The new airline thread

[nunya]

I like how you use 300k as your example on which to base your math. Of course if you low ball it or use new hires, your math looks right.

300k is an 82 hour monthly average for a WB FO or 69 hour monthly average for a NB CA. 82 hours is hardly hustling or playing the games and 69 hours is coasting (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

But man, you do you and keep training those financially illiterate pilots.

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, nunya said:

I like how you use 300k as your example on which to base your math. Of course if you low ball it or use new hires, your math looks right.

300k is an 82 hour monthly average for a WB FO or 69 hour monthly average for a NB CA. 82 hours is hardly hustling or playing the games and 69 hours is coasting (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

But man, you do you and keep training those financially illiterate pilots.

Irrelevant. Your argument is still that highly unreliable profit sharing is a basis for not contributing. But profit sharing has only been high enough to make your point remotely relevant for a few years of the past 20 years, and only at Delta, only after the most recent contract pay rates, only for captains, and only with record level profits. I looked it up, Delta only got 10.3% this year. So a captain making 600k (which is not all qualifying income anyways) is *still* not going to max the 401k. So what is your point?

 

Ignore the profit sharing and you are at the simple math of the Compensation limit.

 

Your point is dumb. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to characterize what you wrote.

Edited May 4 by Lord Ratner

[brabus]

Meh, the 401k is going to be taxed at a 96.9% rate by the time I retire. Might as well spend more money now on shit that is way more useful and life enriching - not stressing over not quite making a max. Dying with millions in the bank isn’t my jam…but leaving 5 airplanes and an undisclosed amount of guns and knives to my kids is!

[AirGuardianC141747]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Meh, the 401k is going to be taxed at a 96.9% rate by the time I retire. Might as well spend more money now on shit that is way more useful and life enriching - not stressing over not quite making a max. Dying with millions in the bank isn’t my jam…but leaving 5 airplanes and an undisclosed amount of guns and knives to my kids is!

^^^^^THIS^^^^^
Although I will say you might need a few lump sums of cash laying around to keep those airplanes going or at least have your kids enrolled in and A&P program, have a sheet metal shop/hangar and extremely large 3D printer. A refinery next to your bunker wouldn’t be a bad idea as well. The other hand me downs are low cost upkeep aside from how and what you feed them 😉

Edited May 4 by AirGuardianC141747

[FourFans]

5 hours ago, brabus said:

Meh, the 401k is going to be taxed at a 96.9% rate by the time I retire. Might as well spend more money now on shit that is way more useful and life enriching - not stressing over not quite making a max. Dying with millions in the bank isn’t my jam…but leaving 5 airplanes and an undisclosed amount of guns and knives to my kids is!

quoted for posterity.  Immensely.   Maybe not FIVE airplanes....but yes.  

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, brabus said:

Meh, the 401k is going to be taxed at a 96.9% rate by the time I retire.

I wish I didn't agree with you

[brabus]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

quoted for posterity.  Immensely.   Maybe not FIVE airplanes....but yes.  

Have to have goals!

 

[SocialD]

21 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I have always wanted to get the statistics on how many airline pilots make zero contributions, and just rely on what the company puts in. Seems crazy to me, but at this point I bet it's at it's at least half.

 

 

We'd have to see the entire picture and understand their motives.  I also put nothing in my 401k because the company is funding it at a pretty substantial rate.  However, I have multiple other income streams and don't have the expectation that I shouldn't have to fund any of my own retirement. 

[Springer]

On 5/3/2024 at 1:59 AM, SocialD said:

 

The status quo is 65, so the onus on data for such a change is on the pro change crowd.  I was talking with my aircraft insurance broker yesterday and they said insurance premiums skyrocket in your mid to late 60s.  Not sure what data they're using.  

 

 

I have heard the same but has not happened in my case.  Renewed last week and it went up an additional $150 for my acro taildragger.  I turn 75 next month.

