A320
 

This table uses a blended rate at 85 hours.

A-320 Capt.
Year 12 $139 to $151
11 $136 to $148
10 $133 to $145
9 $131 to $143
8 $128 to $139
7 $126 to $137
6 $123 to $134
5 $121 to $132
4 $118 to $128
3 $116 to $126
2 $113 to $123
1 $110 to $120

If you blend the rates at 85 hours it raises the base pay rate roughly $10-$12 per hour. For 85-120 credit hour lines 1.5 can still be used.

So, what is the feedback on this suggested pay scale? Does it drive up our CASM to far? Does it ruin motivation to fly more? Does it make you want to fly less? Does it help guys when they have a lower credit month? Does it take away from guys who fly higher credit months? Does it encourage you to use PTO or call in sicka? Would this boost morale to all or cause more division? Thoughts........

Are you saying that with the blended rate the min sked would be 85 hours?

I guess min sched could be whatever manning dictates. If you only flew 70 hours you would get this new pay rate. If you flew 75, 80 or 85 hours the pay rate would still be the same. This might curtail mixed emotions for brothers who are on reserve or for guys who want to PTO schedules but not take a pay hit on the current premium schedule.

Obviously, a pilot who credits 85 hours vs. 75 hours will still make more but it would just be at the same rate. I am just using the Capt. A-320 schedule to show that it would be a mere $10 bump in hourly pay. It would not be a pay raise for 85 hour lines but it would be for 84, 83 ,82...70 hour lines. Only a few dollars in actual money. Although, if you had an 85 hour line and PTO under our current system you take a pay hit. If you had $10 more in base pay (with no premium) and PTO you would NOT take a hit. This might actually help drive people to use FLICA since they will not be inclined to actually make money by calling in sick the last minute. This in turn would help crew services out of many scheduling crisis and possibly smooth out the operation on a day to day basis.

I would suggest to even keep an elevated base pay above 85 with no premium. I know this would upset some (but most do agree).....so if the company still really needs people to try to climb to the 100 credit mark and above it still could use 1.5 over 85.

What I see this does is give us back the 10% in pay we have lost in purchasing power due to inflation since the pay scale took effect. But then denys the permium pay above 70 hours and then makes you wait till 85 to get premium pay.

What we need first is a new base pay raise of 10%, then do the blending and recalculate. Otherwise you give up premium pay between 70-85 just to catch up with inflation below 70 hours.

I like the theory, but we need to fix the base pay rate first for inflation, then blend.

Just my opinion....

FNg

I'll have to think this idea over a bit.

I do have a problem when you say "most do agree". Does that come from a poll of all pilots? Maybe you mean to say of those you've spoken with most agree.

Blue,
You are right. I can only speak from my perspective...I do not have a clear picture of all pilots. I know friends who don't want this because they have many months above the 100 credit mark due to IROPS and manning issues. This idea would lower average hourly pay for those lines.

I wanted to suggest this idea within the confines of the current CASM. It is basically cost neutral to the company. In my opinion, it would eliminate a lot of division on many levels.

How about this?
 

How about a base pay increase, providing we can still post quarterly profits, Leave the 70/70+ premium pay in place.

TRUST ME you won't be on reserve forever. And once off reserve you will love the premium pay. Remember, even as long as reserve can be here, it is nothing compared to reserve at any other company flying similar size aircraft.

Then lets see if we can get the crew scheduling guide to be a bit more 'blue' and make QOL better for reserves. EVERYONE wants to go home at the end of an assigned pairing, especially if they arrive at 0600 and can catch a 2030 flight home but are assigned reserve till 2359. Everyone wants to avoid another night in the crashpad.

Let's work towards restoring Blue Values at Crew Services rather than homogenise the pay scale, and it's inherent positives. A one pay rate will only tend to reduce personal flying hours and raise CASM.

JMHO

Don't misunderstand me....I do love premium pay! My suggestion of an elevated pay scale would be like tipping the van driver $1. It does a lot for morale!

If your effective net hourly base wage was higher and there was only 1 payscale would you honestly not fly as much? Maybe? Maybe not? From my perspective, I don't think it would change bidding habits.

