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:

 

[Andy Neill]

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

Not since last October. Been having great success trading on the market full time. Now I know what it's like to live on a training captain's pay. Thanks for asking.

How 'bout you?

 

[time builder]

Along the lines of more responsibility. It's not just about being compensated for accepting more responsibility, but attracting the most competent/qualified individuals to those positions.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Because, you don't get paid what you are worth, you get what you negotiate. SKYW pilots negotiate with managment, (SAPA). Managment negotiates with it's self(SAPA). The pilots get what management is decides(not under duress) to give them.
PBR

 

[fam62c]

For the same reason that management has used over the years to pay pilots less to fly smaller airplanes.......bigger airplanes generate more revenue and smaller airplanes generate less revenue. Let's throw their own logic in their face and get some fair wages in place. If I were the devil's advocate I could ask the opposite question: Why should a pilot of a CRJ-200 or SF-340 for that matter be paid less than a 747 pilot? It's the same job. We've let pay slip way too far and the 50+ seat rates (and smaller planes for that matter) are way too low.

 

[120% Torque]

Not since last October. Been having great success trading on the market full time. Now I know what it's like to live on a training captain's pay. Thanks for asking.

How 'bout you?

Thats good news. Congrats on making that happen! I know from posts you have made in the past that you and I would mostly dissagree about whether management could be taken at their word or not. Just curious if you ever felt management was misleading to get what they wanted. For example the way they presented themselves or information to the new hires during endocrination?

 

[MEL'ed]

New pay scheme idea

For the purpose of this thread, let’s treat Troutbait as if he is mgmt. Explain to him/her why we deserve more money. If our union contract negotiators treated mgmt like previous posters treated Troutbait, saying in summary “Give us more money cause it’s a bigger plane,” without giving a valid reason, I understand why we can’t get better wages in new contracts. Now, if each of us was at the table talking face to face with mgmt, what would you say directly to them about why we should get paid more for operating a larger version of the plane we already currently fly? My answer is: more seats = potential for more revenue, and if you’re making more, why shouldn’t we?

By no means do I have a complete answer or solution to the problem, myself. In fact I haven’t given too much thought to it recently, but it started to make me think outside the box. What if we had a pay system similar to commission for pay? We wouldn’t directly recruit pax, but we would get paid more for flying more pax. For my example I’ll work with 1st year FO pay on a Dash 8. Start out with a base pay, $20/hr. Then for each passenger we got paid a certain amount, say $.50/hr. A -100 filled with 10 pax = $25/hr, 35 seats would net $37.50/hr. A full -300 = $45. Company is making more off increased ticket sales, so it’s similar to an immediate profit sharing program. If the flight is relative empty, then the company didn’t make as much and we in turn would make closer to the base pay. We wouldn’t get paid for taking non-revs. Company doesn’t make any money off them, so we don’t either. This holds true even if there are only 15 paying pax and 20 non revs.

More variables would be thrown in too when ops aren’t normal. If the flight gets cancelled, pay = (scheduled block) x (base pay). Once again, no money for company, means no money for us. The company would be paying the pilots on later flights or the next day to take the revenues pax from our flight. So in reality, some pilot is getting paid to transport them. Ferry flights would be based on base pay as well. This would give crews the incentive to run flights late with a good attitude, rather than hope for cancellations so they can finish on time. More pay for a late flight with pax than the base pay for a cancellation/ferry. Also, crews wouldn’t mind waiting a few minutes for 10 pax coming off late inbound flight, because they would equal an extra $5/hr once they are onboard.

What if a flight pushes back and sits for 1 or 2+ hours before takeoff? We know this isn’t uncommon in large airports. It’s not managements direct fault that weather is moving through, ATC is on a slowdown, etc. Company is only making X number of dollars, they would rather have an immediate takeoff and destination arrival too rather than burn gas on the ramp. Why should we get paid $45/hr to watch the APU run? What if the base pay ($20) was only applied from pushback to takeoff and landing to chock in, while the $45 was applied from takeoff to touchdown? We’re getting more money for times when much more can go wrong.

As longevity increases, the base pay would increase. Reason being, the increase in knowledge and experience deserves more money, increasing the pay for senior pilots. Other variations in the same idea could be looked at. The base pay could be $25 at all times, but this would include up to 10 revenue pax. We would only get $.50/pax/hr for each head over 10. It would increase base pay slightly for legs that aren’t as full, cancellations, and ferry flights and provide slightly more stability.

Pay may not be as stable over the course of a year. High times of summer and xmas would pay more while lulls around spring/fall pay would decline slightly. The company profits go through the same cycle. Our current block hours for the airline as a whole go through the same cycle too. We would still have a guaranteed pay, it could just be in the form of a dollar amount rather than monthly hours, say $1800 in my example.

