Jan. AE
#341
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
AA also ordered 50 of the 321XLR. Miami-South America, PHL/JFK/BOS?-TATL.
For what it's worth, Glen Hauenstein said in a investor call recently that he wasn't seeing the 321XLR for our TATL network. He explained his doubts that it's the solution, mentioned pilot wages being a factor, and reiterated the desire for a NMA solution. I'm assuming by wages, he means its affect on CASM.
For what it's worth, Glen Hauenstein said in a investor call recently that he wasn't seeing the 321XLR for our TATL network. He explained his doubts that it's the solution, mentioned pilot wages being a factor, and reiterated the desire for a NMA solution. I'm assuming by wages, he means its affect on CASM.
#342
Big airplanes “generally” pay more because they generate much more revenue per mile or hour. They can “afford” to pay more.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
#344
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
The ULR takes advantage of unused space in the wings to gain an extra 3,000+ gallons per side through additional piping and venting. Our 350s routinely depart with the ability to onload another 40,000 lbs in fuel but can't because of the Max GW for TO limit. The last one delivered (3513) bumped up the Max GW for TO about 11,000 lbs but that still leaves the ability to upload another 30,000 lbs +/- which makes the ULR a non-issue (at least for Delta).
#345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Are you sure about that? I believe Singapore is the only airline to purchase the ULR variant and they only put 161 seats on the ULR (versus our 306) and they de-activate the fwd cargo door. That isn't a "normal" interior.
The ULR takes advantage of unused space in the wings to gain an extra 3,000+ gallons per side through additional piping and venting. Our 350s routinely depart with the ability to onload another 40,000 lbs in fuel but can't because of the Max GW for TO limit. The last one delivered (3513) bumped up the Max GW for TO about 11,000 lbs but that still leaves the ability to upload another 30,000 lbs +/- which makes the ULR a non-issue (at least for Delta).
The ULR takes advantage of unused space in the wings to gain an extra 3,000+ gallons per side through additional piping and venting. Our 350s routinely depart with the ability to onload another 40,000 lbs in fuel but can't because of the Max GW for TO limit. The last one delivered (3513) bumped up the Max GW for TO about 11,000 lbs but that still leaves the ability to upload another 30,000 lbs +/- which makes the ULR a non-issue (at least for Delta).
#346
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
To put the 350 GW "deficiency" into perspective, our B777s carry 10 less people but have GW limits roughly 40k higher for the ER and 150k higher for the LR. Granted those two variants are no where near as efficient as the 350 but they certainly are more capable as far as lift versus range.
#347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Big airplanes “generally” pay more because they generate much more revenue per mile or hour. They can “afford” to pay more.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
#348
When I went to in command years ago the then CEO commented he could afford to pay a 777 CA 500 an hour because the airframe generated the revenue to support it. He added he would not pay that rate because if he did we would demand 400 an hour for the 737 and the airframe would not support that rate.
The fact is that the higher revenue aircraft to some extent, subsidize the smaller aircraft rates with their revenue. This is why pay banding to the top rate is easier when you have 100 777’s and say only 10 767’s instead of the opposite. With 100 777’s, banding does much less to pilot casm than if you only had 10 777 and 100 767’s. Very similar to our 737 fleet with only 10 -700.
#349
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 52
I’m in favor of pay banding for numerous reasons. In response to “the big airplanes generate more money,” I reply “it’s hard to fill a 777 up without the feed of 717s and MD88s. That’s one (of many) reasons Pan Am failed. They couldn’t get approval for domestic routes to feed their international flying.
#350
Big airplanes “generally” pay more because they generate much more revenue per mile or hour. They can “afford” to pay more.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
C172, B717 and a B777 all leave full from ATL-MCO. Assume each passenger paid the same for a ticket. Which pilot(s) had the most responsibility and therefore liability? Which could afford to pay more?
That being said, our smaller aircraft have a much higher pilot casm and pay rate relative to our larger aircraft. What about legs per day? Doesn’t matter as far as revenue generation. Just because somebody does ATL-BHM 5 times, doesn’t mean they flew more RASM than the guy who just did ATL-SEA. Since almost 100 percent of passengers on those shorter legs are connecting, accounting practices allocate much of the revenue to the longer leg.
Of course in the whole pilot pay area, we can split it however we want like seniority based pay. But, assuming current contract value it would bring down our top pay rate to about the 767 level. That is great for those 767 and lower, but bad for those 767 and higher as there is nothing left above them.
I know we can always expand the pie, but I am just trying to give a realistic example of what it would look like today.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post