When the age went from 60 to 65 never dreamed most would go to 65 let alone 67.  Having said that I left at 59 and have never looked back.  If you are not flying international, I can't imagine what a layover is like in our crappy cities today.

 

[AirGuardianC141747]

6 hours ago, Springer said:

If you are not flying international, I can't imagine what a layover is like in our crappy cities today.

 

Probably a gem here and there very sporadically, but revisiting them multiple times a year or every other month or worse every month is just a job and nothing more. Definitely crappier now than ever before. Several of my friends do enjoy international runs at the majors, but after a few years of the same runs a few times a month based on pure tourist traps as these rarely change they get burned out as well. Even if I do revisit several cities abroad every other month, many are soooo much cleaner, safer and interesting. Hopping off the standard path to places like Bangkok, Hanoi, Auckland, Nuremberg, Nagoya, Santiago etc., etc., etc., makes it worthwhile. Always better to do it on someone else’s dollar plus more. Doubt I will travel too much beyond 65 - probably need a hover round no doubt so I’m out.

[Orbit]

Senators need maximum term limits.  

[SocialD]

21 hours ago, Springer said:

I have heard the same but has not happened in my case.  Renewed last week and it went up an additional $150 for my acro taildragger.  I turn 75 next month.

 

 

Glad to hear!  Just going off what my broker shared and what some of the locals at my airport are seeing.  The broker said they just had to tell one of their long time customers  that he's probably better off just self insuring at this point.  He's 70 with no accidents.  Hope yours continues to stay reasonable. 

 

 

21 hours ago, Springer said:

When the age went from 60 to 65 never dreamed most would go to 65 let alone 67.  Having said that I left at 59 and have never looked back.  If you are not flying international, I can't imagine what a layover is like in our crappy cities today.

 

 

 

I flew international before, but was displaced during rona.  Chose 717 FO for seniority.  Opted to stay on the 717 and upgrade rather than reinstate to the 330.  I found that one time zone was way better for me than doing international.  But I also live local and can often snag day turns where TAFB is less than pay.  My last two day trips I was back in my house before 1300.  To me, a layover is a layover...all I need is enough time for a quick run, maybe a beer and 8 hours of sleep, though I prefer to never layover if at all possible.  Most of my domestic cities aren't any worse or better than the same 6-9 places I went international.  AMS got boring after the 69th time I was there, nevermind I was constantly walking around with a headache.  I think I could fly longer do this over ocean crossings all the time. 

Edited May 5 by SocialD

[O Face]

On 5/4/2024 at 5:57 PM, Springer said:

 I can't imagine what a layover is like in our crappy cities today.

 

Dude, it’s so bad. Areas I used to go for a pleasant run in, on layovers just a few short years ago, have turned into absolute unrecognizable cesspools. It has done wonders for my mile time, however, as I’m running for my fuckin life. 

Edited May 6 by O Face
.

[disgruntledemployee]

To Nunya's point, profit sharing pays out early in the year, allowing one to adjust contributions to max out the 401K using more company funds.

To Dear Lord's point, the income limit is a player.  My union produces an excel to help with maths as there are competing limits. 

To the masses, there are two (or more) ways. Set a 401k contribution to max your personal limit and let the rest play out for the rest of your flying days and thus have more time drinking beer, or geek it up and play with maths every day of the year.  NERDS!!!!

[Springer]

20 hours ago, SocialD said:

Glad to hear!  Just going off what my broker shared and what some of the locals at my airport are seeing.  The broker said they just had to tell one of their long time customers  that he's probably better off just self insuring at this point.  He's 70 with no accidents.  Hope yours continues to stay reasonable. 

