Jet vs. Tprop PAY
 

I did a brief search and didn't find anything.

Why do jet pilots generally get paid more per hour than turboprop pilots when each aircraft is operated by the same company and carries the same amount of passengers?

Because its an excuse management uses to pay the T-prop pilots less, even though they are cheaper to operate, burn less fuel, and in some cases fly as many or more people than the RJ's.

Checko

a lot of FO rates are the same in a tp and a shiny new jet

First year FO pay at PDT is at $25.55 I think. FO's make the same for 100 and 300's. I think CA make an extra $3 for 300's vs 100's. If I am not mistaken, I think it is one of the higher paying first year pay.

Yeah those F/O Q rates are really on par with XJT & SKW & AWAC & CHQ "Shiney Jet" F/O's payrates................



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

...but Mista works for Horizon dude...those rates kick ass! Too bad Colgan doesn't have a clue about pay rates...

Pilot compensation has traditionally been somewhat tied to revenue generation potential.

Revenue generation potential is the potential to carry pax and cargo over a certain DISTANCE. Pilots payscale are by the HOUR.

Mainline airplanes carry far more cargo than regional aircraft, and this is a significant money-maker. Cargo is far more lucrative and simpler to handle. Who get's paid paid the most? FDX.

RJ's carry little or no cargo, but they do go fast, so they can carry pax the same distance as mainline in one hour.

T-props also carry no cargo, but they cover less distance in an hour than an RJ so they have less revenue generating potential assuming the same seat count. This is somewhat offset by higher fares which small-town pax are usually charged.


Obviously management is not consistent with this philosophy...700/900 rates.

Look at some of the airlines operating large turboprops. Colgan and Lynx come to mind. These are total bottom feeder companies that set the rates much lower than they should have been. Even with Horizon's good TP rates, they still had the nerve to pay $24 an hour (only $26 at Colgan) 2nd year, and $60/hr 5th year captain pay on a 74 seat aircraft (I think it is less at Lynx:mad:)

:mad::mad:

In a perfect world, this would be a true statement. However, it depends on where you are operating those aircraft.

When I commuted from IAD to LGA 7 years ago, the RJ would take anywhere between 80-90 minutes. The USAir Express -8 could do it in just a tad over an hour. The simple reason being it stayed low, never had to get sequenced in with the saturated jet traffic, and basically got to go from point A to point B unrestricted.

More along the lines of the original question. When th RJ's started coming on line, most turbo props were the relatively low capacity, slow, relatively archaic type. The RJ was seen as more akin to "mainline" flying, as well as being faster, more complex, sophisticated, blah blah blah. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean I agree with it. Because we all know the guy flying the 1900/J31/SAAB or whatever in most cases is working MORE/HARDER than the guy in the RJ.

The problem now is that turbo props STILL have that stigma, even though we know better. The SAAB2000 (if it was operated), Dornier 328 prop (if it was still around), and Q400 all prove this whole thing wrong.

Look at just the Eagle scales. We pay quite a bit more for 50 seat T-jet than 66-seat T-prop. Its not as extreme on the captain side but there is still a difference as you go up in seniority. All this yet there's no argument that the ATRs and Saabs are more difficult airplanes than the EMJ or CRJ. Yet another reason people flock back to the continent from PR when their seat locks are up.

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 :)

IN-N-OUT Burger?

I wish, some overpriced Sheraton:(

That would have been awesome. Are they still saying that upgrade will be 3-4 years?

I'd love to hear LaMar or Gene try to make up a viable reason to pay pilots on the largest and most profitable aircraft less money than those on the CRJ.

I am curious to see what happens to the pay scale if they do get rid of the 700s. I would hope that the 400 scale would just shift over to the 700 scale, but, yah, that won't happen.

With the upgrade, I had forgotten that they said 3-4 years. I don't believe anyone who says less than 5-6 and I am planning on 7. I hope they are right, but I doubt it. I am thinking that reserve is going to be a better part of a year with this age 65 thing, and I am planning on some stagnation for a little while.

Start ground school tomorrow, wish me luck.

Because flying hand flying a B1900 for 12 legs on a Saturday is fun and that pilot loves their job. Their engines whir and hum during flight.

The jet jockeys are a miserable lot pushing buttons, wait, hand flying a constant speed climb up to 10k, whoop dee doo!!, pushing buttons until 200 feet IMC or 1000 feet VMC on arrival. Unlike their engines, the jet jockey keeps whining after shutdown.....

Yep, that answer was already given;

Yep, agree with ALMOST everything you say, EXCEPT one;

How much flying have you done in Mexico? There are times when I have gone there everyday of a four day trip. Of the 30 or so places my company flies there, I can only think of 4-5 that have radar coverage in the terminal area. And yep, most airports have use non precision approaches, often times a DME arc approach. Now, I ALREADY agreed that the turbo prop flying is more difficult. But saying that the RJ ALWAYS goes into a radar airports isn't true. And even though Mexico City has it, doesn't mean that it makes your life easier. MEX had the MATEO transition that was a much higher workload for a radar environment than non radar.

Also, when I based in CVG it wasn't uncommon to do 6 legs (I know, not THAT many) in and out in the FRJ. Never more than 50 minutes gate to gate, never getting above the low 20's.

As of Febuary 2008, the highest pilot pay appears to be a Boeing Business Jet pilot. Avjet Services, the BBJ subsidiary, is starting it's Captains at $237,000 a year and it's F/O's at $169,000 a year. A friend of mine who fly's for Avjet said he knows a BBJ Captain who is making closer to $350,000, but he's been there since they bought their first BBJ.

The bottom line is, airline pay continues to go down, while private parties are paying their pilots record pay. Go figure. . .

The reason behind our 76 seat turboprop being a lower payscale than the 70 seat RJ is pretty simple: When we got the plane, it was for 70 seats. I believe, and I'm pulling from really old memory here, that the aircraft was certified to 74, so we simply made our payscale go up to 74 seats.

Interesting fact: It was a pilot that pushed management to go to 74 seats and pay the pilots more. Our managers hemmed and hawed, made up lame excuses and basically said 'no'. 3 years later they put in the extra 4 seats and patted themselves on the back for coming up with such innovative revenue producing ideas.

A few years later, they did some model testing with some of our MVP passengers, and decided that they could squeeze another 2 seats in there. This is where I draw on old memory again, so I may be a bit off, but I believe that required 'buying' a higher gross weight for the aircraft (this was when avg pax weight went up by 20 lbs or so). Anyway, the Union basically said ok to the 76 seat thing since we were coming up on the amendable date of our contract and that would be included as part of the negotiating process. Interestingly, the new cabin configuration with the 76 seats shifted the weight forward (waaaay fwd cg) as well as caused some FA logistical problems (her butt bumping into seat 1B's face when it came time to do service). I suspect that is why we only have a handful of these 76ers.

So there you go. We now have a 76 seat airplane with low costs and a lower crew rate than the 70 seat RJ. Evolution of the Q400 created this situation at Horizon.

Another myth busted.

That's the truth! You stole my thunder there, buddy ;)

I was just introduced to In-N-Out on an SFO layover this week...I'm foaming at the mouth for another :D

Now you understand why some of us put up with the obscene cost of living in California.

Not to mention the great weather out here...........

Vegas has plenty of In and out Burgers plus no state income tax.

But regardless of the amount of seats in the Q4 over time, it still has a few more seats than the CRJ and pilots who fly the Q4 get paid less. Same airline, same amount of seats, unequal pay.