Pay Scales Question

[Big Picture]

I'm looking for some input on accepted practices with regard to Pt. 91 pay scales...

I have been flying a small jet for a company that has been paying me pretty close to NBAA average. Now the company has upgraded the equipment to what the NBAA would consider a heavy jet. The difference in pay is about $20,000/year on average.

They sent me to training on the new jet and when I got home, I broached the subject of my pay. I tried to do it diplomatically but the boss was very surprised that I asked such a question and said that the salary survey isn't valid, etc. etc. Bottom line, my pay stands as is.

What do I do? Of course will talk to him again, but I would appreciate any input from others as to how they may have handled similar circumstances. Also, am I being crazy for asking for more money with a bigger plane?

Thanks,

BP

 

[hoover]

Are you unhappy with your current pay? Will the new aircraft require fundamental changes in your job? For example, will the new aircraft be operated on longer routes? Internationally? Will you be working much more? Gone from home more often? If so then more money may be appropriate.

If fundamentally nothing has changed except that you are hauling a few thousand pounds of additonal metal around the sky, then additonal money may not be appropriate.

 

[Len]

Are you unhappy with your current pay? Will the new aircraft require fundamental changes in your job? For example, will the new aircraft be operated on longer routes? Internationally? Will you be working much more? Gone from home more often? If so then more money may be appropriate.

If fundamentally nothing has changed except that you are hauling a few thousand pounds of additonal metal around the sky, then additonal money may not be appropriate.

Larger equipment = more responsibility = more pay

I don't see what the problem is with giving a trusted employee a raise. If you can afford to dish out multi-million $ on upgrading your aircraft then why not bump the pilot $20 grand?

Please explain the flaw in this logic.

 

[tej823]

Tough question to answer...I took my present position knowing the base salary for the aircraft type is below the NBAA (or whoever) salary survey minimum, but with the knowledge that the QOL would be outstanding. Although the pay is 'low' the flying last year (including recurrent days) only required my attention for 91 days...3 qualified people to cover two seats on a low utilization family operation.

The fundamental question to address is that if you had to be replaced today with a qualified 'new hire' would the company be able to advertise and find someone at your pay scale or would they need to bump it up closer to the salary for the aircraft type.

Good luck.

 

[hoover]

Larger equipment = more responsibility = more pay

I don't see what the problem is with giving a trusted employee a raise. If you can afford to dish out multi-million $ on upgrading your aircraft then why not bump the pilot $20 grand?

Please explain the flaw in this logic.

Using this logic, a King 300/350 would pay more than a Beech 400, but I think many pilots would find this unacceptable.

 

[GVFlyer]

My two cents - Everytime I take-off I'm managing a $48 million dollar asset for my company. I should be compensated in a manner commensurate with anyone else in the company that's managing a near $50 million dollar business segment and that should be significantly more than someone responsible for a $5 million asset.

GV

 

[Len]

Using this logic, a King 300/350 would pay more than a Beech 400, but I think many pilots would find this unacceptable.

OK LARGER... I think you know what I meant. Maybe I deserved that.

I still think the guy deserves more money. Maybe he should have broached the subject about $$$ before they took delivery of the aircraft or before he went to school. Otherwise maybe he needs to rethink his relationship with his employer.

 

[Freight Dog]

Using this logic, a King 300/350 would pay more than a Beech 400, but I think many pilots would find this unacceptable.

I know a few guys flying a King Air 350 who make SUBSTANTIALLY more than the Beechjet guys. What's so unacceptable about that?

 

[Tonala2k]

Other than joining NBAA, how can I compare pay rates on aircraft?

 

[G100driver]

My two cents - Everytime I take-off I'm managing a $48 million dollar asset for my company. I should be compensated in a manner commensurate with anyone else in the company that's managing a near $50 million dollar business segment and that should be significantly more than someone responsible for a $5 million asset.

GV

GV hit the nail on the head. We made this exact transition well not quite $48 million, but just about that.

My boss refused to pay NBAA average out of the gate. OK, we met half way the 1st year and increased to NBAA the second year. In all a $40K raise over 2 years.

His logic, I can find a guy with exirence in the airplane but I trust you (this always more than just flying the airplane). You do the right thing so will I.

