|
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3603781)
You think the primary driver behind WBCA upgrades is status? By that logic, it could pay the same as WBFO & we would still fill the seats. Guys would take on all that extra stress, responsibility, & loss of relative seniority- for status? I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it.
It’s money. It’s obviously money. Look, there’s nothing wrong with it. We live in a capitalist society. Our time & effort have an intrinsic value attached to them & when someone offers us enough money, we’re willing to sacrifice those things. When the offer is insufficient, we’re not. If you want to say more guaranteed time off is a solution, sure, that’s another way to address it. But essentially you’re making the same argument. That current compensation is not worth all the work it involves, so you need to either increase the compensation or reduce the amount of work to find stasis. Paying NBCA more money would help - some. I just don’t think it will be enough to get the numbers needed. It will require a broad set of incentives. Money alone won’t cut it. |
Maximize (hourly rate*perceived quality of life).
One (or both) variables need to increase to fill those vacancies. If the group as a whole is resistant to disproportionately improving NBCA rate, then need to do something with domestic rules/pairing construction to equal out the “two airlines”. Daily guarantee might be one step. |
Originally Posted by hummingbear
(Post 3603781)
You think the primary driver behind WBCA upgrades is status?.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FiZ22CGFCg5Q5Tqb9 |
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
(Post 3603883)
When I became a WBCA women were throwing themselves at me, it was either that or the Hai Karate cologne.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FiZ22CGFCg5Q5Tqb9 |
Originally Posted by nemich;[url=tel:3603676
3603676[/url]]hmmm.. 15 days off NBCA line is around 86 hours and 19-20 days off WBFO line is around 75 hours line with at least one W, so I think it is a little more than 2k difference
even 73 NBCA 2nd year guy and EWR junior WBFO 2 year guy - 4.5k difference if we use 13 vs 19 days off Thats 50k pre tax |
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
(Post 3603883)
When I became a WBCA women were throwing themselves at me, it was either that or the Hai Karate cologne.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FiZ22CGFCg5Q5Tqb9 |
Originally Posted by three1five
(Post 3601718)
IMO the FAA needs to step up and create some dynamic regulations for required 121 upgrade experience. This would be incredibly difficult regulatory language to draft, and would likely end up being unfair to certain subgroups, but 1000 hrs 121 as a simple blanket rule is going to bite someone at some point.
A pilot who came over with 3,000 hrs of USAF bomber command time or 700 carrier landings is in a very different place than someone hired with 500 hrs at a regional flying an airplane with RNAV and Autothrottles and then 500 hours in a 777. A former regional pilot with 8 years of LCA experience is in a different boat than someone who has been on the seniority list for 20 years but spent the last 10 as an IRO and just upgraded to the 737. These are sweeping generalizations not intended to represent every member of these subgroups, but I believe we are starting to see event(s) which fall within some of these categories. Until then it’s all fun and games until a delayed flight leads to a 2am approach into Missoula in a snowstorm and the GPS integrity hiccups, the IRS positions have drifted, and it’s time for a VOR approach. Thus becoming a non issue. |
Originally Posted by TFAYD
(Post 3603800)
Paying NBCA more money would help - some. I just don’t think it will be enough to get the numbers needed. It will require a broad set of incentives. Money alone won’t cut it.
HOWEVER, Improvements to NB work rules as a primary solution are a little tricky. Because while they would probably make the NB left seat more attractive to current WBFOs, it would simultaneously make staying in the right seat more attractive to current NBFOs. Essentially you run the risk of increasing one drawing pool while potentially reducing another. What you want to do (from a market perspective) is increase the disparity in pay/benefits between NBCA & the (FO) seats people are presently staying in rather than upgrading. The most direct way to do that is to simply increase the rates- so I think there is a strong case to be made for a substantial shift in NBCA pay rates- above contractual changes to pay & work rules that will affect all fleets/seats. I get that people tend to have some heartache over non-proportional increases, but in reality, these relationships between pay bands that we all hold to are not gospel- they’re nominal. There’s nothing inherent that demands it be so, we just decided at some point over the years that a NBCA gets paid x% more than a WBFO & y% more than a NBFO. As long as we’re not taking money away from anyone (e.g., WBFO getting a lower percentage increase than everyone else) I just don’t know why we wouldn’t capitalize on the market suggesting that some of our pilots should be paid more as a percentage than they currently are. |
BTW on today’s snap I see only few “out of probation” NBCA seniority numbers (7 to be exact)
|
Originally Posted by nemich
(Post 3604393)
BTW on today’s snap I see only few “out of probation” NBCA seniority numbers (7 to be exact)
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands