The giant and likely impossible hurdle would be getting agreement from all pilots who are happy with their seniority at their carrier. I'd guess more than 50% would say no way Jose as they would stand a chance of someone from another airline coming in over the top of them. Too upsetting to think about for most while others would drool at the opportunity. Just too hard to change mid stream as though to speak.

 

I actually worked with some of that "better" system for almost a decade abroad. Spoiler: it is not better. At least in my opinion. You already opened another can with:" experienced CA at 1st year pay with less initial training costs (vs. paying an upgrading FO who'd be receiving 2+ CA yr pay" . Now you have created an incentive for the company to hire from the outside before upgrading from within... "Simply put a "minimum" percentage of in-house space". So who decides on those percentages? Nothing simple about it. . And saying regional pilots should not be paid less suggest that you think WB pilots should not be paid more... Do you really think the majority of the pilots want no pay differentiation? Hint: experienced lawyers and surgeons make more than rookies. It isn't scary, it is impractical, and will not make things better. And again, I say that as someone who just started over at the bottom.
There is plenty things we should be changing before we even try to touch this. Here is a few:
- After the amendable date for the contract passes, pay rates should automatically be raised every year by COLA+1% (SWA gets some of that, why isn't ALPA pushing for this??)
- Hourly pay should start at scheduled departure time -30 minutes and end at the later of scheduled or actual arrival +15 minutes. Get paid for when you are actually working.

 

The information I have says SWA gets a 2.5% (I’ll guess based on w2?) bonus each year starting after the amendable date. It’s possible it could be tied to profitability metrics? More info on the language is needed. While I agree alpa needs to be pushing something similar it’s not exactly cola +1% guaranteed.

It’s my guess it’s structured that way because if you were to have an exact payrate number the following year the contract wouldn’t be amendable.

Rig is intended to make sure you’re paid for being at work.

 

I don't doubt it. I'm not sure of when or what was traded to have this system implemented, but pilots LOSE far more than they win w/ seniority when it comes to a company going out of business (or merging). I suppose the idea was to try and be as "fair" as possible to more junior pilots given a massive ingress of pilots from an "outside" source but, again, that's not how ANY of that works in any other industry. They make MOVIES out of big law and/or stock firms merging. They all know the rules. Whomever is "out" would get to do the same at the next firm they're hired with. If the system you experienced wasn't better, it's because it is/was because of factors the contract didn't include as protections.
The percentage would be COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED. And let's be real - the reason(s) a CA leaves one company for another are probably very limited - company goes out of business, commuting differences or pay. If you're at DL, you don't leave for UA (and drop down to 1st yr CA pay) except for a VERY personal reason. It wouldn't be a bunch of people doing it voluntarily. It would mostly apply in a bankruptcy or merger situation OR if there were an airline (regional or otherwise) that paid less. I already mentioned regionals should be paid the same (reasoning explained below).
You contradict your own question w/ your answer. Hint: Regional pilots are often MORE experienced than the rookie FOs hired off the street. There were several years many regional pilots got "stuck" and couldn't get hired - a 22 yr regional CA should be paid less than a 1st yr narrowbody FO? And, tying pay to the # of passengers doesn't work either - ULCCs carry legacy widebody # of passengers for less pay.
First of all, it's "there are plenty of things..."
First bullet - agree. Not necessarily with your specific terms but something that makes sense.
Second bullet - that's what rig is for. If the rig ratio is off, then a new one needs to be collectively bargained.

Again, just because you (and many others) started over at the bottom after a change doesn't mean that's the best system. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why NO OTHER COUNTRY or industy does it this way?

We all know this isn't a battle ALPA has the remotest of interest in but it would definitely have to start with them.

 

Frankly, “some” doctors and lawyers command greater salaries and can hop from firm/practice to a different one without loss of status is because they are specialized/exceptional and non-union. Usually they work in partnership and are tied to a firm as an associate until they make partner, during which time they are making equity payments to “buy into the firm.”

It’s then really beneficial for them to stay unless they get recruited to a different firm and literally get one partnership paid out and move those funds to a new partnership.

They also have no 117 equivalent and can work 120 hour weeks to print money.

