Originally Posted by
82spukram
They also determined that an airplane with 50 less seats was 12-15% less then then in our case a 150 seater.
This makes me think we base our payscales around the A320 rate, and anything with more or less seats in it is adjusted accordingly.
Originally Posted by
pilotpayne
Look at the plane he is in an you will have your answer.
I agree all kinds of areas to fix.
Yes, I fly it. A320/321 pay directly affects me moreso than you. What is next, criticizing those who push for international override since you dont do as much Caribbean flying?
Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
I think 1206 is OK.
Debateable
but thanks, I am not trying to **** anyone off, but just have a good debate.
Originally Posted by
blueballs
It's dangerous to say more seats should mean more pay. My previous airline believed this and was successful in taking one seat out of the plane to give us much less pay than rightfully deserved. Thinking seats are tied to pay would mean it would be ok to fly a 777 for regional wages if they only have 76 seats installed. How would we be able to come up with pay for cargo companies. Banded pay rates are important ( ie small narrow body, heavy, etc.)
And THIS is the crux of the problem. Basing pay directly on number of seats is a bad road to walk down. Does an A320/321 pilot deserve more than an E190 pilot? I dont think so. Air Canada Jazz used to have a blended pay scale that would adjust up/down based on number of aircraft type in fleet. If you had 130 A320s, 10 A321s, 60 E190s then you would blend the rates all together based on the number of each plane and get a CA/FO payscale.