Devil's Advocate

[Troutbait]

Ok, this is a question I want a good answer for. I am like all you pilots out there wanting more money and a better quality of life, but I have been thinking lately about one thing...bigger jets. Right now the CRJ-900 is starting to be flown by many different carriers. Why should the airlines pay us more to fly them? Before you answer, think. What moral bargaining chip do we have to get more money? First thing I am sure you will all answer is more people, more responsibility, duh? Right. I am sure that every time you go flying either in a 50 seater, 20 seater or 70 seater you take the time to think about how many souls you are carrying. Once that door shuts, I know we all do the same thing and fly the same way...with the autopilot. And if you fly safer with more people, what a real messed up pilot you are. Are the 50 peoples lives not as precious as 70 or 90? If this is your answer, then why not pro-rate our pay based on how many people are actually on the plane? If your other answer is we are responsible for a more expensive piece of equipment, then why not pay us a decreasing wage for the aging 50 seaters based on value of a plane? The reason I ask this is what grounds are we using to approach management to pay us more for bigger regional jets? In the end we fly the same and take our job just as serious no matter what we fly or how full the plane is. Another reason I ask is soon I think airline management will treat us even more like button pushers and pay us less, even at the majors. If you want to take personal attacks go ahead, but remember I am asking as a devil's advocate.

 

[rptrain]

worst post ever.

 

[Exskydiverdrivr]

Troutbait- would you fly a 747 or 777 for RJ wages? If you answer no -tell me why.

 

[120% Torque]

If you read his other recent posts you will understand he just signed up for a profile and he IS management and he's got agenda. I wouldn't pay too much attention to this guy.

"I will defend Skynation. He is a smart mature guy."

"Why would you go ALPA? I don't wish to enrage others, but what has ALPA done ? It has its time years ago, but now it is a business. They want your 2% and they will feed you as much union koolaid as they can to get you on board."

"So we vote in ALPA, get this brotherhood you so search for. Great...Meanwhile it takes us 6 years to get a contract and a, not the, much needed pay raise. Great...So the SKYW pilot group is one in ALPA. Along comes SKYW stock holders, and I don't mean you, and says, ' you know your costs are a bit high, your EPS is not what it should be.' Along Delta and United, 'You know SKYW, even though you have a contract to pay your work group such and such, you are getting to expensive for us. Lower your costs or we go to someone else."

I think you all get the idea. Just like skynation, Hellonewman and the rest of the hired hands hes on here for one purpose....try to influence the young guys who havent been around long enough to see how it really works.

 

[Andy Neill]

I was an advocate for higher rates for larger aircraft not due to responsibility or cost of the aircraft but on the basis of productivity. A flight deck crew flying 90 people from A to B is 1.8 times as productive as a crew flying 50 people. Likewise, a jet crew flying faster than a turbo-prop crew is more productive when each is carrying 70.

If I were on the management side of the table, I would be open to a higher scale for larger aircraft if the formula were something like:
Large size pay = Base pay scale times square root of (Larger size/base size).

So a flight deck crew of a 90 passenger jet would get the square root of (90/50) = 1.34 times what a 50 seat crew would get.

Not so for the CSA's processing that flight necessarily if they are still processing the same number of passengers per hour. If it takes them 1.8 as much time to board a flight then they are not being any more productive.

Mechanics/Dispatchers might have the same argument as the pilots. Flight attendants are actually less productive in a 70 seat jet than in a 50 since they have an average load of 35 for the two of them vs 50 for one.

 

[14RF SUX]

Geez trout flame bait, at least try not to insult our intelligence and post something that isn't so obviously management 101. Spend another 10 bucks of managements money on FI, come up with another profile, and try the soft sell koolaide approach next time. Your performance review just took a negative hit. Better luck next time.

14 RF SUX

 

[great cornholio]

I'm a few beers into it so my logic might be flawed. Anyways the reason pilots should get paid more to fly bigger planes (more seats) are because the bigger planes make the company more money (or at least have the potential to) 90 seats at 500 bucks a seat compared to 50 seats at 500 bucks a seat gives the company more money. Which means that the pilots of the 90 seat jet are more effective or efficient than the 50 seat pilots and should get compensated as such.

