their fault for taking the crappy McJob in the first place, the other half think it's not their fault because every body has to start somewhere, (but not with MY mom in the plane with you) If there were fewer of them in the first place, the entry level salary would have to go up in order to attract them. I'm thinking about supply-and-demand, which is just about the only factor that influences how much you're going to get paid.

By the way, you owe me a beer for the double post.

[The Hammer]

Everyone here refers to $16,000 a year as unlivable yet the captain was living the same likestyle and probably making +40K. I bet there are +1 million people living in the New York on less than 40K.

What prevents Ms. Shaw from getting her upgrade and then still commuting from Seattle because her boyfriend/dying parent lives there? NOTHING!!! I personally have seen six figure guys live the exact same lifestyle.

Easiest fix?? End cheap staff travel policies!!! I bet you they stop commuting (and move/quit) if they have to buy a ticket!!!
If you throw that threat out to the ENTIRE employee group (not just pilots) I guarantee you will create an employee group that will not tolerate sleeping in the crewrooms (for CAR's required rest) or any of the other games that these people play.


IMHO

[rigpiggy]

You guys are throwing out a degree as some kind of Panacea. The world is littered with pilots both with/without a degree. Rebecca Shaw had one as well. Hands/Feet are to some extent natural capability. Train to standard my @ss. I can point to some of my other posts from the past. A degree is not an indication of intelligence, or flying capability only that they were able to do the work. I personally couldn't handle the non specific crap Micro/Macro/Stats etc... yet when I went to SAIT for a specific course, my GPA went up to just under 3.8.

As a biography Rebecca Lynne Shaw was only 24 years old. She attended a community college before graduating from Central Washington University in 2007. She had flown 2,200 hours after joining the airline on January 16, 2008. She was the youngest of four children and already married, living with her husband in the state of Washington.

[Liquid Charlie]

To understand the situation at Colgan and other carriers in the US of A you first need to understand the labour issues down there. To compare them to us as far as labour laws and protection is like apples to oranges. You also must understand the "commuting culture" that has come about by the way they structure their networks. Canada is an all together different environment. I doubt if there is a pilot out there who is going to move family and home and relocate everything several times because of furloughs or bids that have no moving expenses paid to work for the same company. I'm also I know many guys in this country doing the same thing to keep family in an established home. With pairings even though you are based at a specific airport during a pairing you are away anyway. Why would not opt to keep family and home in the established place. That's even before you consider the financial impact.

The theme of the jumpseat program south of 49 is that "no pilot gets left behind" - this just shows how big commuting is down there. American pilots have very little protection except for the collective agreement they can negotiate. Predatory management has made that very difficult and all are still trying to dig themselves out of wage concessions and roll backs given in the 90's

[AEROBAT]

I don't know if having a quiet, dark place to sleep would make much difference if Colgan continues to hire pilots who pull back on the yoke when the plane stalls and FO's who raise the flaps at the same time.

[whiteguy]

Eye mask and earplugs,,,,a nappers best friends,,,,don't forget to set your alarm,,,,

Not much point setting your alarm if have you ear plugs in!

[sarg]

I'm not disagreeing with your point(s) - I just don't understand how leaving the lights on is going to stop anyone from making poor decisions. I mean, there is rest and there is rest, right? If you need to get (eg) 8 hrs prone rest, obviously the crew room (lights on or off) isn't going to be the right place to get that. But, if what you need is a 45 minute cat-nap, where are you supposed to go?

Maybe the first question I should have asked was, what is the purpose of a "crew room"?

Widow, crew rooms at the airline level are places that crew members can access computers, and pick up the latest amendments to company publications. They are usually located in a terminal, as opposed to company offices. They are equipped so that you can relax between flights, relaxing is not a rest(sleep). There is also during office hours, usually a person that company related issues can be discussed ie. flight attendent rep, pilot rep.

[YOWza]

Raising the minimum time to ATP(L) levels is a good idea for starters. That way young, hungry pilots can be tempered a bit in the industry before setting bar for all of us. If it means you have to rent more or instruct more to build time, so let it be. This could lead to the airline industry having to pay more (and waiting, therefore thinning the pool a bit) for a slightly better seasoned pilot. On the other hand, I'm not at all dismissing the poor business practices of the industry. The distribution of wealth in aviation is a horror story, just like so many other industries.

[Randleman]

Well, I would love to stop employers from being bad employers. I still think my theory makes sense, though. Tougher qualifications make for fewer new pilots. Fewer pilots makes for increased demand. Increased demand SHOULD make for higher wages. I've been wrong before, but this makes sense to me. Tougher qualifications may make for less crashin' too. Who knows. It will never happen though, I'll give you that. I would never recommend this career to an intelligent young person if I thought they had the brains to do something else. The pilots ARE the problem. Half the people on here think it's their fault for taking the crappy McJob in the first place, the other half think it's not their fault because every body has to start somewhere, (but not with MY mom in the plane with you) If there were fewer of them in the first place, the entry level salary would have to go up in order to attract them. I'm thinking about supply-and-demand, which is just about the only factor that influences how much you're going to get paid.

By the way, you owe me a beer for the double post.

It's not a bad idea, but if you're going to make a degree mandatory, make it an aviation degree. The concept of making them get a degree to lessen the pilots serves no purpose, and it's not feasable when you consider the fact the more pilots there are, the more money transport canada makes. There has to be a legitimate reason to want a beer.

Head on down to Puerto Vallarta and I'll buy you a corona for 90 cents! See you there..