Like I said, some guys don't like it and some do. Maybe your suggestion of a raise under the current system would be more popular. I would like that also.

Whatever increase to the current system we change will increase CASM. The question then becomes what is the net change on CASM. One aspect that I love about our culture is the morale! My fear, which is only from my perspective, is to watch morale go down over the years across the board. I only suggest this change to boost morale at a very very small cost to CASM.

FNG, The following scale is blended at 95 hours.

YEAR 12 $139 to $157
11 $136 to $154
10 $133 to $151
9 $131 to $148
8 $128 to $145
7 $126 to $143
6 $123 to $139
5 $121 to $137
4 $118 to $134
3 $116 to $131
2 $113 to $128
1 $110 to $124

I don't know what the right answer is. Do we use this as the new single pay rate? Do we add 1.5 over 70 on top of this? Do we do nothing?

Realistically, I think a single pay rate blended between 85-95 range would benefit most lines. However, I don't think management will go for a high base rate AND the 1.5 over 70 - It would have to be one or the other (but both would be nice). On this scale at year 12 that would be over $300/hour. If you blend at 95 hours the pay difference now becomes $14-$18/hour. Again, it all comes down to CASM. I don't have the sliding scale to see the EXACT ranges of CASM vs. increase of pay scales. When we speak of pay increases it needs to be justified with what the CASM would be. I do know that the bump in CASM is very very small.

Trick,
It is really interesting to look at your pay numbers and proposal. I think fixing the pay rate first should be our priority as the current scale is where we lost our buying power. That is why I support a 10% increase now to make up what we have lost since Fall 2001. Then an annual cost of living raise to help compensate for future inflation. Now if we do that, it will bring us up to date.

Then if we apply your 85 hour blended rate with premium pay above 85 hours, that should cost no more that the the current system with the 10% raise. That way we fix the pay scale and then fix the issue with premium pay. I think the trick is to do in the right sequence and all pilots are left with more happy no matter what their bid status. Better base rate for those, premium pay remains for those, minimizes cost to JB for those....

Just my opinion....

FNG

FNG,
Can you post your numbers for years 1-12? I understand what you are saying but I don't quite know how to move the numbers in regards to cost of living and future inflation.

I know the D's really love the base/premium schedule as it stands. Being in their shoes I can see them shaking their heads if the base pay is set out of range and we still expected premium pay. However, maybe a different pay schedule might work also. If we don't want the highest straight pay we can possibly bargain for then we will have to back off that number a bit in order to keep the premium pay. Perhaps if we get a higher base pay the 1.5 could become 1.4 or 1.3 in order to justify the higher base wage.

I would like to actually create a pay chart that we can submit to management rather than just waiting for what they say or not say at all. They can always say NO but at least they know what we are thinking. Rumor had it that there was a raise($20) to come a while ago....well it never happened and it just remains a rumor. If we could cement a proposal and it was rejected or accepted at least it wouldn't be one of those rumors anymore.

The above simple blended rates at 85 and 95 are effectively what they are willing to pay now....that is why I posted those rates. Do we look at the NorthWest rates- who knows.....as posted earlier lets look at it based off of our earnings to justify our raise. Heck maybe looking at another carrier could actually limit and hurt us as justification for a raise because our own balance sheet is so much stronger.

Any presentation of this idea would require some data that might actually be easy to compile.
The simple part can be done without any help from the company. A spreadsheet based on the bid awards in each month (we have) pilot by pilot with columns showing what each person was paid at our current premium pay system - followed by columns based on 80/81//82/83/84/85/86/87/88/89/90 as the determining blended/straight rate.
Then each column could be totaled to see where the cost begins to rise.
The hard part would be trying to get the actual credit hours paid over line values and you may never get this number on a pilot by pilot basis.
They may be willing to disclose a total number or even a number that is broken down by the pay rate that was paid for each credit hour. This would be helpful in determining the real pay out and give us a better cost comparison.
If we get good data then people can decide for themselves what might be the best option going forward.
I agree that if this option became a serious possibility, then every effort should be made to insure that 99% of pilots (discounting the extraordinary payouts) do not experience any decrease in pay. The huge outliers might blow the curve. It may be that a cutover could be delayed for a year or so to coincide with a pay raise as suggested by other posters.
Someone I flew with the other day made an interesting observation. He said, that none of us has more than 5 years on this property and yet it seems like we have a seniority list that spans 20 years flying everything from small jets to wide bodies. That's an exaggeration but we do have a unique situation and it's hurting morale.
Maybe we could help people by paying a higher guarantee to someone who tried but failed to secure premium pay (not very realistic I know) and to allow reserves to add one or two reserve days to their schedule during the bid in return for an addition 5 hours each day.
Nobody should be surprised or angry at pilots who come down on different sides of this issue. I understand both sides but it will take some sort of data distribution followed by a 100% participation survey to really see what pilots want.

