Originally Posted by
gloopy
What if the company got A380's? How would this effect scope sale pressures, much less the ability to re-insource at least a little of the outsourced flying...747 pay for 76 seat RJ's? What kind of bargaining credit would we get for selling the 150 seat range? Could we do a YOS only scale? Sure. But it is far from a seamless transition and while I'm not completely against it, it would have to be handled with tremendous care. I would rather see a move in that direction first by consolidating at least some of the pay rates. 88/90 should pay the same, 737/320 should pay the same, DC9/EMB190/195/Small C series should pay the same, all 76's should pay the same, etc. Get it down to 4 pay rates, 5 with the larger RJ's back in house, and then we can worry about longevity pay only.
I'm not a fan of longevity only(I used to be but I have since seen compelling arguments against).
IF I was to support a pay system on longevity, in order to "capture the reveune" on a A380 or whatever:
Pay rates per aircraft type would still be negotiated. Using a staffing formula (pilots per airframe required), we would then use a weighted average to determine the "composite pay rate" that the longevity table would be based upon.
That weighted average could be adjusted quarterly/annually/or everytime an airframe comes on property.
-----The drawback is when you REDUCE "top end" fleet size, does everybody take a cut? There would have to be a floor of some kind (pay stays stagnant until COLA catches up or new airframes come on board).
I agree with some "pay banding" like you mention above, but I'm not sure a pure YOS scale is what I prefer.