Originally Posted by
Really
LCAL pilots did NOT want to go to pay banding since they wanted to keep it longevity pay like UPS currently has in place. Many old timers were convinced you could make more throughout your career with longevity pay...
As an outsider looking in I find the "banding pay" concept exhausting but I guess it's all about perspectives.
We have MANY issues here at Brown; new hires with absolutely no international experience going straight from a regional jet to the left seat of a 767 simply because they obligate themselves not to join our union, the millions and millions of lithium batteries we carry on a daily basis, the way FAA frivolously exempts us from different regulations whenever our industry asks for it (both cargo and freight industry), the plethora of hazmat we carry, etc., etc..
However, I love the single pay scale we have. We bid airplanes based on our schedule and commuting preferences, pay is the same whether you fly a 757, A300 or a 747 and I think most of us really like that.
Senior guys/gals who've 'been there and done that' bid smaller planes to be closer to their homes whereas junior pilots bid airplanes which will take them around the world.
Why is this concept frowned upon at passenger airlines? Is it because of the pilots themselves or is it management's preference to offer different pay scales for different fleets?
I'm not trying to start a "mine is bigger than yours" contest, I'm truly curious as to why passenger airlines' unions won't push for longevity pay as I believe it'd help to decrease the animosity amongst the pilots. The idea of someone coming from Legacy- this or Legacy- that would become totally irrelevant.. So why not?
Am I misunderstanding the issue?
I'd appreciate your thoughts; thanks for your time.