Amazing how nobody seems to remember the 'Tier 1' and 'Tier 2' thing from a couple decades back. The senior pilots already hired on the 'Tier 1' pay scale, did indeed allow the airlines to institute a 'Tier 2' where all new hires were brought in at a lower scale, and kept on that lower scale, forever. Eventually all the Tier 1 guys retired out of the system, and everybody left in the 'senior' positions, are those that came in on the Tier 2 scale.whipline wrote: From what you just wrote are you trying to say that the pilot group will screw over the new hires to get better wages for the more senior pilots? If so thats your own pilots doing the screwing, not the company and certainly not the "kids."
25 years ago, a senior heavy captain on the Tier 1 pay scale, made more dollars than the equivalent position pays today, and that captain was paid in 1982 dollars, each of which bought a heck of a lot more than a dollar buys today. Everybody on here want's to make a big deal about this, but, they do indeed miss the important points invovled, that captain 25 years ago had a LOT more responsibility than the equivalent captain today.
Some examples:-
The old guy used to take off from YVR headed to europe, in an airplane that was already fuel critical at takeoff, required step climbs to even get the range required, and did so navigating with an adf, a compass and a sextant. As often as not, they had little/no real weather reports from the enroute areas over the polar areas. Today, the airplanes have plenty of fuel capacity for the intended route, have precise wind reports from the route, and airplanes that can tell the crew a precise position to within a few feet at any point along the route.
The old guy would hand bomb a 707 down an ndb approach into iceland on the way, so the airplane could have a drink. This would often happen after the airplane had been hand bombed for a few hours at altitude, because the autopilot wasnt functional, or, wasn't holding it's altitude very well, not due to poor maintanence etc, but simply because the equipment was not actually up to the job, it was old vaccuum tube junk. Once that airplane started the descent out of the flight levels, it was committed, there wasn't enough gas to do another climb and continue. Today, that same trip is done in rvsm airspace much of the way, and the crew is not even permitted to hand bomb it across the pond, a very precise autopilot is a no-go mel item. Engines have become more fuel efficient, so, the concept of a committed approach due to fuel just doesn't exist anymore, technology improvements have allowed us to regulate those out of existence, and with that, went the mind boggling decisions made by the old senior captain to actually start the descent, knowing full well that no matter what they found at low altitude, the airplane was committed to a landing.
The job has changed over the years. Technology advances have, and continue to, marginalize the role of the pilot in transport aircraft operations. The pay scale reflects this. In the 70's and 80's, airlines paid up to get experience into the cockpit. Today, they pay up to get technology into the airframes. In that model, something has to give, and, the pay scale for the flight crews is what is giving. It's cheaper and safer to invest the money up front into technology in the cockpit, but, that leaves less in the kitty for putting wages in the cockpit.
Is this a bad thing, well, that depends entirely on your perspective. As a pilot, it sure looks bad, because there's limited potential for wage increases as aircraft develop. As a passenger, it's a huge improvement, just look at the accident statistics over the years. ILS replaced the NDB approach. Then TCAS started to replace the pilots eyeballs. First INS, and now GPS, have replaced the navigator. Computer components have replaced the second officer, computers do a much better job of managing functions that used to be the domain of the sideways seat. After you sweep aside a lot of the touchy feely crap, the hard bottom line is, technology makes the airplanes safer for the travelling public. The meat and potatoes of the zero/zero autoland lives in the avionics bay, not in the two front seats.
For those who really think pilot associations or unions are the answer, take a good long look at history. The navigator went the way of the do-do bird before associations and unions were the norm in the industry. The unions were willing to sacrifice the sideways seat to technology, to protect the pay scale of those in the front seats. The unions willingly bought into the 2 tier pay structure to protect the incomes of those already on tier 1.
The role of the pilot is being marginalized by technology, and will continue to go farther and farther in that direction. If you dont believe that, google a bit on UAV, and look just what applications are already running with no pilots on board at all. The union is a democratic thing, so, when a new tier comes into vote, the majority of members already in the top tier, will vote for the status quo on tier 1, at the expense of the folks at tier 2. We've seen this already in history. This is actually why they are called 'associations', and not really 'unions', because an association will sacrifice the new kids for the benefit of the old members, a union typically will not.
There is NO shortage of pilots out there, we all know this. There's still multiple applications on file, for every opening that comes up. What there is starting to be, is a shortage of folks that'll work cheap. This you can see in the job adds, but, every one of those adds is still finding a willing employee, just as soon as the wage gets up to a liveable wage. But it does the industry good to have headlines these days, shortage of qualified pilots, note the world 'qualified'.
The current generation of new birds coiming from the big manufacturers are being certified under the old set of rules, but, the industry is now prepping for the next major hurdle. While you dont see it yet in the 787, it's successor will indeed inherit all of the technology found in the UAV programs currently used to deliver weapons into hostile airspace. I expect the 797 cockpit will have only one seat, and, the second pilot will be on the other end of a data link, firmly parked in an office complex somewhere. That pilot can be the 'second' for a dozen or so flights at the same time, and the public WILL buy into it on the grounds this system will indeed prevent another 9/11.
When that day comes, and the first transport aircraft is certified for single crew ops, with data links to the ground for the 'second set of eyes', the pilots associations will indeed sacrifice the right seat, to protect the wages of the guys in the left seat. History shows us this, they have done it before, and will do it again. Part of that sacrifice is being realistic, they KNOW the job is being replaced by more efficient technology.
This industry is only two generations away from the old 'and then there were none...' swan song, and it's 2 generations of aircraft technology, not 2 generations of the folks driving it. Whatever numbers boeing and airbus choose to put on the generation that comes after what's currently nearing certification, one thing you can bet on, the cockpit will have 2 seats, but, certification will be done with one of them empty.
That being said I still thought you were a bit harsh on the rampies, as you said. That was it, That's all. Although I am glad to hear you are doing your part to weed out the guys who do work for the aforementioned slum companies and for that i say kudos to you! 
Now I sit back and hope I didn't miss read this post too!!
