If we were all paid by years of service instead of airplane size, nobody would care if they wanted to buy RJs, or how many seats the new planes have. Pay a 15 year pilot the same if he's on a 70 seat RJ or an A-380, and we would tell the company to buy the plane that makes the most sense--and the most profit. We'll fly them...and everyone will bid the lifestyle they want.

We brought all this on ourselves by demanding more money for flying bigger airplanes (when, in the 1950s-70s, "we" all thought airplanes would only get bigger and bigger and bigger. Sure seemed like a good idea at the time...) Then management realized that our plan also meant less money for flying smaller airplanes, and the race to the bottom was on.

All the scope issues are a result of management trying to get around this "loophole" or you could say, taking advantage of this provision. They can now make a distinction between big planes and little planes to by using our own rhetoric (more revenue, more responsibility, etc.) against us and thus set up the regional subs.

Yeah...I know. It's heresy to pay the same on different planes. But as Dave Ramsey so often says, "So, how's that working out for ya?" I'd love to hear someone make the argument that this system has worked out well for the pilots....How well scope clauses have protected us?

Time to fix this.

 

It definitely is time to fix this, but having a payscale that is only based on years of service wont help. The economics of a CRJ are hugely different than a 777. If you pay the CA 250/hr to fly either then the CRJs will be a money losing airplane. UPS has a payscale like this because all of their aircraft are roughly the same size (747, MD11, 767, A300, 757). They wouldnt be able to operate CRJs, 737s, ERJs, MD80s on a payscale like this.

A more realistic approach would be to eliminate the seniority based payscale, and just have a flat rate of pay for each different equip/seat. This would make labor costs a fixed expense, eliminating the typical mgmt rhetoric of having too senior of a pilot group(seniority should still be used to bid stuff like vacation and schedules though). Also, eliminates the carrot at the end of the stick approach when negotiating payscales that might be unrealistic to pilots who will never reach 18yr pay levels.

 

Hi!

You CAN have one payscale:
Pay all the pilots the same % of the seat-miles on their airframes.
Obviously, for a very small plane, like a 50 seater or smaller, you would need to have a minimum floor salary, as their seat miles could be so low that their % would be too low to be acceptable to the pilots.

cliff
NBO

 

Just Finished 737 School, the APA ORD Chair went through at the same time. He reported that AE ALPA approached APA and said "staple us to your list".

WHY? YOU ASK??? (which is what I said)

You can make fun of APA all day long about their contract proposals asking for a 50% pay increase, lower monthly max, etc, etc. But I'll tell you this: every AAL pilot will defend scope to the bitter end. Yes AE has 22 more CRJ's coming, for a total of 72 70 seater's. But we own EVERYTHING ELSE above 50 seats. What if APA signed a sweetheart deal with AMR to fly everything over 50 seats? What would happen to AE? The 50 seat market is dying.

Several weeks ago it was reported that chief pilots were roaming the terminals canvasing the pilot group and soliciting opinions about flying 100 seat jets and what we'd be willing to earn flying them. The writing is on the wall, AE was on the sale block once, it could easily go there again.

I'm not making any predictions, but there is more than one source for this rumor.

 

Your telling us this while AE is recalling and hiring and AA is furloughing which will bring the total to,I can't count that high. What color of Kool-Aid do they feed you at 73 school.

 

The 22 deliveries will bring the total to 47 70-seaters, not 72.

 

Make sure you clean your pee before you go in for that drug test

 

Aircraft payscales do not pay on a ratio of seats/revenue. The numbers we've created "sort of" match the economics of the aircraft, but only loosely, and the payscale differences were implemented in the days when jets were first introduced and were HUGE difference makers in terms of the previous economics of big props and how much more dangerous and complex the early jet airliners were to operate.

The airlines like to tout the "Network Efficiency", and thus since passengers 8/10 connect to another flight in the "network", there is really no distinct difference in what the RASM creates, just how you divide the RASM among the CASMs.

Does a crew of 4 777 pilots transport the same amount of RASM on a 16 hr flight less than 6 times a month that a MD-80 series transports on 4 legs in a 6:00 day 13 times a month?

777:
280 pax x 1 leg x 5 days* x 16hrs= 22,400 Revenue Passenger Hrs.
22400 / 4 pilots= 5600 passenger hours per pilot per month
*=2 trips is 64 hours, 3 is 96....took a median number to average a standard line value (78hrs)

MD-80:
150 pax x 4 legs x 13 days x 1.5 hrs= 11,700 revenue Passenger Hrs.

11,700 / 2 pilots = 5,850 passenger hours per pilot per month
(based on a 78 hr. month)

It would appear(based on the unscientific calculations) that 777 crews should actually be paid LESS based on "revenue per pilot" than an MD-80 crews.

I'm leaving out cargo, seating class, etc. BECAUSE PILOTS DONT CONTROL THOSE FACTORS......IN OTHER WORDS:

WE DON'T CREATE REVENUE!!!!!! WE OPERATE EQUIPMENT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

Sorry--bad math. I don't know if it's wishful thinking, but combinding AA and AE somehow, in my mind, is the best possible outcome for all involved, including AMR. Whether that's possible remains to be seen.

Thanks for the correction.

 

And this friends was one of the smartest posts I have ever read here. It is simply not appropriate to assign a payscale solely on seats on an aircraft. It is a rare flight indeed that is sold just one leg. A passenger who buys a ticket from GRB to GIG (just an example) doesn't buy the GRB-ORD leg separately.

Anyway, I'm not a business wiz, but this whole payscale based solely on seats never struck me as much good, especially considering that if I go to any airline website and check out a 1-hour RJ flight and it costs the same as a 10-hour longhaul flight. And the RJ crew carries as many passengers in a day anyway.

I don't have a solution, but the current one seems to be chipping away at the profession from the most junior RJ F/O to the most senior 747 captain.