Pay Banding in C2019...
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,905
Ehh...I went from bidding ~35-40% on a NB to ~93% on a WB and increased my Pay AND QOL significantly. I can make in 12 days (mostly only gone 3 days at a time) on a WB what it would take 18-20 days on a NB. Most months I bid a line I can drop my entire schedule and pick up trips on days that I want to actually work. Most months I bid reserve I can get the days off I want. Even if I get coverage days on reserve, ~90% of the time I can move that day to something else. My reserve months I fly 3-9 days. I could never do either of those on my NB...even at ~40%. Almost 100% of the trip are commutable and have a min of a 22 hour layover.
Many WB guys will never bid back to a NB even as a Captain. This is why I think having WB/NB or WB/LNB/SNB are good option and would mitigate your worries. Either way, I doubt we'll change each others mind, and that's ok.
Many WB guys will never bid back to a NB even as a Captain. This is why I think having WB/NB or WB/LNB/SNB are good option and would mitigate your worries. Either way, I doubt we'll change each others mind, and that's ok.
I think most of us agree that variety is a good thing. Proper manning seems to be one key to effecting schedule flexibility.
#12
The pay disparity between fleets has grown over this contract and will continue to diverge with additional pay increases in the future. The difference between 12 year A350 and A220 is quickly becoming $100 an hour.
With the new talk on increasing international flying and purchasing more widebody aircraft there needs to be some sort of pay banding between the fleets. Possibly a narrow body rate that is tied as a percentage of the widebody rate. This would level the playing field on future aircraft orders and be a win win for all.
Thoughts/Comments...
With the new talk on increasing international flying and purchasing more widebody aircraft there needs to be some sort of pay banding between the fleets. Possibly a narrow body rate that is tied as a percentage of the widebody rate. This would level the playing field on future aircraft orders and be a win win for all.
Thoughts/Comments...
Huge productivity concession that never stops producing on the management side.
Usually advocated by pilots who can’t hold anything bigger than the 7ER and want 765 pay.
To the OP: the pay disparity is a reflection of the productivity difference in number of employees (in this case 2-4 pilots) moving greater number of seats/cargo.
For me to vote yes on this I will need to see a much larger pay raise than I expect. Or some other dramatic improvement over what we would get without it.
Will pilotless jets have this same conversation in a few decades?
#13
I'm a strong supporter of United/AA style paybanding. IMO it is a near necessity with our widebody fleet heavily weighted towards the A330. Our 330/765 pilots make less than their AA/UAL counterparts. Similar banding instantly raises aircraft at top payrate from around 30 to 90+
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
I'm a strong supporter of United/AA style paybanding. IMO it is a near necessity with our widebody fleet heavily weighted towards the A330. Our 330/765 pilots make less than their AA/UAL counterparts. Similar banding instantly raises aircraft at top payrate from around 30 to 90+
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Something that bothers me about "top payrate" talk is that it is always by # of aircraft or aircraft block hours. It should be number of pilot positions. UAL and AA gave up a CA on 4 pilot crews so we have a higher number of CA positions on our widebodies per airframe than they do. I am sure Delta would be happy to give us pay banding in exchange for giving up all of those positions we have that they don't.
#16
Pay banding is a huge benefit to the company and QOL hit for the pilots. If it's in the next contract, I'm going to need some massive improvements across the board.
And to all the people posting specific hours and pay you'd be willing to accept, please stop. There is a long history of screenshots from this forum being used in negotiations against us.
And to all the people posting specific hours and pay you'd be willing to accept, please stop. There is a long history of screenshots from this forum being used in negotiations against us.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,905
You're either hopelessly lost in conspiracy land, or our negotiations truly are a farce.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,226
I'm a strong supporter of United/AA style paybanding. IMO it is a near necessity with our widebody fleet heavily weighted towards the A330. Our 330/765 pilots make less than their AA/UAL counterparts. Similar banding instantly raises aircraft at top payrate from around 30 to 90+
#19
Nope.
With longevity pay one bids the airplane, domicile, or type of flying they want without regard to income. Longevity pay allows IPA pilots to have the highest weighted average top-of-scale payrate in both seats per the Delta 2018 Contract Comparison.
Of course, payrate certainly isn't everything when it comes to a contract but IMO there are significant benefits to having as many pilots as possible in as high a given payrate as possible.
I do understand the QOL arguments against it though, because if I were at Delta I'd most likely try to stay on a small narrowbody (assuming the schedules were acceptable) in order to maximize seniority.
There's enough differences between the nature of flying at Delta and UPS that making a direct comparison on many things is difficult.
I say go get yours, whatever that may look like..."A rising tide raises all ships"
With longevity pay one bids the airplane, domicile, or type of flying they want without regard to income. Longevity pay allows IPA pilots to have the highest weighted average top-of-scale payrate in both seats per the Delta 2018 Contract Comparison.
Of course, payrate certainly isn't everything when it comes to a contract but IMO there are significant benefits to having as many pilots as possible in as high a given payrate as possible.
I do understand the QOL arguments against it though, because if I were at Delta I'd most likely try to stay on a small narrowbody (assuming the schedules were acceptable) in order to maximize seniority.
There's enough differences between the nature of flying at Delta and UPS that making a direct comparison on many things is difficult.
I say go get yours, whatever that may look like..."A rising tide raises all ships"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post