Pay based on aircraft size?
- Thread starter USMCmech
- Start date
400A
New Member
The proper way to do it in my opinion. Works at UPS.
I would rather spend my youth doing long haul, weeks away from home, then switch to short haul, out and backs as I get older without having to worry about losing pay.
All this of course only applies to a single company flying different airframes. It is unfair to compare a large cargo only outfit to large regional outfit and say here is proof why.
chris
Well-Known Member
Agreed. For a major airline though, I think it would be good to have 2 payscales- one for widebodies, another for the narrow. Im not sure if this would be feasible, as it's a drastic change from what most are used to. It would mean the most senior guys would get a pay cut, while the juniors would all get a raise.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
It works at companies like UPS or Jazz where the equipment has somewhat similar capability and productivity.
UPS's smallest plane is hte 757 going up to the 747. Those can command similar pay rates... same with the CRJ and the Dash.
A single payscale from bottom to top.... from 33 seat prop to A380.... thats unsustainable and irrational.
JoelT
Well-Known Member
Not picking on you but, your quote serves as a jumping off point. The proper way to pay pilots is based on a linear graph beginning at the smallest 19-seat A/C all the way up to the A380, IMHO. Right now, as it stands, the graph for the regionals is many orders of magnitude below the majors.
The gap needs to be bridged. I believe there have been good strides in that direction. I might even say that the legacies have made it easier on the regionals achieving that linear graph by taking such severe pay cuts. The bridge is not too far off.
Back at CALALPA we had those very graphs made up and published. The battle cry at CALEX in those days was, "ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AN HOUR, FIFTH YEAR JET CAPTAIN!!!!!!!!!" It was like we were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. No one could say that we didn't set the bar high.
400A
New Member
Why irrational. For the most part I would be willing to bet at any airline, once you figure in all pay block hours the average pilot is right around monthly guarantee. Taking that assumption, a not to big one I think, then it truly makes no difference what you pay the pilots flying the smallest airframe vs the largest. Everything would still be bid on by seniority and only available when there are vacancies so you really wouldn't end up with all your senior people on the smallest airframes thus requiring more pilots, in theory.
For two Captains at the same airline on the same year of longevity, there is no rational reason that both of them should not be paid the same hourly rate for flying if one is flying a 747 and one is flying a CRJ. The actual cost of the flight crew when figured into the cost of the flight is peanuts, as ATN_Pilot has eluded to multiple times, and therefore negates any argument that the pilot flying the bigger airframe deserves more money. There is no more or less responsibility for 188 lives or 320 lives, 121 flag international flying is easy from an operational standpoint (try 121 supplemental international :drool
.Again, my argument only applies to a single company with varying airframes, comparing a regional to a major or Legacy and demanding the same rates for a CRJ crew as a 747 crew is irrational, two different revenue streams.
For the record
757-200F has a loaded (255,000 lbs MGTOW) range of 3200NM
747-400 has a loaded (875,000 lbs MGTOW) range of 7260NM
A 747 can carry roughly 3 times the cargo, over twice as far as a 757, hardly comparable aircraft.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Not at all. The average pilot at AirTran credits 1150 hours per year, or 96 hours per month, which is 26 hours over guarantee. The legacies with credit caps are certainly lower, but the average will pretty much always be over guarantee, thanks to soft pay.
400A
New Member
I'm guessing block hours not credit hours. Either way. If all pilots are blocking or crediting roughly the same then pay per equipment doesn't matter.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
When I started at CAL, all aircraft paid the same assuming years and seats were the same. The result was an opportunity for junior pilots to fly the 747 and it would not be unusual for very senior guys to be flying the DC9s or 737s. That eventually changed to the three category system (small, medium and large) we now have. For the most part, although there are exceptions, senior guys are typically found on the bigger equipment for pay and lifestyle choices.
