Pay based on aircraft size?

USMCmech

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
Why do airline pilots get so worked up on being paid based on airplane size?

Flying from DFW to LAX is the same job regardless if it is 777 or an RJ. So why do we demand the widebody get paid a kings ransom, and the RJ can get paid peanuts?

Personally I couldn't care less about how big an airplane I fly if I were getting the same paycheck. Why not have a single pay rate regardless of airframe? UPS only has one pay scale and they seem quite happy with it. Suppose that SWA bought a 777 to fly to Hawaii, and still paid all the pilots the same 737 rate? What if they bought Q400s and still paid the same rate?


I honestly think this big plane vs small plane system is what has created the mess we are in.
 
USMCmech said:
Why do airline pilots get so worked up on being paid based on airplane size?

Flying from DFW to LAX is the same job regardless if it is 777 or an RJ. So why do we demand the widebody get paid a kings ransom, and the RJ can get paid peanuts?

Personally I couldn't care less about how big an airplane I fly if I were getting the same paycheck. Why not have a single pay rate regardless of airframe? UPS only has one pay scale and they seem quite happy with it. Suppose that SWA bought a 777 to fly to Hawaii, and still paid all the pilots the same 737 rate? What if they bought Q400s and still paid the same rate?


I honestly think this big plane vs small plane system is what has created the mess we are in.
Click to expand...

I think you are asking the wrong question. Why do pilots get worked up doing the same job in the 777 that they did in the 1900 and someone wants to pay them the same. Lot of us can't live on 20k a year for the rest of our lives. 777 has a HELL of a lot more productivity, we get a slice of it.

Edit: Also, I would add productivity is a key component of wages. Maybe that's where you are having so much trouble.
 
A lot more revenue can be generated from a larger plane. So the pilots should be paisd more..:dunno:
 
USMCmech said:
300 pax on one leg, vs 50 pax on 6 legs?
Click to expand...

You're assuming a 777 doesn't make 6 legs a day. I know SIA used to run 4 a day on the pilots to Jakarta with 777's and 747's. So what is that? 24 legs a day for the CRJ?

Also you are assuming CRJ's only do short hops. I started off in BOI last night I'm in SAT tonight by way of SLC. Did two legs today for ~120 pax transported. If I did something similar in a 777 that's a hell of a lot more productivity.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Also you are assuming CRJ's only do short hops. I started off in BOI last night I'm in SAT tonight by way of SLC. Did two legs today for ~120 pax transported. If I did something similar in a 777 that's a hell of a lot more productivity.
Click to expand...

That's my point, you did the exact same work as a Delta pilot did. Only because he has a bigger plane, he gets paid a lot more.
 
USMCmech said:
That's my point, you did the exact same work as a Delta pilot did. Only because he has a bigger plane, he gets paid more.
Click to expand...

What?

Your concern was aircraft size not the company. Stick with me here and lets answer one at a time.

Does it make sense to you that if the airplane is bigger it is more productive on the same routes because it carries more. Also the 777, in your example, will do routes the CRJ can't do because it hasn't the legs for it.
 
Also USMC it's worth noting:

If the 777 carries 300 people IAD-AUS to do the same in the CRJ you'd have to do 12 legs, or have 6 CRJs at IAD.

777 IAD-AUS 300 people

CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people
CRJ AUS-IAD doesn't count
CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people
CRJ AUS-IAD doesn't count
CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people
CRJ AUS-IAD doesn't count
CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people
CRJ AUS-IAD doesn't count
CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people
CRJ AUS-IAD doesn't count
CRJ IAD-AUS 50 people

there, now you've x-ported 300 people to AUS and it took the CRJ 11 legs. Never mind you'd exceed every duty time known to man.
 
Alright, I used a bad comparison.

How about DFW - LBB in a RJ vs a 737.


I could care less about how much more productive the 737 is, I'm still flying the same amount. The airlines obviously figured this out because AA doesn't serve LBB anymore, but Eagle does at a much cheaper crew cost.
 
USMCmech said:
Alright, I used a bad comparison.

How about DFW - LBB in a RJ vs a 737.


I could care less about how much more productive the 737 is, I'm still flying the same amount.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are saying there is an event where two crews have the exact same one leg day.

737 carries (iguess the model is important but lets say) 120 people.

The CRJ carried 50.
 
USMCmech said:
So?

The crews still did the same work.


You drive a front loader at a gold mine, I drive one at a coal mine, should you get paid more?
Click to expand...

So how do we reconcile the productivity differences? Also the front loader with coal in your example would have to carry 2.4 times more stuff.

