Originally Posted by
HSLD
For the proponents of pay banding, what are the benefits to the pilot group for banding pay rates?
Because in the foreseeable future, the growth is in the 787/A350. We negotiate a higher rate for the 747-4 and we wind up with a whole bunch of nothing when it goes away.
Also, what's the benefit of de-linking pay to productivity and the negotiating leverage for pay improvement/new rates absent considering productivity?
The problem is, for most markets, the 747 and A380 are not the most productive/cost effective airframes. The crew in a 3/4 full 747-4 may well be losing money while the full 777 is making it hand over fist. Look at NRT. When I first started flying there, the 747 had an obvious majority of the long haul traffic. Within two years I saw the 777 grow to, in my admittedly unscientific opinion, overtake the Whale. Personally, I think airframes should be banded by the mission (North America/8-12 Hours/12+), that way we won't get screwed by the flavor of the month (decade).
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 understand the point about your definition of productivity, but the trend in orders points to us gaining more pay by banding the 747-4.
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.
True, and this is definitely teetering along the line of negotiating in public, but we're just speaking in theory here, right?