I flew international before, but was displaced during rona.  Chose 717 FO for seniority.  Opted to stay on the 717 and upgrade rather than reinstate to the 330.  I found that one time zone was way better for me than doing international.  But I also live local and can often snag day turns where TAFB is less than pay.  My last two day trips I was back in my house before 1300.  To me, a layover is a layover...all I need is enough time for a quick run, maybe a beer and 8 hours of sleep, though I prefer to never layover if at all possible.  Most of my domestic cities aren't any worse or better than the same 6-9 places I went international.  AMS got boring after the 69th time I was there, nevermind I was constantly walking around with a headache.  I think I could fly longer do this over ocean crossings all the time. 

Thanks, I use a broker as well but has kept me with the same company the last 9 years.  I'll go self insure (cept liability) if need be.  Did it with an experiemental I had a hundred years ago when the airlines paid nothing and were going to crap.

Same airline (NERD guy).  All changed when the airline did away with long downtown layovers during BK.  I remember leaving MSP for one of those in SFO (when it was great) and looking at my FO saying, "This is no longer fun."  I really feel for all you flying domestic.  Always had one long layover and took my wife-to-be on many.  We did it on the airline's dime and had fun.  Still travel in retirement to Europe for the ambiance we can't find in the US but stay away from crowds and tourist.  No kids so we can blow the wad. 

Seems like I spent a quarter of my life in AMS. Hated it....slept when I got in (no augmentation back then), cocktails at 5, dinner at 6, in bed by 9, wide awake at 1am.  Don't even nonrev thru there if I can help it.

[O Face]

3 hours ago, Springer said:

No kids so we can blow the wad. 

That all checks, but thought I should point out, that’s how you make kids. 

[AirGuardianC141747]

12 hours ago, Springer said: 

Seems like I spent a quarter of my life in AMS. Hated it....slept when I got in (no augmentation back then), cocktails at 5, dinner at 6, in bed by 9, wide awake at 1am.  Don't even nonrev thru there if I can help it.

Doesn’t matter where you go that would be terrible; no way to spend time in a decent place. Granted, if you’re stuck doing the same rotations or only have five or so to choose from internationally that gets a bit ground hog day no doubt. Even with an augmented crew these days the pax folks don’t seem to get much wandering time as well.
 

*My roommate used to nonrev to Europe for a long weekend during college with an upgrade or something to that effect since his father was an airline guy early 90s - that was cool…Totally agree on the nonrev to anywhere for that matter - nothing like it used to be.

[Sua Sponte]

Friend of mine is a 320 CA for Spirit. His wife is a FA for DAL and he applied to DAL recently for more stability (e.g., lack of merger talk like Spirit) and longevity. He didn’t get hired and was told he would’ve probably never have upgraded to CA since DAL has hired so many pilots recently. They also didn’t hire another senior CA at Spirit who applied with him.

After he was walked out he was told “Hey man, I can’t give you any feedback, but you're welcome to apply again in 90 days. However, the dynamic around here is rapidly changing and I’m not sure what it’s going to even look like by then.”

Maybe they saved him by not hiring him?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Friend of mine is a 320 CA for Spirit. His wife is a FA for DAL and he applied to DAL recently for more stability (e.g., lack of merger talk like Spirit) and longevity. He didn’t get hired and was told he would’ve probably never have upgraded to CA since DAL has hired so many pilots recently. They also didn’t hire another senior CA at Spirit who applied with him.

After he was walked out he was told “Hey man, I can’t give you any feedback, but you're welcome to apply again in 90 days. However, the dynamic around here is rapidly changing and I’m not sure what it’s going to even look like by then.”

Maybe they saved him by not hiring him?

I think the pilots hired today are going to be furloughed. I don't think it's going to be a 12-year furlough like the last ones during the bankruptcies and mergers, but still.

 

That said, it is 100% better to be furloughed than not hired at all. Any airline. If you are furloughed you can do anything you want, non-flying and the airline will eventually bring you back and retrain you. Staying current is irrelevant. Then once you are recurrent you can go get hired wherever you want to apply to, and you are a much more desirable candidate.

