Originally Posted by
andy171773
I think the point is..you're on a 3 day trip..so probably close to 50 hours TAFB. Why are you then essentially paid for only 36% of your time?
I'd take $20 a duty hour. I flew 6 legs today, blocked (after delays) at almost 8.5 for a whopping $215..for 13 hours of actual duty.
If i were paid a lesser rate (20 vs 25.46) for the full 24 hours I was "on duty: today that'd be $480
Even if I'm only paid the 20 for the time I'm flying..and the overnight is still the per diem (1.85 or so). That'd still be 280 and change for the day (13hrs@20 +
[email protected]).
What's better for us?
vs.
What's best for the company?
who do you think is gonna win?
+1 I'd take 20 an hour instead of 30 an hour if they paid duty. Honestly it's ridiculous, it's hard to believe a bunch of otherwise intelligent guys fall for this crap. Be AT the airport for 12 hours, but due to some strategic sits, you fly 6 hours.. and get paid 6 for 12 effectively 15 dollars an hour not 30. Other jobs that might pay 15 dollars an hour... nurses assistant, secretary, and a myriad of other jobs that require significantly less training.
But lets not forget the carrot, someday in the distant future, you will hold 20 days off and make 300k... of course if you just made 60k for the entire 30-35 years of your career in net earnings you probably outearn those 300k years... assuming you can get to fedex and upgrade and in the mean time no unions give more wages back, and you can work the system appropriately.
The unfortunate thing is we really can't judge how we did until the end of our careers. Also no data is available which would be relevant towards seeing what percentage of guys starting at a regional eventually make it to a senior major airline captain.
But yes, the moral of the story is we should be paid duty, and we should open our eyes to how much we give up to fly planes.