Quote from a vanished thread: “The trucking industry has better working conditions and better pay, therefore one must assume that driving truck is a better career and demands higher skills.”
Not necessarily! Neither air operators nor pilots set the pay levels. Neither trucking companies nor truckers set the pay levels. The MARKET sets the pay levels. It’s supply and demand. In a free market if there is a shortage of willing workers then pay and conditions improve; if there is a surplus of willing workers then pay and conditions tend to regress. This is not just first year economics but is probably learnt in the first week of any economics course.
Note that there is nothing to stop dissatisfied pilots from becoming truck drivers. Each individual is free to choose his lifestyle, according to the limits of the free market. If he is not happy then look at the options: he can move to another employer, he can improve his marketability by obtaining more skills, qualifications and experience or he can move to another occupation.
Pilots are not alone in this situation of poor pay and conditions for newbies. Newly qualified medical doctors, lawyers and accountants all have to pay their dues doing an internship or articles for peanuts. Experienced tradesmen put in years of serfdom called apprenticeship before reaping the rewards.
Do Canadian schools teach nothing about obtaining (and holding) a job, how markets operate and how to make oneself more marketable? Perhaps a one week course on basic economics should be included in the CPL requirements so that those who aspire to become professional pilots will know the basics of what they should have learnt at school.
I suspect that those who whine on here that the world owes them a certain (very comfortable) lifestyle at a certain (high) income in a certain (highly sought-after) location from day one are always going to be whining!
Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
One of these guys eh....whine? I think not...I have buddies who are all apprentices in the trades...who all make much more than an entry level pilot...so you can drop that agruement real fast...no body is owed anything...but paying a guy a honest wage for a honest days work with high resposibility seems fair to me...I made 18,000 dollars last year at my entry level second year job...no overtime...working 12 plus hours a day..every day....no word of a lie...needless to say I quit and the guy taking my place told me he didnt care how much he was making as long as he was flying...and I think the aviation industry should be more like the trades....if a company is short a apprentice plumber...hey guess what they hire a apprentice plumber!...and send him to school whiles hes working!!! The aviation industry should be very much the same...that way we dont have a million stary eyed dreamers lined up to work for peanuts....and learning the "ropes"... ya I could roll a 45 just fine...I tossed bales of hay many summers before you taught me to roll 45's but thanks for the experience...ill go back to tossing hay bales...and actuallly get paid a decent wage so I can have a life after work...pathetic...
-
flying4dollars
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
Carrier wrote:Quote from a vanished thread: “The trucking industry has better working conditions and better pay, therefore one must assume that driving truck is a better career and demands higher skills.”
Not necessarily! Neither air operators nor pilots set the pay levels. Neither trucking companies nor truckers set the pay levels. The MARKET sets the pay levels. It’s supply and demand. In a free market if there is a shortage of willing workers then pay and conditions improve; if there is a surplus of willing workers then pay and conditions tend to regress. This is not just first year economics but is probably learnt in the first week of any economics course.
Note that there is nothing to stop dissatisfied pilots from becoming truck drivers. Each individual is free to choose his lifestyle, according to the limits of the free market. If he is not happy then look at the options: he can move to another employer, he can improve his marketability by obtaining more skills, qualifications and experience or he can move to another occupation.
Pilots are not alone in this situation of poor pay and conditions for newbies. Newly qualified medical doctors, lawyers and accountants all have to pay their dues doing an internship or articles for peanuts. Experienced tradesmen put in years of serfdom called apprenticeship before reaping the rewards.
Do Canadian schools teach nothing about obtaining (and holding) a job, how markets operate and how to make oneself more marketable? Perhaps a one week course on basic economics should be included in the CPL requirements so that those who aspire to become professional pilots will know the basics of what they should have learnt at school.
I suspect that those who whine on here that the world owes them a certain (very comfortable) lifestyle at a certain (high) income in a certain (highly sought-after) location from day one are always going to be whining!
lol...funny guy...