 

Not being hired at all means you have to stay current *and* compete with the backlog of aspiring airline pilots when the interviews start again.

 

Remember these people are fools. They were convinced air travel would *never* recover from COVID-19, then they started talking about "winning" the pandemic recovery. Then they furloughed (at AA). Then they announced the biggest hiring wave in airline history. Now they are all cutting hiring projections, if not outright halting it. These clowns just blow with the wind, and so do our careers.

[brabus]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think the pilots hired today are going to be furloughed.

Depends on the company. Covid proved the legacies are too big to fail. Just like banks in 2008. Not saying there won’t be turbulence, but legacy guys are a lot safer than (U)LCC guys. Just don’t think we’re going to see a AAL/DAL merger or something along those lines. 

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

Depends on the company. Covid proved the legacies are too big to fail. Just like banks in 2008. Not saying there won’t be turbulence, but legacy guys are a lot safer than (U)LCC guys. Just don’t think we’re going to see a AAL/DAL merger or something along those lines. 

Oh I don't think the companies are going anywhere, but furloughs are about saving money. It'll be simple math for the airlines: if the passenger traffic falls, they will cut pilots to maintain the same productivity levels.

 

There won't be another "employee bailout" because the government is still dealing with the incredible waste and fraud from the PPP loans.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

[SocialD]

Looks like they voted to not allow any amendments to the FAA authorization bill, so it's done for now. 

 

18 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Remember these people are fools. They were convinced air travel would *never* recover from COVID-19, then they started talking about "winning" the pandemic recovery. Then they furloughed (at AA). Then they announced the biggest hiring wave in airline history. Now they are all cutting hiring projections, if not outright halting it. These clowns just blow with the wind, and so do our careers.

 

Lol, I remember someone in DAL leadership saying we were now going to be a boutique airline of about 7,000 pilots.  Last I checked, we're over 17,000.  Obviously uncle sugar bailing us out helped that, but it's just more proof they really don't have a clue about how it will all end up.  I certainly wouldn't expect the government to save us like they did during CV19.  Take out all the Boeing/Airbus issues and I doubt we're stopping hiring like we're seeing right now.  On the plus side, it sounds like age 67 is dead for now, so that will certainly soften the blow of any furloughs.  As always, make sure you're in a seat that you're willing to be stagnated in for quite a while.  Doors can close anytime. 

[Polar Bear]

On 5/8/2024 at 10:54 AM, Lord Ratner said:

I think the pilots hired today are going to be furloughed. I don't think it's going to be a 12-year furlough like the last ones during the bankruptcies and mergers, but still.

 

That said, it is 100% better to be furloughed than not hired at all. Any airline. If you are furloughed you can do anything you want, non-flying and the airline will eventually bring you back and retrain you. Staying current is irrelevant. Then once you are recurrent you can go get hired wherever you want to apply to, and you are a much more desirable candidate.

 

Not being hired at all means you have to stay current *and* compete with the backlog of aspiring airline pilots when the interviews start again.

 

Remember these people are fools. They were convinced air travel would *never* recover from COVID-19, then they started talking about "winning" the pandemic recovery. Then they furloughed (at AA). Then they announced the biggest hiring wave in airline history. Now they are all cutting hiring projections, if not outright halting it. These clowns just blow with the wind, and so do our careers.

When do these furloughs start? I thought DAL was still hiring. 
 

i don’t remember AA furloughing during COVID. I thought the early retirements worked.

[herkbum]

So what’s the deal with this SWA/UAL feud?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[mp5g]

50 minutes ago, herkbum said:

So what’s the deal with this SWA/UAL feud?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

https://viewfromthewing.com/airline-feud-escalates-united-pilots-barred-from-southwest-airlines-jump-seats-after-controversial-incident/
 

“A newer hire at United jumpseated on SWA recently from SFO-SAN and after the flight was over, decided she would notify the FAA on the inadequacies of the crew whose jumpseat they graciously offered.”