![]() |
Easy solution. You want dual qual, pay out vacations, sick, etc on the higher rate. Problem solved.
|
Originally Posted by SilverandSore
(Post 907048)
Wrong. The blended rate allows the company to pay out vacation, sick time and cancellation at the lower rate. The company saves the pay differential on those things for 500 pilots. You need to read up a little, you're seriously mis-informed.
|
SilverandSore
I think you and I have a different view of what constitutes a blended rate. My view is this. If your company has an equal number of CRJ700 and CRJ200 aircraft and the CRJ700 4th year FO rate is $46/hr and the CRJ200 rate is $40/hr then a 4th yr FO is paid $43/hr regardless of which variant he flies. He's paid that rate for sick time, vacation, etc.. |
Originally Posted by bender
(Post 907369)
SilverandSore
I think you and I have a different view of what constitutes a blended rate. My view is this. If your company has an equal number of CRJ700 and CRJ200 aircraft and the CRJ700 4th year FO rate is $46/hr and the CRJ200 rate is $40/hr then a 4th yr FO is paid $43/hr regardless of which variant he flies. He's paid that rate for sick time, vacation, etc.. |
Originally Posted by Nevets
(Post 907271)
Just because Skywest does it that way, doesn't mean everybody else is forced to do it the same way. But what I was talking about is one pay rate for all four aircraft types. There wouldn't be a lower rate. That's the whole point of blended rate.
I know I keep beating this argument to death, but if you're so big on the blended rate, why not have all pilots fly all seats for the same blended pay rate, is that any different? I'm sure the captains would love this idea? Let's throw seniority out the window and make every one equal. |
Originally Posted by SilverandSore
(Post 907048)
Wrong. The blended rate allows the company to pay out vacation, sick time and cancellation at the lower rate. The company saves the pay differential on those things for 500 pilots. You need to read up a little, you're seriously mis-informed.
|
I heard dual qual is coming no matter what we want. If that's the case, what steps do we have to take to ensure that it is done beneficially for both the company and the pilot group? Do we even have any bargaining power here?
|
Originally Posted by AtlCSIP
(Post 907616)
I heard dual qual is coming no matter what we want. If that's the case, what steps do we have to take to ensure that it is done beneficially for both the company and the pilot group? Do we even have any bargaining power here?
This is a union based pilot group. Anything like this would have to be voted on by the pilot group before implementation. I would call that some barganing power. |
Originally Posted by SilverandSore
(Post 907383)
Without knowing what each aircraft's new contract pay rate is going to be (which would really make a comparison difficult to achieve) the problem I have with the blended rate is that it rewards the pilots on the smaller aircraft at the expense of the pilots on the larger aircraft. Let's keep it like it should be, paid for based on seats in the aircraft, unless the pay is based on the larger aircraft, ala Delta 757/767. Anything else is just a concession.
I know I keep beating this argument to death, but if you're so big on the blended rate, why not have all pilots fly all seats for the same blended pay rate, is that any different? I'm sure the captains would love this idea? Let's throw seniority out the window and make every one equal. As for your analogy, it's flawed. As an FO in an RJ, you do the same job as an FO in a 747. The responsibility difference is almost all in the seat you are occupying and therefore the captain will always earn more than his FO. |
Originally Posted by Nevets
(Post 907719)
I guess UPS pilots have it all wrong then. Look, one you have one blended rate, you chase QOL in schedules rather than aircraft and it's corresponding pay. You say you don't want to fly to the cities that the 200 goes? Then don't bid those schedules. Seniority is still preserved.
As for your analogy, it's flawed. As an FO in an RJ, you do the same job as an FO in a 747. The responsibility difference is almost all in the seat you are occupying and therefore the captain will always earn more than his FO. I've already used the UPS analogy in this thread. We aren't UPS and the way this is being presented is as a benefit, which it very likely will not be, we don't even know if the company is inclined to go the blended route of the override route, but history is on my side, Skywest uses an override. If the blended rate is higher than the current 700 rate plus whatever increase the new contract offers, I am all for it. Otherwise, no thanks, I'm not interested in this concession. As for my analogy, many corporate departments use co-captains where they swap seats during the trip for same pay, remember, it's blended, it's all even in the end. Isn't that really best for you to have all your options? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands