Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Not necessarily. It's just the way ALPA contracts have been written since prior to the jet age.
The theory goes back to the introduction of jets. Jets not only vastly increased capacity, but vastly increased speed. Both were huge increases in productivity per hour of piloting. ALPA fought hard for pay increases based on this productivity. Management fought it extremely hard. Management wanted pilots to be paid the same.
So because we have always done it that way, that's the way we should continue to do it.. I have always HATED that kind of argument. Tradition, is one of the biggest four letter words in the English language. ALPA fought hard for this because back in the day, it made sense. Now however, there is no airliner that is coming off of any production line anywhere in the world that will be designed to go anywhere in excess of .80M. So let's throw that old argument out straight away. Management wanted it that way back then because it made sense for them too. They could garner all that "productivity" increase and keep costs down. Of course that is why they wanted it. They were upgrading the fleets in a technological leap that is unequalled today.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
It was what ALPA fought hard for. It had nothing to do with ol Carl. Unions get insulted constantly for being afraid of more productivity. It's a slur. ALPA fought hard back in the day, and won the right to be paid via productivity. To me, it has always made economic sense to pay per productivity. For me personally, I would prefer to fly day trips on the 757. That would be my idea of the ideal gig. I don't do that because it's not the best financial decision for me. If we move away from pay based on productivity, we play into the hands of those who wish to taint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive.
It has NOTHING to do with my job being any harder than anyone elses.
DO you not see the oxymoron in this statement when arguing for "productivity"? The sentence that you make after the bold red one is what I don't get. How do we play into the hands of those who wish to (p)aint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive? The productivity aspect is a management decision.. based on how they schedule, and to an extend, which airframe they buy.. NEITHER of which we have any input to. There is an illusion that we have some control over scheduling, but if that were true, why are there still 3 hour sit arounds in ATL and DTW? I don't know about you, but I hate those sits.... And on top of that, you readily admit that you make your decision based on financial considerations. As a proponent of unionism like you claim to be, I would think you would be great guns for a banded pay rate.. Push throttles.. get pay... simple.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
It could be argued that way, and could be argued another way. Truth is, both jobs have significant risks and skill requirements. That's a given. The only question is whether you pay pilots based on the amount of revenue they produce based on the aircraft they fly.
I can only give you my opinions and the historical background of how we got here.
Carl
Since being domesticated in my category, I can attest to the above statement as being true. Domestic/International theatre flying each have their own particular difficulties. The funny thing is though that the manipulation of the aircraft is easier the bigger it gets.. sorry, but that's true. You have to admit that 88driver hangs it out far more than you or I do in a given 8 hour period. I do not consider getting a clearance from Gander all that difficult, but I am betting that 88driver is way more physically worn out at the end of a 5 leg day hubbin and spokin in +TRW weather than either you or I upon arriving at NRT or FRA... But I agree that each has it's own risks and skill requirements.. I just cannot justify in my little mind that yours is sufficiently more difficult as to warrant as much more money as you are currently getting.. But I guess because it has always been done that way...