Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-11-2015, 08:06 AM   #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 40
Default incentive based pay raises.

After thinking about the sick time and previously talking about using the retirement cycle to change things in a big way I'm really starting to think we could create many incentive based pay raises.

How about seat lock pay raises. Every year beyond 2 years a pilot gets a 5000 incentive per year to stay in the seat. If this stops 2000 pilots from changing seats it's 10,000,000 instead of 2000 times 20,000 per seat change to train someone costing the company 40,000,000( i don't know the actual numbers). Less pilots in training would be productivity gains as well. This would eliminate to small changes like md88 to a320.

Many ways to get raises if we find a few incentives. again a win-win.

I'm sure there are a few more areas we could find incentive base raises with productivity for the company.

This would be a much better approach than selling scope, QOL, seniority, and SL.

Just ideas, trying to think out of the box.
GenX is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:10 AM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX View Post
After thinking about the sick time and previously talking about using the retirement cycle to change things in a big way I'm really starting to think we could create many incentive based pay raises.

How about seat lock pay raises. Every year beyond 2 years a pilot gets a 5000 incentive per year to stay in the seat. If this stops 2000 pilots from changing seats it's 10,000,000 instead of 2000 times 20,000 per seat change to train someone costing the company 40,000,000( i don't know the actual numbers). Less pilots in training would be productivity gains as well. This would eliminate to small changes like md88 to a320.

Many ways to get raises if we find a few incentives. again a win-win.

I'm sure there are a few more areas we could find incentive base raises with productivity for the company.

This would be a much better approach than selling scope, QOL, seniority, and SL.

Just ideas, trying to think out of the box.
Interesting.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:41 AM   #3  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Sticking with retirement cycle we could add a few more items for ideas/debate.

1. sell back half the vacation as we did in the past.
2. give incentives to reserves that on under manned reserves days they can add two x days for 5 hours per day.

Again, I'm just throwing out more ideas that put us in charge of our QOL balanced against pay raises while creating productivity. Some years/months one may want to work more than other years/months not so much. Having choice to balance QOL vs pay incentives may be the way to go. This works for QOL life pilots vs Money driven pilots. So in the end have an initial raise that everybody receives then we as individuals can add to it if we choose the incentives we want or choose QOL instead.
GenX is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:43 AM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX View Post
Sticking with retirement cycle we could add a few more items for ideas/debate.

1. sell back half the vacation as we did in the past.
2. give incentives to reserves that on under manned reserves days they can add two x days for 5 hours per day.

Again, I'm just throwing out more ideas that put us in charge of our QOL balanced against pay raises while creating productivity. Some years/months one may want to work more than other years/months not so much. Having choice to balance QOL vs pay incentives may be the way to go. This works for QOL life pilots vs Money driven pilots. So in the end have an initial raise that everybody receives then we as individuals can add to if we choose the incentives we want or choose QOL instead.
Vacation sellback was not popular because it is perceived as a jobs issue. Why should an X day cost you 5 hours when a work day is only worth half that (more or less)?
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:52 AM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
UGBSM's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Douglas Cable
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez View Post
Vacation sellback was not popular because it is perceived as a jobs issue. Why should an X day cost you 5 hours when a work day is only worth half that (more or less)?
Vacation sellback is a jobs issue. There is no doubt about that. And it does incentivize more productivity.

But its more than that. Ultimately, you can argue it's a fatigue issue. Which ultimately is a safety issue. The whole point of vacation is to relax, rejuvenate, recharge, rest, etc... Humans need that. And we need more of that as you get older.

Granted, everybody is different. Some need more rest than others. But getting rid of vacation sellback was also an effort to protect all of us from those goofballs who fly sick and tired no matter what for the almighty $$.
UGBSM is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:55 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,039
Default

vacation sell back was primarily a pension spiking tool.

that it had some financial benefit to the less junior and cost jobs at the bottom end was addressed with excuses at the senior levels like "I couldn't care less"......
BobZ is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 08:59 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGBSM View Post
Vacation sellback is a jobs issue. There is no doubt about that. And it does incentivize more productivity.