The biggest obstacle to overcome would be figuring out the total pay you deserve and filing pay discrepancies. A good system of knowing how many revenue pax are on the plane and checking times would have to be put in place to ensure the plan worked, but it is something a well programmed computer program would definitely be able to handle.

As I just thought of most of this as I sit here and type, I realize the plan has many more flaws. It is just a starting point for a whole new system of pay based on the idea of getting paid more for flying more people around. The dollar amounts above are just an example, may be a bit high/low and all variables would change for different aircraft/companies, but it is after all just an example of how the pay would work.

In the end, it’s still a company responsibility to fill the aircraft to capacity and get pax. They want full airplanes. Full airplanes = higher profits. If they are making more money, they should share a small percentage with those skilled individuals safely providing the service they are selling. When they don’t sell as many seats, they don’t make as much profit and in turn don’t pay as much, but they still make money.

Now rip it apart if you feel it would suck or productively add on/change it for the better. This thread could be a great discussion and inform new and old pilots alike to why we deserve more money for larger airplanes rather than acting like it is a God given right and just demanding it from mgmt.

 

[Troutbait]

I appreciate those who made an attempt to answer this question. I am not wanting to get paid less for flying bigger. I want more just like you. I just wanted to know how on the earth we are going to approach any management with any logical terms to get paid more. I brought it up because everyone complains that pay rates are going down, but obviously the debate between pilot groups and management is not working to our benefit. It hasn't for a long time. We do not get the compensation we all think we deserve. I want to know how we approach such a topic. Now, the dorks who think I am management, you are just dumb. You need to think about all angles. This sitting back and playing lazy boy quarterback is so easy for you. When you negotiate, you have to think like the opposing team and out maneuver. Yeah, I am not a big union guy anymore, but I still fly the line and have bills to pay and want to know what about our future. If you are all blind to the fact that our industry is goofy now, think what is going to happen in the future when planes get even more automated, tickets get even cheaper and the likes of Skybus types keep flooding the market. What do you think will happen? Already places like Skybus and Virgin America are doing it, wake up! And if you all want to say, vote yes you idiot, ALPA is the way to help fix the problem. Right....How did this problem emerge? Who allowed it? Management..true but so did America West, United, Delta, Northwest and US Air's union. ALPA. Don't tell me I am management without thinking you are part of the problem with your 2%.

 

[PCL_128]

Troutbait, the problem is that you think logic and reasonable arguments have anything to do with negotiating with management. Logic never enters the equation. It all comes down to leverage. You can make the most well thought-out, logical argument in the history of civilized debate, but management still isn't going to give you anything unless you have the leverage to force it.

 

[Troutbait]

PCL_128
Good Point, I appreciate your post. That is what I am looking for.

 

[Andy Neill]

...Just curious if you ever felt management was misleading to get what they wanted. For example the way they presented themselves or information to the new hires during endocrination?

I can't recall anything in particular that wasn't run of the mill positive spin. As far as what I taught, I gave examples of when I thought management was wrong in crew rest and pay issues. I did everything short of losing my job (which was threatened because I had made an end run arounf BH to the company legal counsel) when pay for newhires was taken away. I gave the newhires all the ammunition they needed in form of Utah statutes concerning minimum wage. I think if it were taken any farther, management would have said, "You know, you're right. We can't call them employees (with ID cards and jumpseat privileges) if we don't pay them....so we won't give them ID cards or pay their hotel, or give them jumpseat privileges or DOH until they complete training. We won't even charge them for the training. How do you like that?"

My standard line to the newhires about how I felt about SkyWest was that there was no other seat in the airline industry that I would rather be watching from than the bleachers at SkyWest.

I know I didn't vote in favor of the one rate fits all pay raise that most of the pilots did to give Brad an Ace. (I was allowed to vote in that one)



I told newhires if they were pressured to fly when not legal (or even against the Policy Manual) to give me a call if they thought I could help.

Let me digress a bit. In the esarly 70's, I was catching a hop on a T-29 from Echterdingen (Stuttgart, Germany) to Mildenhall, England. As I was the first there, I settled in toward the rear and parted the pretty blue curtains on the right side of the aircraft to watch for the arrival of the party that was allowing me to ride. In a minute, the Flight Steward (a mid-grade USAF seargent) in his Blue blazer came up to me and asked if I wouldn't mind closing the curtains. I didn't mind at all but asked him why. He said that it might cause the general to wonder why all the curtains were closed except for one and he wanted to keep his job. I resolved at that point that I never wanted a job that required me to keep the curtains lined up.

Since I'm now my own boss, I don't have that problem. I presume that anyone working for anyone else does so because they think it is worth the aggrevation or soon will be. I can't imagine staying in a situation that provides only long-term aggrevation.
********
One more thing. I was gone by the time the SAPA coup took place and, if I understand it correctly, that would have been a turning point in my promotion of SAPA.