THEBRICK

I attend the Delta MEC roadshow in MSP today and the longevity based base scale was talked about and also pay bands. Can some people enlighten me on why the longevity based pay scale is a bad idea, the MEC Chairman had a hard time coming up with negatives. It just seems like it makes sense to do it. Younger guys do the long hull routes and older pilots get to end their career doing the domestic or would probably be very senior if the still want to go international. I don't need to be flying back side of the clock when I am in my fifties or older. I personally wouldn't care what aircraft I was flying if I was making the same pay as all the other aircraft. People wouldn't have to commute for years if they moved your aircraft out of your base or closed the base. Just jump on the next aircraft in your base and pay doesn't change. Company would save huge amounts of money in training costs which maybe we could grab a piece of in our longevity pay rates and profit sharing checks. I know this will be an option to check on the contract survey, so if you like the idea, click the box.

Busflyer

If you are talking about pay based on seat and longevity only and not equipment type, then that is what we have at UPS. Overall, it is a positive. Fly the aircraft you want and no need to chase the highest dollar. When the 727's were still here they had some of the most senior guys on them.

hockeypilot44

I'm 100 percent against a longevity based scale. Personally, I would take longevity out of pay altogether. That's what killed our industry. No one wants to start over at year one pay. I would be for banding pay into three tiers.

tsquare

LGBP killed our industry? Please explain.

gloopy

The current system gives massive leverage to management during bad times, either across the industry or even at just one airline. Pretty much every major airline has a 1-3 year B scale. While some justify it as "pay your dues because I had to" the end effect is that whenever a pilot group is under pressure to deal concessions, the company knows that starting over is not an option. They MUST cave or call the company's bluff (although the company isn't always bluffing and sometimes liquidation is a real threat).

A 1-3 year B scale with 12 (or more?!?!) year longevity scale means that at most airlines 50%+1 must never at any cost have to start over. Management knows this and constantly uses it against us. We need to get rid of these mini B scales and push for higher pay all across our scales. Then we need to have a strong preferential hiring plan so that any pilot group knows the worst management can ever threaten them with is they will have to start over making 6 figures. A NSL is dead in the water and always should be so that is not an option. In that case, starting over is not nearly as scarry a foundation and would prevent massive concessions in most cases because 50%+1 of each pilot group could affor to satrt over rather than survive by any means necessary.

Other than that, longevity pay is fine with me as long as it doesn't lead to a 20-30 year scale scheme that makes things way too top heavy in the name of seniority entitlement. And we would still, always, have the issue of replacing planes with smaller planes because even LG based pay would still take into account the fleet average relative to the old speed/productvity/capacity model. If not, we would remain under pressure to outsource the bottom end in order to buff the pay scales and that is unaceptable.

That's why although LB pay might be OK, but I prefer banded pay with a small narrowbody band to encourage growth at the lower end of the capacity spectrum.

forgot to bid

Like this gloopy?

gloopy

[QUOTE=forgot to bid;1051576]Like this gloopy?

Actually those rates look like SWA rates with a slight bump for widebodies. Seems very, very feasable as the company's minimum opener IMHO.

Xray678

I am against LBP. It would get rid of the option for a junior guy to bid bigger equipment if he wanted more pay or stay on smaller equipment if he wanted a good schedule. Over time I think the seniority would balance out accross the system and there would be no junior or senior categories, they would all be pretty much equal.

You also have the issue of who wins and who looses. Any pay system has to be cost neutral compared to the present system. More money to pay us is not going to appear because we changed pay systems. So how do you pay pilots flying an 88 more without lower the pay for a 747 pilot?

Those guys who are hardcore on scope, and I am one of them, how do you think the idea of recovering the 76 seaters is going to go if the company has to pay the same for a 76 seat pilot as they do for a 777 pilot? Do you think they would even consider buying a 100 seat aircraft?

Also, if we go to longevity based pay, do you rebid the whole airline? Do you think a guy who stayed senior as a 777FO is going to be happy when a very junior DC-9 captain who is junior to him is now making the same pay as a 777 captain? Many, many people would be flying something different if there were longevity based pay, and it would not be right to change the pay system and not give them the chance to move based on the new pay system. Kinda like when they got C2K and moved Express pay up to match mainline pay.

forgot to bid

Here's all 3:

forgot to bid

I kind of agree the logistics would be a mess in such a transition.

I wonder if it could be mitigated if there were three groupings with the 744/777/765/A330 in one, 7ER/767/73N in another, and A320/MD88/MD90/DC9 in the third? A fourth could be all things smaller than the 9.