When will bidding mania begin?
#31
Far from perfect is more like it. Although it "might" prevent folks from chasing equipment for $, same pay for vastly different sizes of aircraft is the wrong way to go. Pilot production used to be tied with equipment flown, heavier and faster meant more money. Pay banding is the first step to same pay for all depending on seat. Longevity pay doesnt make up for it, we will all enjoy a new low average of pay. Seniority has start to become a dirty word in the industry, but if the majority in an airline want to go this route, go for it. You certainly will be unable to switch back once done, though, so be careful of what you agree to.
Make sure you do the math on this REALLY carefully. You might like the idea of pay banding, but it could delay your upgrade several years or drop you into the next lowest "band" because of the increased efficiency.
Nu
#32
Far from perfect is more like it. Although it "might" prevent folks from chasing equipment for $, same pay for vastly different sizes of aircraft is the wrong way to go. Pilot production used to be tied with equipment flown, heavier and faster meant more money. Pay banding is the first step to same pay for all depending on seat. Longevity pay doesnt make up for it, we will all enjoy a new low average of pay. Seniority has start to become a dirty word in the industry, but if the majority in an airline want to go this route, go for it. You certainly will be unable to switch back once done, though, so be careful of what you agree to.
#34
The other problem with pay banding is the decreased training cycles, which means fewer pilots.
Make sure you do the math on this REALLY carefully. You might like the idea of pay banding, but it could delay your upgrade several years or drop you into the next lowest "band" because of the increased efficiency.
Nu
Make sure you do the math on this REALLY carefully. You might like the idea of pay banding, but it could delay your upgrade several years or drop you into the next lowest "band" because of the increased efficiency.
Nu
#35
Please explain? I am not arguing I am just trying to figure out what you mean by it? I assume you mean I have been here longer so my 747 needs to be paid higher than your 777 simply because it weighs more. I would think it would benefit ALPA and its member more to have the 777, A350, 787 and 747 all making wide body pay so that if the company suddenly parks a fleet of 747's (which it will as soon as it can), the top group doesnt suddenly all take a pay cut. I just fail to see the logic in paying a 747 lets say $8 more than a 777 now so you can take an $8 paycut when it's replaced.
#36
base --Captains ---Percentage of Captains --Dep / Month --percent of departures---under/over
EWR------352---------------23.9%--------------------2060-------------------15.4%--------------- 125 over
IAH-------694---------------47.2%--------------------3604-------------------27.0%----------------297 over
CLE-------125---------------8.5%----------------------549---------------------4.1%-----------------65over
ORD-------77----------------5.2%---------------------2317-------------------17.3%----------------178under
DEN-------85----------------5.8%---------------------1704--------------------12.8%---------------102under
SFO-------40----------------2.7%---------------------1924--------------------14.4%----------------172under
LAX-------97----------------6.6%---------------------1203---------------------9.0%-----------------35under
IAD-------0------------------0.0%---------------------665---------------------5.0%----new base? 73under
total----1470-----------------------------------------14026
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
Sorry , no offense intended to any of the GUM folks. I just didn't include it because I figured that there wasn't any GUM flying in play when it came to shifting around flying at the Mainland domiciles. Hopefully GUM will grow massively on its own, but I don't think that will have a dramtic affect on the size of the other domiciles.
However, the desire to balance the staffing within the Mainland (to optimize schedules and minimize hotels) may result in the loss of positions at some domiciles over the coming months/years and the gain at others.
Based on what the current staffing shows it looks like that would be:
a loss of 737 positions at IAH and EWR and a gain of 320positions
a gain of 737 positoins at ORD
a gain of 737 positions at DEN and a loss of 320 positions
a gain of both 737 and 320 positions at SFO
a small gain of 737 positions at LAX and a small loss of 320 positions
a potential need of a 737 base in DCA/IAD
a potential (albeit small one) for an A320 base in CLE, but also the potential for loss of some 737 positions
Again, hopefully GUM will grow tremendously on its own and that will be a benefit to us all.
However, the desire to balance the staffing within the Mainland (to optimize schedules and minimize hotels) may result in the loss of positions at some domiciles over the coming months/years and the gain at others.
Based on what the current staffing shows it looks like that would be:
a loss of 737 positions at IAH and EWR and a gain of 320positions
a gain of 737 positoins at ORD
a gain of 737 positions at DEN and a loss of 320 positions
a gain of both 737 and 320 positions at SFO
a small gain of 737 positions at LAX and a small loss of 320 positions
a potential need of a 737 base in DCA/IAD
a potential (albeit small one) for an A320 base in CLE, but also the potential for loss of some 737 positions
Again, hopefully GUM will grow tremendously on its own and that will be a benefit to us all.
Last edited by GoCats67; 09-17-2013 at 11:18 AM.
#40
I just don't get it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
0
02-20-2007 02:16 PM
Southerncowboyz
Major
2
10-31-2006 07:53 PM