If all pilots were paid the same, there would be no reason a company would choose to fly a 50 or 70 seat RJ if crew costs were the same on a 737 or 757. Company decisions regarding equipment utilization is a cost based issue. RJs, 1900s, 757s and 777s are utilized because they provide the best mix of costs, utilization, productivity and passenger demand. It's a complicated formula that would be essentially be turned upside down if crew costs magically became equal. In my opinion it would be very detrimental to certain segments of our industry to have a "same pay" system as the airline managers would simply move in the direction of highest return which translates to using bigger airplanes. They use feeder airlines because it makes economic sense to do so. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100 percent that a 50 seat RJ captain is just as professional and works just as hard as say, a 757 captain. The only difference is that a company is willing to pay the 757 driver more for the profit he/she provides to the company and perhaps for the experience they may bring with them. It's a dollars issue and has little to do with fairness or equal work comparisons.
Makes for good forum chatter though...:beer:
If all pilots were paid the same, there would be no reason a company would choose to fly a 50 or 70 seat RJ if crew costs were the same on a 737 or 757. Company decisions regarding equipment utilization is a cost based issue. RJs, 1900s, 757s and 777s are utilized because they provide the best mix of costs, utilization, productivity and passenger demand. It's a complicated formula that would be essentially be turned upside down if crew costs magically became equal. In my opinion it would be very detrimental to certain segments of our industry to have a "same pay" system as the airline managers would simply move in the direction of highest return which translates to using bigger airplanes. They use feeder airlines because it makes economic sense to do so. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100 percent that a 50 seat RJ captain is just as professional and works just as hard as say, a 757 captain. The only difference is that a company is willing to pay the 757 driver more for the profit he/she provides to the company and perhaps for the experience they may bring with them. It's a dollars issue and has little to do with fairness or equal work comparisons.
Makes for good forum chatter though...:beer:
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Pilot pay should be based on years in service at the company and seat assignment, not based on equipment. A Q400 has about 70 seats a CRJ700 has about 70 seats, a horizon pilot in the Q400 makes $6/hr less than does the CRJ captain (according to APC).
This is part of the scam, "work really, really hard and you'll be able to get into this bigger plane and more money." Its a scam to get you to work harder for less for longer.
This is part of the scam, "work really, really hard and you'll be able to get into this bigger plane and more money." Its a scam to get you to work harder for less for longer.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Willing to pay? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Or have to pay?
What you say doesn't have much teeth. The cost to operate a 777 over a CRJ to fly 50 pax in terms of crews costs is the same if pilots are paid the same.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Read it, don't know if I necessarily agree with it. Size isn't everything. Up here, in my microcosm, there are guys making over $100,000/year to fly a navajo, or making more than $50,000 a year to fly single engine piston planes. Now most of these carriers aren't 121, but that doesn't make it any less reasonable a point. Size of the airplane has nothing to do with it. The crew is a fairly cheap part of the operation, we're paid exactly what they can get away with paying us. People think that a) there is something glamorous about being an airline pilot, b) that if I just pay my dues I'll make more money. Neither of those things are really true, they're just ideas fronted by management to get us to work harder for less!
Crews are cheap. I don't think it would change much at all for crews to be paid equally. What's the per hour cost of a 757? What's the per hour cost of a B1900, yeah, the 1900 captains pay is going to eat into the profit a lot more than the 757 guy is going to, that said, its really not that much. If you can't afford to pay a decent wage to your crew, then what else can't you afford? Can you not afford adequate maintenance, what about adequate staffing, and support? Can you not afford an adequate level of training?
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Y'all are missing the whole point. It doesn't matter HOW a pilot is paid, it's WHAT a pilot is paid. So what if a pilot is paid per productivity or size, or even hair color. You don't get paid what you are worth, you get paid what you negotiate. Then, it's up to the company to figure out how to make enough money to pay you, keep the lights on, and return to the shareholders.
I think we can all agree that pilot pay is too low. The legacies took a beating with concessionary contracts and the regionals pay was always too low to begin with. Now, unfortunately, with mainline pay closer to regional pay, it creates resistance to increase regional pay and with the costs closer in line, it makes mainline doing the flying more of a reality. That in turn puts pressure on regional managements to cut costs to stay competitive.That creates a narrow box to operate in, and coupled with scope restrictions, the sub-contracted lift providers will always be BOHICAing their employees.
