Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

BALPA video on the future or airline pilot jobs

This is from EC on forecasted airlines traffic, while not directly related to the state of the airlines job market, it still give some clues on the timelines under various scenarios, also the data is granular by country,

https://www.eurocontrol.int/covid19

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Given 6 months ago the forecast was -20% and now it’s -50%, I think it’s safe to say someone is probably being paid a lot of money to produce forecasts that will almost certainly be totally wrong.

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK

As long as I can remember from commercial airline “pilots talk” there have always been a constant oversupply/under-supply of pilots. Oversupply one year, undersupply the next. They have been crying “wolf” and the opposite (sheep ? ) all the time for as long as I can remember. The situation with Covid is new and special, but it doesn’t stop Wizz Air from continuing on the exact same path to destruction of the airline industry, exactly as before this Covid situation. Pilots losing their jobs en mass is bad, but the airline industry is not making the situation better.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Charlie wrote:

The widebody pay is often justified on the basis that the pilot has more responsibility because more lives are at risk. However if you think about it, over a (say) 8 hour period, a narrowbody pilot is likely to carry more passengers plus has to do a higher number of “risky” manoeuvres (such as takeoff, approach and landing) than widebody ones – who generally do one of each in any 24 hour period.

I never understood such “responsibility” arguments. (Not just in this case.) What does the pilot sacrifice in order to take on this additional responsibility that would warrant extra pay?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

If an aircraft with a very large number of people on board crashes, it creates proportionately more legal and financial issues for the airline (and that is the increased crew responsibility). Therefore the airline has a proportionately higher preference that the larger plane doesn’t crash, and on that plane they use proportionately more trusted pilots who get proportionately higher pay. The higher pay for more trustworthy and competent pilots prevents them being hired by other airlines who would like every one of their planes flown by a crew less likely to crash, if they could do it at only slightly increased cost.

What the experienced and trusted pilot would sacrifice if not paid more by his own airline is the opportunity to make more money working for another airline.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 07 Nov 20:00

Silvaire wrote:

The higher pay for more trustworthy and competent pilots prevents them being hired by other airlines who would like every one of their planes flown by a crew less likely to crash, if they could do it at only slightly increased cost.

Indeed – but that doesn’t mean that pilots are paid more because of any greater “responsibility” compared to other pilots. It simply means that they are paid more because they have competences which are in shorter supply.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Indeed – but that doesn’t mean that pilots are paid more because of any greater “responsibility” compared to other pilots. It simply means that they are paid more because they have competences which are in shorter supply.

There was once, and probably still is, a thread on Vans Air Force about the ability of an average RV pilot to take on the job as a fighter pilot. The idea was that an RV pilot had lots of hours, the RVs are “fighter like”, aerobatic, and therefore an RV pilot should be able to quickly get up to speed in a fighter.

The idea was completely debunked by all the retired fighter pilots there. It had more to do with discipline and age rather than flying abilities. Young pilots are expected to perform constantly at 100%, learn super fast, and at the same time accept everything thrown at them. Once you are passed 30, you have lost the ability to learn as fast as needed, and certainly lost the ability to accept everything thrown at you (if you even had it to start with). The value of “old” fighter pilots is their experience and their ability to teach and mentor the younger ones. An RV pilot was therefore way to old to learn and adapt, and had nothing to teach and had no experience, and was therefore 100% worthless, even if he/she should happen to fly the plane better than the average fighter pilot. He could very well be a better pilot, but that ability alone was irrelevant.

Experience itself is a competence, but only the right experience counts. That experience can directly be translated to the ability (not willingness) to take on the right responsibility. The fact of the matter is that airliners are (still) willing to pay for that ability. They do this to reduce risk and other nuisances. If the 747 pilots actually has greater responsibility than other pilots is irrelevant, just like the RV pilots flying abilities is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ability to do it.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Airborne_Again wrote:

Indeed – but that doesn’t mean that pilots are paid more because of any greater “responsibility” compared to other pilots. It simply means that they are paid more because they have competences which are in shorter supply.

The competence and responsibility are not really separable IMHO. It is the ability to physically do the job, yes, but also the successful management of greater financial responsibility in doing that job that earns the pay. The plane is not harder to fly, but the airline has a lot to lose with 300 passengers on board: more passenger lives have more value and the plane is also worth more, that’s why the airline is willing to pay higher market rate to the guy who has already proven he can manage the risk and not screw up in a way that wastes their money or reputation, potentially in a single catastrophic event involving 300 passengers. The additional competence in this case is the demonstrated ability to manage greater responsibility without law suits or bent metal.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 08 Nov 03:44

Yes but that argument doesn’t stack up. A short haul pilot carries more people in a 24 hour period so on that basis they should be paid more!

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK

The airlines risk is of a single, expensive incident with a given pilot. A short haul pilot doesn’t crash multiple aircraft in 24 hours. Very likely any airline pilot crashes maximum of once, at least within the employment of a given airline, and piloting a smaller plane with less passengers therefore exposes the airline to less risk.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 08 Nov 16:13
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top