NetJet is gonna EXPLODE!

[FracPilot]

Pay by speed

Let's just pay by Mach number and call it a day!
Hey wait, that almost works.
.86-.92 (CX, Gulfstreams, 747) 250K+
.82-.85 (VII, G100?, 737) 150+
.79-.81 (BAe, etc) 100+
.75-.78 (LRJET) 80+
.68-.74 (CE500) 70+
.60-.67 (fast turbo props) 60+
<.60 (KA, CHEY, C425) 40+

Whatcha think? Give or take a mach/10K.

If that's the case, I'm going to re-consider that ANG fighter slot!

 

[BrnJetFuel]

Yeah that sounds good...forgot the Falcon 2000.

Mach .862

Also faster than a X below FL250
...or the last hour headed into the New York area.

 

[GVFlyer]

What about managing the "more costly asset" part of my post? Dad's letting you out of the garage with the Mercedes instead of the Geo.

BBJ - $50 Million

G550 - $47.1 Million

GEX - $44 Million


GV

 

[NJA Capt]

What about managing the "more costly asset" part of my post? Dad's letting you out of the garage with the Mercedes instead of the Geo.

BBJ - $50 Million

G550 - $47.1 Million

GEX - $44 Million

I think if you hit a brick wall at 70 mph, you're just as dead in a $5000 Geo as you are a $100,000 Mercedes.

 

[A4Forever]

GV Flyer.... Tradition has paid by weight and speed. Has nothing to do with experience, or responsibility. Not many pilots could afford to pay for replacing a lear much less a 747. Would you feel worse if you buried 340 people or just 8 or 10 on a small craft? If a 747 pilot is more responsible, is a 737 pilot less responsible? Irresponsible?? Back in the dark ages when the air carriers came up with the idea of pay to weight and speed, they created a monster. At UAL, the same formula is still in place as it was when this idea started. Even productivity has nothing to do with pay. Empty 747s are not as productive as an RJ flying full all day long, but pay lots more! Problem is that once a system is in place (pay by weight) (pay by longevity), that system is hard to change. I don't have a clue as to which is more fair. Just my thoughts.

 

[boxcar]

Thanks to G-V, think I got this pay thing figured out: A new C-182 costs about 3-4 times as much as a beat up Aztec. Ergo, a pilot hauling boxes in a late model C-182 should make at least twice as much as one doing the same in an old Aztec. Further, a CFI instructing in a newer C-152 should be paid more than one instructing in an old Cherokee. This makes perfect sense to me!

 

[beytzim]

I love it! NJACapt and 100LL, You are the man!

It always amazes me how common sense can't be taught.

Continental up until a few years ago paid by seniority only. You had some guys who flew the DC-9 with 30 yrs seniority. Great! More power to them! Old guys flying "easy" domestic flights, while younger guys flying the complex and difficult (as A4forever says) int'l world. Sounds like a perfect match to me!

Of course at UAL and others, to make money, pilots have to switch aircraft to make more money (especially the last 5 yrs for B Fund reasons). It's always good to know that a B-727 driver for 20 yrs is transitioning into a 777 at age 55. I feel safe, how about you?

To a4forever: Kudos to you! You sound like a guy who's sharp and really on top of things. Unfortunately, you do NOT represent the typical post-60 pilot. Hey, it sucks, I'll be there myself eventually, and I hope to be as sharp as you!

 

[GVFlyer]

GV Flyer.... Tradition has paid by weight and speed. Has nothing to do with experience, or responsibility. Not many pilots could afford to pay for replacing a lear much less a 747. Would you feel worse if you buried 340 people or just 8 or 10 on a small craft? If a 747 pilot is more responsible, is a 737 pilot less responsible? Irresponsible?? Back in the dark ages when the air carriers came up with the idea of pay to weight and speed, they created a monster. At UAL, the same formula is still in place as it was when this idea started. Even productivity has nothing to do with pay. Empty 747s are not as productive as an RJ flying full all day long, but pay lots more! Problem is that once a system is in place (pay by weight) (pay by longevity), that system is hard to change. I don't have a clue as to which is more fair. Just my thoughts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. From a management standpoint basing the decision to place more experienced pilots in the more valuable aircraft is a risk management process. (Ask your insurance company!) We feel that we are less likely to have to replace the aircraft with the more skilled pilot and compensate him in accordance with the value of the aircraft he is managing for the company.


Obviously, my organization does not fly aircraft capable of carrying 340 people. If we did, how I felt about killing 10 people or 340 through incompetence would be irrelevant. It would be tragic in either case, but the economic exposure to the company from resulting law suits would differ significantly. It can be argued that Pan Am 103 killed Pan Am.

In your remarks, you ask the question who is more responsible, the 747 captain or the 737 captain. It is clear that the 747 captain is responsible for a more costly airplane, generating more revenue for the company and can potentially generate more liability. Furthermore, should he involve his aircraft in a mishap it will cost more to replace, even if he works for an airline that cannot captilize their aircraft and it has to come from ILFC or GE Cap.

In answer to a question you did not ask, we hire only high time pilots.

The reason flight time is important to us has to do with judgement. Judgement develops as the product of experience and experience occurs over time.

The more flight time you have the more likely it is that you've seen the event that just happened, or is happening, before. The fact that you are still around means that either you made the right decision before or made the wrong decision, luckily survived your mistake, and vowed never to do that again.

We pay for that judgement.

GV

 

[GVFlyer]

I think if you hit a brick wall at 70 mph, you're just as dead in a $5000 Geo as you are a $100,000 Mercedes.

From a corporate standpoint it is not your death that matters. It's the loss of the aircraft and who you have just killed in the back that counts.

By your own example the company would have lost $95,000 more if you crashed the Mercedes rather than the Geo.

My company recognizes the greater value of the jet one is flying, hires pilots who they feel will minimize their risk exposure and pays accordingly.

GV

 

[A4Forever]

GV And there in lies the difference between a small, non-union organization and a large, unionized one.

 

[GVFlyer]

Thanks to G-V, think I got this pay thing figured out: A new C-182 costs about 3-4 times as much as a beat up Aztec. Ergo, a pilot hauling boxes in a late model C-182 should make at least twice as much as one doing the same in an old Aztec. Further, a CFI instructing in a newer C-152 should be paid more than one instructing in an old Cherokee. This makes perfect sense to me!

The values of the aircraft you are describing are, as our engineers say, " in the noise." An argument so obviously skewed to one end of the aviation spectrum is without merit and has no bearing on a discussion concerning compensation for commanding aircraft with values in the tens of millions.
So, no. I don't think you have it "figured out."

Sadly, neither do we all the time. We just had to dismiss a former Naval Aviator who had captained smaller aircraft, but was unable to upgrade.

Clearly, what we do is effective. There is no G-IV or GV Captain that does not make six figures. There are over 750 G-IV and GV aircraft flying. In the 15 year history of these types there has been one G-IV fatality mishap and one GV mishap. That's it, two mishaps. What's the accident history of the airplane you are flying.

GV

 

[boxcar]

The values of the aircraft you are describing are, as our engineers say, " in the noise."

While I was being facetious, I'm starting to think you really do believe the cost of an airplane should be the determining factor in setting pilot wages. IHMO, while the value of an airplane might be a factor at some employers, the value of the contents of the airplane is far more significant. Who makes more at a given airline, the Captain of a '70's vintage widebody, or the Captain of a 737-NG? What is the relative worth of the airplanes?

 

[GVFlyer]

To find the answer to your questions, please read my previous posts to A4Forever and NJA Captain.

I am about at the point GEXDriver found himself to be in a previous post. That is to say all of the hyperbole and rhetoric changes no ones mind, in most part is not read and is an effort in futility. I will take solace in the fact that at my company at least, our Captains earn as much as a senior airline captain, fly better equipment to more interesting places and are home most nights. Just as it should be...

 

[GVFlyer]

GV And there in lies the difference between a small, non-union organization and a large, unionized one.

You are half right - our company is not small, but it is non-union.

I personally have no experience with unions, but we have a former Eastern (union) Captain and a former USAir Captain in our flight department. Neither has much use for unions. The USAir guy says the union took a good $200,000 dollar a year job and turned it into a $100,000 a year job. If you want to get a good 30 minute standing oratory, mention Charlie Bryant, head of Eastern's IAM, to the Eastern Captain.

GV

 

[A4Forever]

GV..While the unions may not have been 100% correct in everything that they have pushed for, I would hate to think where you, me and the rest of our fellow pilots(121/135/91) would be today if our pay and benefits had been left to the benevolence of the employer. ie: Delta doesn't pay their mechanics and FAs industry wages because they are good guys. Some IAM or AFA union set the standard.