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)

 

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.