Originally Posted by
BobZ
Establishing pay banding in and of itself is going to precipitate tremendous training churn at a time when the capacity is least able to handle it.
Decoupling pay from productivity is a bad idea. But if that is the way this group decides to go there is a much more beneficial strategy for management and the pilot group.
Longevity based pay. The aircraft pay formula is simply tossed. And a pilot is compensated on years of service alone.
Sucks for the 2015 765B.......but hey, its great for me!
There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. Pay banding is a fundamental and permanent change, to a temporary problem. And solving temporary problems with permanent solutions is how more often than not we have screwed ourselves.
I'm not sure switching to longevity pay (which I believe I would support) would result in any less training churn than pay banding, and it might even generate more. I'm sure it would cost jobs too.
What would solve all training and manning problems (without costing jobs) is boosting hiring and buying more simulators. Those costs would be significant, but they'd be pennies on the dollar compared to stock buy-backs.
By adding yet another fleet to our mix, management has shown they don't mind increasing training inefficiencies - I'm not sure why we now feel any obligation to fix a problem they have exacerbated.