This is not a joke!

[Guest PARADISE]

I saw a picture of one of their birds on the web. It had a big Nationwide is on Your Side billboard painted on the fuselage. I don't know if that's a good thing or not,.....to be sponsored by an insurance company. Kind of tells me that, "Hey, it's OK if something happens, we'll be right behind you."John M

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Just doing the same thing as Ryan air or the old western pacific billboardsI wonder what is going to happen to this airline

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>You obviously know nothing about the airline industry...>>Funny how you talk about things as if you had a clue. So what>makes a pilot earning 65K a lousy one or dangerous as you put>it?>>I take it you are a commercial airline pilot working for a>Part 121 carrier in the US?>>The crap some people will talk.r u talking to me?

[Guest flyboynk]

CRJ, Wasn't directed to you. I was responding to the idiot (737typerated) who thinks pilots who make 65K a year are dangerous and can't get a job anywhere else.Sorry if you thought it was towards you.

[Guest flyboynk]

You post proves nothing at all. First you are probably some 13 yr old that is wet behind the ears and just because you read something you instantly take it as reality or the truth. First you haven't posted anything other than someone's opinion on another forum. Your opinion of unsafe pilots because of low pay is pure ****. There are tons of pilots that are flying for less pay than what they would like to earn because airlines have cut back on pay (not just hourly rate but overall pay/ retirement/ investment compensation) If these words are too big for you let me know...Bottom line is that many airline around the world have cut pay, reduced expenses etc. Some airlines (most of the ones in the U.S.) have taken significant steps to decrease expenses while increasing revenue. It's not right what they are doing (as per employee groups other than management or ownership) by taking away pay and increasing work hours. But it's the sad reality of the "new" airline industry. I should know...Also, how does an airline that is getting brand new aircraft cause you to worry about the safety of an aircraft or the company? If an airline chooses to put 156 seats on an aircraft which in the case of an Airbus A319 is the max allowable configuration certified by the JAA and FAA why should it matter. You as the consumer have a choice to fly them or not, based on your own criteria (money, legroom, amenities etc).Reggie already put up some numbers for you (as you cried for "proof" about the pilot pay) since you are obviously hard headed or to "dee dee dee" to figure it out yourself. How about some respect for the many different groups of professional people who work in the airline industry instead of talking out your a** about a subject you know nothing about but keep arguing and looking like a total nob (as you already have and continue to do so)

[Guest PARADISE]

Well put. I have flown professionaly in the past for far less than what Skybus is paying,(in today's dollars). As a matter of fact there were times, between paychecks, when I'd have trouble scraping together enough cash to put gas in the tank of my car to get to the airport. But I NEVER thought of myself as being unsafe at flying, or anything else I chose to do, because I wasn't making enough money.John M

[Guest flyboynk]

Very true John... anyone in the airline industry knows especially pilots that during the course of your career you'll fly for 5 or 6 airlines, only if you are lucky. Most pilots will fly even more than that between commuters to mainline/major airlines. I think 30-40 years ago you could make a very nice paycheck and not worry about job security not to mention looking forward to a healthy retirement package.Being a certified professional as pilots are, they are very few professionals that can go from earning 100K+ in the left seat with thousands of hours of flying experience to earning 25/30K as a first year first officer. If a lawyer, doctor, architect moves from one company to another they will usually earn the same money if not more than before. You can't do that as an airline pilot. If you have just a few thousand hours you might not have enough to get you a job at a major, if you have too many then you might not get a job either (which most people don't think about too often). Thrown into the bag of "will you get this job" goes flying hours, type of aircraft, type of flying, personality, flying skill, who you know, being at the right place at the right time and a lot of luck too. The truth today is airlines (talking about the U.S. mainly) hire far less military pilots than in the past. Todays batch of fresh new pilots with low time are not considered as raw or lacking in flying skill/experience as 30 years ago because of the advancements in flying technology and equipment. I personally think todays pilots are not better today than pilots in the 50's 60's or 70's but they do become better pilots faster today. It's the same old saying, pilots are overpaid when everything goes right but severely underpaid when things go wrong.

