Making Waves in the Sky

re Field Marshal #42:

``Hmm...interesting argument. Your statistics about the auto and financial industry for programmers are wrong. I have worked in quite a few industries in IT, and the difference in business domain knowledge never results in such huge salary difference. It is the difference in technology that results in the salary differences.``

Your definition of `working` in an industry obviously involves a broom and a vacuum cleaner. Think abut this. A programmer in the midwest which is the hub of the auto industry either lives in an apartment or a house that is not worth more than $250,000. The same programmer on the East coast lives in a house worth at least $500,000. Why? Ask your south Indian colleague for an analysis.

``I didn`t say they deserve an identical salary. I said the complete package should be such that a person is not tempted to join PIA.``

Why? Why should an airforce compete with an airline?

``I thought you were in the finance field. Perhaps you missed out on the lectures on supply and demand. Don`t you think these two are related? Don`t organizations function efficiently, only if people of equal skills, performing equal tasks, are getting paid equal amounts (as a total package)?``

No they don`t. If you had ever worked for a half decent organization you would understand that pay packages are only one factor in the ``efficient`` functioning of an organization. People join and stay in organizations for a multitude of reasons. Organizations run on the basis of plug and play don`t stay competitive for too long.

``But anyways. Could you explain what is holding a Java programmer in the auto industry from joining the financial industry as a Java programmer. Is he an idiot?``

No his mental competence is not what we are debating here. Once you`ve built your competency in a certain industry, it is very tough to change tracks. If you have an experience in one industry, it is very tough to sell yourself to another industry. If a programmer`s first job is in the insurance industry, odds are that he or she will stay in that industry for the long haul.

``I think a person serving his country should be wealthier than someone who is just serving himself.``

Spoken like a true fauji.

I have only quoted selectively because the rest of your post is even more ludicrous. But true to your pithu parade training you won`t shut up till you are beaten to the ground ala kargil.


later
-sac

Romair #45 You do not get a pension from the army for a good reason: you are still in active service (mentally, not physically). Just kidding.

I must also apologize to hamzan who is in tears at having to read this stuff on army paygrades yet again. (I plead innocent since this is the first time I think I am taking you up on this issue, and solemnly promise to hamzan not to prolong this discussion beyond what is absolutely necessary to determine the appropriate pay grades so our boys can get paid (I understand the pakistani military payroll has been delayed pending outcome of these chowk deliberations you and I are having).

More seriously, you are not saying anything much different than I am. That is, you are saying: `` I would say perhaps 80% of the Army and maybe 60% the PAF does not have such qualifications. But for the remaining, it is an obvious phenomenon, based on market dynamics. And these remaining are the best and brightest. ``

Thus, it is only 40% in the PAF that we are talking about and 20% in the army. Hell: just get rid of this 40% and 60% then, and all Pakistan will offer namaz-i-shuqrana. Get rid of the rest of them, and Pakistanis will be dancing in the streets.

The need of the hour for Pakistan is good cricket players (bowlers, batsmen), not airforce pilots and what not, if you get my drift.

OK, serious now. You forgot to address the point I made that these individuals whose pain you feel were not press ganged into service. They VOLUNTARILY AND OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL signed up for the army or air force, along with the commitment to serve. Please address this point, then we can talk some more (if hamzan doesnt mind us prolonging this discussion just a teeny weeny bit more, that is) and settle this issue once and for all. Your loyalty to your colleagues is commendable, but misplaced.

Romair - Pl ref to your cost interact.

A wet lease of an aircraft is with full maintenance costs and with crew. (minus the fuel/oils)

A dry lease is with full maintenancece costs; and minus the crew, fuel & oils.

There are also lease-purchase agreements.

The hull insurance cover is by the Lessee & third part risk is by the lessor.

Leasing out from one state to another also requires a `Transfer Agreement` between the state of registry and the state of operator (CAAs of both states) to come to an agreement on the regulatory aspects.

Russian Types (100-150 passenger) are easily available on wet lease at about $ 700 per hour. Even less.

The military costing is far more complicated due to secrecy & weapon systems choices. And commissions & cuts. The figures can be totally topsy-turvey.