But its more than that. Ultimately, you can argue it's a fatigue issue. Which ultimately is a safety issue. The whole point of vacation is to relax, rejuvenate, recharge, rest, etc... Humans need that. And we need more of that as you get older.

Granted, everybody is different. Some need more rest than others. But getting rid of vacation sellback was also an effort to protect all of us from those goofballs who fly sick and tired no matter what for the almighty $$.
That's true. I wasn't defending sellback at all. Back in those days however, international pilots would fly those 12 day Berlin trips and then bid vacation on the off days, so they weren't using their vacation for the reasons you state either. In essence, they still sold them back. And I find that I am enjoying more time off as well these days, except during the summer when air conditioned airplanes are a nice escape from Florida heat.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 09:03 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Packrat's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
vacation sell back was primarily a pension spiking tool. ...
Exactly correct. It spikes it so much it could encourage more guys to leave early. Assuming you have an A plan, that is.
Packrat is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 09:15 AM   #9  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 40
Default

On vacation correct, however times were always lean and numbers were tight as far as staffing. More numbers more movement. With the retirements coming up we can create productive and movement at the same time. I'm not sure if vacation sell back would look as bad now when we will start moving up fast. However, it would be a way to help balance productivity and create gains pay.

In anyway shape or form productivity means less pilots. Selling vacation beats selling scope or SL. Heck, add the 7th week, half would sell it back as pay. This is all predicated on us helping the company at all on productivity. Of course those who are opposed to any change what so ever any idea would sound bad. That being said, with the retirements for all airlines they probably do need productivity gains. I'm trying to think of ways to leverage that productivity into money and choices and productivity gains. In other words, finding the right balance for the right decade.

As far as reserve or any ideas, I wouldn't know the exact numbers to be used it was just a number I grabbed. Seemed to me if one would do extra should get paid extra. That being said, any numbers or ideas can be debated. My suggestions were more about the idea rather than the actual numbers.

I'm sure many ideas could be good or bad. I'm more or less trying to paint the big picture of what we can do to create choices to keep QOL pilots happy vs Pay driven along with getting pay raises for everyone and incentives for productivity for those who want to participate for increased pay. It could be a win-win for different types of pilots as well as a win for the company. The up and coming decade give us different options than the past.

At least if the discussion gets started we may find things that were unaccepted in the past would be accepted now. Vacation sell back was a jobs thing in the past. The pilots wanted trips touching and no sell back to create even more jobs as it was the only way to create movement. PBS never let trips touching happen so it was a worthless idea other than no sell back.

Like I said though it may be a good thing in the next decade to increase both pay, choices, and productivity. These are just some ideas, hopefully other will have more ideas.
GenX is offline  
Old 07-11-2015, 09:26 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,039
Default

If you suggest vacation sell back....to address the jobs aspect while retaining the economic offset....offering a selective 'buy back' to the company may be acceptable to the group.

Anyone reading this ta should arrive at the conclusion staffing is the big issue.

Okay...first to keep in mind is staffing problems ARE NOT permanent condition...so the 'solutions' should not be installed in our pwa as permanent concessions.

Anything done in the pwa to offer relief in addressing the current staffing issues should be limited, and have sunset language attached.

You want to put vacation buy back on the table? Okay....allow the company to buy back vacation weeks in the categories where the staffing issues are critical. That way the job count should not be negatively impacted, as the buy back is only occurring in those categories where staffing is short....

and the presumption is the company would be hiring to fill those shortages.

We make a huge mistake when we install permanent changes to our pwa for temporary problems.
BobZ is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wheels falling off at RAH prior121 Regional 1912 07-31-2016 07:49 PM
Kudos to JetBlue's Pilot Voting Committee! P-3Bubba Major 174 04-23-2014 07:14 AM
I'm not happy unless the other guy is unhappy LCAL dude United 17 10-02-2012 03:02 PM
Airline Pilot pay justification nerd2009 Major 71 09-26-2010 02:19 AM
Compass Pay Raises UNDGUY Compass Airlines 5 03-22-2008 10:11 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 AM.