Publishers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,736
business
With that apples to oranges thinking, I doubt that I am clever enough to debate the subject with someone of such great insight.
I am basically saying that the size of the aircraft should not be that relative to pay. It was in fact the unions that perpetuated the thinking that you should get more or less by equipment.
Obviously most of the time, the individual with the most senority was also the guy flying the bigger equipment.
Let me use a non flying example or two.
First a receptionist job at a company may pay $10 an hour. The fact is that if the individual that has that job stay remained in that positon for 25 years, it may still be a $10 a year jobp. For argument purpose, we are not considering cost of living or other adjustment.
When the labor unions for the most part started the scope of work type argument, they pushed for bigger aircraft, bigger pay due to all that supposed responsibility.
Their pushing that argument led to what you have today, some structure that makes no real sense. The fact is that had it not, the pay for larger aircraft would not be nearly so high but the lower would be getting more.
If you took it another way, the pilot of an RJ who had decided to never upgrade but had senority may be making $270,000 a year which destroys the economics of the RJ.
With that apples to oranges thinking, I doubt that I am clever enough to debate the subject with someone of such great insight.
I am basically saying that the size of the aircraft should not be that relative to pay. It was in fact the unions that perpetuated the thinking that you should get more or less by equipment.
Obviously most of the time, the individual with the most senority was also the guy flying the bigger equipment.
Let me use a non flying example or two.
First a receptionist job at a company may pay $10 an hour. The fact is that if the individual that has that job stay remained in that positon for 25 years, it may still be a $10 a year jobp. For argument purpose, we are not considering cost of living or other adjustment.
When the labor unions for the most part started the scope of work type argument, they pushed for bigger aircraft, bigger pay due to all that supposed responsibility.
Their pushing that argument led to what you have today, some structure that makes no real sense. The fact is that had it not, the pay for larger aircraft would not be nearly so high but the lower would be getting more.
If you took it another way, the pilot of an RJ who had decided to never upgrade but had senority may be making $270,000 a year which destroys the economics of the RJ.
