Fins Up
Fly Fast, Live Slow
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Posts
- 961
"us" about 14% behind? NO, a small minority of pilots who fly the 321 or the small overall percentage of block hours flown on the 321 MIGHT be behind. But that assumes it is standard to pay more for a stretched COMMON type, which is NOT the case. And even if it were, it is far down on the priority list of things that need to be fixed around here. And even then, the extra revenue should be used to increase the rate for ALL 320 family pay, not just an override for a minority. No airline can be directly, perfectly compared to another, but we are FAR more similar to SW and AK than we are the big multi-multi-multi fleet legacies. They pay a single rate for stretched common types, that way the entire seniority list can benefit from the extra corporate revenue generated.
A "small overall percentage of block hours", has nothing to do with a weighted average of pilot compensation. The company chose to compare us for A321 pay to five or six airlines, only two of which acutally fly the A321. They said "only one" of the airlines pay the override when they certainly could have said 50% of the presented airlines that actually fly the 321 pay the override.
You're looking at it as a "similar type". A different, and I believe better, perspective is from a revenue standpoint - or even a liablity standpoint. You're now responsible for 40 more lives on your plane and your flying around 40 more seats worth of revenue. The only thing you get out of it is 40 more possiblities for a gate return.
If you want to stick with arguing that we're more like AK or WN, I won't argue with you. Maybe if we were anywhere near AK or WN in pay, or health insurance, or retirement, or profit-sharing, or vacation, this issue might not be such a big deal.
Last edited: