Paying what you can hold not what you fly?
 

Has this idea ever been visited at the major level? I know some of the Euro carriers do this and I don't see why it couldn't be applied here.

For those that don't know, the concept is that pilots would be paid by the number of aircraft in each category in seniority order. For example, it would allow the number 1 guy to fly a e190 and get paid as if he were flying the 330. The main advantage is that people would not have to destroy their bodies flying on the backside of the clock in their old age to be able to make more money.

So then the bottom guy gets to fly the 330/777 and "destroy his body" for an E190 pay rate? I don't like the sound of that.

Well to be fair our 190 pay rates are pathetic! Pay parity with delta and united except for group I.....

I think this idea has some upside but I think it would be opening up a bigger can of worms....

Look at the European crews when you see them in customs. They all seem relatively young. The senior (old) guys are flying narrow bodies around Europe with shorter legs, close to home with few time zones and making the biggest bucks. Works great.
I for one would be happy to never fly another international trip. I much prefer domestic but fly international because it's the best money. To me taking off and landing is a lot of fun, the rest is pretty damn boring! On the other hand there are thousands that would LOVE to fly widebodies on international routes that will never get the chance due to seniority. If the pay were what you can hold instead of what you are flying I would be much happier on the S80 or 737 freeing a wide body spot for one who would enjoy it more. It would be a win / win!
CG

Why not just make it all a flat pay rate. A rate for CA and F/O, equipment type doesn't matter.

Tough to go back now because a decent chunk of the list would take a pay cut, and chances are they are the same guys (senior CAs) on the negotiating committee.

Legacy Continental did that for years. What they got was all senior pilots flying the MD-80's and all the junior pilots flying the heavy equipment. They had to displace because they could not fill CA or FO vacancies on heavy airplane, because senior pilots would not bid it. Thus they had a staffing issue with plenty of staffing. The only way to get people to take advancement was to change equipment pay. The company also had the least experienced and lowest paid (equalling lowest morale) flying heavy equipment around.

In 2007, even after they changed the equipment pay, my friend was awarded 777 as a new hirer FO......at a rate of $29.00 per hour with a one year seat lock. I do not know about you, but why would the company increase pay when they can keep cheap labor on the highest gross equipment, there is no incentive to do so. First year pay at all companies is a shame even today. When a new hirer on WB gets the same as a new hirer on (using US Airways) a 190

Why not make it what you can hold or what you can fly: Whichever is greater?

That way the senior guys can fly the domestic stuff, and the junior guys can fly the heavy INTL stuff, but not at a severe discount to the CO. This way you can pick for QoL/type of flying, and not take a hit for it.

It somehow works for UPS. I do know you have to be senior to get the domestic stuff there, though.

How would this work?
Suppose you could hold the 777 but would rather for whatever reasons fly the S80 on short haul.
Suppose I could never touch the 777 due to seniority but it would be my dream to fly international.
If we had a system to bid a position "alternate pay" (or what ever you wanted to call it) where you could bid to fly the S80 at 777 rates cause you can hold it and I could bid 777 at S80 rates because I can't whereby you couldn't get the bid unless someone like me wanted your seat at the lesser rate and even at that you would get the alternate pay position by seniority only. No one would be out any extra money, including the company. I wouldn't be getting screwed because thats what I would be making anyway and you wouldn't be awarded the pay unless there were bidders like me to create your slot. We would both be happier and making the same money we would have anyway.
Just a thought, probably full of holes but surely with some thinking outside of the box something could be engineered.
CG

Domestic is the most junior flying at UPS.

Apples and oranges though. International at UPS is far different from legacy flying. At UPS, you could do a 14 day trip that only flies 5 legs and be done the rest of the month.

That would open the door for a sneaky maneuver: senior pilots avoid the 777, but take up a collection and award the cash to the most junior guy who successfully bids it. Then hundreds of guys will get that pay rate without going to school or giving up QOL. :p

Playing devil's advocate here, but it's always been a matter of productivity. Faster, heavier, more costly aircraft equaling more liability/ responsibility, together with international flying around the clock in a riskier environment. I would rather have the more experienced crews dealing with that. Like the Europeans though, I'd
Much rather fly domestic short haul. Having done both, it's much easier physically, mentally, and a whole lot more fun IMO.

The solution to this is simple. Instead of calling it "pay based on what you can hold", call what it is. "No pay differential for equipment". Pay is based on seat and longevity and nothing more. The company actually loves this because guys stop chasing airplanes with a higher pay rate (reducing long course training) and pigeon hole themselves where they want to be. Of course other airlines go crazy because you end up with some pilots who are junior flying wide bodies at their lower hourly rate and that's viewed as "lowering the bar".

This is what happened at AWA. If you had to tell guys you flew a 757 to Hawaii, that's what you did. It you were a QOL guy, you flew the 737 up and down the West coast. Everybody else fit in the middle flying the Airbus...and it drove other airline pilots nuts.

Ummmmm .... Sure.

I didn't say that to be a dick. Negative result was 757 captains at AWA made less than 757 captains at other airlines and it brought the industry average down. I'm not saying it was good or bad...I'm just saying that's what it was.

It so cool to see new guys re-invent the wheel! I wish I were as smart as the rest of you.
When FedEx had it, it was called "seat pay". As an bargaining tool, it works great. You can't get higher pay from your legacy carrier; so, you go for seat pay. Then you can't higher pay from your air parcel company; so, you go back to equipment pay.

You know what, maybe you should all sit down and figure out, how to out think management; instead, of re-inventing the wheel.

Biggie

I thought that since AWA had one rate that management might want that for the JCBA at the new US, but the Kirby didn't propose that. Maybe it doesn't make as much financial sense with multiple fleet types?

It's clearly to the company's advantage to have as little training as possible. All of the 330 CA retirements have to hurt based on how many training events that triggers. I don't know if longevity pay is necessarily the solution, but I wonder if the company would be willing to incentivize staying in a given seat for longer with some kind of bonus money?

The only thing better then a single track pay scale is a group of pilots fighting amongst themselves to fly at the cheapest pay rate. It's a management team's dream. Maybe we'll be smarter in this merger.

My last post didn't make any sense. I meant a wider difference in seating among the fleet. Paying the same for a 99 seat aircraft as a 300+ one.

I agree the company is the master of pitting pilots against each other and the main architect of that came along with the merger. Whether that is the purpose of pay groups, I don't know.

In theory it could open up some flexibility and options, but I agree with many of the points in the thread that point out an option for abuse or disparity.

Gotcha. No worries.

This is exactly what it's about. Let the new hires come fly the heavy international, while giving the senior guys raises to stay on their current equipment. 1 training cycle instead of 2.

Later they'll use this to argue the size of equipment is not relevant to our pay. Slippery slope. Don't go there.