If I drive a truck from MEM to COU in missouri with one trailer I make some dollar amount in profit from the pounds of transport. Instead, today I drive a truck with a second trailer attached. I'm gonna get more money, I transported twice as much.

EDIT: USMC your analogy is incorrect, just to make clear, you arent' driving the same front loader, one of them is 2.4x bigger.
 
I'm sorry USMC, I don't know if I can explain this well. You don't seem to have a good grasp of what productivity is and how it relates to the idea of a free market. For instance, more productivity = more money. The theory goes that if you could do all the work you would receive all the money, so on and so on.

I really can't wrap my head around how to teach you productivity, all of my examples revolve around that.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I'm sorry USMC, I don't know if I can explain this well. You don't seem to have a good grasp of what productivity is and how it relates to the idea of a free market. For instance, more productivity = more money. The theory goes that if you could do all the work you would receive all the money, so on and so on.

I really can't wrap my head around how to teach you productivity, all of my examples revolve around that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand productivity.

I don't see how a pilot can really affect it much. The airline chooses to put a big plane vs a small plane on a given route, I just fly as safely and efficently as I can. If AA only sells enough tickets from LBB to fill an RJ that's their fault, not mine. If they can fill a 757, then good for them.

So if I don't really have any real power over my productivity, why does my paycheck reflect it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to see all the RJs flying for the same rate as an MD-80. I don't care how many seats are behind me or what my take off weight is as long as I'm paid a fare rate.


If we were really being paid for productivity, we would be paid per passenger actually on board.
 
It's not that the pilots did the same amount of work, it's "How much money did the pilot make the company that leg." Regardless of aircraft, you can't just compare them side by side. You need to equal the playing field, so to speak, if you want to compare productivity. That is why you see airlines report in ASMs, RSMs and adjusted stage lengths. That way, you can compare apples to apples.

The pilot generating more revenue, (doing more work,) for the company should be paid more. Otherwise, you have the higher productive pilot either subsidising the lower productive pilot, or not being adequately compensated. Either way, now we're skirting the edges of Socialism.

Put another way, you bust your rump to fix an airplane, putting in OT to get the job done. Mr Slacker mech*, who spends half the time talking on the phone and puts in no OT wants to get paid the same as you. Is that fair? DO you feel good about giving him some of your earned money?



* NO, I'm not saying the RJ guys are slackers, take a chill pill, Mr Thin Skinned. I'm using this as an analogy as to productivity.
 
USMCmech said:
Oh, I understand productivity.

I don't see how a pilot can really affect it much. The airline chooses to put a big plane vs a small plane on a given route, I just fly as safely and efficently as I can. If AA only sells enough tickets from LBB to fill an RJ that's their fault, not mine. If they can fill a 757, then good for them.

So if I don't really have any real power over my productivity, why does my paycheck reflect it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to see all the RJs flying for the same rate as an MD-80. I don't care how many seats are behind me or what my take off weight is as long as I'm paid a fare rate.


If we were really being paid for productivity, we would be paid per passenger actually on board.
Click to expand...

Hehe.

Ah HA. Excellent. I believe I agree with you on most counts.

Look. I got four words for you.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.
 
USMCmech said:
If we were really being paid for productivity, we would be paid per passenger actually on board.
Click to expand...

We are being paid for the "potential" productivity, ie, the number of seats the plane has, not the actual carried on a daily basis. As for a fair wage, I don't know a pilot who doesn't think an RJ shouldn't be paid what a 737 pays. Just like I don't know a management type who doesn't think a 737 shouldn't pay what an RJ does. Don't give em anymore ideas on how to argue lowering compensation.,
 
Here's the point, bigger airplanes make more money. It sucks. My job now is pretty much the same as when I flew Jungle Jets, but I am more productive.

Let's do a quick comparison from my last company to this one (Based on 2008 10k from each company AAWW RAH)

RAH:
2008

Revenue: $1.47 Billion
Net Income: $84.5 Million

AAWW:
2008
Revenue: $1.6 Billion
Net Income: $63.7 Million

So both companies are in the same ballpark as far as income and revenues. Let's examine how much effort it took to make that amount of money:

RAH:
Aircraft count: 221
Pilots: 1850
Flights: 456250

AAWW:
Aircraft count: 31
Pilots: 809
Flights: 19042

So, as you can see, at companies with a similar revenue income, it is clearly shown that the size of the aircraft contributes directly to more revenue.

AAWW has 14% of the airplanes, 43% of the pilots and 5% of the flights of RAH to generate a near-identical income.

Another way to look at it: AAWW generates $84024 of revenue per flight with a profit of $3345 per flight, while RAH generates $3321 per flight with a profit of $185 per flight.

All of that being said, the wages at the regionals (nee` commuters) are way low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top