Actually, I think they’d be okay if it was only that. It sounds to me like they are more opposed to bringing 717/320 pay up to 737 (or higher) pay.

Denny

Actually, there are. When you bring 765 up more than you raise 777 (to normalize them), 777 guys think it's unfair. Same for 330/350, 320/737, etc... many at the higher step scoff at unbalanced raises.

I'm not hung up on it, but some folks take it personally and get pretty ticked off by the notion of unequal pay raises across all fleets.

I would think the recency-tracking would be more palatable to the company than having two small step child bases for the -400.

I don't know the airplane well... does it not overlap with other aircraft closely enough that we could just shed it completely if it can't be woven into the 7ER?

Doesn’t UAL fly the 767-400 common category with the 767-300 and 757 with the full blessing of the FAA? I was under the impression that they did since the merger and that the 767-400 trips went senior because they paid more.

The 767-400 fleet usually operates very efficiently with low credit. I doubt the company has any interest in integrating the fleets.

I am a proponent of pay banding as I see it as a increase of QOL for the group as it gives everyone more options for the same money.

I say this in an innocent way, because maybe there is an angle I’m not seeing. How does this reduce QOL? I’ll

The UPS band covers a much narrower range of aircraft than you find at a passenger airline. The smallest plane they have is a 757 and the majority of the fleet is made up of A300/B767 or larger planes.

It would make sense for Delta to band the 767-400 and A330 with the 777 and A350.

Our pay scales are ego driven. The domestic market is what generates the majority of profit. Widebody pay doesn’t correlate to the revenue it generates. Widebody flying is easy compared to multiple leg flying that the narrowbodies do.

If we were smart we’d pay based off of longevity and seat position. That’s it.

You would be very wrong in your cost analysis. I once had the then CEO of the airline tell me that he had no issue paying a 777 CA 500,000 a year because the airframe would support the pay. He then however added that we would demand 400,000 a year if he did that for a 737 CA and the airframe could not support that wage.
Sectors ebb and flow as far as profitability. Currently international is very strong. Watch Ed’s videos.
I always found domestic flying easier overall. Feel much better after a domestic trip than international and far fewer issues to deal with as a CA.

One of the issues is that ALPA tied their pay wagon to increasing pay for pax count and weight of the airplane in the 1950s. Airplanes kept growing in size, so it seemed like a great way to assure constant increases in pay. However, we have past "peak airplane size" and now the best airplane for US airline seems to be a 737 for domestic and a medium widebody like a A330 or B787 for the international. Both of which are a decrease in size from the biggest airplane that used to be flown in both those type of markets, meaning a decrease in overall pay. Delta used to fly the L-1011 domestically (and it's replacement, the 767-400 was originally only domestic). Obviously, the B747 was the Northwest international airplane.

Because both the sizes have gone down, the number of wide body Capts have gone down too. Pay banding works at UPS because I suspect it was the original pay structure.

I just can't see how we would get to a paybanding setup like Small Narrow body (A220, B717 and M88) , Medium narrow body (B737/A320, B757) and Widebody B767/A330/B767-400/A350 without cries of "unfair pay raise" and "they got a high percentage raise than I did".