Airline Pilot Central Forums - Paybanding question.

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - Paybanding question. (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/65267-paybanding-question.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 1131729)

Many here feel that only the "select few" should be paid well. I can carry just as many (or more) passengers in my B-737ER's in a day, but someone carrying 350 passengers who spends a third of his flight in a bunk or sitting in a f/c seat sleeping, deserves more money? I get to bust my butt changing planes up to four times in a day, briefing just as many flight attendants, and doing a WHOLE LOT MORE WORK for a lot less and this is considered fair? To go even further, the "heavy" pilots are only working two out of their three days, so let's break this down even further. If I fly four legs the first day, three the next, and three the last day, I've flown a total of ten legs. If I'm on the 800/900's for all ten legs, I have flown approximately 1600 passengers (assuming approx 90% load factor) or MORE than DOUBLE what the heavy guys carried (700 or so round trip for them). We also carry a lot of premium passengers but will have over 200 FC seats available or more than double what the heavies will have over the same time frame. We also carry a LOT of mail and cargo, so we make money there too. I just find it interesting that everyone thinks the heavy pilots are the only ones who should make any money when it's the small/mid aircraft that are doing all the work. Besides, everyone can't fly the big boys, so why not make it FAIR for ALL? Maybe we should just say that the more legs you fly, the more you'd make......................then you'd see those heavy pilots scrambling for the smaller aircraft and THEY would be screaming that they do all the work and deserve more money. I also have a hard time seeing an FO whose main responsibility is to assist the captain, making more money than captains on smaller aircraft who are responsible for a whole lot more. JMHO.........................;)

Well said ewr,

I might add, know one wants to address: fewer training cycles, lower quality of life during same, and bigger pie to be spread around to more pilots due to cost savings. NOPE... We are going to do it the way we have always done it. What a bunch crap!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 1131734)

I guess carrying 350,000 lbs more fuel is that much more difficult? ;)

If you think pilots should be paid according to how difficult their job is, then a regional pilot flying eight legs a day should be making more than you. A freight dog flying a piston at night in crappy wx should make more than anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingfarmer (Post 1131807)

You can get us 250 to 300 and hour for flying ORD-GRR or EWR-SYR in a 737. I'm voting for you! How we going to do it, again? More like paying 135 an hour for flying ORD-NRT or EWR-NRT. Do you really think this has never been looked at before?

Sounds like most of you should have gone to work for UPS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 1131780)

In other words, if we give the "windfall" to the B747 guys, that's okay, but not the other way around. Nothing like "giving" the guys who do the least amount of work, have the most days off, and "have a life" MORE. Sorry, don't buy it. If you want productivity, you have to look beyond the widebodies.................

Airline pilots have been paid according to a formula that primarily uses aircraft max gross takeoff weight to determine hourly rate for decades. How is continuing to do the same thing a windfall for anyone? I would argue that the opposite is true.

A pay banding scheme that puts a UAL airframe at the large end and a CAL aircraft at the small end of every proposed band a windfall for the CAL pilots. It is a change from the historical norm(pay by A/C gross weight) that benefits CAL pilots and disadvantages UAL pilots in every band.

You guys can argue all day long that you want pay banding to have an advantage in the ISL. That's fine, you should fight for yourselves, and if you get it because we were unable to counter effectively, so be it. The idea that it's the right thing to do for everyone is hogwash. Your MC has even stated that he wants banding for the ISL, and he would be willing to pay by aircraft after the ISL. Why would he say that if it was really a better deal?

Did you notice that the very first bullet in the recent AMR term sheet passed to APA was a pay banding? They don't want it because they they will have to pay pilots flying smaller A/C a higher rate. They want it because the opposite is true.

Every management in the industry and the CAL pilots want pay banding. I guess I am being unreasonable thinking something is wrong with that. Whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkaz (Post 1131833)

Take a look at another ALPA carrier. Delta/NWA. 747and777 are pay banded do your history is not correct. BTW..I have never heard the CAL MC make the pay banding statement. Could you please provide a written source.

Paybanding, come on guys and gals you don't get it at all.

First historically pilot pay was based on gross weight and airspeed. What this did was pay pilots for the increased revenue productivity allowed by the ability to carry more revenue producing weight and get compensated for the reduced cost per asm of the the bigger jets and therefore share in the improved revenue (read cash flows) of the larger capacity. Additionally the airspeed formula recognized a pilot got paid by the hour and now would fly 400 miles instead of 150 miles in and hour.

To put it in an understandable way. A DC3 took possibly up to two day to carry 25 people across the country and the pilots were paid 10 hours to do it. In the 60s Jets came and reduced that to 5 hours and increased the load to 150. So to get paid DC3 wages would be a huge cut in pay for the same work.

Now economically should a multi-leg 737 pilot get paid the same as a 747 one? No. In all measures of economics a 747 will always make more (potential) money than a 737 for the same hour by hour.

But does a 747 pilot have more liability than a 737 (or DC3 for that matter). Of course a 747 pilot does do more damage when it hits the ground than either a 737 or DC3. But how does that count out towards economic risk in a way that can be measured for pay purposes?

Back to pay-banding. Here is what I know, it is a transition to a single pay rate. So if you believe in "pay by seniority" then pay-banding is a start.

As far as Pierce goes in this fight, for LCAL pilots he is "the man!" for the other 2/3s at United airlines, he is our worst nightmare, John Ferg resurrected from retirement.

PS. Personally I don't care any more about the pay rates as long as i get the top pay! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CALFO (Post 1131731)

That's a laugh. How is he going to change a major section of the contract after it's been signed?

The pay bands would be corrected during the next contract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1131959)

The pay bands would be corrected during the next contract.

Next contract?

1. Whomever is saying this will probably be retired by the time another contract get completed.

2. The 747's will be long gone by then as well.

I really don't understand the heartache with pay banding. We are negotiating a number (not a contract). Whatever that final number (overall cost of the contract is) is what we'll get. Paybanding saves the company money, reduces the cost of the contract, and allows room for gains in other areas of the contract.