Jang #43

{{Anyone who has not seen a thunderbirds display by USAF, and gets a chance to do so, dont miss it. Its the best.}}

And if you’re really, really lucky you get to see junior birdman punching out of his Thunderbird 0.8 seconds before impact. (This happened in Idaho about six months ago: more here.)

Romair, baaz na aana … yar for God’s sake maan jao … we are dead tired of your salary bakwas. Enough is enough bass bee karro. We all have read it at least 1000 times. Zabani yaad ho gya hai. Abb to bleeding ho rahi ye parh parh kar.

The same very lousy arguments, yaar you must be one of the most boring and monotone person PAF (if not Pakistan or Indo-Pak subcontinent) have ever produced.

Ref sac on #39

[Looking at the world in black and white can easily explain ROmair`s all too frequent bouts of insanity.

Making an argument that a pilot in the PAF deserves the same salary as a pilot in PIA is dumb. A pilot in the USAF with 20 years of service makes about $80,000 a year. A pilot in American Airlines with 20 years of service makes twice as much. A programmer in the auto industry makes about $60,000 a year. The exact same programmer in the financial industry doubles his salary.

A pilot joining PAF for money is in it for the wrong reasons. And a cab driver of the skies is not serving his country.]

Air Marshal Hotair is aloft in his own balloon kept up in the air by his own rhetoric. The US Air Force trained a lot of pilots during the Viet Nam war and when they got demobbed, the joined the cicilian airlines. It resulted in a glut of pilots and lower salaries. Companies such as United and American are moving a lot of flights to their regional airlines for at least one reason: the pilot in a regional airline gets $30,000 as starting salary, no matter how much experience he has.

Oh, by the way, the US airlines have colluded to keep their employees in line. When a senior pilot at American decides to apply to Continental because he thinks American is not viable, if at all he gets a job, he loses all seniority and starts at the bottom of the payscale. So, it is in the interests of the employee to stick with one airline all his life.... except when PANAM, Eastern, Braniff, etc., went out of business. The pilots of 747s had to look for any job they could get at any salary. Some might be lucky enough to get into foreign airlines but not everybody does.

tahmad32: #44: ``So far, aside from your assurances of profound knowledge of military affairs of the US and Pakistan, I have not seen any evidence of it. No doubt it is there, I just havent seen it in your posts. I await to be enlightened (or alternatively hope you will be willing to concede that you do not have a monopoly on knowledge regarding military payscales and retentions and so forth). ``

Obviously, I have no monopoly on this subject. But I have been in it. That has to count for something. Even if a person closes his eyes, for twelve years, inthe military, he is bound to learn things about it. You have only seen it from the outside. Surely, you must agree there is a difference between the knowledge of a person who has been in an environment, and someone who has only seen it from a distance.

I think you keep thinking that I have some ulterior motive in presenting my points about the military. What could that be? I don`t even get a pension. I am just presenting information I know to be true.

There is a large retention problem, amongst areas of the military where people have technical qualifications. It is a fact. It is just like the brain drain from Pakistan to the USA. If one company pays many times more than the other, for the same job, people will leave. By, ``pays`` I mean the whole package (salary, job security, environment etc.). This will not exist for people in the military who do not have qualifications that are in demand in the civil sector. I would say perhaps 80% of the Army and maybe 60% the PAF does not have such qualifications. But for the remaining, it is an obvious phenomenon, based on market dynamics. And these remaining are the best and brightest.

Moreover it can be seen in the recruitement by the military. It is no longer amongst the top choice for careers in Pakistan. That is because, there are other jobs that provide a much higher standard of living. It is simple economics.

Hence it makes sense for the miltiary to try hard to keep any qualified officer it has, and is counterproductive to not keep him. And that can only be done, if his standard of living is brought inline with the market dynamics. This is true for any job in any country in the world, where a free market exists.

This is why I have a hard time understanding your claim that, ``if there was a retention problem in the airforce. And there is none. Period.``

If there wasn`t one, the military would not have had to put in draconian policies to keep people from leaving. It would have been like PIA or United Bank, i.e. if you want to leave, go ahead. And I assume you agree, that the govt. spends much much on training PIA pilots than PAF pilots. But it pays them enough to ensure they don`t one day get up and join some other organization, if a job opens up.

