Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Auto Relight

The "non-rev" Myth....

Recommended Posts

Plinko ------- Not 'waiting' or an airline position anymore because I did that eons ago with a now deceased airline named Transair out of Winnipeg, flying a YS-11A....also known as a 'rice burner' because it was made in Japan. I couldn't be hired by any airline anymore because for most I'm too old and for the rest they'd be fined under the Food & Drug Act for using old meat.

 

The 'operative word is not 'airline' Plinko........it's "Charter'. The vast majority of 'Airlines' are NOT charter operations. Pick a F/W charter operation, the total experienc of the pilot and 'On type'and you'll quickly understand why many would drool to earn the wages that their comparable R/W peer earn. If you choose the airlines as an example, then tying to compare doesn't work. It doesn't work because if I fly for AC and want to move-up to a 'seat' on a different a/c, then I have to bid on that seat. If I happen to loose-out that bid to another pilot that the company considers a better applicant, then no matter where i was on the seniority list for the a/c I was flying, I then have lost that seniority on that list and fall waaaay back to the bottom of the list for my own a/c type. Do that at the wrong age and time of your career and your careerm with that airline is 'hooped' and you might as well leave and look for another position somewhere in Corporate aviation. That's one of many reasons that one can't compare as I noted before. It can get 'ugly' in the F/W world in ways that don't exist in the R/W world and that's just one example. Besides, in the F/W world, most are just pilots and in the R/W world most are 'specialists' doing things that don't exist at all in the F/W world.

 

I do not disagree with your position, but most everything in this business is predicated on money and our rates in Canada became a joke a long time ago. The industry isn't 'flush' like it used to be eons ago when they were charging proper rates and when you ain't 'flush' with money, then certain things don't happen and you have a habit of stepping over a dime to pick-up a nickel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plinko ------- Not 'waiting' or an airline position anymore because I did that eons ago with a now deceased airline named Transair out of Winnipeg, flying a YS-11A....also known as a 'rice burner' because it was made in Japan. I couldn't be hired by any airline anymore because for most I'm too old and for the rest they'd be fined under the Food & Drug Act for using old meat.

 

The 'operative word is not 'airline' Plinko........it's "Charter'. The vast majority of 'Airlines' are NOT charter operations. Pick a F/W charter operation, the total experienc of the pilot and 'On type'and you'll quickly understand why many would drool to earn the wages that their comparable R/W peer earn. If you choose the airlines as an example, then tying to compare doesn't work. It doesn't work because if I fly for AC and want to move-up to a 'seat' on a different a/c, then I have to bid on that seat. If I happen to loose-out that bid to another pilot that the company considers a better applicant, then no matter where i was on the seniority list for the a/c I was flying, I then have lost that seniority on that list and fall waaaay back to the bottom of the list for my own a/c type. Do that at the wrong age and time of your career and your careerm with that airline is 'hooped' and you might as well leave and look for another position somewhere in Corporate aviation. That's one of many reasons that one can't compare as I noted before. It can get 'ugly' in the F/W world in ways that don't exist in the R/W world and that's just one example. Besides, in the F/W world, most are just pilots and in the R/W world most are 'specialists' doing things that don't exist at all in the F/W world.

 

I do not disagree with your position, but most everything in this business is predicated on money and our rates in Canada became a joke a long time ago. The industry isn't 'flush' like it used to be eons ago when they were charging proper rates and when you ain't 'flush' with money, then certain things don't happen and you have a habit of stepping over a dime to pick-up a nickel.

 

 

Cap, with all due respect. This thread was about being paid for flying. Any type of flying. I apologize for bringing the "airlines" into this. I do not disagree with your points..and believe that the R/W sector is completely messed up as far as tariffs go. It is not the driver that determines the rate for the helicopter...it is the company and the industry as a whole as you are well aware.

The ironic part is it is the crew (pilot and engineer) that do all of the PR for the company. They are on the front lines keeping the customer happy, performing to the best of their ability, taking the sh*t when someone is not happy, living in less than glorious accommodations at times. It would serve everyones interest if flight crew were paid accordingly and not seen as a liability when it comes time to balance the company checkbook. Or to make up for the shortcomings of a low tariff.

