12 year crj 200 capt: 130k/year
8 year crj 200 fo: 65-70k/year

new higher crj 200 fo: 45k/year

700 and 900 would require upper adjustments.

i hate to admit it but the above plus some major quality of life improvements and my move to Delta would have required a lot more thought. i still would have left though.

 

The problem here is that our traditional longevity pay scale only allows this to happen if you stay at one company forever...management has gotten wise and is making that hard to do. The only solution would be a single national union where you union seniority stayed with you regardless of who you work for.

I disagree about aircraft size...key employees who handle goods (pax) have traditionally gotten paid based on the revenue generation they are responsible for...a widebody can gross $1M on a long international leg. UPS/FDX undoubtedly earn more than that.

If I were king, the pay system would work like this...

No longevity for pay. Hourly pay is based on equipment and seat and is fixed. A 737 FO gets paid $XX/hour, period. A new hire and a ten-year vet get the same rate (hopefully the ten year guy has the common sense to transition to a bigger airplane.

Longevity can count for vacations and benefits.

You DEFINATELY keep seniority...this rewards time in service with bigger (higher paying) equipment, QOL, and upgrades. You don't really need longevity, cuz the more senior pilots get paid more anyway (bigger airplanes).

Getting rid of longevity removes the temptation to replace older pilot groups with younger workgroups (less longevity = cheaper).

Higher starting pay would drive up the competetion at the entry-level and hopefully weed out some of the @ss-clowns getting in today.

Jet Blue based their startup business model partly on low longevity (although that's fading fast).

Ornstien and a few others intentionally "churn" their pilot group...musical domiciles and torturous QOL forces out most senior folks, keeping the average pilot low on the scale.

Regionals have to compete with each other, which puts experienced workforces (AWAC, XJet) at the mercy of younger and less experienced groups.

Longevity is bad...essentially it is working for nothing today in exchange for a promise of more later. But the folks making the promises are the Lorenzo's, Hulas', and Ornstiens of the world Get the picture?

EDIT: My suggested dollar value for a 50 seat RJ: $75K FO, $125K CA (If they have to raise fares, tough)

 

I have to laugh as this thread, and the associated responses. I would love to be making $75k as a first year FO in an RJ but that %$#@ ain't gonna happen.

Asking "what are we worth" and "what will the market bear" are two different questions, although they are connected. We are worth exactly what the market will bear, no more, no less.

Unfortunately, the unions have created these lopsided pay scales that threw the new guys under the bus and rewarded the 20 year senior guys with not only the best schedules but also a tremendous pay advantage. Let's think for a second, who are the people that generally sit on the union? The junior or senior people? That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering.

Someone else posted this and I fully agree - pay shouldn't be based on a 12 to 18 year scale, if anything it should top out in 5 years AT MOST. That would allow the free market economy to do a better job at determining pilot pay at the airline level.

 

This is obvious. I based the $75K FO thing on what comparable upper-middle class educated professionals (engineer, IT, etc) make right out of school.

The market rate is determined by the lowest common denominator...the entry level pilot. Our unions may be able to have some affect on that by controlling who that entry-level pilot is...becoming more involved in hiring and by raising first year FO pay.

 

I'll collect my notes and make a more thorough post about this later, but:

The history of bigger airplanes = bigger paychecks is one of linking pay to productivity. The more seats, cargo capacity, and range the more revenue is generated per leg (i.e. greater productivity per pilot). Using this formula the larger, long range aircraft produce a higher hourly rate.

In terms of pay year steps for various fleets and seats, there is a reward for seniority for sure!

UPS is just one operator that has successfully de-linked hourly rate from productivity. It can be done, although when you de-link pay from productivity you lose a tangible negotiating reference.

 

Aren't the big cargo operations that de-linked hourly productivity and pay rate now having issues with pilots not wanting to fly bigger and newer planes for the same pay?

From my standpoint, which I'll admit is a bit ignorant as I'm only a student pilot, the de-linked pay seems to cause a few more problems than it solves.

 

It saves money by reducing training events. You don't have to switch aircraft to get a higher paycheck. If you like where you are at you can stay and not take a monetary penalty for it. What issues are carriers having? If a new aircraft or base shows up and nobody wants to fly it, it will go junior or to new hires if necessary...see ANC domicile for FDX and UPS.

 

Thanks Slice, that makes sense. I thought that either FDX or UPS were having issues with pilots and the whole A380/777 thing.

 

Well, comparing certain places, the management thinks their F/Os are worth per diem only. $1.25 anyone? It's tax free!

 

Not that I'm aware of at UPS...since neither aircraft is scheduled to show up here as of right now.