Anyone who has not seen a thunderbirds display by USAF, and gets a chance to do so, dont miss it. Its the best. I dont know how it compares to the Pakistani, or the Suryakiran team from indian air-force. Even the antics of lumbering A-10s are amazing.. it flies with wings at 90 degrees to the ground, at very slow speed, barely 100 meters above ground! The thunderbird displays also bring cock-pit mics on the PA. Its also fun to see the Sabre-Jet of 1971 war that we in India were scared of act as a clown aircraft. The grand-finale is when four F-15s come from no-where and almost ``meet`` in the middle.

In India as well as the US, large number of people want to become fighter (or any military) pilots. Very small percentage are chosen. Their is no shortage. The resons are simple..young folks get to train on latest stuff-free, and later after completion of their commision (which can be as short of 5 years), they can fly commercial, or get a more lucrative job outside as per the market forces. If they like the military as a career, sometimes out of sheer inertia, or regimentation, or patriotism, they hang on.

Romair #41: Rest assured I am not interested in arguments - only the truth.

With all due respect to your knowledge of military affairs (Pakistan, US and no doubt some others - enough to make you consultant to Jane`s), just your saying something about the military does not mean it is correct. Thus, just your saying that there is a retention problem does not mean there is one.

Let me tell you where I am coming from when I say that the military does not have a retention problem: I happen to know serving officers (including officers with highly skilled jobs) who have no plans to leave the armed forces. Why do they stay? Because they dont mind the army life. Those are the people I was thinking of them when I wrote that: I dont make up stuff, rest assured, nor do I have any axe to grind on this or any other issue on chowk.

Also, I happen to know people who left the armed forces and joined other air forces. And you couldnt have paid them enough to stay. E.g. I know one air force pilot who left for a foreign country (and for some time was the commander of chief of one air force in fact, only trouble was that that particular air force had only a couple of planes, but that is another story). And I know the reason he left had nothing to do with pay scales whatsoever. And I know ex-army officers in the US whom you couldnt have paid enough to stay in the armed forces. Aside from these cases I know individually, I have never heard of retention being a problem in the military. I have heard of other problems, but not this one. And I do happen to come from what I would call a well connected military family. And often got the chance to listen in on discussion involving individuals of all ranks, from c-in-c down to generals, brigadiers, colonels, majors, captains, non-coms, and fresh recruits. So, I am not as ignorant as you think I am.

For the US, admittedely my main source of knowledge is my doctor who was in the Navy and (who made my day by assuring me after my checkup that I was fit enough to go out to sea in a submarine), and a few odd ball geezers floating around (like the German immigrant who was in the US air force in WWII and told me the sadness he felt when he had to bomb his own ancestral town in Germany in WWII). But nevertheless: Lets not get carried away by our own rhetoric: what we are discussin here is not rocket science but simple facts that anybody who reads the newspaper knows. So far, aside from your assurances of profound knowledge of military affairs of the US and Pakistan, I have not seen any evidence of it. No doubt it is there, I just havent seen it in your posts. I await to be enlightened (or alternatively hope you will be willing to concede that you do not have a monopoly on knowledge regarding military payscales and retentions and so forth).

Now let me ask you: On what basis do you say that the armed forces have a retention problem?

sac #39: I thought you were in the finance field. Perhaps you missed out on the lectures on supply and demand. Don`t you think these two are related? Don`t organizations function efficiently, only if people of equal skills, performing equal tasks, are getting paid equal amounts (as a total package)?

In fact, the biggest cause of problems in third world countries is that people don`t get paid market salaries for the tasks they are doing. This is a huge problem in Pakistan. Isn`t this why so many people leave Pakistan. Why in the world are you sitting in the USA? Obviously, you felt you could make more money for your skills in the USA, then in Pakistan? Don`t you think all other human beings function on the same basis? Or are you the only one? If tomorrow, some other company offered you twice the salary to do the same job, wouldn`t you move?

