flapshalfspeed

Has anyone ever pondered why pilots seek more money to fly aircraft based on seat count/weight, rather than seeking payrates based on more or less intensive workloads?

In a purely rational economic model, pilots would seek more money to fly airplanes requiring more work/effort/stress, and for aircraft typically associated with "worse" schedules. For example, anecdotally, I think many people would agree that doing 3-4 legs per day on average in a DC-9 or a 737 classic requires more "work" per hour than flying an average of 1 leg per day on an A330.

Maybe our brains place a higher value on "getting our fair share" of the revenue generated from our efforts (i.e. seat count/long-haul flights), versus our individual task load per hour. Maybe as a species we just assume "bigger is better" always--regardless of context. Otherwise, pilot contracts would have evolved in such a fashion that payrates were based on workload/automation status of aircraft types, rather than seat-count.

And maybe at the end of the day everything comes down to mating and passing on genes, and the reptilian, basal parts of our brains assume that flying a widebody on transcons gives us higher rank/status than flying a barbie jet on a 30-minute quick turn in rural Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania.

Just thought I would put this out there in case anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.

Caution Terrain

No matter how many times I slam that little jet in and out of rural America it never seems to get her where she wants to go. Inevitably, a bigger jet scoops her up in the sky and takes her to the final destination.
I don't know, dude.

tsquare

Because bigger must pay more, and that's the way it has always been, and there is (unfortunately) little incentive for those at the top to ever see it any other way....

Oh, and I forgot... "Don't worry about it, you'll be senior someday"

Flyby1206

You had me until:

This industry is anything but purely rational!

sailingfun

Why does the CEO of a company with 5 million in sales get less then the CEO of a company with 5 billion in sales. The 5 million CEO probably works harder with less support.
Throughout history jobs have paid based on revenue and time of service. Airlines are not any different.
Back in 2001 I had the CEO of Delta tell me he did not mind paying a 777 Captain 500 dollars an hour because the airframe generated the revenue to support that wage. He then added however that if he did that we would demand 400 an hour for a 737 Captain and that airframe could not support that wage.

ResinHead

If we truly worried about safety... We wouldn't pair someone brand new to the airplane or industry with a captain that just upgraded together on the worst schedules.

Blackbird

I like UPS's single rate pay scale.

OnCenterline

I addressed this in a previous post, so to keep this easy, I am simply cutting-and-pasting the majority of that post here, with some minor changes:

I come from a background of economics, and I disagree with the notion that size doesn't matter--part of our higher pay for a larger plane is based on the notion that the equipment that generates the most revenue pays the most. There are two other ways to look at it: one is to assume that the position of the most responsibility pays the most, and in this case responsibility is measured in the value of the equipment, cargo and lives. That's why even non-union nations pay more for larger equipment--flyDubai will never match Emirates because one flies 737's and one flies heavies. Another is to look at is getting paid for overall productivity. While the argument is often made than an RJ crew may carry more passengers in a day than a 777 crew, this is not usually the case, and more importantly, the 777 crew (or 747 or 380, or whatever plane you want to use) always has the potential to carry 300 or more passengers, where as an RJ does not.

The fact that some airlines have agreed to pay multiple airframes the same rate is simply a matter of convenience and expedience for both the company and the pilot group, as it saves money on training cycles because we have no incentive to chase certain upgrades, but we get the benefit of bidding what we want to fly based on our own personal criteria.

The same phenomenon occurs in nearly every profession, even sports: news anchors earn more than in-the-field reporters; quarterbacks get paid more than other players; the lead actor gets paid the most; senior partners in a law firm get the larger share of the profits; a VP will always get paid more than an entry-level manager. As a previous poster says, the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation will almost always get more than one of a multi-million dollar firm. The CEO of McDonald's will get more than the CEO of White Castle, because the CEO of McDonald's has a greater level of overall responsibility. The same holds true in flying.

In our case, we get paid more on larger equipment because the larger equipment generates more revenue, and carries a greater level of risk and responsibility.

qball

In our case, we get paid more on larger equipment because the larger equipment generates more revenue, and carries a greater level of risk and responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Generates more revenue...probably....greater responsibility...perhaps. Greater risk...hardly. An RJ making multiple take offs and landings is exposed to far greater risk than a heavy doing one long leg per day.

tsquare

must...... resist.... thread......