Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 4017388)

From my POV it is a downgrade from our current practice for several reasons.

- different pay scales offer choices with bidding seniority vs money. If I’m chasing a payrate I can bid a higher paying fleet and accept my juniority, or I can stay senior on a lower paying plane. Using a practical example, if I were ATL based I could choose the 717A, hold weekends off and have some control over my schedule but make a little less. Bid the 737A work some weekends and make a bit more, or bid the ERA, have not much control of my schedule and work most weekends but make even more (per hour) pay banding would average out the seniority and I’d either have to stay an FO or accept poor seniority as a CA, regardless of fleet.

- larger aircraft paying more means we make more as a group when DL buys larger aircraft, this has been the trend throughout most of airline history.

- training churn is generally good for the group, more jobs.

- WB pilots would probably take a pay cut or at least a very small raise

- UPS has an almost all WB fleet and their top pay rate is below our 321 NEO rate. We have been able to continue to negotiate higher raises for new aircraft in addition to regular raises.

im not flat out opposed to bay banding all aircraft to 1 rate, but i do consider it inferior to current practice

Originally Posted by Gooner (Post 4017999)

if you want to talk about revenue that aircraft generate, I highly recommend Airlines Confidential episode 329 podcast. Doug Parker, yes the exCEO, explains how airlines calculate revenue for hub and spoke. The network is dependent on all the inbound and outbound.

Originally Posted by Gooner (Post 4017999)

iI think this does away with the notion that any aircraft really generates more revenue than others. By that thought as a pilot collective we discount NB pilots. I think we should reduce that discount.

Originally Posted by Gooner (Post 4017999)

iWhether we want to admit or not there’s a huge dose of historical ego attached to WB pay.

Originally Posted by jerryleber (Post 4018011)

Sorry, but that is demonstrably false. An A359 produces VASTLY more revenue than a 717 for more hours/day.

Originally Posted by jerryleber (Post 4018011)

I listened carefully to it.

Sorry, but that is demonstrably false. An A359 produces VASTLY more revenue than a 717 for more hours/day.

Please get a hold of Flying the Line Vol I and read about Decision 83. It was a political stroke of genius that has enabled ALPA and others to capture a portion of aircraft productivity gains over the last century for pilot pay. Airline managements would kill for us to change to pay to seniority.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 4018020)

Please demonstrate

Originally Posted by jerryleber (Post 4018032)

A 359 carries 4x the payload 10% farther/hour burning a quarter of the pounds/seat-mile. Airlines are constantly trying to maximize the revenue collected via various seating configurations and topping off the cargo. Given those numbers it is common sense that if management maximizes the revenue for its fleet in a hub and spoke network that the larger, faster and more efficient aircraft are VASTLY more productive especially from a revenue perspective.

You need the network and to fill it with revenue, but this is obvious.

Originally Posted by jerryleber (Post 4018011)

I listened carefully to it.

Sorry, but that is demonstrably false. An A359 produces VASTLY more revenue than a 717 for more hours/day.

Please get a hold of Flying the Line Vol I and read about Decision 83. It was a political stroke of genius that has enabled ALPA and others to capture a portion of aircraft productivity gains over the last century for pilot pay. Airline managements would kill for us to change to pay to seniority.

Originally Posted by Gooner (Post 4018059)

Hey appreciate you engaging. If you did listen to it then you will have caught that the network powers the entire system. The WB does not fill itself. There is a certain amount of O/D traffic that DAL does capture by having the coastal bases that cheap pilots like to complain about, which does power a genuine cost savings. But, a WB is pretty useless without the 3x2 NB flying the Villes and Burgs bringing in lucrative secondary markets. Corporate contracts are a big part of that as well. By paying less for NB pilots delta is getting a discount for those routes, that to power that network, they need anyways. Why do you think RJs still exist, cheap pilots aren’t what makes that viable, heck AA is still paying some of their RJ captains more than their NB captains.

I’ve read Flying the Line, not enough do. You are right to point to that as a landmark point for ALPA and it has worked. But maybe the consolidation of the industry and the airport environment supporting upguaging means it’s time to capture higher pay rates for smaller planes.

Again, it is mostly ego and historical norms that say WB pilots make more because they produce more. I don’t know if 3 WB pilots flying for 8 hours generate more revenue than 2 pilots flying two 3.75HR legs do.