This is how successful societies work. Your being in the USA, and not in Pakistan proves my point. Supply and demand in market economies are the main deciding forces on how much people are going to make.

``A pilot in the USAF with 20 years of service makes about $80,000 a year. A pilot in American Airlines with 20 years of service makes twice as much. A programmer in the auto industry makes about $60,000 a year. The exact same programmer in the financial industry doubles his salary.``

Hmm...interesting argument. Your statistics about the auto and financial industry for programmers are wrong. I have worked in quite a few industries in IT, and the difference in business domain knowledge never results in such huge salary difference. It is the difference in technology that results in the salary differences.

But anyways. Could you explain what is holding a Java programmer in the auto industry from joining the financial industry as a Java programmer. Is he an idiot? Does he not think like you (and like most human beings) and move on to more lucrative pastures? Why in the world would a guy flying a KC10-A in the USAF not move to an airline to fly a DC-10? Obviously, the USAF will have to offer him a package which will keep him in the USAF (assuming tahmad`s contract-slavery theory is wrong)? And obviously USAF is providing him with such a package.

``Making an argument that a pilot in the PAF deserves the same salary as a pilot in PIA is dumb.``

I didn`t say they deserve an identical salary. I said the complete package should be such that a person is not tempted to join PIA. For your information, for a long time (uptil around early 70s), that was actually the case. PAF package, as a whole, was better than PIA`s. During those days, PIA used to beg PAF for pilots, and no one with a successful career in PAF left to join PIA. Generally only those left, who did not have a future in PAF. Now it is the other way around.

Those days were also the time when the PAF was running at its highest efficiency. For the simple reason that it was ahead of the market forces, and was able to recruit the best people and, most importantly, was able to keep them.

