TodayQuote:
Argumentson the exact science of the formulas for calculating pay by type aside though, the point here is that consolidating pay rates saves the company a lot of money by significantly reducing one of (if not the) main drivers of costly training events.
At a minimum we should bring the 88 rates up to the 90 rates in any case though, and I would agree that the 88/90/319/320/737's should pay the same (the current 737 rate) and SWA rates seem to be more than fair for all. With the 9's going away soon anyway, we would likely need a smaller narrowbody rate for when we get the nxt gen smaller narrowbody on property (EMB190/195, C-Series, Mitsubishi, Sukhoi, baby Boeing/Airbus et.) and of course a separate rate, as necessary, to get the larger RJ's currently outsourced back on property (or at least the pilot jobs back on property). But in any case having a ton of pay rates that are separated in many cases by tiny or even non existant seat ranges is silly for us and for the company.
I believe the main and pretty much only reasons that we pull seats out are either:Originally Posted by gloopy
Of course we don't want (nor should we allow) that. Heck, most of the time when they "reduce seats" they do so to install more first class seats specifically in order to increase revenue in the first place. That's hardly a driver for pay cuts. In a bad economy the gas saved by pulling seats is next to nothing, and it increases CASM at least on paper so that would be dumb from the company's point of view. Max certifiable should be what we are concerned with anyway, along with MTOW, cargo capacity, speed, range and other fixed criteria.Argumentson the exact science of the formulas for calculating pay by type aside though, the point here is that consolidating pay rates saves the company a lot of money by significantly reducing one of (if not the) main drivers of costly training events.
At a minimum we should bring the 88 rates up to the 90 rates in any case though, and I would agree that the 88/90/319/320/737's should pay the same (the current 737 rate) and SWA rates seem to be more than fair for all. With the 9's going away soon anyway, we would likely need a smaller narrowbody rate for when we get the nxt gen smaller narrowbody on property (EMB190/195, C-Series, Mitsubishi, Sukhoi, baby Boeing/Airbus et.) and of course a separate rate, as necessary, to get the larger RJ's currently outsourced back on property (or at least the pilot jobs back on property). But in any case having a ton of pay rates that are separated in many cases by tiny or even non existant seat ranges is silly for us and for the company.
1. Add more first/business class seats.
2. Reduce the required number of Flight attendants.
I have never heard fuel savings as a rationale for pulling seats - although it would not surprise me.
As to pay adjusting with seat changes - we negotiate pay for specific aircraft. Once the rates are negotiated management can add/remove seats as they see fit. Capacity/size is definitely a factor in the pay rate negotiations, but once that rate is set there is no pay formula that adjusts pay up and down as seats are added or removed.
Scoop
