Pay based on aircraft size?

jynxyjoe said:
Jeesh Polar. You sure do know how to make a point.
Click to expand...

You know how to make a man blush.

Another interesting tid-bit.

Both companies are compensated similarly. They bring an airframe, crew, maintenance and insurance to a contract. The contract pays for the fuel and other pass through expenses, so those variables are pretty much removed from the equation. Although for 3 quarters of 2008, 7 airplanes were scheduled service at AAWW. The numbers for 2009 would be more accurate for an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
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...

You should have hit me up! Do you guys have long overnights here?
 
Don't confuse "job" with "work." Job is a task. Work is a measure of output or productivity.

A 737 pilot and a CRJ pilot do the same task. They do not produce the same work. For every cycle flown, a 737 pilot produces 3 to 4 times the revenue passenger miles that a CRJ does. This is the rationale that is used to justify more pay for bigger aircraft.

Turn the perspective around. The 747 carries 3 to 4 times the revenue of a 737, but it does not pay 3 to 4 times as much. The CRJ carries 1/3 to 1/4 the revenue of the 737, but does not pay 1/3 to 1/4 of the 737. If you're going to make the case that a CRJ should pay the same as a 737, than would it not also follow that a 747 should pay the same as a 737?
 
Reading this thread is too much work.

How about: "How much are you going to pay me to NOT to fly this aircraft?"

That's what I'm concern about...
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Isn't pay based on aircraft size/seats something Lorenzo popularized?
Click to expand...

No, not even close. Now, Continental used to be paid on tenure but, was later changed to wide-body, large narrow-body and narrow-body. But, that was something the IACP did.
 
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...


USMC, we always think of these issues in terms of pilots, pilots, pilots, and people respond as they have here with the idea that since pilots are more productive on the 777 than the on the RJ, they get paid more.

I'm curious if mechanics, dispatchers, or ops agents are paid according to the logic of "more productive airframe = higher pay".

It seems that one ops agent might load 300 people onto a 777, while another at the same company only loads 50 onto a Fokker. Does the one who worked the widebody make six times the pay that the other makes, since he's so much more productive?
 
USMCmech said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'd love to see that too, but it's not realistic. You can't pay someone the same amount of money for producing a fraction of the product. Airlines "produce" seat miles. A CRJ pilot produces a hell of a lot less seat miles than an MD-80 pilot does. Paying them the same ignores the realities of revenue generation.

SpiraMirabilis said:
Isn't pay based on aircraft size/seats something Lorenzo popularized?
Click to expand...

Pay based on aircraft size dates back to the 1940s or so. Long before Lorenzo.
 
Justin172 said:
It seems that one ops agent might load 300 people onto a 777, while another at the same company only loads 50 onto a Fokker. Does the one who worked the widebody make six times the pay that the other makes, since he's so much more productive?
Click to expand...

The difference is the amount of work accomplished in a given period of time. A gate agent "produces" passenger enplanements. Regardless of the size of the airplane boarded, a gate agent produces roughly the same number of enplanements in a given period of time whether he/she is boarding a CRJ or a 777. That's why a CRJ gate agent begins boarding 15 minutes prior to departure, but a 777 gate agent begins boarding almost an hour prior to departure. Therefore, it takes more gate agents to handle the larger airplanes than the smaller ones, meaning each gate agent produces roughly the same amount of work.

Pilots, on the other hand, produce a much greater number of seat miles in a given period of time on a bigger plane than on a smaller one. An example:

B-757 pilot on a 2,000 mile trip with 180 passengers = 360,000 seat miles

CRJ pilot flies 5 legs of 500 miles each @ 50 pax = 125,000 seat miles

Both worked one day, but the B757 pilot "produced" a hell of a lot more seat miles.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Pay based on aircraft size dates back to the 1940s or so. Long before Lorenzo.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I thought it went back to the first airmail contracts that paid by the pound.

The more weight carried = more money.

I can't (or am too lazy) verify this though.
 
The real reason is there is no reason its done that this but its the way its been done so it'll continue being done this way.

In a "normal" non-union labor market the more complex or advanced the task the more it would pay. You can argue successfully that taking a 777 to London is a much more complex task than taking an RJ from Philly to Rochester.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The difference is the amount of work accomplished in a given period of time. A gate agent "produces" passenger enplanements. Regardless of the size of the airplane boarded, a gate agent produces roughly the same number of enplanements in a given period of time whether he/she is boarding a CRJ or a 777. That's why a CRJ gate agent begins boarding 15 minutes prior to departure, but a 777 gate agent begins boarding almost an hour prior to departure. Therefore, it takes more gate agents to handle the larger airplanes than the smaller ones, meaning each gate agent produces roughly the same amount of work.

Pilots, on the other hand, produce a much greater number of seat miles in a given period of time on a bigger plane than on a smaller one. An example:

B-757 pilot on a 2,000 mile trip with 180 passengers = 360,000 seat miles

CRJ pilot flies 5 legs of 500 miles each @ 50 pax = 125,000 seat miles

Both worked one day, but the B757 pilot "produced" a hell of a lot more seat miles.
Click to expand...


I don't know if I buy your arguement. I have seen gate agents work alone even on a widebody. Especially today with the cutbacks. I myself have worked alone troubleshooting a fully loaded DC-10 at departure right after working a DC-9 and I am paid the same regardless. All airline employees with the exception of pilots are paid by seniority. As far as more responsibility carrying more pax..Well I am not paid more for the extra responsibility of working larger a/c. I think if I was a pilot I would prefer a tenure based pay rate. I have a friend whose dad is a retired NW capt..He flew the DC-9 right up til retirement even though he could have flown the 747-400. He didn't want to commute and he liked his out and back schedule. But it cost him too because his last 5 yrs was on the 9 so his retirement is less then it could have been..If it had been tenured based he had the seniority to make top rate. Just another opinion...
 
FXMXC said:
I don't know if I buy your arguement. I have seen gate agents work alone even on a widebody. Especially today with the cutbacks. I myself have worked alone troubleshooting a fully loaded DC-10 at departure right after working a DC-9 and I am paid the same regardless. All airline employees with the exception of pilots are paid by seniority. As far as more responsibility carrying more pax..Well I am not paid more for the extra responsibility of working larger a/c. I think if I was a pilot I would prefer a tenure based pay rate. I have a friend whose dad is a retired NW capt..He flew the DC-9 right up til retirement even though he could have flown the 747-400. He didn't want to commute and he liked his out and back schedule. But it cost him too because his last 5 yrs was on the 9 so his retirement is less then it could have been..If it had been tenured based he had the seniority to make top rate. Just another opinion...
Click to expand...

Well, sticking with strictly pilots (ramp agent issues aside, thats another labor group and they have their own issues) I think the best thing to understand all the advantages and disadvantages of pay rates, but lets pick one and stick with it.. Most of these decisions have already been made decades before us and we've gotta understand, improve it if possible, but most importantly keep focused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top