 

[120% Torque]

I was an advocate for higher rates for larger aircraft not due to responsibility or cost of the aircraft but on the basis of productivity. A flight deck crew flying 90 people from A to B is 1.8 times as productive as a crew flying 50 people. Likewise, a jet crew flying faster than a turbo-prop crew is more productive when each is carrying 70.

If I were on the management side of the table, I would be open to a higher scale for larger aircraft if the formula were something like:
Large size pay = Base pay scale times square root of (Larger size/base size).

So a flight deck crew of a 90 passenger jet would get the square root of (90/50) = 1.34 times what a 50 seat crew would get.

Not so for the CSA's processing that flight necessarily if they are still processing the same number of passengers per hour. If it takes them 1.8 as much time to board a flight then they are not being any more productive.

Mechanics/Dispatchers might have the same argument as the pilots. Flight attendants are actually less productive in a 70 seat jet than in a 50 since they have an average load of 35 for the two of them vs 50 for one.

He Andy, just curious are you still working for Skywest?

 

[DashTrash400]

Ok, this is a question I want a good answer for. I am like all you pilots out there wanting more money and a better quality of life, but I have been thinking lately about one thing...bigger jets. Right now the CRJ-900 is starting to be flown by many different carriers. Why should the airlines pay us more to fly them? Before you answer, think. What moral bargaining chip do we have to get more money? First thing I am sure you will all answer is more people, more responsibility, duh? Right. I am sure that every time you go flying either in a 50 seater, 20 seater or 70 seater you take the time to think about how many souls you are carrying. Once that door shuts, I know we all do the same thing and fly the same way...with the autopilot. And if you fly safer with more people, what a real messed up pilot you are. Are the 50 peoples lives not as precious as 70 or 90? If this is your answer, then why not pro-rate our pay based on how many people are actually on the plane? If your other answer is we are responsible for a more expensive piece of equipment, then why not pay us a decreasing wage for the aging 50 seaters based on value of a plane? The reason I ask this is what grounds are we using to approach management to pay us more for bigger regional jets? In the end we fly the same and take our job just as serious no matter what we fly or how full the plane is. Another reason I ask is soon I think airline management will treat us even more like button pushers and pay us less, even at the majors. If you want to take personal attacks go ahead, but remember I am asking as a devil's advocate.

Since you're posting this as a devil's advocate I'll refrain from flaming you as an management troll :nuts:. And really, with new guys coming into the industry all the time, those who have been around a while should be prepared to answer basic questions like this and otherwise educate the next generation.

Saying that flying a 90 seater is no more difficult than flying a 50 seater is really a straw man. Pilots have never been paid according to the difficulty of the job. Were that true, Part 135 freight guys would be towards the top of the payscale, and then B1900 drivers at Big Sky, and then domestic jet pilots, and at the bottom you'd have Delta 777 captains scraping by on food stamps.

If you've read the book Flying the Line, you'll recall that when the airlines were first introducing jet aircraft they attempted to pay their pilots the same rates they'd been paying them on DC6s and Connies. After all, the jets were easier and safer to fly. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears for ALPA to establish the principle that an increase in aircraft size and capability - that is, an increase in revenue generating ability - merits increased pay.

An airline seat is a commodity that has several factors of production. There are capital goods such as terminals & gates, computer systems, and the airplane itself that must be obtained; however these are financed, those who provide the capital are paid for their "widget". Then there are "soft goods" that are used up in the production of the commodity, such as fuel, tires, and engines. These suppliers are paid for what they contribute to the production of the commodity. And then there's the pilots and other skilled labor whose expertise is required for the production of the commodity. We are basically suppliers of widgets which enable the company to produce a commodity to be sold; as with any other supplier we charge for each widget provided. That may not be a "moral" justification, but it's a solid economic one.

One last note on greater responsibility with more pax: I personally fly as safe when I'm in a Cessna by myself as I do when I have 80 people on my airplane, and pretty much everybody else does. You're right, nobody thinks "Oh, I have 80 people back there, I'd better be extra safe." That we don't consciously think about it does not remove the fact that there is very real personal liability attached to every passenger in our care, in both a legal and moral sense. More passengers won't change the way you fly but it does increase the consequences when things go wrong.

 

[GogglesPisano]

That got me thinking: Why should big companies pay their management teams more than little companies?

They should all make ma-and-pa flight school manager pay.:beer: