Originally Posted by bkaz

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.

Originally Posted by EWRflyr

And how do we address the issue of say the 787 under what you said above? A highly composite, lower weight aircraft which can/will go further possibly carrying the same amount of fuel as the plane is it intended to replace.

May need to be a paradigm shift in thinking about how we determine pay.

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot

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.........................

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot

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.................

Originally Posted by CALFO

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.

Originally Posted by ualratt

If banding comes around only when companies are in bankruptcy then it doesn't take Craps (of the turd type) skills to realize that in due time you are leaving chips on the table. At CAL it has became a permanent concession and the only pay system that you probably lived under. Your banding system came about from your second bankruptcy...

Originally Posted by bkaz

I don't disagree with this statement in reference to the composite airplanes.

Are you suggesting that the CAL pilots pay banding propasal is the solution?

Originally Posted by XHooker

The current CAL pay bands are a result of Contract 97, which was not concessionary. FedEx bands, UPS has pay for FO/Captain, and I believe Alaska has historically banded, though admittedly, their aircraft have been fairly similar in size and mission. None of those companies have ever been in Chapter 11. PBS, on the other hand, is more closely related to bankruptcies (I think NWA is the only company to use it pre-9/11 bankruptcy)

There are legitimate arguments for and against banding, but it seems your history is a little off as well.

Originally Posted by ualratt

Ah yes, the 97 contract did "modified" an already banded pay scheme that as I said before was introduced during the second bankruptcy in 1990, further lowering the bar with a wide, and narrow body large and small scheme.

Originally Posted by watching6

No attack here, just explanation! I am on the 777 and I would support higher pay for more seats. Of course, in my case, only the 747 would be higher, but I still wouldn't want to bring them down to the 777 rate. I remember at CAL all positions were paid the same without considerarion for equipment. We were able to get that changed to reflect aircraft size (narrow body vs. wide body, then large narrow body). The historical methodology in the industry, long before UPS and the after BK I for CAL, was the payrate was based on the revenue sharing for the equipment size. The more seats the more the crew cost for carrying that revenue. Anyone else want to weigh in?