Originally Posted by
symbian simian
I actually worked with some of that "better" system for almost a decade abroad. Spoiler: it is not better. At least in my opinion.
I don't doubt it. I'm not sure of when or what was traded to have this system implemented, but pilots LOSE far more than they win w/ seniority when it comes to a company going out of business (or merging). I suppose the idea was to try and be as "fair" as possible to more junior pilots given a massive ingress of pilots from an "outside" source but, again, that's not how ANY of that works in any other industry. They make MOVIES out of big law and/or stock firms merging. They all know the rules. Whomever is "out" would get to do the same at the next firm they're hired with. If the system you experienced wasn't better, it's because it is/was because of factors the contract didn't include as protections.
Originally Posted by
symbian simian
You already opened another can with:" experienced CA at 1st year pay with less initial training costs (vs. paying an upgrading FO who'd be receiving 2+ CA yr pay" . Now you have created an incentive for the company to hire from the outside before upgrading from within... "Simply put a "minimum" percentage of in-house space". So who decides on those percentages? Nothing simple about it. .
The percentage would be COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED. And let's be real - the reason(s) a CA leaves one company for another are probably very limited - company goes out of business, commuting differences or pay. If you're at DL, you don't leave for UA (and drop down to 1st yr CA pay) except for a VERY personal reason. It wouldn't be a bunch of people doing it voluntarily. It would mostly apply in a bankruptcy or merger situation OR if there were an airline (regional or otherwise) that paid less. I already mentioned regionals should be paid the same (reasoning explained below).
Originally Posted by
symbian simian
And saying regional pilots should not be paid less suggest that you think WB pilots should not be paid more... Do you really think the majority of the pilots want no pay differentiation? Hint: experienced lawyers and surgeons make more than rookies. It isn't scary, it is impractical, and will not make things better. And again, I say that as someone who just started over at the bottom.
You contradict your own question w/ your answer. Hint: Regional pilots are often MORE experienced than the rookie FOs hired off the street. There were several years many regional pilots got "stuck" and couldn't get hired - a 22 yr regional CA should be paid less than a 1st yr narrowbody FO? And, tying pay to the # of passengers doesn't work either - ULCCs carry legacy widebody # of passengers for less pay.
Originally Posted by
symbian simian
There is plenty things we should be changing before we even try to touch this. Here is a few:
- After the amendable date for the contract passes, pay rates should automatically be raised every year by COLA+1% (SWA gets some of that, why isn't ALPA pushing for this??)
- Hourly pay should start at scheduled departure time -30 minutes and end at the later of scheduled or actual arrival +15 minutes. Get paid for when you are actually working.
First of all, it's "there are plenty of things..."
First bullet - agree. Not necessarily with your specific terms but something that makes sense.
Second bullet - that's what rig is for. If the rig ratio is off, then a new one needs to be collectively bargained.
Again, just because you (and many others) started over at the bottom after a change doesn't mean that's the best system. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why NO OTHER COUNTRY or industy does it this way?
We all know this isn't a battle ALPA has the remotest of interest in but it would definitely have to start with them.