He asked which of the two pay models I'd prefer. I'm just saying I'd rather see something inbetween the two examples he gave. Little bit of financial motivation when the phone rang - but a bit higher guarantee if it didn't. (All 3 examples would pay a similar amount if the flying remained constant).

The problem with other pilots willing to work for less pay would still exist regardless of what type of pay model was involved.

 

Well, you're right. It's all close to the same pay if the flying is constant. And I agree... there should be some minimum, and probably higher than 30K, as you suggest. It shouldn't hurt the pilot's paycheck just because the flying is not there. If you have the pilot's loyalty, than it shouldn't hurt him too bad just because the flying is not there. I guess there's no 'one size fits all' here.

 

From a management perspective an additional 'flight pay' helps motivate salaried pilots to get out and fly, especially in charter. But don't forget, it's not their fault when the aircraft goes down for scheduled (or unscheduled) maintenance and the flying stops. Make sure the base salaries are the bread and butter, and the flight pay is gravy.

 

Or more likely, charter demand is weak and the plane simply isn't flying very much.

 

As long as it is all hypothetical and you are trying to motivate your salaried pilots...how about $300 annual salary and $30,000 per flight day?

 

I was trying to think positive

Actually it's been a solid winter for many of us charter pigs... but summer is just around the corner

 

When times are slow, payroll is a killer. When times are busy, we are uderstaffed and the pilots get slammed. Having a lower base would make the slow times more survivable, and possibly allow another Pilot or two to be on staff for the busy times. When money is flowing, it is far easier to spread it around then when its not.
I don't think $100 is enough for people to get excited about jumping out of bed at 3am to fly, but something in between might work.

 

Back in 2007, I declined a charter job with a similar compensation structure (base salary plus daily pay) because 1. while the claimed total compensation was over $65k/year for a Beechjet SIC, the guarantee was sub-$30k in a busy east coast metro and 2. as a pilot, I have absolutely no control over how much the airplane or airplanes I'm assigned to fly. Good thing too, because a year after I turned it down charter demand (and bizav in general) fell off the proverbial cliff and I'd have been making MUCH less than I did as a regional airline FO.

While I understand the management perspective of trying to control payroll costs when slow and provide an incentive to work when busy, I also don't see the point in continuing to employ people who evade doing their jobs.

To me, its fairly simple - you are paid to fly, you are assigned a trip, go fly. There are plenty of folks looking for work today that would be more than happy to do what they are paid to do when a trip gets added.

 

In a perfect world, yes I agree.

Have to fly, be back later.

 

You pay them a retainer and then you pay them to fly. How to break it up depends largely on your specific market.