Quote:
My point is that basing our pay on aircraft size... something which we have zero input into.. is the ultimate definition of stupidity. Fortunately I was hired at the end of a nice wave, so it is not a worry of mine, but if I were young and junior, I would be ****ed off about this propensity to pay based on some retarded "productivity" metric. Best of luck brother. At least there will be a lot of movement in the coming years..... I guess you have to figure out where you will be when the music stops.. and it always does.
T;Originally Posted by tsquare
Since bigger HAS to pay more... and if all things were equal, you have to be in the top 500 at DAL to even throw bags on a 777/747 because we have 34 of them... total... So you can look forward to holding those airplanes when you turn 63 or so... of course you will be on reserve, but our reserve system is pretty good... (I am writing this on SC) But I'll bet that on any given day UAL has 50 of 'em welded to the jetways at IAD... My point is that basing our pay on aircraft size... something which we have zero input into.. is the ultimate definition of stupidity. Fortunately I was hired at the end of a nice wave, so it is not a worry of mine, but if I were young and junior, I would be ****ed off about this propensity to pay based on some retarded "productivity" metric. Best of luck brother. At least there will be a lot of movement in the coming years..... I guess you have to figure out where you will be when the music stops.. and it always does.
I'll agree, we do need more 777s.
UAL has combined their pay in a banded system 747, 777, 787, 764. Not exactly a seniority based system, but probably close. However, if all you want to do is fly narrowbodies for max pay, your arch-nemesis kitty sacrificers comes to mind.