Devil's Advocate

[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.