It is odd that the pay at Horizon for a 70 seat aircraft is higher than the pay for a 76 seat aircraft. The best answer I have for this is because the old farts negotiated the last CBA. They were in the F-28, and made sure that they got theirs no matter what jet they were in. That's why the jet pay is great while the reserve rules suck and FOs on the seven leg a day Q200 can't switch aircraft without a pay cut. The gray hairs weren't going to be on reserve or fly a baby dash so why care? The Q400 got good rates, but there isn't any reason it should pay less than the CRJ-700.

Also, the Q400 didn't always have more seats than the CRJ-700, so that might have something to do with it too. Hopefully the pay disparity between t-prop and jet will get fixed in the next CBA.

i meant within carrier, First year FO's generally make the same no matter what equipment

some carriers pay cr9 FO's and prop FO's the same.

in addition according to the pay rates on APC, a second year Q400 FO at horizon will make more than a second year FO at XJT

clueless..................

Just because Colgan does not have a reputable q400 rate does not mean other carriers don't

Don't be mad

The lives of people who fly in turboprops are not worth as much as the people who fly in jets. Therefore, only second rate pilots are selected to fly them. Of course the airline company doesn't need to pay more for pilots that should have got better grades in school so they can fly a jet.

I have flown both the ATR and the E170...... I am not sure one is harder to fly than the other its just different...... each has their own challenges.

I should have asked why Q400 pay was less than the CRJ during my interview. I think your reasoning is correct in the localized case of Horizon - we'll see what happens.

Maybe they meant that it's more work to fly a prop than a jet. In which case I think it's true.. it's like when was the last time a jet driver had to track VORs or fly full ILS or VOR approaches with NDB transitions (into nonradar airports that jets dont fly into)? plus prop guys usually fly shorter, more legs.. which means more time in the terminal area when the workload/stress level is the highest... basically more work! then there's the whole weather deal.. having to fly in the soup the entire leg, versus jets that usually just pop in and out of it briefly. last week the plane I was flying was so damn loud even with my noise canceling headset and we were in bumpy soup for an hour straight.. I had a pounding headache and only when I added earplugs (in addition to my noise cancelling headset, mind you) did I feel a little better.

so yeah, I really don't understand the pay discrepancy either.

This is another one of those generally correct statements, with a couple exceptions. Some RJ's fly those short routes, like CVG-CRW, CVG-SDF, etc..., and the crew may have a 6 leg day with 5 credit hours. It happens. Again, that's an exception rather than the rule, thank God. Also, RJ's have to fly airways sometimes if the FMS breaks. Granted it doesn't happen often, but still...

My guess is the difference goes back to the days of the begining of pax jet operation.

If I recall correctly:
Convairs hauled up to 70 pax
B-337 Stratocruiser 50-90 pax
DC-7 100 pax
707 hauled up to 180 pax
DC-8 up to 250 pax

So when jets came on the scene, payloads doubled. Also, being a new technology with higher performance, pilots could demand much higher pay.

Just a guess.....

well this is true.. I was jumpseating on an RJ once, the FMS broke during their climbout.. they had to get their enroute charts out and start looking stuff up.. you could tell those crisp charts have never been opened up before! lol. the captain did mention it was the second time that the FMS broke on him, first time was like 3 years ago.

Why would I be mad, I do feel sick though, I just inhaled a 1lb cheeseburger and a HUGE basket of fries.............time to lay in bed :)