If only it were that simple. It's easy to agree what airplane you fly when you're actually sitting in the seat, but what about all the ways you get paid when you're NOT flying? Sick? Vacation? Substitution? You're scheduled to fly the B-767, you're removed, placed in Sub, and offered a B-757 trip, then what? You decline the trip and elect OTP -- do you get credit at B-767 rate, even if the trip you get on OTP is a B-757? What about R-days? Instructor pay? Training on a day off? Make-up sick, disability, vacation ...

I think I've only scratched the surface.

Capt Stratton said today that complicated scheduling rules result in complicated unintended consequences, and he therefore favors simple scheduling rules. In this case, I agree. Keep it simple -- seperate fleets, seperate bid period packages.






.

Wouldn't single bid pack at wide body rates be even simpler?

Indeed it would be simple. I'll even agree it would be simpler.


The trouble, I believe, with that simple solution is that it would result in slower seat (pay rate) progression, fewer "quality of life" steps, and lower career earnings potential.






.

Explain the lower career earnings potential, please. Unless you're thinking that the single(blended) rate would be lower than our wide body rate.

Of course this is the single pay rate argument, so it could get pretty involved and pretty heated, but without specific numbers to support the math, neither side can prove their position. Since we don't have those numbers, I'm only expressing my opinion and gut feeling.

But it's clear today that with a number of "steps" from the entry level (today it's the narrow-body back seat, but for the sake of this discussion let's make it the narrow-body right seat) to the top level, the wide-body Captain. The two important steps we look at currently are the left seats of the narrow-body and the wide-body. But given that the gaps between those steps are not huge, we have a lot of people who park on a step lower than they can hold to enjoy a "senior in my seat" slice of quality of life. They delay moving up for the sake of lifestyle, but they often make similar income by creative bidding afforded to senior folks.

Ignoring the Second Officer seat, we have 4 steps. Compensation in the form of pay and retirement contributions are based on which step you're on, and the time value of the retirement contributions is greatly multiplied by reaching a step sooner rather than later.

Switching to two steps would -- I BELIEVE -- significantly alter bidding behavior in terms of "parking" on a lower step to enjoy quality of life. The gap between the two steps will obviously be bigger than the gaps we have now, so it would be far more difficult to make up the difference with creative bidding. Consequently, even with the number of Narrow-body Captain seats moving that step to the left on the time-line, I think bidding behaviors will keep it well to the right. The time to Captain (narrow-body or widebody) under a single pay rate system would -- in my opinion -- be roughly the same as the time to wide-body Captain under our current system, because fewer people will delay their upgrade, meaning fewer people will be able to take advantage of early upgrades.

We saw the same behavior change after the wave of excess bids and 4.A.2.b. People became much more reluctant to delay their upgrade "until the next bid" so they could enjoy seat seniority. More people are upgrading at their first opportunity than before.

I'm a wide-body Captain -- it might not affect me (until the next great excess -- I already experienced the downbid once). But for junior guys, and especially new hires, I don't think it's the optimum way to fund a retirement and calculate a paycheck.

Is there a set of numbers that could prove otherwise? Sure. Hypothetically, those hypothetical numbers chould be distributed over 4 steps to support my view, too. Like I said, neither position can be proven conclusively.






.

Other companies have the common bid for the 767/757. Can't we just look at how they are doing it and use that as a guide for compensation? Maybe it needs tweaked a bit for us, but I don't see how they can do it but we couldn't.

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahaha...lmao!!!!

"Dislike and Like" I thought we have been in formal negotiations for the past two years...kinda like "danger...is there any other kind?" However, spot on in the second half! Seat progression only appears to be a raise and is an excellent distraction. Especially with a new fleet type.

Training letter's out.

Full classes on the 757 through April.

The captain students extend out into the fall........

Simpler? Yes. Best outcome? Not necessarily. Why give something else up to get a single pay rate that fails to benefit the majority of the pilot force?

I like the idea of two bid packs. Two bid packs preserves the seniority system. If you want widebody pay, bid a line in the 767 bid pack. If you want to fly your hometown trip, bid a line in the 757 bid pack. If you want widebody pay during your vacation, forgo the Christmas week you can hold in the 757 bidpack and bid the October week in the 767 bidpack.

Of course all scenarios are based on seniority, but it puts the choice in the hands of the pilot force.

Call me naive, but I don't see why the company wouldn't like this scenario. It will limit the amount of times they pay us widebody pay for flying the 757. Of course anytime you block out on a 767 trip, regardless of bidpack, it warrants widebody pay. Or, if they choose to use a 767 reserve pilot on a 757 trip, the pilot still gets widebody pay. Even that shouldn't really bother the company if we allow that level of scheduling flexibility (meaning scheduling can pick from either reserve to fill holes). Some may argue we shouldn't allow that scheduling flexibility as it will require fewer pilots. That raises the question again of what are we willing to give up in this pay rate battle.

One of the things I really like about this job is the wide variety of flying we have. From BNA out-and-backs to 15 day international trips and everything in between, we have more variety than probably any other airline. In my humble opinion I see two bidpacks as a way to preserve the most flexibility for the pilot force (and ironically for the company) while ensuring our seniority system is preserved.

Diatribe over. Commence shooting holes in my theory, please