Originally Posted by firsttimeflyer

this would be better:

Attachment 2982

Originally Posted by Regularguy

I'm at the end of this career so the future and how you all want to get paid is up to you. From a seniority based point of view the most senor tend to want the most pay for the least amount of work and wide-body international tends to fill this square the best.

What does this mean?

If you all had banded 787, 767-200 and 767-400 less than the 747-400 or 777 I would not be flying the 787. But, since the pay's the same and the flying is good my choice is to fly the 787. Just think what would have happened to the seniority on the 787 when the fence came down if you hadn't banded it with those "heavier" airplanes.

What happened is the future, good or bad, as banding moves towards its ultimate outcome, one pay-scale. As someone stated the top of each list will be filled by mega-senor pilots and the mid-seniority will be at a lower percentage always.

Originally Posted by 01pewterz28

Here she is painted and out in the wild. Sorry no offence to the PMCO pilots but this bird really needed a new livery.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie

It might get a new paint job when we launch far - TED to compete in the disintegrating international markets.

Air France-KLM Plans a Budget Airline to Fight Costs

Originally Posted by C11DCA

But it's more then just seating capacity since the company tailors seating configuration to the market an aircraft flies. We have 777-200's in the Hawaii configuration that seat only 10 pax less then our 747-400's. MTOW, range, speed etc should factor in to the pay rate (decision 83)...the 787(all variants) is a bigger, more capable aircraft then the 767.

If you want to do a strict, per individual airplane pay scale that reflects performance (range/speed) and size (using MTOW as the determinant), then it would look something like this.

747-400
777-300er
A350-1000
777-200
787-9/787-10 (same MTOW of -9, but larger with less range)
787-8
767-400
767-300
757-300
757-200
737-900
737-800
A320
A319
737-700

If you go strictly by seats then it would change to something like this:

https://flyingtogether.ual.com/web/C...leetCodes.xlsx

747 (374 seats)
777-300 (366 seats)
777-200 (Hawaii configuration-364 seats)
A350-1000 (unknown but anticipating around 330)
787-10 (unknown but it's larger then the -9, Boeing claims 323)
777-200 (266-269 depending on 2 class or 3 class)
787-9 (252)
767-400 (242)
757-300 (with slimline=231)
787-8 (219)
767-300 (2 class-214)
757-300 (non slimline-213)
767-300 (3 class-183)
737-900 (slimline-179)
757-200 (RR version-169)
737-800 (slimline-166 )
A320 (150)
757-200 (PS-142)
A319 (128)
737-700 (slimline 126, 118 without)

As you can see there are seating variations even within the same airframe. You sure you want to pay by seating configuration?

DC

Originally Posted by svergin

I like the "Far-TED" idea. We could expand on that by calling it "Overseas Operations Premium Service - International"

So in other words.

OOPS I FARTED.

Originally Posted by davessn763

I'm absolutely sure I do not want to pay by seat configurations. I want the pay bands to be simplified to three. That puts more money earlier in careers and bidding more for lifestyle than money.