Originally Posted by
flapshalfspeed
Has anyone ever pondered why pilots seek more money to fly aircraft based on seat count/weight, rather than seeking payrates based on more or less intensive workloads?
In a purely rational economic model, pilots would seek more money to fly airplanes requiring more work/effort/stress, and for aircraft typically associated with "worse" schedules. For example, anecdotally, I think many people would agree that doing 3-4 legs per day on average in a DC-9 or a 737 classic requires more "work" per hour than flying an average of 1 leg per day on an A330.
Maybe our brains place a higher value on "getting our fair share" of the revenue generated from our efforts (i.e. seat count/long-haul flights), versus our individual task load per hour. Maybe as a species we just assume "bigger is better" always--regardless of context. Otherwise, pilot contracts would have evolved in such a fashion that payrates were based on workload/automation status of aircraft types, rather than seat-count.
And maybe at the end of the day everything comes down to mating and passing on genes, and the reptilian, basal parts of our brains assume that flying a widebody on transcons gives us higher rank/status than flying a barbie jet on a 30-minute quick turn in rural Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania.
Just thought I would put this out there in case anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.
Why does the CEO of a company with 5 million in sales get less then the CEO of a company with 5 billion in sales. The 5 million CEO probably works harder with less support.
Throughout history jobs have paid based on revenue and time of service. Airlines are not any different.
Back in 2001 I had the CEO of Delta tell me he did not mind paying a 777 Captain 500 dollars an hour because the airframe generated the revenue to support that wage. He then added however that if he did that we would demand 400 an hour for a 737 Captain and that airframe could not support that wage.