Both of you are right. It is a harsher world out there than I want it to be. I don't appreciate the way he phrased it, but he's not wrong.
But is it that way because it needs to be, or because it's always been done that way?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
Both of you are right. It is a harsher world out there than I want it to be. I don't appreciate the way he phrased it, but he's not wrong.
RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:02 amBoth of you are right. It is a harsher world out there than I want it to be. I don't appreciate the way he phrased it, but he's not wrong.
But is it that way because it needs to be, or because it's always been done that way?
Generally speaking, operators run with a certain number of crews based on variables unique to their operations, including number of aircraft, crew scheduling, flight schedules, charter operations, and a bunch of other factors. That number of crews is budgeted for not only in terms of their compensation, but also in terms of training costs associated. And don't forget, once you train someone, those training costs never go away as recurrent training is required every 6 or 12 months. So, if a company operates with say, 8 FOs and 8 rampies, you would essentially be unnecessarily doubling your training costs for something that is providing zero return on investment. For easy math, let's say it costs $10k for an initial per pilot, and $2.5k for a recurrent. If you promise to check each rampie out after 6 months but they don't actually have a position until 2 years in, you've just increased your training costs by $100,000 over that time frame for no reason. That's not chump change for any business, let alone your average small or medium airline with very tight margins.RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:40 am Why would it be a burden to place a newbie in a right seat in place of someone else for the odd pairing? You're still (or at least, could be) paying everyone the same, assuming a salaried position. There may be some labour strife over loggable hours, but that's the only concern I can envision.
Q: Why would it be a burden to place a newbie in a right seat in place of someone else for the odd pairing?RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:40 amOh, certainly I am naïve regarding the matter. I accept that. I've always been idealistic.shimmydampner wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:05 amYour idealism belies a naïveté about how an aviation business actually operates. Promising someone a flying seat after x number of months sounds great in theory, but what happens when that time comes and there is not a position available because the industry movement is stagnant and no one has moved on?RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:30 am It's more the "pilot in waiting" idea in general. While I don't have an issue with it per se, it's the uncertainty around it I abhor - The "6-24 month waiting time, depending on company demand" caveat. I don't think that practice is acceptable. Now if, on the other hand, the arrangement is "you will work a ramp for one year, after which you will copilot a King Air. If we think that's too much iron for you at that time, we'll put you in one of our Navajos.", it is an entirely fair arrangement in my view. Please understand that I am not arguing against pilots starting out by mopping floors and hauling drums. I am arguing for more certainty.
Why would it be a burden to place a newbie in a right seat in place of someone else for the odd pairing? You're still (or at least, could be) paying everyone the same, assuming a salaried position. There may be some labour strife over loggable hours, but that's the only concern I can envision. Is it that once you've made it to a right seat, you are now entitled to not perform ramp/dock/dispatch/following/whatever duties again? Because that sentiment smacks of hypocrisy, considering many of the comments in this thread.
I suppose these arrangements depend on there being "ramp boys" and "fly boys", and never the twain shall meet? I don't understand why those duties cannot be shared where there are insufficient flyable hours to allow for everyone who's paid their dues to actually fly.
The employment arrangements I am speaking out against fail to even define "what it takes". 12-24 months depending on company demand tells me that the boss's nephew is quite likely to land the seat I have been patiently awaiting while paying my dues.
Besides, either add something constructive, respond to my arguments in a civil manner, or shut up and stay out of the thread. Your dismissive and condescending attitude is contributing nothing.
True, I hadn't fully accounted for training costs. However, assuming those 10 rampies will eventually make it to the right seat, you're not so much increasing your training costs as you are front loading them. This wouldn't affect capital expenditures, but it would affect credit, interest payments, and/or cash-on-hand. Then I suppose we could assume that not all 10 rampies will stick around long enough - in which case, you have a valid point. I would assume though, that by guaranteeing a flying position, more of those rampies would stick around, and that too would skew the math further in favour of my argument.shimmydampner wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:11 amGenerally speaking, operators run with a certain number of crews based on variables unique to their operations, including number of aircraft, crew scheduling, flight schedules, charter operations, and a bunch of other factors. That number of crews is budgeted for not only in terms of their compensation, but also in terms of training costs associated. And don't forget, once you train someone, those training costs never go away as recurrent training is required every 6 or 12 months. So, if a company operates with say, 8 FOs and 8 rampies, you would essentially be unnecessarily doubling your training costs for something that is providing zero return on investment. For easy math, let's say it costs $10k for an initial per pilot, and $2.5k for a recurrent. If you promise to check each rampie out after 6 months but they don't actually have a position until 2 years in, you've just increased your training costs by $100,000 over that time frame for no reason. That's not chump change for any business, let alone your average small or medium airline with very tight margins.RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:40 am Why would it be a burden to place a newbie in a right seat in place of someone else for the odd pairing? You're still (or at least, could be) paying everyone the same, assuming a salaried position. There may be some labour strife over loggable hours, but that's the only concern I can envision.
Then there's the problem that you've already hinted at: you've got to do something to keep those people in the air at least occasionally. To do so, you have to take hours away from the people actually in that seat, hours that are pretty valuable at that stage in a career. Not only might that factor into how that person is compensated, but it also almost certainly factors in to their upgrade progression. Someone scooping 10 or 20 percent of your hours can have very real short term implications in a person's earning potential and career progression.
Flying jobs for all is a nice thought, but as has been pointed out, the reality of this business is not so warm and fuzzy.
I was unaware of this saying until now. Don't worry about me, I wouldn't be arguing such an unpopular opinion if I couldn't handle the backlash. I just found the comment to be condescending and unhelpful, and in general, representative of the attitude I am arguing against. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings