Here's the pay I proposed, in hourly
 

FO Rates:
50 Seat >70 Seat NB/WB

Year 12 68.13 116.66 181.99
Year 11 66.14 113.26 176.69
Year 10 64.22 109.97 171.54
Year 9 62.35 106.76 166.54
Year 8 60.53 103.65 161.69
Year 7 58.77 100.63 156.98
Year 6 57.06 97.70 152.41
Year 5 55.39 94.86 147.97
Year 4 53.78 92.09 143.66
Year 3 52.21 89.41 139.48
Year 2 50.69 86.81 135.41
Year 1

CA Rates:
50 Seat >70 Seat NB/WB

Year 12 105 179.48 279.98
Year 11 101.76 174.25 271.82
Year 10 98.80 169.18 263.91
Year 9 95.92 164.25 256.22
Year 8 93.12 159.47 248.76
Year 7 90.41 154.82 241.51
Year 6 87.78 150.31 234.48
Year 5 85.22 145.93 227.65
Year 4 82.74 141.68 221.02
Year 3 80.33 137.56 214.58
Year 2 77.99 133.55 208.33
Year 1

It doesn't punish a pilot when their new contract ratification process is dragged out, though it doesn't yield them a windfall either. It also allows airline management to have predictable costs going forward. And yes, the entire scale is just a 3% raise for inflation based on the 73K for RJ CA, 125K for E190 CA, 195K for NB/WB CA rates, and the assumption of you getting 78 hours of pay each month for 12 months. That's 936 hours a year, which is plenty.

We, as pilots, are being taken to the cleaners when it comes to purchasing power.

I did this in Excel, but, of course, I can't get it to show up. If anyone wants to format it, go right ahead.:)

Snipe...

Good work/time on the spread sheet numbers....the thought process and variables make a strong case. Just out of curiousity, what would you place on starting pay at year one FO?? Didn't see where the 'newbys' would be coming aboard on the payscale??

As always...shoot the moon and hope that you fall somewhere north of half way. The pilot groups can't loose sight of the soft cash/rigs/qol issues too....w/o them, all the above is mute to some degree.

Nice work....

Thx
SC

Good job. What is so hard to get across to people when they see those hourly rates is that we are often on duty up to twice that 78 hours of flight time... and gone from home up to 4 times that 78 hours.... it puts a whole new spin on such a large number, and in fact makes them seem small.

Sniper is correct, based on the fact that we are only paid flight time, we are all GROSSLY underpaid.... even the guys currently on "top."

Sniper, not bad a smige on the low side Rj Fo's need to make 60 grand if they make 60 then CA pay should automatically fall in line I'm thinking around 90grand Rj CA.

My interpretation of CA Prater and Administrator Babbit's testimony to Congress is that 1st year pay is set by the airlines. I assume they set the pay @ a level that balances cost vs. attracting new pilots. As such, I left 1st year pay blank, since it is not something that is controlled by the unions.

I'd in fact advocate that all pilots go to my scale and start as 2nd year pilots (the average seniority @ US Airways East is something like 20 years. That'd be $331,971 a year, or $354.67/hour, and is is unfair to think that a business can afford that rate immediately, but, by 2028, they most certainly should be able to, as that is the equivalent of $195K today).

I'm not 'shooting the moon'. I'm asking for NB/WB CA's to make $195K a year, which is similar to what the average Southwest, American, Cathay, or NetJet's BBB CA would make today, and just about what a CO CA made (adjusted for inflation) in 1983. Is this figure too high?

I disagree. My rates take into account the 'soft $' already (or that had been my intention). I want to provide the airline with a fixed cost that is easily projectable. I'm proposing a fixed salary - I only broke it down to hourly rates so that it is easily digestible by the average pilot. To take the hourly rates of my proposal and insert them into the current way of doing things is not what I propose, and is not something that would benefit management. Any paradigm shift has to benefit both sides, not just one.

Looks good Sniper

I disagree.

50 seat RJ FO/Turboprop FO is an entry level position in this industry currently, and 50 seat RJ CA is an entry level CA position. Sorry, but that's reality. I will not support the notion that someone with no turbine command experience and less than ATP minimums should command over $60K, which is what the average 2 year FO @ a regional has been over the past 10 years. With the 'multi-crew' license that the ICAO is cheerleading, this trend will continue in the future.

I feel a year 2 salary of 73K is acceptable for entry level CA, and that FO's should make 65% of what the CA makes, thus $47K is acceptable for an entry level FO. This constitutes a raise for over 70% of RJ pilots (many of whom are flying much more than 50 seat jets) - and I can't find a single FO @ a 'regional' who makes a guarantee anywhere near $47K, except Horizon, and that's only @ the top of their scale. The ability to move up to the ">70" status is currently easily done @ many regionals ($81.5K for FO's). This will allow for more 'regional' pilots to spend their career @ a regional, eventually upgrading to the $125K CA position flying CRJ-900's and EMB-170's (or CRJ-1000's and EMB-190's if scope is eroded like I suspect it will). As the regionals grow and mainline shrinks, more and more pilots will find their career and life goals do not allow for them to move on the the mainline carrier. These pay rates allow 'entry level' crews an income that is acceptable, while also allowing for the growth of the ">70 seat" but less than "NB" aircraft category over the next decade.

The lower rates (if you can call raises for just about every 'regional' FO and many CA's 'lower') are more than made up when they don't lose their purchasing power over the life of the contract. That's the point of my entire proposal, not losing purchasing power to inflation, tying longevity to a standard % to match the CPI. The rates are just filler @ this point.

We can dream of new rates all week long, but what's important is how to implement them. Any ideas?

Propose them the next time your section 6 is up for openers.

If you're not represented, go directly to your CEO's door and talk it up with him.;) What have you got to lose - you're losing $ every time you gain a year of longevity right now as it stands.

With all do respect, I hope I misunderstood what you said.

In any negotiation as far as forming multi-year labor agreement, I would sure hope that the person sitting on "my" side of the table would error on "shooting for the moon" and at the "end of the day" land somewhere on "common ground" (North of the "50"), as opposed to starting in the preconceived "middle ground" between the two parties expectations and ending up exponentially short?....negotiations 101??

When your already working under a concessionary agreement, what's concessionary + 1?? To me, this is NO where in the area of where we should be....thus leading back to the idea....why not "shoot for the moon"??

Reflecting on 2 contracts ago, ask any CAL pilot who was on property at that time about the words Gordon muddered after the contract was signed, stocked, and locked....paraphrase....WOW, you guys left a lot of money on the table!!....call one paranoid, but not shooting high just leaves a group scratching as to why they ended up short when they gave it no chance at all to begin with.:eek:

If I understand the point your trying to make:confused:......the out come of a labor agreement has to be fashioned so that the business side can run under the the constraints that are outlined in the Mgt/Labor contracts....with that I'm totally aware of....not argue with you there. If that's what you meant, which I hope you did, I understand the general direction in which you go....but NOT setting the bar high to start/enter negociations - hourly wage in this case - does not make much sense.

If your rates were figured with the numbers to account for "soft $", I must have missed where you put it in your opening spread sheet. Again, as alluded to earlier, so many guys/gals get HUNG UP/Tunnel visioned solely on hourly wages....I think we all do regardless if we are aware of it or not. The only point I was trying to make is you can have a decent hourly wage, but with out rigs/QOL/Improved PBS structure ect....it will SUCK!! Coming from an airline that is lacking those things, we can attest to that first hand!!

Appreciate your insight and work on the numbers, good food for thought.