How much more $ do FO's need to make per year
05-27-2009, 08:55 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 517
I agree with not paying dependent on type of aircraft. A CRJ-200 flies just the same as a CRJ-900 as a 737. Perhaps T-props should be less than jets because they don't fly as high and fast? The only big difference should be a type that goes international (besides Canada and Mexico). Those flight requires very different training. Besides that, there's really no reason why one airplane should pay more than another.
05-27-2009, 09:58 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 673
Perhaps T-props should be less than jets because they don't fly as high and fast?
---q400 IS as big as a 737 (small version) so are we supposed to get paid less cause our front fan is unducted?
capt min 100 per hour and fo 50-75 per hour ANY airplane, the responsibility, weather, and mission, is the same for a 1900 to a 747.
---q400 IS as big as a 737 (small version) so are we supposed to get paid less cause our front fan is unducted?
capt min 100 per hour and fo 50-75 per hour ANY airplane, the responsibility, weather, and mission, is the same for a 1900 to a 747.
05-27-2009, 11:07 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: A320
Posts: 1,316
Where are you getting your percentages? I know it might hurt some captain's ego but I see it as a 51/49 relationship. The captain will have final say on that flight by that 1%. However, you're both relatively equal in duties and in responsibility of the final outcome of that flight. The way you put it makes it seem like the captain does all the work and the FO just sits around observing. (and yes, I did understand your sentiments)
05-27-2009, 11:37 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: RJ Captain
Posts: 1,181
Where are you getting your percentages? I know it might hurt some captain's ego but I see it as a 51/49 relationship. The captain will have final say on that flight by that 1%. However, you're both relatively equal in duties and in responsibility of the final outcome of that flight. The way you put it makes it seem like the captain does all the work and the FO just sits around observing. (and yes, I did understand your sentiments)
As far as the pay... As long as pilots are willing to show up for $19-22 an hour, thats what it will pay. Supply and demand. When pilots stop showing up for that amount they'll just lower the minimums, just like they did several years ago. Not too long ago pilots were paying $8000-12000 just to go to work at places like Comair, ASA, and Expressjet.
05-27-2009, 11:58 AM
#45
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
I agree with not paying dependent on type of aircraft. A CRJ-200 flies just the same as a CRJ-900 as a 737. Perhaps T-props should be less than jets because they don't fly as high and fast? The only big difference should be a type that goes international (besides Canada and Mexico). Those flight requires very different training. Besides that, there's really no reason why one airplane should pay more than another.
I completely DISAGREE with aircraft INdependent pay. Whether on land, at sea or by air, whether we haul pax or packages, the more more tonnes your ship moves, the more the company earns and the more the master is paid. Forget about the majors vs regionals crap. Pay should be based on either seats for the pax folks or max T.O. weight for box haulers.
For the pax world, post probation base pay:
$1 per seat per hour for an FO
$2 per seat per hour for CA
plus a small percentage (3-5%, inflation plus 2%, etc) per year for longevity
plus benefits
And change the regs to require an ATP to sit in either seat. The only way to increase pay, is to make fewer people qualified. And if one believes working a non-airline gig to get to ATP mins is beneath him, then too bad, so sad, tough ******, next case.
05-27-2009, 12:34 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 711
Tell that to the 10 year FOs who know the plane better than their new CA they're flying with.
Quit trying to make your ego bigger by staring at your epaulets.
You're making a generalization that every FO needs babysitting.
The whole 250 hr FO debate is for an entirely different thread and is quite the exception.
05-27-2009, 01:11 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: RJ Captain
Posts: 1,181
Tell that to the new hire FOs in the company who were placed in the Saab with more hours than their Saab Captains (18 month upgrades) next to them.
Tell that to the 10 year FOs who know the plane better than their new CA they're flying with.
Quit trying to make your ego bigger by staring at your epaulets.
You're making a generalization that every FO needs babysitting.
The whole 250 hr FO debate is for an entirely different thread and is quite the exception.
Tell that to the 10 year FOs who know the plane better than their new CA they're flying with.
Quit trying to make your ego bigger by staring at your epaulets.
You're making a generalization that every FO needs babysitting.
The whole 250 hr FO debate is for an entirely different thread and is quite the exception.
By the way, I'm not worried about my ego. I've been a captain since you were in high school. I'm nowhere near the best captain at my company,- nor the worst, many of the FO's I fly with probably could do a better job than I. I do know one thing however, I'm a better pilot than you.
05-27-2009, 01:21 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: I only fly multi-winged airplanes.
Posts: 321
Again...how much should FOs make???
Exactly what they are making. You cant say we are professionals...when a guy with 300 hours of experience is considered to be equal with a guy that has 1500 hours and actually learned a lot more as a long term instructor, or 135 single pilot freight hauler. You are rated by the FO who sets the lowest standard of qualifications. And since most airlines were taking pilots with 300-400 hours they werent really bringing a whole lot to the company. So yeah sure there may be be a guy with 2000 hours...but the airlines dont pay based on experience. So the pay is set to the lowest bidder which is always the lowest qualified people. I would hope they wouldnt pay a guy with 300 hours $40,000. He would not be worth it...and that is the honest truth. Now if all the most junior FOs were ATP or 135 qualified then I would say they are probably worth 24-27K a year. If a guy has a year of 135 experience he is definitely worth 35-40k a year.
05-27-2009, 03:25 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 711
You're the one making an assumption, the good pilots far outnumber the poor ones. However the 10-15% that aren't up to speed are the ones you worry about. The worst are the cocky ones that think some CRJ course they took at some college or flight school will make them a better pilot. I'm sure you've got it all figured out however with your vast experience in the industry -- from your previous post you completed CFI training just two years ago and started at Mesaba just last November. 7 months at an airline and 5 at most on line. I bet you think you're ready for that CRJ900 upgrade now -afterall it was the same checkride!
By the way, I'm not worried about my ego. I've been a captain since you were in high school. I'm nowhere near the best captain at my company,- nor the worst, many of the FO's I fly with probably could do a better job than I. I do know one thing however, I'm a better pilot than you.
By the way, I'm not worried about my ego. I've been a captain since you were in high school. I'm nowhere near the best captain at my company,- nor the worst, many of the FO's I fly with probably could do a better job than I. I do know one thing however, I'm a better pilot than you.
Your original post was pretty clear. You spoke in general of the CA/FO relationship and then you changed it in your post now by saying "the good pilots far outnumber the poor ones," and "many of the FO's I fly with probably could do a better job than I." If that's the case, you wouldn't had ever made your original post discrediting the FOs in the first place.
You spoke in general of FOs in your original post and now you're turning it against low-time FOs. So which one is it and which type of FO is more prevalent?
You're the one who said it, not me. Go check back what you wrote. I'm surprised you would get ticked at my simple lowly-FO opinion.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