SouthWest less 10%
 

Well, here is what straight pay looks like when you take Southwest less 10%.

Capt A320

12th year $164
11 $162
10 $160
9 $158
8 $157
7 $155
6 $153
5 $151
4 $149
3 $148
2 $146
1 $144

I would rather have this scale with straight pay rather than take a lower base pay with 1.5 over 70 with the rates we have now. After speaking with MANY pilots this new scale appears to be extremely popular with Jetblue pilots.

This payscale looks fine to me. I doubt the company or the most senior guys are going to go for it.
Any accountant-types that could give an opinion as to whether higher costs would result?

Actually, you would be surprised at the amount of "senior" guys that support this idea. This comes from all three bases. After digging up some numbers, there are a few pilot lines that credit over 130 credit hours a month. These extraordinary lines may be more vocal but they are not the majority.

As far as the company is concerned, the company certainly CAN afford it. The question then becomes do they WANT to afford it.

jblumindtrick
 

Since you posted this idea a while back I've thought about it and run numbers as you have done.
I think you have a good idea here. It can work within the present economics of the company and certainly work when the bottom line improves.

A320 FO Scales
 

Here is a look at the A320 First Officer rates.

First row is currrent base rate
Second row is current blended 95 hour rate
Third row is SOUTHWEST LESS 10%

Year
12 76 86 108
11 76 86 107
10 76 86 105
9 75 85 104
8 74 84 104
7 74 84 101
6 73 82 101
5 72 81 98
4 67 75 90
3 61 69 81
2 56 63 73
1 51 57 51 (frozen)

Would a first officer give up 1.5 over 70 and take the Southwest less 10%? I don't know one that wouldn't.

I don't know about 10% below SWA pay, but what has anyone heard about a 10% raise? I heard, via rumor, not reliable source, no more CSPP, 10% pay raise, all stock options vested on 1 Jan 06, and no more options after next two new hire classes, due to new accounting rules. Anyone? :confused:

Capt/FO A320 Southwest less 10%
 

Capt A320 FO A320

12 $164 $108
11 $162 $107
10 $160 $105
9 $158 $104
8 $157 $104
7 $155 $101
6 $153 $101
5 $151 $98
4 $149 $90
3 $148 $81
2 $146 $73
1 $144 $51

Thanks for the feedback and PM's guys.
See you at ABN site. Mindtrick out.

I don't know about 10% below SWA pay, but what has anyone heard about a 10% raise? I heard, via rumor, not reliable source, no more CSPP, 10% pay raise, all stock options vested on 1 Jan 06, and no more options after next two new hire classes, due to new accounting rules. Anyone? :confused

WMW I heard this also as a rumor. However when I bounced it off my ACP buddy he said "your dreamin'" to the pay raise part.

Oh well thanks for listening.

The 10% raise would be just the right amount to correct us to where our pay should be based on inflation (fall of 2001 to present). However, it doesn't makeup for the money over the last 4 years that was not paid to us......

I've heard the rumor of "vest everyone immediately" also. Doesn't help much when you options are worth only a few cents or are under water. But it does allow everyone to immediatey take advantage of any market gain and at least get something out of them.

As for no more options. I wish they would give out restricted shares of stock vs options. At least they have some value. As for totally canning CSPP, Options, etc That is new, but it doesn't surprise me. (enought said for now)

Just my opinion....

FNG