[ahuimanu 50]

>The truth today is airlines (talking about the U.S. mainly)>hire far less military pilots than in the past. Todays batch>of fresh new pilots with low time are not considered as raw or>lacking in flying skill/experience as 30 years ago because of>the advancements in flying technology and equipment. I>personally think todays pilots are not better today than>pilots in the 50's 60's or 70's but they do become better>pilots faster today. It's the same old saying, pilots are>overpaid when everything goes right but severely underpaid>when things go wrong.This was alive just less that 20 years ago - the primacy placed on abundant surplus ex-military and guard pilots had a serious effect on anyone's aspirations for the airlines as a career up until the mid 90s. Military pilots will always be an important part of the mix (a vital part even), but the attitudes which tended to marginalize a civilian-path pilot were alive and well at least up until 1993 - a point after which I stopped trying.As to making better pilots quicker - sure thing, rich information (visual and well inter-indexed and inter-referenced) is abundant in the Internet age. Increasingly realistic simulation technology doesn't hurt either.No sour grapes though... if I wanted it bad enough, I would have stuck to it.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>The truth today is airlines (talking about the U.S. mainly)>hire far less military pilots than in the past. Todays batch>of fresh new pilots with low time are not considered as raw or>lacking in flying skill/experience as 30 years ago because of>the advancements in flying technology and equipment. I>personally think todays pilots are not better today than>pilots in the 50's 60's or 70's but they do become better>pilots faster today. It's the same old saying, pilots are>overpaid when everything goes right but severely underpaid>when things go wrong.talk to the RJ CA's who fly with 400hr "factory" FO's...........

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Well put. I have flown professionaly in the past for far less>than what Skybus is paying,(in today's dollars). As a matter>of fact there were times, between paychecks, when I'd have>trouble scraping together enough cash to put gas in the tank>of my car to get to the airport. But I NEVER thought of myself>as being unsafe at flying, or anything else I chose to do,>because I wasn't making enough money.>>John Mcmon john. r we talking you flew an Airbus 319 for less? let's compare apples to apples.once again, it isn't low pay, but the fact that the low pay breeds hostility between crew and company which DOES affect safety. look at jetBlue and their "experiment" with flying more than 8 hours in between rest periods. skybus will be no different.besides the FAA has more important things to worry about than safety, like telling controllers to stop saying please and thank you!http://themainbang.typepad.com/blog/2007/0...ge_of_the_.html

[Cessnaflyer 56]

I just read that also. Pretty interesting.Also while we are ranting about todays systems. I hope LM takes it up the rear hard!

[Guest PARADISE]

Actually I flew airplanes that were less sophisticated than the Airbus, requiring greater pilot skills, thus requiring a greater knowledge of aviating.;-) Yet for less pay.Not to change the subject, but I will, has anyone considered that the aircrew's payscale is probably not going to be the big safety factor here, but rather where and by whome are they going to be farming their maintenance out to? A lot of low cost air carrier accidents as of late have been caused by shotty third party maintenance shops. And, since you like bashing the FAA, I will join you on the bandwagon to say that this is solely the fault of the FAA for allowing air carriers to seek out the cheapest maintenance they can find. Usually with little, if any FAA supervision of the work performed. That scares me more than anything else. Even a high time/high payed pilot will have trouble keeping a poorly maintained aircraft in the air.John M

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Actually I flew airplanes that were less sophisticated than>the Airbus, requiring greater pilot skills, thus requiring a>greater knowledge of aviating.;-) Yet for less pay.so did i. i make more as an RJ FO than i did as a 1900 CA! you get paid more simply because there are 150 or so potential lawsuits in the back and not 19.>Not to change the subject, but I will, has anyone considered>that the aircrew's payscale is probably not going to be the>big safety factor here, but rather where and by whome are they>going to be farming their maintenance out to? A lot of low>cost air carrier accidents as of late have been caused by>shotty third party maintenance shops. And, since you like>bashing the FAA, I will join you on the bandwagon to say that>this is solely the fault of the FAA for allowing air carriers>to seek out the cheapest maintenance they can find. Usually>with little, if any FAA supervision of the work performed.>That scares me more than anything else. Even a high time/high>payed pilot will have trouble keeping a poorly maintained>aircraft in the air.which low cost carrier accidents are you talking about in the US (where the FAA has jurisdiction)? the only mtx accident as of late i can think of was air midwest in CLT and I wouldn't call raytheon a shotty third party mtx contractor (heck they built the 1900). however, sadly in this case they did short cut and it cost 21 people their lives.