Pilots are union labor with no ability to individually negotiate their compensation package. Also we are generally a very standardized product, and we have to go sell ourselves to legacies to “move up.” Aside from in the corporate aviation side, there’s no headhunting in aviation, and definitely not in 121.

i contend the pilot to doctor/lawyer equivalencies are false and silly. With the only possible exception being corporate/ private flying

 

I don't think you will change my mind, or I will change yours, so I won't reply to all you said. I have asked myself a lot why not more countries don't use the American system while I was working abroad, way too many DECs at the cost of growth in their own ranks. And for most of those changing it was not because their company went bankrupt....
And I never said a 22 year regional captain should be paid less than a legacy first year FO, I said there should be pay differentiation, you said literally: "Regional pilots shouldn't be paid less". Pay is based not on pax amount but on revenue. Yes NKF9 put 240 in a 321, but average revenue is $100/pax. UAL last year was $400 domestic, $1000 international, and that is before the cargo in that 240 seat international 767 is added.
Thank you for the correction of my language.
And no, that is not what rigs are for. Daily rig is 2:1 pretty much everywhere, so 6 hours pay for a 12 hour day, or block if more. You can easily fly four 1.5 hour legs in 12 hours. Or you can have a 7 hour day with one 6 hour leg. Both will pay the same. With leg pay the 4 leg day would pay over 2 hours more than the 1 leg day, as it should, because you work longer and harder. You would have to get a 1 hour of pay for every 1:20 hours duty rig, and that will definitely never happen.

 

It's a valid question. Another question could be why give pilots raises every year up to 12? It just cost them more money. Based on my observations the Years of experience are worth it. A one year Captain can be a little rough around the edges. Most people (not all) get better over time. In my time at F9 I have flown with many new Captains that have never been Captains before. What I can say is they become more efficient over time. As in they develop a rhythm to block out on time, the fly more efficiently they handle things in a more streamlined way, most importantly they mitigate risk and share experience better than most fresh Captains.

In short They are worth the extra Money. The additional experience yields efficiencies that don't show up on paper. If there is some calamity a most people would much rather have more experienced pilots up front. If you work at F9 you can look over some of the memos we have had over the past two years. UA as well. These are not mistakes I couldn't haven't or wouldn't make, but if there was more time with the two people upfront. Some of the nuanced issues may not have come up. (JFK, LAS,SJU). All three of these have been expensive problems. The over under for just money? I couldn't tell you. The public perception of a particular airline has a big effect. Reference the WN flight where the Fan/Compressor? blade came loose and put a hole in the fuselage. They lost a passenger and still came out looking good.

Back in the day there was an up and out policy at a lot of regionals it helped pad there thin margins. These days in aircraft over 100,000lbs. I really don't think your saving any money. Just the on time performance and dealing with Pax/MX issues alone a 12 year is going to pull the weight better than a 1-3 year almost always.

 

Your not wrong. There is a great deal of people who take extraordinary pride in there individual company. Something we just don't have at F9. Where the paradigm shifts is when you drop the airline branding and Company CBA and wonder what it would be like if There was only one contract? Individual operators could pay more(Delta) , But for the most part If the contract, Benefits , work rules and pay were the same would you really care what color the tail was? Most people would go for the City they live in, and the type of flying they want to do.

I am glad you guys are asking questions about this. I heard about it on my Very first observation flight at a regional. It made no sense. For the record I do not have a true understanding of how this would work. It is just something I think about while I stare out the window on long flights. It appeals to me because I also spend a great deal of time wondering why ALPA seems so dysfunctional. All I can come up with is It's fragmented nature prevents the ALPA from acting as a whole. Also makes for a student counsel level of negotiating power.

 

I completely agree.

I would contend this is the same all over the world. How does seniority work in Europe? Asia? Middle East?

 

Maintaining individual carrier identity and contracts are fine w/ me. But, we already pretty much have a consensus on aircraft type pay and there really are only 4 airlines (with most if not all of the rest headed toward consolidation). So, it really wouldn't be that hard nor bad timing to implement.

Step 1. Every CA at an ALPA carrier (and rumor has it AA is making the switch) is assigned a GLOBAL seniority #. ALPA 00001 pilot goes to whomever was hired first (tie goes to the older person) and so on. This seniority # is ONLY granted to existing CAs or after upgrade sim check.
Step 2. Upon next CBA negotiation, each ALPA carrier contract would require a clause/paragraph w/in the scope section that allows (not requires) for each carrier to hire/acquire pilots not currently w/ the company but currently on the ALPA seniority list and utilize them as CAs. That clause would need provisions that would ensure existing FOs continue to upgrade at a "predetermined" rate.

This would "normalize" our industry to other domestic non-aviation as well as forein aviation industries. It would incentivize FOs to upgrade at 1st opportunity. But most importantly, it would preserve/utilize the CA skillset to its fullest in the case of airline merger or failure.

The only downside is the implementation of it for the EXISTING FOs at ALPA carriers. That's a lot of pilots and while it wouldn't PREVENT them from upgrading, it could potentially delay it.