Originally Posted by
tsquare
Whatever. But remember that when those 747s are gone.. they ain't being replaced with anything that pays the same or more. That will meet the definition of "paycut" for many many pilots. If you can reconcile that as being smart, then good for you. I think it's blatantly idiotic, but I'm on my retirement airplane (hopefully) so I couldn't care less if they take paycuts, but there is real potential that they could cause me to take one because they will displace me out of my seat... The attachment of our pay to the revenue generation of the airframe baffles me no end. We do not choose the airplanes, nor how to utilize them. That is a management decision. We push throttles, nothing more. period.
Have at it.
Do you remember the argument made when DALPA was negotiating a pay rate for the (then) new 737-800's? They were bought to replace the old gas guzzling 727's, but with one less engine, one less pilot, nearly the same payload, they were going to be much more efficient. DALPA's argument was that the pilots should share in that increased productivity.
I think the exact same argument could be made for what ever replaces the 747's. What ever it is (787/A350/A330NEO/777-300) it will no doubt be much more fuel efficient, with two less engines.
We need to increase the pay rates on those new, more efficient airplanes and keep pay tied to productivity, not removed from productivity.