I'm a big fan of the pay to productivity of the airframe using a formula that considers max gross weight and mach. This approach gives pilots the ability to share in the revenue generation potential of the airframe.

We all know that some airlines don't put as many seats in the tube as others. In fact in the case of a UAL PS branded 757, there are significantly less seats but a much higher yield. Unfortunately, PS serves a niche sector of the market that doesn't represent the entire operation. Should pilots suffer financially for marketing decisions? Said another way, should airline marketing drive pilot pay?

Today the focus on banding is on the -400. However, what if in the next few years UAL buys the A380? The 380 can seat 525 people in a 3-class configuration, or up to 853 in a 1 class configuration. Should a large widebody be paid based on what it can carry, or how marketing decides to configure the interior?

I obviously don't have a problem with separate rates for each different airframe as there is a direct correlation to pilot productivity.

For the proponents of pay banding, what are the benefits to the pilot group for banding pay rates? Also, what's the benefit of de-linking pay to productivity and the negotiating leverage for pay improvement/new rates absent considering productivity? Aside from the obvious jockeying for pole position on the SLI, it seems that banding will have a negative long term effect on pilot pay.

I would add, that if this contract doesn't fix scope at the large and small gauge end of the spectrum, all the energy wasted on wide-body pay will be for naught.