OT: Interesting Article on Pilot Demise

[ryanbatc]

Long read but very interesting

http://www.culturewars.com/2011/Pilots.htm

[johndetrick]

Having been an airline pilot for over twenty years, I found that article spot on. Because of a merger and being on the short end of the new integrated seniority list, I find my flying career effectively dead. Looking back on all the crap I had to put up with, I'm surprised I did it. It's a lot like being in a dysfunctional relationship. You don't see how bad it is until you get out of it. Don't get me wrong, I miss the flying. I miss grabbing a fist full of throttles and thundering down the runway. I miss the challenge of flying approaches down to minimums. I especially miss the view out the window. Now that I'm not flying professionally, my health has improved, I sleep better and my relationship with my family has greatly improved. One aspect of the article was especially accurate. I don't know one airline pilot friend of mine who would recommend the career to anyone, especially their children. I know that many of you reading this see the glamor of being an airline pilot and wish they could do it to escape the humdrum routine of their lives. It's not worth it.

[Bjoern]

"Kelleher’s belief was that if an airline treats its employees right, the employees will in turn treat the travelers right."

Yup.

[Deacon211]

Good on you. I only made it seven years in the airlines, post-mil. I wonder where the breaking point of the industry will be. As fun as flying is in the abstract, how many college graduates will be willing to take worse wages than a hairdresser in the (increasingly vain) hope that he will one day get to be a captain in the majors?

As to the quote, Kelleher is a good man, but was not above pushing the envelope a bit, which should not be surprising.

Safety is seldom good business...at least in the short term.

[JIMJAM]

Flew freight back in the early 90s.Vampire hours,slept on floors,conveyor belts.Ate out of vending machines.At one time I was drinking around 8 sodas along with a couple pots of coffee and about 4 goody powders a night.I saw alot of pilots get those dear John letters.Got a few myself.
I am not blaming my diabetes,3 back surgeries,sleep apnea and high blood pressure on it but it did not help.
I do not think the stereotypical "Captain can I get you coffee" chisel jawed Captain flying to exotic locations 3 days a week is typical.
There are some corporate pilots that have cush jobs but most the ones I knew were married to a beeper.At some rich guys whim they got calls 24/7 to be gone to any where,any time for how ever long.Holidays,Xmas,Thanksgiving,4th of July weekends.Forget it.
Still a popular phrase I heard alot and is still valid is "Its beats digging ditches."

[PRB]

Interesting read. I find the “tension” among airline and transport pilots, if that's the correct word, between ex-military and “others” a little fascinating. It seems like “common sense” that military pilots, with tons of hours flying complex combat aircraft, would be more desirable, or valuable, to an airline than pilots with only civilian experience. But, as with most conclusions derived from “common sense”, it turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete. After WW-II, the pilots who flew ATC and Ferry Command were very desirable, as they really did have the experience needed to fly air liners. But the “sexy” WW-II pilots, those who flew fighters and such, had much less experience flying in tightly controlled ATC environments, or flying multi-engine, or multi-crew. Read Don McVicar, after the war, when he started his company, he turned away many ex-Spitfire jocks looking for work. Not enough experience in this type of flying. And in 1936 or thereabout, when the US Army took over flying the mail, the result was not pretty, and the contracts were eventually given back to the civilian companies.

[JIMJAM]

The saying I heard often about civ vs mil trained pilots was that there was a reason why military pilots always had that ejection seat:icon_lol:.Most mil pilots did not have 1/2 as many hours TT but it was considered quality documented time.Now when it came to helis I got slammed.The cost even then was crazy just to get your commercial and you were going up against ex mil pilots where cost was not a issue.For insurance reasons few hired civ pilots.I got lucky and flew a pipeline patrol and made less than the guys who fueled the heli.
But yeah Ive heard some good heated fbo conversations betreen civ vs mil,prop vs jet,wing slingers vs fixed wing,Emery Riddlers vs everyone else.
Nothing changes.Same pecking order.

[ryanbatc]

I'm in air traffic and I love my job. I originally went to school to be a pilot but when things got tough after 9/11 (and my medical stuff) I switched to study ATC.

It's a great job I get paid to watch airplanes... I consider it the next best thing from my dream job of becoming a professional pilot.

