EWRflyr

Why does this make the scale "flawed" as you say?

At CAL different size aircraft get different rates:

Small narrow body for 737-300, -500-, -700
Large narrow body for 737-800 and -900

Granted our small narrow body pay scale is sub-par as well as the rest of our pay rates. The same "type" doesn't mean it has to be the same pay. However, if you mean they should all be the one HIGHER pay rate then I get your drift.

RJSAviator76

That's EXACTLY what I mean...

SoCalGuy

For those carriers in which it would apply, it would be interesting to see the numbers on WB pay......CA/FO.

Sniper

These rates were obviously ginned up by someone without much time in the 'majors' airline industry (the section of the forum they were posted in).

These rates are lower than Southwest's current rates (and SWAPA is in negotiations for raises as we speak, having already turned down the last effort, which included raises). Southwest has historically paid lower wages to their pilots than industry average. It is only during the recent past, where running your pilot contract through bankruptcy court became the norm, that Southwest's wages became industry leader rather than laggard. Southwest didn't raise their rates, everyone else's went into the toilet in Bankruptcy. No passenger airline started prior to deregulation that hasn't been through bankruptcy in the past 3 decades has lower wages than Southwest, and we should not be setting the bar @ bankruptcy wages. They should be @ least as good as those carriers that haven't been through bankruptcy.

There is something just wrong when UPS's current 2nd year CA and FO wages are higher than anything on the chart.

This proposal represents a failure in leadership. Virtually all of those posters who found the wages acceptable are self-professed 'small jet' pilots. Now, I'm assuming here, but most 'small jet' pilots don't have the same longevity in the industry as their 'major' brethren, and thus likely don't realize that these rates are lower than AA's B-scale of the 80's (adjusted for inflation). It is clear that those pilots with experience in the industry must make an effort to reach out to the next generation of pilots to prevent this kind of thinking from taking root, or at least to rip out the cancerous roots of 'race to the bottom' thinking and replace them with the reality of the worth of a professional.

Fellow pilots - American's B-scale in 1984 was $15,000 a year for 1st year. Today, in 2009, that same $15K, adjusted for inflation, is $30,874.30. That works out to $33/hr @ 78hrs/month. True, the proposed scale is $42/hr, or $39,312 total, a 27% increase. Only 1 thing, that $30,874 is a b-scale AA flight attendant wage. Don't you think we should be setting our sights a bit higher than 27% more for a First Officer than a b-scale FA?

In 1983, Continental CA's were paid close to $90,000. That's $193K today. Frank Lorenzo offered to pay them $43,000/year, or $92K today (yeah, that's why Frank Lorenzo has the reputation he does). A 747 CA @ United in the early 80's, after a major increase in pay (before asking UA ALPA to match APA's b-scale), earned $161,000 a year ($345,690 today). United struck over b-scales.

In short, those rates are too low. The rigs and guarantees are fine.

As F Lee Bailey said to the UA pilots before their strike:

"Has technology made flying so much less difficult that we can put half-valued people up there?"

JoeyMeatballs

Interesting, well, lets change em and aim for higher.

mynameisjim

I don't like that the chart still has lower first year pay. There's no good reason that first year should be 10-20-30% lower than second year.

JoeyMeatballs

I agree, just throwing it out there, just a beginning rough draft

tomgoodman

Greedy executives and ignorant customers think that the answer is "Yes". Our own safety record has undermined our perceived value; but it wasn't the technology, it was the skill of the pilots using it. Equipment failures and false readings are less common today, but can be more dangerous when they do happen.

CactusCrew

Just an FYI ...

The junior flying the wide-body long-haul international at UPS is also a large function of that flying being based in ANC. Not as much about the one payscale as you may think.

All B747 crewmembers and a lot of MD pilots are based in ANC. If those aircraft were based in the lower 48, even without a pay differential, they would go senior !

Sniper

There are a good deal of assumptions that need to be questioned:

• Why do we have 12, 15, or even 30 year rates (Evergreen)? Why not have 2 year rates with a CPI type increase after year 2?
• Most all of the 'increases' from year 2 through year 12, 15, 30, etc. in current contracts represent a loss in purchasing power. Why should a 2nd year pilot have the highest purchasing power, and 30 year CA's have the least? Why not have an automatic pay increase to keep purchasing power (like NetJets)?
• Why get paid hourly - lets set the pay rate, and then go to work for that rate.
• Why not have FO pay based on a formula, say 65% of CA pay? Why bargain 2 different pay rates?

I'd like to see something much simpler.

50 Seat Jet/Turboprop CA Year 1: ?
50 Seat Jet/Turboprop CA Year 2: $73,000

<70 Seat Jet CA Year 1: ?
<70 Seat Jet CA Year 2: $125,000

NB/WB CA year 1: ?
NB/WB CA year 2: $195,000

$2.00 domestic per diem, $2.50 international. Goes up 3% a year.

CA pay goes up 3% a year (mode CPI increase over the last 30 years). Sometimes you'll lose $, like in 1980 when CPI went up 10%. Sometimes you'll make $, like in 2009, when CPI went down 1%. Overall, you keep your buying power. No increase in buying power, but no losses like EVERY airline pilot is taking right now as their longevity increases.

FO is 65% of CA pay.

Rate is fixed. You 'hoar' yourself out to the company and fly, you get more per diem. You work the schedule somehow so that you are home every day - good for you. You cost the same as every other pilot. No need for all the fancy 'featherbedding' of block or better, rigs, guarantees, etc. You get paid the same each year, just adjusted for inflation. No more, no less.

The pay rates are based on:

• 50 Seat: Mesa, Skywest, Eagle, XJet, and Republic rates (go 1/2 way up the scale, to year 6 if there are 12 year rates) and NetJet FO rates
• <70 Seat: NetJet's 8 year payrates (1/2 way up the scale), and JetBlue's 6 year 190 pay (1/2 way up the scale @ 78 hours).
• NB/WB: NetJet's BBJ CA payrates @ year 7, CO's average CA pay from 1983 as cited in Hard Landing, Cathay Pacific S-Capt Year 1 rate, Southwest Year 6 CA rate, average of AA year 6 CA rate, and UPS Year 6 CA rate

All hourly figures are based on 78 hours/month.

I also had to make a concession to the industry - 50 seat jets and turboprops are 'entry level' flying for professional pilots today (yes, there are exceptions, like Horizon). A new CA can live comfortably on $73K a year today, which is right around where the median RJ CA is anyway, and a touch more than a 1/2 scale NetJet FO makes.

Now, I want you to think about this - are my payrates (73K for RJ CA, 125K for E190 CA, 195K for NB/WB CA) too low, or too high?

Seriously. Answer that for yourself. Now go to my next post.