We're in agreement. I'm trying to aim not for the opener, but where the minimum should be. By all means, shoot higher, just don't accept less than what I proposed (which is fair and reasonable, not 'choking every last egg out of the goose'. )

I wrote: "Rate is fixed. You 'hoar' yourself out to the company and fly, you get more per diem. You work the schedule somehow so that you are home every day - good for you. You cost the same as every other pilot. No need for all the fancy 'featherbedding' of block or better, rigs, guarantees, etc. You get paid the same each year, just adjusted for inflation. No more, no less."

I hear you. I don't even propose hourly rates - I'm proposing a fixed salary (I 'translated it' to hourly rates so that people could easily compare it to current contracts. Perhaps that was a mistake). The largest weakness of my proposal is it removes the financial incentive for the company to get you home. I'm aware of the issue, and while I have ideas, I'm hoping my idea will generate suggestions and refine it further. I find that all the rigs/PBS stuff confuses pilots and artificially benefits those who can 'work the system'. I'd like to get rid of that, make it easy, sort of like the 'flat tax' idea, I suppose. Easy and transparent for both pilots and management.

My main point is 'don't sign a contract with longevity increases that don't keep up with inflation' - what EVERY airline has done. That well-established and foolish policy has left so much $ on the table you'll need another table! The rest is just filler.

Snipe - All good points. I hope I did not come across as blinded to the fact that you were trying to envoke thoughts/ideas for the entire industry as far as improving it on the compensation level.

With several groups either entering, or already knee deep in the process, it is always good to make us all think/raise ideas and questions....that's the only way fresh ideas and views come to the table for all to reap in the industry.

All good points....keep'em flowing!

SC

This is probably one of the best discussions about pay that I've seen. Great suggestions, and the rates are actually what pilots deserve to make. It would take work to get management to swallow it, but you make some great arguments, Snipe, and I think it's reasonable to think this is a possibility.

A set salary could also positively impact safety, with fewer pilots flying more than guarantee just to make ends meet. That doesn't mean FAA regs shouldn't be tightened, but it would be an added buffer.

Keep the thoughts coming!

Well, not really. The Southwest 12 year Capt. rate in 1999 was $134 (all numbers adjusted to hourly pay scale). That $134 adjusted for inflation would be $172 today. Our current rate is $198. I agree that many airlines wages went down the tank in bankruptcy but please don't dismiss our gains. We have increased our wages while the others were reducing thiers. Otherwise, good post.

I for one never want to work in this industry under the concept of a salary for compensation. Been there done that at the first, post deregulation airline that tried to smash the mold that the traditional airline was cast in. The problem is that the game becomes political.

Maybe at your airline the flying is homogeneous. At mine it's all over the map. Good to bad. As an example: Imagine a 15 hour, 5 leg CLE-BOS day replete with several deices and a delay or two vs. a one leg day to paradise with a beach layover in mid winter (think bikinis and mai-tais).

The only thing that keeps the political operators from getting all those better trips is seniority. You may think you're on the inside, but sooner or later you'll get aced out of anything desirable in a political/salary compensation scheme. I for one don't want to make a career out of kissing posteriors.

It's been a long time since I've even seen a plumber, in fact since we parked the last airplane with a flight engineer panel. None the less, plumbers have a saying, but I can't remember it... "Something flows down hill". So it should be with flying productivity and the desirability of one trip vs. another. PAY PER HOUR. HOURS ALLOCATED BASED ON SENIORITY.

Fair enough - I did not intend to dismiss the gains of Southwest, and congratulate SWAPA for being able to 'swim upstream'.

I saw in another thread you mentioned a 32 credit hour polar trip to 'the Kong' which allowed you 22 days off. I don't see how going to salary based pay would, in and of itself, prevent this kind of line from existing, as well as the 20 leg domestic 4 day you mentioned. The senior guy would bid the trip he/she wanted, and the junior guy would get 'the stuff that flows downhill'. How would 'posterior kissing' be involved? You'd still bid for lines the same way as you do now.

Could you detail to me how seniority wouldn't be honored merely by going to a salary based pay system (not changing any other aspect of your contract)?

I admit that my proposal is a work in progress. Please help me refine it.

Snip,
I can appreciate your thoughts on my response I happen to be for ATP mins for an RJ job I had it when I started. One purpose it would serve is to lower the supply of pilots management could use and abuse thus raising the demand. I realize thats not the point of the post so back to the topic I'm cool with FO's making 65% of what a CA makes I simply think FO's should take home 60grand or at least close to it. We don't really have to look at airplane size, seats, prop or jet, I leave that for the bean counters. If a person moves a airplane from A to B they should make 60grand or at least close to it. I think its a livable wage with a toy or two on the side.

60K? Are you insain? I'm an FO and I was perfectly fine with $21 per hour. You have to work for cheap the first year to help pay back the company for your training. It helps strengthen the company by keeping costs down.

Pure Flame, but entertaining none the less.

Point is that pilot costs should be fixed. You do not need to help the company out, they need you and know the cost of doing business. The burden should be on their shoulders.

Although 70% too low, you are making sense here so be careful...