My logic, new airplane, new resposiblity more pay. It also helps to have a very large fortune 100 company right down the road that has the same equiptment. This in can be your other stratagy. What does the competion pay? I am sure that your boss does not want to loose you and at some point in the future will pay you what you have EARNED with your increased responsiblity. You must be willing to follow through with a willingness to leave if necessary.

 

[G100driver]

Other than joining NBAA, how can I compare pay rates on aircraft?

get the avcrew survey. It is cheap and povides an OK analysis.

 

[AA717driver]

Chances are, your employer won't find someone rated in a "heavy" willing to work for "narrow-body" pay. Sounds like he's figuring that you won't "test the waters".

A lot of 'suits' have that mentality--I'll gamble that my guy is too comfortable to leave for more money. Too often, they're right.TC

 

[Headwind]

You should get an increase, but don't be too quick to demand it. This is not an airline. The fact that you flew a small jet yesterday and a larger one today might not cause a pay increase overnight. Your new type rating has value. Next year with that type rating and 300 hours in type you will be in a much better position to negotiate or move on.

HEADWIND

 

[PHX767]

My company bought a bigger jet in December that is still in refurb. At my annual review, the CEO said that after I get back from training, he will bump up my pay.

They know.....

As 717 mentioned, if you have a good QOL, you may be totally comfy with the present situation. All things considered, how hard you work and how often have a LOT to do with the very complex QOL equation. Owner wackiness and how they treat you factor into this as well.

Are you being well compensated when you consider the above? NBAA scales can't account for a lot of the variables.

 

[sleepy]

"I tried to do it diplomatically but the boss was very surprised that I asked such a question and said that the salary survey isn't valid, etc. etc."

That is what "management" always says, at least where I work. Don't worry though, if you really press them they will show you that big stack of resumes that they have from all of the people who would love to have your job for the current pay.

 

[2EASYPilot]

I am not sure what your equipment is but the Stanton survey is the most widely recognized source for compensation...maybe someone here operates similar equipment. Give us a heads up what your flying and maybe we can help with the numbers at least.

 

[hoover]

In the airline world, where an airplane is used to make money, the pay should absolutely be tied to the productiveness and the complexity of the job. For example an international 747 generates more revenue, and is probably a more demanding operation, than a domestic 737. Pilot pay should be based appropriately.

On the other hand, the corporate aircraft is more of a business tool. In and of itself it does not make money, but rather, it enables its users to be more productive. In that realm I think pay should be more tied to how the airplane is operated rather than how big it is or how many people it carries. In other words, pay should be based on where, when, and how often the pilot flies, pilot non-flying duties, how often the pilot lays over away from home, etc.

IMHO

 

[GEXDriver]

...the corporate aircraft is more of a business tool. In and of itself it does not make money, but rather, it enables its users to be more productive. In that realm I think pay should be more tied to how the airplane is operated rather than how big it is or how many people it carries. In other words, pay should be based on where, when, and how often the pilot flies, pilot non-flying duties, how often the pilot lays over away from home, etc.

IMHO

Fortunately, that is not how corporate compensation is determined. Some of the pilots I know that fly the least get paid the most. The one thing they all have in common is that the larger and more expensive the aircraft, the more they're paid. And by the way, I'm really glad that you have nothing to do with setting my salary.

 

[hoover]

Fortunately, that is not how corporate compensation is determined. Some of the pilots I know that fly the least get paid the most. The one thing they all have in common is that the larger and more expensive the aircraft, the more they're paid. And by the way, I'm really glad that you have nothing to do with setting my salary.

Just my opinion, nothing more. And by the way, that makes two of us.

 

[GVFlyer]

And by the way, I'm really glad that you have nothing to do with setting my salary.

And by the way, that makes two of us.

Just trying to figure out the logic of your last post. If you were setting GEXDriver's salary, you would be the Aviation Director of a Fortune 50 company, which most would consider a desirable position. Yet, you wouldn't want it?

After reading some of your posts, my real question is what do you fly and where are you in your career? You don't seem to realize that pilots from major flight departments like Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble and 3M retire millionaires.

GV