|
Originally Posted by ohaiyo
(Post 4018744)
This is my argument. People CHOOSE to chase pay rates. And the seniority you hold by choosing flying you like would be damaged by one pay rate, when someone on a bigger, higher-paying plane decides that they want your 'better flying'...since it, you know, pays the same. Having more granular options is good for the community. Maybe not an option you want, but it's an option I want them to have.
Didn't make sense to you. It does make sense to others. Again, if everything is just one pay rate, that compresses (eliminates) that choice. It's no longer a consideration someone is making. I can't see how anyone can argue that having a single rate increases the number of choices. I can see arguments for having a single pay rate, but increased choices is not one of them. Carry the exercise a step further. What if FOs got the same pay as CAs? Would anyone be a CA? Nope. Why, because it's more work for the same pay. Labeling chasing pay rates as a "choice" is a fool's errand. That's not a choice, it's a sacrifice. Are those 350 captains going to bid to the 717 if they paid the same? Seriously doubt it. Taking the WB vs NB argument away, there's already a pseudo payband in the NB world anyways: the 737/320 (and even the 7ER) and the 717/220. All you're going to see at the most is those bands codified. Did banding the WB world change lots of behavior? Did 350 pilots jump to the 767-400 because of the pay banding? The experiment has already happened. The data is there. It's going to happen in C26. Be ready for it. |
Originally Posted by Prospect
(Post 4018734)
Have you not been listening? You're ignoring all the arguments that show that the work performed by a WB pilot in isolation does not generate that increased profit. Nor are those pilots working harder or doing anything extra to earn that money (in fact just the opposite). Economically, we as a company are a team that work together to generate the outcome (profit). That profit gives us pilots a slice of pie. Economically, there is no argument to be made for the WB pilots deserving a bigger slice of that pie. That is to say, the company would not be worse off if there was 1 pay band for us all. Profit would not go down. And there is no argument that the WB pilots have earned a bigger slice through harder work, more demanding qualifications, or anything else. There is just no good argument for separate pay rates other than that's the way it's been done in the past.
|
Originally Posted by Prospect
(Post 4018735)
How does equalizing the pay rates across all equipment give pilots fewer choices? If anything, it does the opposite. Currently, folks sacrifice their desired lifestyle in order to chase pay rates. With 1 band for all, pilots are free to choose whatever type of flying they prefer at that point in their career and that their seniority can hold. No options would be taken away... we'd still have all the same equipment and types of flying. You just wouldn't be punished financially for choosing the type you like.
can’t tell you how many times i’ve heard a current wba wishing they could fly 737a as they hate the multiple time zone changes. can’t due to the pay cut. ceo of costco versus ceo of a grocery store. yeah, ok. |
Originally Posted by Prospect
(Post 4018734)
Have you not been listening? You're ignoring all the arguments that show that the work performed by a WB pilot in isolation does not generate that increased profit. Nor are those pilots working harder or doing anything extra to earn that money (in fact just the opposite). Economically, we as a company are a team that work together to generate the outcome (profit). That profit gives us pilots a slice of pie. Economically, there is no argument to be made for the WB pilots deserving a bigger slice of that pie. That is to say, the company would not be worse off if there was 1 pay band for us all. Profit would not go down. And there is no argument that the WB pilots have earned a bigger slice through harder work, more demanding qualifications, or anything else. There is just no good argument for separate pay rates other than that's the way it's been done in the past.
The system that works together takes 3 x B717 to fill 1 x A350. The graduated pay scale based on size and range is only a modest increase in pay relative to the value that one hour of A350 operation brings to the enterprise. Burdening a small plane that carries fewer passengers and cargo with higher operating costs will eventually lead to the loss of small plane operations and greater pressure on low end scope to outsource jobs to regionals. Part of our insourcing success comes from having a modest gap to move flying up from the regionals. What you are proposing is creating a larger gap. Sometimes the reason something has "always been done that way" is because it's the best way. I haven't heard any reason it isn't still the right way other than "spreading the wealth". |
To me the whole argument sounds like Jr pilots wanting to either fly international or trying to get more money faster.
Im a QOL person, so more soft pay and time off. But if we’re going payband I rather have S NB/L NB and WB pay. I have no desire to fly WB, so I rather keep those pilots in that position making “more” money. I’m in a point in life where money is enough, but I understand why some might want to work more. |
Here's an idea, how about a B scale to pay for retiree medical insurance and a minimum cash balance plan, say $5 million per pilot?😂😂😂😂
|
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 4018782)
To me the whole argument sounds like .... trying to get more money faster.
This is what matters. More money earned earlier in one's career allows more savings, more compounding interest, etc. Earning top bucks in the last 3 years of a career before retirement doesn't hurt, but it's not ideal. Pay banding helps that even if it's just a 3 tier band. The WB pay band in C19 was huge as we have more pilots at the top of the pay scale. We should be striving to continue to raise that bar of the top pay scale while allowing more pilots to be in that top pay band. |
Curious how you implement the "bigger better" pay banding that helps more people without harming the most senior on the list who have already paid their dues?
If pay rates aren't increased equally for all positions, then somebody(the more senior) is subsidizing the superior/outsized % increases that some reap to achieve their outsized gain. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 4018829)
Curious how you implement the "bigger better" pay banding that helps more people without harming the most senior on the list who have already paid their dues?
If pay rates aren't increased equally for all positions, then somebody(the more senior) is subsidizing the superior/outsized % increases that some reap to achieve their outsized gain. Should we have a B and C scale because some people had to pay their dues there? Going from 5% of the seniority list to 20% at the top pay rates resulted in some pilots getting a bigger raise than others. Same with matching 320 to 737 rates. There’s going to be winners and bigger winners in any contract. When some only get an 18% raise and some get 20% is that “harm”? Using the argument that’s always the way it’s been isn’t an argument, it’s a cop out. |
Well, what if some get an 18% raise and some get a 4% raise year 1 of the amendable contract? Your answer seems to be "tuff noogies" to the group only getting 4%....if they aren't happy then they must be greedy. At least that is the way it comes across.
There is a way to convert to bigger bands in an attempt to prevent windfalls for only some of the pilots. Can you maybe think of how to do that? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands