View Single Post
Old 11-05-2010 | 10:22 AM
  #123  
XHooker
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by HSLD
Yes, I have seen the formula and I'm sure your reps could share it with you. If they don't have it handy, they can contact the Economic and Financial Analysis Department. Also, Yes to the productivity formula being applied in C2000. I'll have to look back through some old contracts, but I remember seeing it, in a side letter perhaps, in contract '92.

I won't attempt to repeat the formula from memory, but the basis is that pilot pay is linked to the productivity/revenue generation ability of the airframe. The more payload the aircraft can lift, and the faster it can get it to destination, the more productive the manpower is operating the jet.

Finally, the basis of weight in the formula is max payload, which is certainly a huge contributor to profit potential. A whale can carry 120,000lbs of cargo along with 397 passengers up top and get them there at mach .88 or better. The 787 may be greener, but it won't have near the lift or speed of the -400.
I'm no expert on "the formula", but that won't keep me from talking about it (it is the internet after all). "The formula" probably dates back to a time when the newest airframes were also faster, larger, and capable of generating much more revenue in a wide variety of markets. Particularly going recip props to jets. For example, going from the DC-7 to the DC-8 was a game changer, and, excluding short haul, feeder markets, the airlines haven't looked back. What we're seeing now is the newest, most efficient airframes are smaller than The Whale. Why put negotiating capital into a segment where there's no growth for the foreseeable future? The fact is nobody in ALPA strictly applies "the formula" anymore, preferring to use "pay bands".

I'll say it again. This is all about the SLI on both sides, and IMHO, I'd bet (though admittedly not a lot) 747-4 pay won't be a player in the arbitrators decision, one way or another. IOW, we're potentially holding up the JCBA process over something that probably (IMO) won't matter. I just don't think it makes sense to attach the highest pay to a shrinking fleet.
Reply