It is about choice..and 99% of us will continue working and love our jobs..but it does not mean that it can't improve. I guess as long as we all keep saying "yes" then nothing will change.

I am compensated fairly I believe for my efforts..would I like to make more ...sure. But at the end of the day I think I am well looked after from an industry standpoint. I just think that as previously stated ..."if you drive...you should be paid"

 

Toodles

Plink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect to be paid for training flights, it's mutually beneficial, and the minor amount of time it takes doesn't bother me. In regards to pay in general my attitude and output are directly contected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw oil on the fire, If you were sent to Ontario for three weeks on fires and you flew, say from Calgary, would you turn down the tour because the company isn't going to pay you for the 7 hours of non rev to get there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to throw oil on the fire, If you were sent to Ontario for three weeks on fires and you flew, say from Calgary, would you turn down the tour because the company isn't going to pay you for the 7 hours of non rev to get there?

 

 

No...I would just let the engineer fly it! I would read the paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this topic is getting interesting........the real definition of non-rev.

 

Doing a test flight or track-and-balance at the hangar may be genuine non-rev, and I wouldn't mind not getting paid for it.

That's a cost of doing business.

 

But flying from Calgary to Ontario should not be non-rev as far as flight pay goes !!

If the boss wants to send a helicopter out there......on spec, or for a casual-hire fire-flap, or to pre-position for a summer contract, without getting paid for it, then that should be his problem.....not mine.

That's a cost of competition.

I should not be in competition against my boss, or with the rest of the industry!!

If I wanted that, I would buy a ship and start my own company.

 

This discussion has shown that most pilots believe in a little bit of give-and-take.

But no flight-pay to Ontario is a case of the pilot giving and the Operator taking !!!!

Completely unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

.........and don't forget to stop en-route to give Twinnie a ride around the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plinko ----- I believe we deviated only slightly and my point was missed now on two occasions and I'll quit but blame it on myself for poor syntax then.

 

To put it simple, I get paid a Base as most everyone else does. Mine, I am more than happy with. I consider, whether it was ever stated by my employer or not, that that Base covers my Non-Rev activities including training flights which are mutually beneficial anyway. That's really a 'moot point' because almost all of those training flight are ordered-up by Ottawa and not him or I. Now there is a difference between 'scratching your a*s and tearing the He*l out of it' and if the Non-Rev flights start to total too high, then that Base gets re-adjusted upwards, my employer and I have a 'fireside chat' about same to both of our satisfactions, a bunch of the Non-Rev doesn't happen anymore OR I take my skills and services elsewhere. I've never had to go that route because overall, I've always been treated very well and with respect during my whole career. I know also that there are 'scuzz-bucket' operators out there, but after a while in this business, you start to note that they come with a certain 'smell' that says "Don't grace their doorway stupid". I've found the good ones treat you well, don't expect something for nothing and speak and treat you as though they value your services and skills........AND are approachable on all subjects of possible discontent and will discuss it with you as though you are not some kind of idiot or 'crap-disturber'

 

 

I therefore have no problem whatsoever with your position and support you wholeheartedly. Our differences lie in the fact that I believe my Base also covers those activities you speak about. If I feel that I'm not being paid for those activities, then perhaps I accepted too low of a Base pay in the first place and didn't discuss all of my concerns......with the accent being placed on the "I".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to some. flying the aircraft is considered more dangerous than say...sweeping floors, making coffee, or doing your required paperwork...all of which your base salary is meant to cover as well.

The high hourly pay for flying compensates you for the added risks.

 

If you're an individual on a base, that does several hours of non rev a month for maintencae, taking the local bar bunnies for a spin etc, you're probably not going to complain about a few hours.

But if you're a pool pilot, continually chasing fires and jobs around the continent....ammassing lots more than a few hours a month, you're going to want to be paid that flight pay, and I support those guys 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...