The "non-rev" Myth....

[Auto Relight]

I have done two week tours, flown .7 and got paid for 48. I have also done two week tours and flown 100hrs and got paid for 100hrs. Before you go off on your "Blah, Blah Blah, I don't get paid enough, my life sucks" maybe you should look at the big picture.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I didn't write "blah blah blah, my life sux." The "big picture" is what I am looking at, in case you didn't notice. We all go on and on about wages every year, but we can't as a group even get paid for performing the work we're hired to do. "Non-rev" is not my problem, when I become an Owner, then it will be, but right now, it's not. We get paid to fly regardless who foots the bill.

 

Anyway, I do get paid for so called non-rev, and I don't work for averaged Mins, I'm merely commenting on a VERY pervasive trend in our industry. Training? Well, I'm easy on that one, not sure why, but I am, call me inconsistent if you like.

 

Cap, I stood my ground, and get those things, whore I am not. There are however WAY too many people in this industry providing services for free.

 

Goldmember - that's the attitude my friend, way to do your bit. :down:

 

 

See, where would we be without a good scrap on here once and while.... I'm just providing another "service..." ;-)

 

 

Safe flying and wrenching all.

 

AR

[transientorque2]

What about un-used mins. The air crew should be paid double as the operator gets pretty good coin for the machine just to sit on the ground. He gets more per hour just sitting than flying. If the crew can find a way to cut down on the flying and accumulate the mins for the company they should get more than just the regular hourly rate. Why do you think that BCFS and Alta. only wnat to pay 80% of un-used mins. They know that the operator makes more too, so they want a deal. That 80% ideal is something that migrated to Canada from Alaska.

 

As for non rev I don't have a problem with it as your already getting a base wage just for sitting around the hanger and drinking coffee. Not many jobs out there pay that way. As for getting flight pay for your training? I think not as the operator is dishing out a lot of cash to give you the training. Be grateful that you do get training. I'm sure that there are some companies out there if they could wouldn't do any at all. However as we all know that there is an operator out there who makes you pay for your traing and PPC. I think that some have it good but may see one guy say that he gets paid for the non rev flights and figure that he should get the same. But maybe that same pilot might not get his lodging or airline ticket paid for or might to do 6 week tours. Who knows. the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. It usually just depends where the sun is sitting in the sky. Its usually the same color.

[Auto Relight]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you want to be paid for non rev flying because you say you're physically flying the aircraft and the risk is the same whether its rev or non rev. That's fair enough.

The same rationale dictates that you should only get paid when actually flying the aircraft which means no unused minimums, or minimums of any kind for that matter. You can't have it both ways so which way do you want it??

I'm pretty confident you will end up ahead if you choose the unused mins route.

I think 212 wrench hit the nail on the head.

 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

Regardless of pay structure, when the a/c moves, you shgould be getting your hourly wage, be that a contract wage, or part of a split base pay/hourly wage. What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

 

Why are pilots in this country continuing to defend such a myopic viewpoint.

 

Mins are paid to retain services, if a pilot is sitting in camp, there's a certain compensation required, just because the customer doesn't want to fly today, doesn't mean the crews aren't sitting there, ready, trained, and experienced enough to do the job. So why average?

 

As for the unused mins, never thought about it that way, but I think transient Tq2 has an idea there....

 

OPERATORS make LOTS of money. So should you. And whoever said they get a "pretty good wage if they make mins only," is missing the point entirely. What's a good wage? Do you all think 100K/yr is outstanding for what you do? It's not. Not anymore. Take a look around at housing prices, cost of living, and what inflation over the last 20yrs has done to your wage - it's not pretty.

 

 

AR

[Plinko]

Not a bad rant, could have used some more foul language.

 

I give it a 7.

 

 

:rant:

 

 

**** you are a tough critic 4961! I give it at least a 9.5!

[Plinko]

I have done two week tours, flown .7 and got paid for 48. I have also done two week tours and flown 100hrs and got paid for 100hrs. Before you go off on your "Blah, Blah Blah, I don't get paid enough, my life sucks" maybe you should look at the big picture.

