If you look back through his post it's obvious he worked for ASA at one point. He may have come over to SkyWest last summer. Knowing that it will make it easier for everyone to figure him out, if in fact he actually is an ORD based FO with a hire date somewhere between 7/06 --10/06.

He probably didn't make it throught he interview however and is still at ASA. His posting style is very similar to an anti SkyWest poster over on Flightinfo.

 

Cargo has nothing to do with it.

UPS longevity pay seems to work for them and I guess the UPS pilots are OK with it.......but
FWIW, I believe that airplane pay should be broken out by it's ability to produce revenue.

A 737-900 should pay a few dollars more than a 737-500.......yes Pilots can fly both but when they fly a 900 it should pay slightly more than a 500 because of the extra seats.......i.e. revenue.

A-319, 30 and 321 should pay more respectively

B-757-200, 757-300 ditto

B-767-200, B-767-300 and -400 ditto


Same for FedEx
A B-757 should pay more than a B-727
A 310's verses the A300-600. The A300-600 should pay a few dollars more than the A-310.
Same for MD10-10 verses the MD-11.

Cargo vs PAX should make no difference.
Maybe a cargo plane generates more revenue than the same PAX airplane.........but Apples to Apples and Oranges to oranges.......a bigger airplane generates more revenue than a smaller one carrying the same Payload, be it People or Cargo or a mix of both.

 

Redeye,

I understand your line of thinking, however I think it's exactly that line of thinking that hurts pilot unity and pay scales industry wide.

By creating a "more revenue" arguement, we divide the pilot group and require costly training events when people bid for larger aircraft. Likewise, when and airline is losing money, the larger aircraft have much more potential to be "revenue holes".

IMHO, pay should be based on experience and longevity. Why is it that I am paid more than 300/flight hour to fly a Cessna Citation, when if I went to the airlines I'd make only 35-40/hr to start at a major (if that).

Going to a longevity based system would do several things (IMHO):

First off, it could lead to a nationalized pay scale. This would benefit everybody, and only strengthen labors position.

Second, it would save money for companies- by going to longevity pay, pilots would be less inclined to move around the system, thus reducing training costs. Since pilots wouldn't have to continuously move to larger equipment to get the higher echelons of pay, the company wouldn't have to pay for the constant bump up/ripple effect or bump and flush effect that comes with upgrades and displacements.

Finally, it would allow pilots to live the lifestyle they wanted based on the fleet type they bid for. Single? Want to see the world? Bid for widebody international flying. Have young kids, want to be home every night? Bid for a 737 shuttle route that allows just that.

Just my two cents...

 

We already have a longevity system, and it's a big problem...it creates an incentive for managers to get rid of senior workforces and replace them with super-junior workforces who have no choice but to do the same work for less money.

I think we should have a flat rate for each aircraft based on revenue potential of that aircraft...some formula taking into account seats, weight, and speed (a faster airplane can do more legs and make more money). You would still have seniority and use it for bidding schedules, domiciles, equipment, vacation, and upgrade but you would not be able to get a new pilot to fly an airplane for half the going rate just because he's a new-hire.

 

i have run into a lot of SKW guys that throw out the typical line...

"Wanna compare W2's"

it is almost lilke they are saying huh huh huh huh huh huh at the end

fortunately it has been through the powers of the net or i would have probably ***** smacked them for principle