Mike, what I'm trying to tell you is airplane size has nothing to do with anything. You have come to believe a common misconception in the industry. Delta loses money on some 777 flights, and makes bank on some regional flights. The most profitable plane overall is the 757, the airline is looking to shed the massive behemoths like the 747, because they are losers compared to smaller planes like the 777/787 etc.

Your pension at mainline used to be based on your last three years with the company. It was absolutely essential to focus the big bucks to the top of the seniority list, to maximize lifetime earnings. Since the pension is gone, the time value of money is what matters. This means that you need to save as much as possible, as early as possible, because pay rates at the end, no longer help.

Bigger pays more because of the pension, has nothing to do with anything else, nothing! Total scope recapture, with longevity based pay, is what fixes this industry, anyone who claims different is being self serving.

 

Well I guess our perspectives are different. I still have a pension.

Also, I've flown as an off the street captain for hire on short term contract basis. In that world size matters. And since the correlation of pay to aircraft size in the regular airline world is still very high, I'm going with the notion that size matters there as well. You may have a point that it shouldn't matter but that's not the world we live in.

 

You work at Alaska? Does the -900 pay more than the -400?

 

It did when it first came out but now all jets pay the same.

 

Again, you are confusing the artificially created market with natural market forces (which we don't have). The size of the airplane has nothing to do with it. Mesabah described it quite well I think.

Actually you missed the point of the OP altogether. This has nothing to do with low time or younger pilots getting low pay. The problem is that ALPA created an artificial and controlled sub economy based on seniority that drove down salaries across the board, including yours. The selling out occurred, but it's not the only damage that resulted. Locking you into a contract you can never leave by creating a monopoly system of entitlements for senior pilots ended up driving salaries down over time, not up....even at the high end, even for the experienced and highly skilled captains who thought they were getting ahead.

I've said before, that low time and low inexperience pilots shouldn't demand a high salary, that's not the issue we're discussing. You should stop confusing low time and low experience with a low seniority number or a lower GTOW. Ideally, all airlines should hire a share of low time pilots mixed in with a share of higher time pilots. Pilots have to start somewhere. Our current broken system of airlines canibalizing each other for co pilots is incredibly wasteful and inefficient, as well as unsafe. Add in the entitlement bidding and there goes our salaries. This is the result of APLA and the seniority system. No one will ever convince me that ALPA enhances safety in our industry.

 

You want to talk national seniority?

Unfortunately, seniority is a necessary evil. Promotion by any other means is a recipe for disaster. However, a national seniority list would be nice and 1978 probably would have been an opportune time to implement it. But, at the time, the "haves" were having none of it. They are all but gone now and the senior pilots left are not able or willing to sacrifice any more for the benefit of anyone but themselves. And who can blame them?

Perhaps now, with a large retirement bubble coming, would be a good time to try again. I don't know the legal ramifications of implementing a national list. I'm sure the hurdles are staggering. But I do think a paradigm shift is just over the horizon. Increased automation, ab initio, and a shortage of pilots with enough time to qualify as new hires, may force the issue. Will APLA (and the other unions) step up and help craft the future or will they fight change?

Anyway, just spit balling here. Good night.

 

I come from a background of economics, and I disagree with the notion that size doesn't matter--part of our higher pay for a larger plane is based on the notion that the equipment that generates the most revenue pays the most. Another way to look at it is to assume that the position of the most responsibility pays the most, and in this case responsibility is measured in the value of the equipment, cargo and lives. That's why even non-union nations pay more for larger equipment--flyDubai will never match Emirates because one flies 737's and one flies heavies.

The fact that some airlines have agreed to pay multiple airframes the same rate is simply a matter of convenience and expedience for both the company and the pilot group, as it saves money on training cycles because we have no incentive to chase certain upgrades, but we get the benefit of bidding what we want to fly based on our own personal criteria.

The same phenomenon occurs in nearly every profession, even sports: news anchors earn more than in-the-field reporters; quarterbacks get paid more than other players; the lead actor gets paid the most; senior partners in a law firm get the larger share of the profits; a VP will always get paid more than an entry-level manager. I could go on, but I think I've made the point.

Has seniority been the fault for a lot of other issues? Yes, and it would be folly to say otherwise. However, a national seniority list is dead in the water before it starts for three main reasons: senior pilots will never go along with it (and in some cases, neither would locally senior but nationally junior pilots [see America West/USAir]); it is a concept that would fail spectacularly without the support of ALL the pilot unions, and getting ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA, IBT, and USAPA to agree on something like this would be an exercise in futility; third, and most important, the airlines themselves would never go along with it. We sometimes forget that everything we have must be agreed to by two parties, not just demanded by one (bankruptcy not included).

 

Sticky worthy

 

I tried using similar logic but apparently my perspective is warped and I am subject to misconceptions.

 

I had a CEO at Delta personally tell me he did not care if he paid a 777 CA 500 an hour because the aircraft generated the revenue to support the pay. He then added that if he paid that on the 777 we would demand 400 an hour for the 737 and the airframe could not support that wage.