Hello,
You're right and I did not put that very well in my post. The entire group pay push by the company stating it was primarily to prevent equipment jumping (and more training) for more pay was a joke from the start IMO. Before the agreement I told my local APA reps it was a bad idea but the response I got was that in the big scheme of things it wasn't what they wanted to put their focus on since so few (the more senior group) would be affected by it in comparison to other issue to be negotiated.

I am still a firm believer that size and speed equals productivity and should be reflected in pay. Whether it be a 767-200 vs -300 or A319 vs A321, you should be paid accordingly. I don't know much about the A350 rumors though and did not want to make this an issue of native vs. the rest. I used the A332 example because it is the smallest in the group versus the largest (B773). It would be just as valid in regard to the 787, B772 or A333. And should somebody fly even a low density A380, they should obviously be paid more than a 747 or 777-300. This flys in the face of those that want to pay the 190 pilot the same as everyone else, a difference in philosophy to be sure. I recognize that it is my seniority and nothing else that puts me in the position I'm in. I make no apologies for that, but I hear what you're saying.

I truly don't look down at those on the smaller equipment. We were all there at some point. I think in the future you will get your wish though, single pay adjusted for longevity. I think it would be bad thing in the long run, but they didn't listen to me before so I doubt they would care now!

 

Hey, I have to admit the 777 is a cool plane and Asiana proved it can take a licking and keep on ticking (well virtually everyone lived).

Don't suppose anyone knows how much cheaper it is to fly an A330-300 than a B777? The 767/757 was a blast to fly but the company is trying to switch to the A321 because they are cheaper to fly and they pay us less.

Don't feel bad, no one listens to me either.

 

A330-300 has the lowest seat mile costs for the Atlantic. 777 is too capable, read heavy, for pure efficiency across the pond.

You don't see many A330's crossing the Pacific. That's where the 777 shines. Maybe 3-4 hrs more range vs the 330-300.

321 vs 757 cockpit costs? $30/hr less.
321 vs 757 total hourly cost? 30%/$1500 an hour less.

Net? They didn't buy 321's to save $30 an hour on crew costs.

 

Cockpit wise looks like $44 for CP and $30 for FO, so $74/hr

Thanks for other info.

Screwing the pilots was just a bonus for doug and his boys.

 

One pay rate for the fleet would actually benefit the senior guys even more.

The vast majority of guys want to stay in the same time zone as you get older, yet they go for the $ most of the time and kill their bodies. In companies that have a flat rate the smallest equipment is always the most senior. You would think this would make them think... but they don't.

I've never understood it, the pilot union is the least union like of any union I have ever been in. We furlough instead of cutting hours (UPS, TEAMSTERS, were the only ones that have not by reducing hours). The seniors are typically the negotiators and as such get themselves big pay while the bulk of the pilot group is flying the lower paid equipment. That great that 777 pays $300/hr but only a couple hundred guys are on it. What about the 4000 (guessing) that are on the GII?

 

Are we looking at the same numbers? I might be looking at the wrong numbers but here's what I found -


Group III - CA - 249.30
FO - 170.27
______
419.57

Group II - CA - 234.67
FO - 160.28
______
394.95

Group III - 419.57 x 1.16(B fund) = $486.70
Group II - 394.95 x 1.16(b fund) = $458.14


$486.70 - $458.14 = $28.56/hour

 

Have you flown the 'dozing for dollars' trips? It's nine days a month. No n/b fleet is that efficient. It's the easiest flying that exists, and pays the most, which is why it goes super senior. The FO's could be 767 CA's but bid 'dozing for dollars' instead.

The flat rate companies also have some brutal trips. BA crews used to have horrendous 747 trips so the n/b trips went senior. Great if you're single. Married guys used to take their families with them. Occasionally that's a good deal but not too many families want to spend four days in a foreign city three times a month. If we had 21 day Europe months vs 14 day n/b months, for the same money, the w/b's would go junior.

 

You are right, I had tunnel vision and was comparing group 4 pay to the 321. I didn't realize groups II/III rates were so close. Would be better to stay senior on II and have more control.

 

Don't forget the T7 can carry a lot of freight in the belly even with a full pax load.
Rumor is that is why some may be headed to the East for some T-ATL routes.
Personally, I wouldn't mind flying the T7 again.

 

I'll take the 350.