We can definitely see the decrease of overall traffic at my facility though. Most of our planes are small GA and military - with the occasional regional jet mixed in. When I first started we had DC9's and Airbuses galore. Now replaced by RJ's....

Aviation used to be cool.

[trucker17]

Not only if the airline treat the pilot right, will he treat the passengers right....He is most likely to be more faithful to them......

[Deacon211]

Eh, in 25 years of flying, I've never gotten into or heard a strongly worded conversation about mil vs civ pilots. I think that's one of those things that gets exaggerated. Half the time I couldn't tell you what the background of the other guy in the cockpit was.

There are differences, but mil or civ is just way too simplistic. A military pilot comes from a known training pipeline, but there are a million ways to make a civilian pilot, some great, some not so much. The military pilot is subject to a kind of "up or out" training philosophy. A civilian pilot can buy himself a lot of proficiency if he has the cash.

On the other hand, a civ guy who flies for food at a commuter might get close to a thousand hours a year flying seven legs a day into some majorly congested airports. The mil fighter guy will be lucky to get a couple of hundred a year. The mil transport guy might fly more than the fighter guy, but he will probably fly longer legs with much of it spent on autopilot and much more of it spent not as the pilot in command, which is also true of the commuter guy.

On the third hand, the fighter guy will be flying the most high performance of the aircraft, mostly by hand and, after winging, always as the only guy with controls. He will also, by far, have the most experience in dynamically maneuvering an airplane. That's not a big deal unless you wind up upside down or in a nasty stall, which was enough of a factor in enough accidents to warrant the introduction of various "unusual attitudes" training courses to teach pilots who have never been upside down, that the plane still actually flies that way.

On the fourth hand, fighter guys have less experience in multi crew cockpits, though they actually have more experience than most people give them credit for since fighters almost never work alone. As for other facets of Crew Resource Management, mil guys may tend to be more rigid in the application of rules, civilians often have a greater ability to think outside the box. Despite people's kneejerk reaction to laud outside the box thinking, like almost any tool it can be used well or poorly.

Someone who can use differential thrust to fly the jet when the hydraulic lines are cut is using his noodle. Someone who routinely presses below instrument minimums to get to the gate on time is not.

The fact that one airline likes mil guys, or another likes transport guys, or a third likes civilians generally means the square root of jack. Delta, who historically liked Navy guys so much that the Delta uniform is actually the Navy SDBs with different buttons, has shown no substantially safer performance than United, who legend has it, preferred civilians. It has also shown no worse.

Personally, I'd have rather had a good civilian pilot in the seat next to me than a bad mil one any day, and vice versa.

JMO

[Obie311]

<snip>
Personally, I'd have rather had a good civilian pilot in the seat next to me than a bad mil one any day, and vice versa.
JMO
Very pertinent topic as it doesn't bode well for the future of airlines and potential pilots.

Excellent discussion and well thought out post on a very interesting and candid article. This is what sets this forum head and shoulders above the other FlightSim forums.

Obie

[Flyboy208]

Quite an interesting read indeed, and it makes me happy that I decided to take the Bush Flying route instead of the airlines .... Mike :salute:

[Victory103]

Quite an interesting read indeed, and it makes me happy that I decided to take the Bush Flying route instead of the airlines .... Mike :salute:

And while I will try to find a corporate gig.

[johndetrick]

I'm in management now.

[Bjoern]

From the mindset, I would probably be the perfect pilot. I don't want to marry, I don't want kids, I can do stuff at the oddest of hours... :icon_lol:


I already forgot, but did the mil vs civ issue described in the article also deal with the subbranch of the military the pilots come from?
While fighter jocks may have a hard time adapting to life in a commercial airline, the guys coming from the airlift branch would be perfect candidates as they have the closest kind of experience to commercial flying.




And in 1936 or thereabout, when the US Army took over flying the mail, the result was not pretty, and the contracts were eventually given back to the civilian companies.

Well, that was because the military pilots weren't trained in bad weather flying.





And while I will try to find a corporate gig.


I'm in management now.

Let's start an airline! :icon_lol:

[SkippyBing]

So in summary, someone doesn't like their job. If he whined less I may have listened to his point, but it seemed to be every one else is an a** and I'm awesome and know everything.