 

 

The big picture is called "the cost of doing business" As was previously stated.. Explain why a CEO that really does not do that much makes millions. Why does the helicopter industry expect its personel to work for nothing? Sure you got paid for hours that the a/c did not fly...but maybe just maybe you are entitled to that pay because you were there with your tools and pilot and helicopter ready to work. If companies want to keep the experience they have to pay for it. Plane and simple (pun intended) Our biggest problem is that helicopter people are passionate about what they do...so they work for less. (oh and that the operators screw their competition and pass the savings on to their aircrew) An equivalent experienced airline pilot I am sure makes a considerably larger salary than his/her rotary wing counterpart. Getting back to the CEO...well his/her job carries huge responsibility..I would assume that any passenger getting into a helicopter would feel that the pilot has a pretty large responsibility also. (Even the engineer that is going along for the maintenance/test flight) Yes I think that some in the industry are compensated nicely for the number of days that they work...but i do agree with AR that if you are driving..you should be paid. And as for minimums...that is again boils down to the CODB. Maybe we need a union!!! HAHAHAHAHA

[Trigger]

Oh, geez not the dreaded U word again!

[Plinko]

Oh, geez not the dreaded U word again!

 

 

Just jokes...Just jokes! take a deep breath.....aaaaahhhhhh

[cap]

Just some small reminders to consider folks.

 

1) The price for a Bell 206A Model in 1968 was approximately $265,000 depending on options. The hourly rate for that 206 out of Edmonton was approximately $265/hour. .....a Bell 47G4A being $110/hr. It is now 39 years later and it is still possible for me to get a 206B Model for $499/hour, based on a 300hr/year contract at certain locales across Canada........and the personnel of the industry are wondering why their wages aren't higher.

 

2) If you were a western R/W pilot and had been employed with the same company for about 7 years, you were making in the range of $11,000/year. According to Statistics Canada of October 1968, that put you in the top 11% of Canadian wage-earners. For reasons why this is please refer to Number 1 above. I believe the IT expression is "Garbage in-garbage out".

 

3) My background and the family's was/is is in F/W and I can tell all unabashedly that if you fly for a CHARTER operator, your wages and benefits will be remarkably lower than your peer that flies for a SCHEDULED airline.THAT is why the charter operators are nothing but a 'training depot' for the airlines......and have always been. Therefore, to compare the two is what is defined as an "oxymoron".

[Plinko]

3) My background and the family's was/is is in F/W and I can tell all unabashedly that if you fly for a CHARTER operator, your wages and benefits will be remarkably lower than your peer that flies for a SCHEDULED airline.THAT is why the charter operators are nothing but a 'training depot' for the airlines......and have always been. Therefore, to compare the two is what is defined as an "oxymoron".

 

So I guess then Cap, we are all waiting in the wings for that illustrious Airline job? I wonder if any of our friends at the SCHEDULED helicopter carriers have wages comparable to those at the F/W equivalent?

 

It was not a face value comparison...just pointing out that a pilot with 10 000 hrs in a helicopter likely makes far less than his counterpart flying a plank for an Airline. It was based on a individuals personal experience rather than economics of the various sectors of the market.

 

The point is.... as a driver you are paid to drive. You are compensated for your ability and experience. Whether the company you fly for is an airline or a charter outfit should be of no consequence. Your name goes in the logbook...you should see it on your paycheck. Training should be the only exception.

[Phil Croucher]

Well said, Plinko. I can only add that Remote Helicopters (when I was there, at least) paid us for all flying we did, including training & non-rev. Some companies do it.

 

We should get paid a lot more for the responsibility we take on ourselves when we "break the rules" to get the job done - for example, every time we go into a confined area we are more often than not in the avoid curve. Something happens there - guess who ends up in court because the company won't support you. We don't get paid nearly enough for that!

 

Phil