The battle we lost is pay based on gross weight and airspeed. I now fly the 787 and in the past the 747, while the flying isn't much different the size is and size counts.

I will confess I was/am proponent of pay by seniority rather than the weight and airspeed, but i also realize our "high" pay rates did not originate from senority only systems.

The problem of the size (usually as determined by MTOW weight) and speed pay equation is modern technology.

Same or larger planes now weigh less then their predecessors. See A350-1000 vs 777-300er. The Airbus has a 94,000 lb lighter MTOW for the same dimension aircraft. So consideration of capabilities beyond just size need to be factored in.

I don't have an issue with pay banding, if the bands actually made sense. In my ideal world, if banding were used:

Super Jumbos (A380/747-8i class)
Large Widebodies (777/787/A350)
Small Widebodies (767 all variants)
Large narrowbody (757-200 and -300/A321)
Medium narrowbody (all 737, all 320, C series etc)
Small narrowbody (anything smaller then above)

I'm at the end of this career so the future and how you all want to get paid is up to you. From a seniority based point of view the most senor tend to want the most pay for the least amount of work and wide-body international tends to fill this square the best.

What does this mean?

If you all had banded 787, 767-200 and 767-400 less than the 747-400 or 777 I would not be flying the 787. But, since the pay's the same and the flying is good my choice is to fly the 787. Just think what would have happened to the seniority on the 787 when the fence came down if you hadn't banded it with those "heavier" airplanes.

What happened is the future, good or bad, as banding moves towards its ultimate outcome, one pay-scale. As someone stated the top of each list will be filled by mega-senor pilots and the mid-seniority will be at a lower percentage always.

shack. exactly. and good personal story

the irony is that the mid-range and junior pilots were the ones who wanted banding and flatter pay rate tables, and now that this exists, they will forever be junior for monthly bidding. and yes, senior folks will fill the top third of every fleet.

Exactly what LCAL had through 1998. Left seat in the 737 was super senior. Why commute to a big plane when you an live local and get paid the same. Flying Florida turns got paid the same as flying to Japan. C97 broke out the pay scales by aircraft and then they had a "flush bid" where every seat systemwide was a vacancy and there were no restrictions on displacements. A LOT of training followed, but it was an interesting period.

With the introduction of your C97 what was the pay rate trend of your narrow body pay versus wide body?

LCAL pilots did NOT want to go to pay banding since they wanted to keep it longevity pay like UPS currently has in place. Many old timers were convinced you could make more throughout your career with longevity pay. I believe pay buckets were the product of the failed merger with Delta in 98'. We realized how different our pay structure was compared to the rest of the industry in a merger. Pay buckets were a compromise between longevity vs differential. And to think all the LUAL guys thought it was because of our SLI!

Three categories.

As an outsider looking in I find the "banding pay" concept exhausting but I guess it's all about perspectives.
We have MANY issues here at Brown; new hires with absolutely no international experience going straight from a regional jet to the left seat of a 767 simply because they obligate themselves not to join our union, the millions and millions of lithium batteries we carry on a daily basis, the way FAA frivolously exempts us from different regulations whenever our industry asks for it (both cargo and freight industry), the plethora of hazmat we carry, etc., etc..

However, I love the single pay scale we have. We bid airplanes based on our schedule and commuting preferences, pay is the same whether you fly a 757, A300 or a 747 and I think most of us really like that.
Senior guys/gals who've 'been there and done that' bid smaller planes to be closer to their homes whereas junior pilots bid airplanes which will take them around the world.

Why is this concept frowned upon at passenger airlines? Is it because of the pilots themselves or is it management's preference to offer different pay scales for different fleets?
I'm not trying to start a "mine is bigger than yours" contest, I'm truly curious as to why passenger airlines' unions won't push for longevity pay as I believe it'd help to decrease the animosity amongst the pilots. The idea of someone coming from Legacy- this or Legacy- that would become totally irrelevant.. So why not?
Am I misunderstanding the issue?

I'd appreciate your thoughts; thanks for your time.