I've been working for a regional airline for 2 years now. Ever since I started I've been trying to figure out the logic behind only paying pilots based on block hours rather than duty time. So when I say I'm scratching my head over it still, it's only because I haven't been able to get a good answer yet. Has it always been done that way? Is there some history there I don't know about?

Every other job I've had from burger flipping to truck driving we clocked in at the beginning of the day and clocked out at the end of it. Who's decision was it that we should only get paid when the break is released? This is not a rant. I'm just looking for the logic if there is any.

It seems to me that a lot of the frustration related to this industry would be alleviated if we were paid by duty time or by a hybrid system. Even at the flight school I instructed at we were given a retainer in addition to hour pay for flight time that justified our being there. How is it that even flight schools have a more sophisticated salary system than the airlines we were training for?

Now some airlines have contractual language that deters or prevents pilots from being kept sitting around up to the max duty period allowed under Part 117. However airlines have been known to go bankrupt which seems to nullify such contractual agreements.

How much better would it be then if we were paid at least minimum wage while not blocked out or while waiting for scheduling to book us a hotel at the end of the day. It seems to me that it would alleviate a large percentage of the bickering with scheduling or the need for trip/duty rigs.

 

And if a frog had wings.......

 

Yes, we need trip and duty rigs!

 

JetRage,
There actually is a history behind it. When ALPA first started, one of their goals was to have pilots treated--and paid--like professionals. There are generally three "professions" in the classic sense: doctors, lawyers, and accountants, all of whom are at some point paid by the hour (surgeons are paid by the procedure). ALPA was aiming for the same level of recognition for pilots. Even if you accept that pilots are really more like a trade or a craft (which, in reality, is what we are), tradesmen and craftsmen also tend to get paid by the hour. Think of your local electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc. There may be a service fee involved, but almost all charge some sort of hourly rate.

That said, as professionals, we are only getting paid when we are practicing the "craft" of flying, which is generally defined as brake release to brake set.

Over time, the contracts at the majors addressed the issue of unproductive trips with trip-and-duty rigs. With the trip rig, you are guaranteed to be paid one hour of pay for so many hours of time away from base (TAFB), which also determines per diem for the majority of us. A good trip rig is one hour of pay for every 3.5 hours away from base (1:3.5). The duty rig looks at each day of work on the trip, and it pays you a minimum of so many hours of pay per day (5.0 hours being considered a historically good number, though I believe SWA pays 6.0 per day). At the end of the trip or the month, you look back and take the greater of the trip rig, the min day values, or the actual hours flown, and that's what you get paid.

Other unions followed suit, and once one company jumped on the bandwagon, it made it easier for others to do the same.

Most regionals don't get any kind of rig. When I was at Comair, we had rigs that were based on a look back at the end of the month (as opposed to using the rig to look forward, which would force more days off when your schedule is actually built). Even with a look-back rig, I had many months where the rig paid me extra money. Unfortunately, there has been relatively little success in getting rigs at the regionals. The companies tend to cry wolf, and claim that it will cost them too much money, and the pilots tend to accept a slightly higher pay rate in lieu of the rigs, especially since no pilot at a regional ever thinks s/he will be at that regional long enough to care.

Done correctly, trip-and-duty rigs incentivize both management and the pilots. For the company, there is a motive to make the trips as productive as possible (or, alternatively, where they have no choice, to minimize crappy trips). For the pilot, not only are there more days off, but you usually will lose some money on a sick call, because you often only get paid for the block time, not the lost "soft" time, thus minimizing the need for extra reserves. In theory, the rigs force the company to optimize trips as well as individual duty periods, which should lead to a decrease in fatigue. The concept of the rig precedes the jet age, so in that respect it's a bit dated.

If you really want to get to the details, you can read the [U]Flying the Line[U] books that tell the history of ALPA. The first volume goes into a lot of detail about the how's, why's, and ways that we get paid.

The fractionals pay a monthly salary, which is then used to work backwards to compute an hourly rate for various penalties that the company must pay. Pilots, especially (but not only) ALPA, have historically fought against salaries for fear that a) there will be fewer opportunities to make extra money, and b) that the company will try extract more flying from the pilot, thus decreasing the cost-per-hour of the pilot, and decreasing the number of jobs at a given carrier.

To answer the question of whether or not we do it this way because "that's the way that it's always been done," yes, to a degree that's the case. But there is a logic and history to it. And now [I]you[I] know...the [I]rest[I] of the story.

 

Thanks for the well written response. I don't hear a lot of guys suggesting that getting paid for duty time would be better than for block hours. So possibly I'm the odd one out. Honestly I miss being on salary. But, while I'm dreaming I'd like pay to be based on experience rather than longevity.

 

Would you rather get paid $40/hr block or $20/hr duty? In the end your annual income is +/- a few percentage points. If you like day trips, you're screwed because they're typically more efficient (6hrs block with 7.5hrs duty).

Getting paid/ duty hours has it's own set of problems.

 

History lessons and professionalism aside, the block pay system allows very senior pilots (who tend to run unions), in collusion with management, to better enrich themselves at the expense of their juniors since senior trips tend to have very high block-to-duty ratios.

 

Or is it because they are senior and they can bid the high time trips?

 

Senior pilots are generally going to bid for more productive trips.

What on earth does a union have to do with it?

Some trips are productive, some aren't. What is a senior pilot involved in union work going to collude with management about? To keep making some trips productive?? That's already happening.

 

I think you guys are missing the point all together. There would be a huge advantage to being paid an hourly rate for duty.

First off kudos to the OP for discussing a topic that needs serious addressing.

Think of how it would be if we were paid hourly based on duty. Most jobs are gauged on a yearly salary based on a 40hr work week times 52 weeks per year. If it was known you pretty much spend the first 5-6 years of your job at $15-20 per hour do you think as many people would apply for the job? Do you think the student loan companies would let you borrow as much? $20 per duty hour is pretty much what you are paid as a regional FO. This looks a lot less appealing than $46 per flight hour.

Transparency guys! This is the key. Deception is management's best friend. Expose them and you have a fair game.