Hypothetical Pay Structure - Base or Base+
 

Would you rather get paid a Salary of $70k, or $30k Salary + $300/day?

We average 12-15 days a month.

Please give opinions or experiences.

Well, if your math is correct, minimum 120days/year means $36k, so yes that's the winner for you. But, can you guarantee it, etc??? How's this going to be played out in your operations budget? The money has to come from somewhere.

I'd rather have a guaranteed salary than a non-guaranteed potential for higher income...potential that is 100% beyond my control as a pilot.

I would prefer the straight salary...

I am currently on the salary+flight pay and it really digs into you when your sitting at home realizing that you're not making money. Where as with salary, when you are home you really don't need to worry about anything.

Also, make sure the 300/day is per duty day, not per day you fly. Ours is only days we fly... so if you fly somewhere and sit two days, fly back, you only get the 2 days of flight pay, not 4.

Based solely on your input, its a no-brainer.

12-15 days/month = 13.5 days/months
13.5 days/month x's 12 months = 162 days
162 days x's 300/day = 48,600
48,600 + 30,000 = 78,600

Result...

78,600 per year is 8,600 more per year than 70,000

Is there anything you would like to add to your equation? Or should we assume things?

I wish it was a no-brainer. Work ethic is in no way predictable.
In this hypothetical scenario, when you are on the road you are working. We pay pilots (Part timer or Per diem) for every day we have them sitting on the road, not just when they fly. Very rarely do we do road trips, and we rarely leave a plane on the road waiting to fill the dead leg home. I was speaking to a Lear pilot recently who said they get paid per flight hour, I found that tough to understand. I could see getting paid for duty hours, not flight hours. We always say that we get paid to wait in this business, not fly. We do 12 hour days, TEB-ALB sometimes, how would that work?

I am trying to figure out how to make the office and the pilots be on the same team. I know I hate answering phone calls all day, and it doesn't help when the salaried pilots bob and weave (not real names) as much as possible to not come to work. I would like the pilots to be happy when the office calls. I am trying to find that happy medium of pay, and pay for performance.

If I was one of your pilots, if your office called me, I would be very happy.;)

I see your dilemma. I think your idea is an excellent one. Pay them the 30K and then pay them to for flying days (including non-flying days on the road).... 300/day. I think pay should be based on production whenever possible. This won't be a popular opinion here... I realize that. But otherwise, you are stuck with Bob and Weave. Do what you got to do. In the end, its a business. And this is still not a pilot's market.

If that was the salary range that the position needed to pay, I'd rather see the difference split somewhat - with a higher base pay, ie. 55k + $100/day (76k average). I personally like to feel like I'm making money when I go to work - I prefer for "going flying" to pay more than sitting at home. Takes the sting out of being gone from home. But that 30k base salary would scare me - too many thoughts of "what if the flying dropped off substantially?". I'd need a much higher min guarantee.

Yes, you would. But many pilots as qualified as you, or more so, would not. Therefore, you're out of a job (and someone else just got hired).

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?:D

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.

Made it back.

Just showing up and flying is actually a very small part of the job.
Most of our customers are at ease with the fact that they have seen the same Crew's for years. They do build a relationships, the good pilots know how to smile, be friendly, and handle particular requests, because they have done it many times before. We don't have a history of a revolving door of Crews.

The incentive structure pay does let the hard working crew members set themselves apart. It also lets the crew who's dog had the sniffles, or the one who's Uncle's Sisters Husband left her, and the Uncle can't drive, so I need to drive him, set themselves apart also. Of coarse I do realize that personal issues pop-up, and things need to be taken care of, but incentives would both reward the motivated, and reward a little less, the not so motivated.

So true. Amen.

When I hear flat salary, I figure they are going to fly me until I drop.

When I hear base plus a day rate, I figure they have no business and better be willing to live on base pay. I put absolutely no faith in the "We generally fly X days per month so your pay will be about Y". If you REALLY fly that often, just PAY me that much.

Why not pay a flat salary and demand they are available X days per month?