of course you need to pay WBCA more than WBFO. But the incremental require is less because of other factors and inherent fewer spots.

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.

 

When I became a WBCA women were throwing themselves at me, it was either that or the Hai Karate cologne.

 

​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VK1eNbKCME

 

I should preface with, it depends on the base. West coast 787 flying you can do 85+ hours of credit with 20 days off, and fly six legs.

 

You mean in Asia or Latin America? That doesn’t count…..

 

The smart pilot would realize that the conditions are beyond their capabilities and divert.
Thus becoming a non issue.

 

Again, enough money will fix the problem; “enough” being the operative word. A blend of pay & work rule adjustments may very well be the most efficient way to address it; but understand that most work rule improvements actually increase the cost of each pilot- either by allowing him to earn higher credit for the same amount of work (as with increased pay guarantees), or allowing him to do less work for the same amount of pay (as with changes in RSV utilization restrictions). More money doesn’t always mean an explicit increase in pay rates, so I think we’re mostly saying the same thing.

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)

 

31 out of the 58 awards on the snapshot are current Captains going to a different Captain BES.