-
crazy_aviator
- Rank 8
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
As long as there are pilots willing to get their licences and then work for peanuts, there always will be employers handing out peanuts . Wake up Pilots , its not their fault its YOUR fault !!!!
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
I agree!Carrier wrote:Quote from a vanished thread: “The trucking industry has better working conditions and better pay, therefore one must assume that driving truck is a better career and demands higher skills.”
Not necessarily! Neither air operators nor pilots set the pay levels. Neither trucking companies nor truckers set the pay levels. The MARKET sets the pay levels. It’s supply and demand. In a free market if there is a shortage of willing workers then pay and conditions improve; if there is a surplus of willing workers then pay and conditions tend to regress. This is not just first year economics but is probably learnt in the first week of any economics course.
Note that there is nothing to stop dissatisfied pilots from becoming truck drivers. Each individual is free to choose his lifestyle, according to the limits of the free market. If he is not happy then look at the options: he can move to another employer, he can improve his marketability by obtaining more skills, qualifications and experience or he can move to another occupation.
Pilots are not alone in this situation of poor pay and conditions for newbies. Newly qualified medical doctors, lawyers and accountants all have to pay their dues doing an internship or articles for peanuts. Experienced tradesmen put in years of serfdom called apprenticeship before reaping the rewards.
Do Canadian schools teach nothing about obtaining (and holding) a job, how markets operate and how to make oneself more marketable? Perhaps a one week course on basic economics should be included in the CPL requirements so that those who aspire to become professional pilots will know the basics of what they should have learnt at school.
I suspect that those who whine on here that the world owes them a certain (very comfortable) lifestyle at a certain (high) income in a certain (highly sought-after) location from day one are always going to be whining!
-
Northern Guy
- Rank 2
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:34 am
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
edited...
Last edited by padre12 on Tue May 19, 2009 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
I mentioned above that newbies in other occupations have to pay their dues. Typically lawyers, doctors and accountants do a couple of years of internship or articles, working for peanuts, often as a gopher for an experienced mentor. Pilots should expect no difference. For their first couple of years as professional pilots they should expect low pay while they polish their skills and knowledge and in particular obtain the experience that cannot be bought or taught. Assuming they do about 700 to 800 hours flying per annum they can expect this during their first 1500 hours or so.
What should really concern pilots is the continuing poor pay and conditions for more experienced pilots. Those with 3000 to 4000 hours or more have paid their dues and should receive a liveable income with reasonable working conditions, just as doctors, accountants and lawyers do after their first couple of years on the job. Instead they are treated with disdain by most smaller air operators, who are unable to accept that there are many pilots who do not want to work for the majors as a career, and by the majors during their first few years there. Following is a post that I put on another thread back in January:
“Many people on this forum seem to think that every person who chooses to become a professional pilot intends to fly for a major airline and merely uses all other air operators as stepping stones. Not so! Since the “white collar” pilot jobs (airline and corporate) make up only 15% of the total Canadian professional pilot market it is obvious that most professional pilots will not become “airline” pilots. Apart from this there are many pilots who entered the occupation with the goal of eventually finding a decent permanent non-airline pilot job. They do not want perpetual inter-continental travel and living in hotels. These jobs are few and far between because of the almost antagonistic attitude of smaller operators towards pilots. Such operators have a high turnover of pilots because they are useful only as stepping stones- while holding one’s nose.
“A lucky few pilots find permanent jobs with the very few decent float operators, fire fighting or the few decent charter and medevac operators. The rest have to put up with poor pay, endless BS, operators who ignore the terms and conditions of employment, safety lapses and Chief Pilots who are either inexperienced and got the job because nobody else was qualified or who are bitter and twisted because they failed to make it to a major airline and have had to settle for something that they consider to be less desirable.
“These smaller operators, including commuter operations, could obtain staff stability and cut their costs if they set out to attract AND RETAIN older, more mature and more responsible pilots. Their recruiting and training costs would drop and so would their operating costs because they would have people who were there for the long term and who looked after the equipment. There are many such pilots available. Pay them properly and treat them properly instead of having the attitude that pilots are a dime a dozen and can be treated with contempt.”
Both pilots and management are at fault for the high employee turnover, poor pay, poor working conditions and resulting higher recruiting, training and operating costs. As mentioned above the market sets the rates and as long as there are both pilots and employers who are prepared to accept the downsides then the problems will continue.
What should really concern pilots is the continuing poor pay and conditions for more experienced pilots. Those with 3000 to 4000 hours or more have paid their dues and should receive a liveable income with reasonable working conditions, just as doctors, accountants and lawyers do after their first couple of years on the job. Instead they are treated with disdain by most smaller air operators, who are unable to accept that there are many pilots who do not want to work for the majors as a career, and by the majors during their first few years there. Following is a post that I put on another thread back in January:
“Many people on this forum seem to think that every person who chooses to become a professional pilot intends to fly for a major airline and merely uses all other air operators as stepping stones. Not so! Since the “white collar” pilot jobs (airline and corporate) make up only 15% of the total Canadian professional pilot market it is obvious that most professional pilots will not become “airline” pilots. Apart from this there are many pilots who entered the occupation with the goal of eventually finding a decent permanent non-airline pilot job. They do not want perpetual inter-continental travel and living in hotels. These jobs are few and far between because of the almost antagonistic attitude of smaller operators towards pilots. Such operators have a high turnover of pilots because they are useful only as stepping stones- while holding one’s nose.
“A lucky few pilots find permanent jobs with the very few decent float operators, fire fighting or the few decent charter and medevac operators. The rest have to put up with poor pay, endless BS, operators who ignore the terms and conditions of employment, safety lapses and Chief Pilots who are either inexperienced and got the job because nobody else was qualified or who are bitter and twisted because they failed to make it to a major airline and have had to settle for something that they consider to be less desirable.
“These smaller operators, including commuter operations, could obtain staff stability and cut their costs if they set out to attract AND RETAIN older, more mature and more responsible pilots. Their recruiting and training costs would drop and so would their operating costs because they would have people who were there for the long term and who looked after the equipment. There are many such pilots available. Pay them properly and treat them properly instead of having the attitude that pilots are a dime a dozen and can be treated with contempt.”
Both pilots and management are at fault for the high employee turnover, poor pay, poor working conditions and resulting higher recruiting, training and operating costs. As mentioned above the market sets the rates and as long as there are both pilots and employers who are prepared to accept the downsides then the problems will continue.
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
Great post, when does your class begin? 
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
What you're suggesting is the European Method which seems to work quite well.karl08 wrote:One of these guys eh....whine? I think not...I have buddies who are all apprentices in the trades...who all make much more than an entry level pilot...so you can drop that agruement real fast...no body is owed anything...but paying a guy a honest wage for a honest days work with high resposibility seems fair to me...I made 18,000 dollars last year at my entry level second year job...no overtime...working 12 plus hours a day..every day....no word of a lie...needless to say I quit and the guy taking my place told me he didnt care how much he was making as long as he was flying...and I think the aviation industry should be more like the trades....if a company is short a apprentice plumber...hey guess what they hire a apprentice plumber!...and send him to school whiles hes working!!! The aviation industry should be very much the same...that way we dont have a million stary eyed dreamers lined up to work for peanuts....and learning the "ropes"... ya I could roll a 45 just fine...I tossed bales of hay many summers before you taught me to roll 45's but thanks for the experience...ill go back to tossing hay bales...and actuallly get paid a decent wage so I can have a life after work...pathetic...
Those apprentice plumbers you speak of are 200 hour A320 first officers.
-
I Я Instructor
- Rank 2
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:16 pm
Re: Should Economics be included in CPL requirements?
Anyone keeping track how often this topic comes up?
