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.
Love you T, and I am not necessarily against senioirty based pay, banding etc, all I want to see is the overall plan and the numbers. Just like setting a goal of "restoration" and repeating it over and over again, I want to know what "since bigger does not pay more" is going to look like.
So, while yes the 747 guys might be taking a "pay cut" if they down bid airplanes, if we agree (and you did on an earlier post) that without increasing the costs of the current pilot contract, the fact is they would have never reached that hourly rate in the first place. As a matter of fact, for most, the aircraft that they down bid to will still most likely pay more than the seniority based pay average of $215.
Tell me what it is going to look like with our current contract value. Tell me what it will look like if we then decide to upgauge or down gauge the airline.. Everybody gonna be happy flying an A380 for the same as a 717 if the captain pay is $215?