Originally Posted by
newKnow
If we were on a pay scale where all of our captains make the same longevity based rate and another airline were to be merged in, how would that affect our argument that there should not be a straight ratio list?
Their captains would be making the same amount as our captains, regardless as to what type of airplanes they bring to the table.
IMO, retirements and other factors aside, if we had a longevity based pay system, it would hurt our argument against a 2 category (Captain/FO) ratio list badly.
I don't think it would turn out that way at all. I mean maybe if we merged with UPS or some other highly paid LBP airline? Other than that, no way.
Even LBP would take into account the fleet. If we got 100 A380s, the "one rate" would obviously have to go up, etc. In your hypothetical with Alaska (which I don't think will happen now) our one rate would be significantly higher than their existing rate, therefore our pay only expectations would be much higher than theirs. Then factor in our higher retirements and other factors and its a slam dunk. That alone would nuke any hope they could ever have of full relative.
Say we were an all A380 airline (same number of pilots) with $500/hr for CA's and $350 for FO's (never going to happen since only foreign airlines are permitted by the regulations to fly them). Would Alaska have a case saying "but but but they only have one rate like us ergo full relative!" LOL! No way.
Simply having one rate doesn't mean we would lose out at all. Particularly if that rate is significantly higher than the merged airline in question. Career expectations for pay depend on...pay. Not simply what seat you are in at the snapshot.