Re: Continental want-ad: LOW PAY!

From:         drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Organization: T&M/Telecoms IBU, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Date:         01 Jun 94 14:35:02 
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1277@ohare.Chicago.COM> matthew@phoenix.princeton.edu (Matthew Meisel Sigelman) writes:
>In article <airliners.1994.1270@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>>
>>If I have people operating heavy machinery near my $50 million airplane, I
>>want people who are smart, in addition to the other criteria.  A recent
>>
>While all of the accidents you list are obviously quite expensive, the
>potentiality for such accidents is actually quite low.  

Obviously, the potential is not zero. For the items that are 
safety-related, "quite low" is not a quantity that is necessarily
acceptable. Such thinking immortalized Murphy (who, incidentally is 
a real person).


It really
>doesn't take too much to avoid any of those accidents-- or others for
>that matter.  Most of them are merely the product of carelessness -- and
>I know plenty of well paid people who are careless.  Come on:  you don't
>need "people who are smart" to be sure that your fuel door is getting
>closed or that the brakes are being hooked up or that you don't have
>trucks banging into the aircraft on the apron.  
>
You do need people who are motivated. I attribute motivation more to 
job satisfaction, which is only partly influenced by pay. This 
introduces my next subject:

May 25 Wall Street Journal wrote up the fatal Jetstream accident at
Hibbing, MN last December. Among other things, employee attitude,
employee relations and job satisfaction issues have been called into
question as possible contributing factors. A particular item caught
my eye:

The First Officer was in hock to his parents for $8500 to pay for
some training at Flight Safety International. Although the article
didn't say so, I am presuming that this training was required by his
employer. If so, this seems like poor management, to put it charitably.

I hate to think of how much of my own money I spent to become trained
as a CFI. But this was in pursuit of a career goal, just as college
students are obligated to come up with the money for their education. 
Once a pilot is hired by a commercial carrier, the cost of training
employees to comply with operating requirements would seem to be a
business expense, just as is the cost of keeping the equipment airworthy.

Is this normal? Do other carriers require their flight crews to
pay for even part of their training?