I think we both know (or ought to know) that's not how these clowns do business.

You’d be right. I’ll admit my bias.

Flying over the NAT or through the ITCZ on a WB aircraft and checking into the same hotel as the other WB guys, and doing it for a significant discount all because “we don’t want to ‘waste’ the capital” just doesn’t hold water with me. It’s a loophole we are letting the company get away with.

So I’ll ask the masses, how far out from retirement do we stop “wasting” negotiating capital on a fleet? Give me an amount in years so I can bid accordingly.

The 757 might have been brought up to the 767 rate back in the day, but how did the 767 pay rates at the time compare to the "real WBs"

this is an interesting point as we will begin to see more narrowbody a/c do international flying including NAT flying. I’ve operated widebodies in every theater on earth and that is a particular skill/level of experience that has nothing to do with the configuration of the aircraft. Not that it is rocket science, but it is definitely more complex at times.

submitted with full awareness that the NATS has been dumbed way down over the years, but other parts of the world remain odd.

5.

5 Years.

Where did I say anything about 717 brought up to 320 pay? Someone may have said that, but it wasn’t me. I’m simply arguing that it makes the most sense to me to band 717/220, 320/73/7ER, and WB.

I’ll even agree in principle that the 763 should pay the same as other WB, but they don’t. And the reality of the situation is that 20+ years later (and a lot of history to the ‘why’), and 4ish years before the 763’s are all very likely gone, it’s just not practical or wise to ‘fix’ that.

There are lots of things that should be different, but also won’t get fixed.

As Scoop said, this is all academic anyway.

The 717s were "going away" was the excuse the last time contracts opened, yet it seems they'll have survived at least a decade past the going away times. It's a great excuse when they know they're going to leave a category behind. I don't think he's talking about bringing it up to 320, but bringing it up to the at least he 221 makes sense and would fall in line with the SNB category.

You make a very solid point but here is the counterpoint. 3 and 4 year year Pilots are holding ER Captain - much longer to hold the 330, 350, or 765 left seat. If the pay were banded would you even be able to hold the ER? Rhetorical question since many ER pilots could and many could not. I understand now that Pilots are on it they want to get the most pay, I would too, but I am sensing a common theme among our Pilots - we all seem to rationalize and push for what is best for us as individuals.

Many 64 year old Pilots don't want to retire at 65.

Pilots on lower paying fleets want pay banding upward.

ER Pilots want WB Pay.

Simple human nature - I would probably feel the exact same way as many of you but here is the point. We all knew the retirement age when we were hired. We all know the pay rates when we bid an aircraft. To get hired, to bid an aircraft and then push for changes is basically trying to change rules mid game.

To all the 64 year olds - you benefited from the mandatory retirement your whole career but now you would like the age raised because you don't want to retire - human nature.

Less senior Pilots who were able to successfully bid the ER exactly because of the pay disparity now want that disparity eliminated - human nature.

Like I said, I would feel the same way, once again human nature. But lets face it, changing the rules mid game, after benefiting from the very opportunity those rules enabled is not something most Pilots will want to spend a lot of capitol on.

Just my 2 cents - Scoop

Well said Scoop.

I think most of us would generally agree that we should shoot for the moon. You don’t get what you don’t ask for.

And again, I fully support bringing the 717 up to the 223 rate, and the 320/73 up to the ER/NEO/(-Max?) rate. But at a minimum, eliminate the sub-fleet pays by bringing them up to the top rate of the fleet.

All that said, we shouldn’t lose sight of our defense. The company is going to come hard for a few things, IMO.

Everyone wants what’s best for them, as I said…I acknowledge my bias since I’m not a “real” WB guy ;). But “juniorness” of the 7ER has way more to do with the overall bid package and the early retirements than the pay. None of those early ER captain upgrades would’ve ever happened without the early out.

But let’s look at what I highlighted. When I came to the ER, 12 year FO pay for a 765/332/333 was $228. 12 year FO pay for the 7ER was $202. (An 11.5% difference)

The difference now? $330 vs $276 (16.5%)

Thinking down the road, if the NMA ever happens, it could be a WB or NB, or some sort of mix between variants with a common type (sound familiar?), shouldn’t we eliminate the precedent of paying NB rates for WB flying?

Considering the 767-300s holds only 6 less passengers than a 330-200, and is flying literally the same routes, they should be paid as such. The company treats the 7ER category as a WB category in every way (bidding, worldwide ops training, reserve rules, etc) EXCEPT pay.

If the NBs can have different rates for planes, so can the ER.

Close the loophole.