``A pilot joining PAF for money is in it for the wrong reasons.``

Everyone joins a profession for a certain level of living standard. This is human nature. And the point I was highlighting was that lack of equivlance of salaries. Not why someone is joining the PAF. That is there own choice, but market forces still apply.

````And a cab driver of the skies is not serving his country.``

So a person serving his country must be poor. Amazing!! I think a person serving his country should be wealthier than someone who is just serving himself. But the issue here was not serving countries, it was running efficient organizations, by keeping good employees, with marketable skills, for the long term.

If a guy has 2.5 million dollars of experience. It makes sense to keep him, from leaving the organization. Doesn`t matter if the organization is PAF, USAF, Microsoft, PIA, or the Mafia, or Chase Manhattan. Successful organizations cater for that. This is Management 101.

Perhaps when you move into a management position, you will undestand these issues better.

tahmad #40: In your previous reply, you stated, ``The only way your argument would make sense is if there was a retention problem in the airforce. And there is none. Period.``

This was obviously false, as I pointed out. Since this argument did not hold water, you have switched the argument to, ``After all, they know the terms of the contract when they sign up for service....In the US, the military pays to educate people in all kinds of skills (doctors, pilots, radar, systems, and so on and on) who are then obliged to put in service in the military even though they could make a lot more outside.``

I have a very good idea of how the US military pays its employees. Obviously, you don`t. There is no organization in the world, that can function efficiently, if it doesn`t take into account and cater for market forces. Unless you have some new economic theories. The only organization I know of, which works on the principle you are presenting is called, ``Slavery.`` To the best of my knowledge, the US military is not slavery. It works within the market economy, in which it exists. It has to.

The US military goes out of its way to adjust salaries based on market forces. It does so more than probably any military in the world. It has large bonuses that kick in, after certain years of service. And it keeps revising them, along with the annual salary of its employee. The last thing the US military wants is a large group of disgruntled soldiers, who are being forced to work, over their whole lifetime, against their will (based on your contract theory). No organization can survive like that.

The equipment used by the US military is so complex, that it has to attract from amongst the best and brightest in the USA. How in the world will it do so, if it does not offer them market salaries, and re-adjust them as the market changes? Is it going to blindfold them and make them sign a contract below market rates, and then put a gun to their head, and make them work.

In fact, there is a crisis at the moment brewing, since there is a fear that, a large group of people in the US military will resign, due to the Iraq war. Congress is debating hard on how to keep them in the military. And it is not debating putting them all in jail, through your slavery model. It is going to adjust their salaries and benefits.

Even if we assume your contract-based, slavery-theory to be true, how in the world does the US military attract new candidates, if it does not adjust its salaries, according to market forces? Could you explain? Even if it can keep an already-employed Captain in slave mode, threatening to jail him, if he wants a raise, how will it get new employees to join the military, if they know that they will under some sort of a lifetime contract, which will never be adjusted?

Would anyone ever join any organization, knowing fully well that the organzition has full control over all salary issues, and will not adjust them? Obviously not. Would you ever join such an organization?

But before we debate this furthur, could I ask you whether you actually know what you are talking about. Or whether you are just trying to put up an argument for the sake of argument. If it is the later, then we are wasting each other`s time.

Romair : In the US, the military pays to educate people in all kinds of skills (doctors, pilots, radar, systems, and so on and on) who are then obliged to put in service in the military even though they could make a lot more outside. Why should Pakistani pilots and other technically trained individuals have it otherwise?

After all, they know the terms of the contract when they sign up for service. Why do they want the contract changed to their benefit once society has paid to give them marketable skills?

I am touched by your concern for the feelings of these poor army officers, and I was weeping by the time I came to the part where you reminded me that ``Soldiers are human beings with families, and want the same standards of living that you want. `` I even played the violin to provide the appropriate mournful music and then cried in tune to that music while reading your post. But then I said to myself: ``How many Pakistanis can only dream of the life these army officers lead in Pakistan?`` I took a poll, and the number came to 134,456,351. That made me feel better, and I stopped feeling sorry for these poor army officers, and stopped playing the violin and stopped weeping. (I got mad instead at the way the military people in Pakistan think the country is their private jageer, and started playing one of Tchaikovsky`s battle tunes instead to reflect my mood).

#27

Yes, GIS means Geographical Information Systems.

re Field Marshal`s usual meanderings:

Looking at the world in black and white can easily explain ROmair`s all too frequent bouts of insanity.

Making an argument that a pilot in the PAF deserves the same salary as a pilot in PIA is dumb. A pilot in the USAF with 20 years of service makes about $80,000 a year. A pilot in American Airlines with 20 years of service makes twice as much. A programmer in the auto industry makes about $60,000 a year. The exact same programmer in the financial industry doubles his salary.

A pilot joining PAF for money is in it for the wrong reasons. And a cab driver of the skies is not serving his country.

later
-sac

NazarHayatKhan #33: ``But I know that small Aitlines like Shaheen or Aero Asia which wet lease aircraft, which includes all costs including pilots except the fuel, come for about $ 700 per hour. The Russian type 100-150 passenger aircraft.``

I do not know much about commercial airliners. You would, obviously, be more qualified, than I, to comment on that. I always thought their costs were much much higher, than military aircraft. From the friends I have, who are pilots in PIA and in a few international airlines, I have heard that the costs of flying are so high, that nearly all the training for commercial pilots is done on simulators. And even the costs on that can run into the thousands, per hour.

Does the wet lease, cover all costs? Does it include maintenance costs? And how much is the cost of the fuel? Isn`t that the major cost for airliners, along with maintenace of parts? I would assume just the combined salaries of the pilot/copilot and cabin crew and maintenance crew, would be in the hundreds of dollars/hour.

Nazar

I agree partially - but as the father of modern politics Machiavelli, advised, the Generals would also want to share the booty and keep the low rankers happy as well. It is only possible when they have their own government. Civilians are nuisance and demand a cut too. So as military takes over, the majors and colonals, who under civilian rule keep busy saluting anything that moves and whitewashing anything that is stationary, become ``administrators`` running anything from a whole district to any corporation in Pakistan. A new plot mafia and qabza group emerges and prices of land and property skyrocket. This beast has tasted the blood now; there is no way it will stay in the cage now. As the persian proverb goes - a wolf, as long as he has teeth, cannot become a gentleman. I see no hope for a deliverance from this evil except someone from outside like India or America attacks us and dismantels this mother of all evils. Those two we can fight, as it is evident in Iraq, but this cancer has spread in every organ of our bodies. There is no hope.