I think we can all agree that pilot pay is too low. The legacies took a beating with concessionary contracts and the regionals pay was always too low to begin with. Now, unfortunately, with mainline pay closer to regional pay, it creates resistance to increase regional pay and with the costs closer in line, it makes mainline doing the flying more of a reality. That in turn puts pressure on regional managements to cut costs to stay competitive.That creates a narrow box to operate in, and coupled with scope restrictions, the sub-contracted lift providers will always be BOHICAing their employees.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
Of course crew costs are the same if you pay them the same - seems obvious. I thought the discussion was the feasibility and practicality of enacting such a system.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Yup...
We have guys flying Cessna 402s for $80,000/year. They fly 9 people at a time in a piston twin. RJ captains hardly make that, and they fly 50+.
I strongly believe that productivity has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of supply and demand. Have enough people lining up to do a job no matter what it pays? Companies will easily get away with paying peanuts. My company pays halfway decently for the equipment because there are enough SJS kids out there who wouldn't be caught dead flying old pistons. They have to keep pilots applying somehow.
On the flip side of the coin, companies know that the experienced guys flying big Boeings aren't going to show up for work if you pay them $20,000/year. They're not awestruck young guys willing to sit in the seat for the flight time. Pay has to be at a level that will keep them on property.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You guys still aren't understanding the point. The guy flying the 402 for $80k is still achieving the revenue with his 9 passengers that will justify that wage. The yields on his routes are higher and he's carrying more passengers because of a greater number of legs. It's all about what revenue you are achieving for the corporation.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Of course crew costs are the same if you pay them the same - seems obvious. I thought the discussion was the feasibility and practicality of enacting such a system.
I guess I can't follow. Your post seems to indicate that paying an RJ guy the same as a 757 pilot, the company would get rid of the RJ's because it would make no financial sense to fly the RJ's at that point.
Cost per block hour / Cost for flight crew
757 $5100 $440
RJ $1800 $270
So I guess in your world CAL would put a 737/757 on every RJ route to save <$200 in flight crew expenses while paying over $3000 per hour more in operating expenses even on routes where 30-50 people are booked (ie all of Expressjet's routes)? Like I said I can't follow, it doesn't make any financial sense.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
I think you are assuming keeping the same number of flights to said place a day.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
All that I am trying to say is that airline management chooses specific equipment on specific routes based on several things, costs typically being at the top of the list. Admittedly, crew costs are sometime a very small piece of the puzzle on overall costs. I had a interesting conversation with our guy at CAL who chooses where we fly and what equipment we use to fly the route. The route I was inquiring about was IAH-BOI as I had a vested interest since I have family in Boise. CAL had entertained flying to/from Boise with a 737-500 but the cost structure of using the EMB145 won out and Express ended up with the flying. I can assure you, and was told so, that had the costs been closer, the 737 would have been flying to Boise as CAL was interested in growing the market. Doesn't it make sense that increasing costs (paying the Express Jet crew the same as the 737 crew) could have potentially affected Express Jet's ability to be awarded the flying? Crew costs might not have been the deciding factor but no one can argue that it would have narrowed the difference. I have been surprised on several occasions having discovered how little money it really takes to have companies change directions on things like vendors, staffing and yes, equipment utilization.
I don't argue the concept, just that it would likely change the dynamics of how things are currently done.
JoelT
Well-Known Member
I did that one a bunch and boy, the E145 was the absolute wrong airplane for that route. 4+ hours in the back (or front) of an RJ is just too long.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
That's all true, but something doesn't quite add up.
In my example, we have a guy flying, say, 8 legs per day with an average passenger round-trip fare of $250. With 4 round trips with an average load factor of 78% (7 passengers), he's bringing in $7,000 per day in gross revenue. The airplane costs $500/hr to operate (pilot/fuel/maintenance), so that's approximately $2,500 in expenses. That comes out to $4,500/day in net income for the company.
Now, a 50-seat RJ with a 78% load factor (39 people) with an average round-trip fare of $250 flying 4 round trips will bring in $39,000 in gross revenue. Let's say that the airplane costs $2,500/hr to operate. In 8 hours of flying for 4 round trips, the airplane will cost the company $20,000. $39,000 in daily gross revenue minus $20,000 in operating expenses is still well more than $4,500.
That's just rough pilot math, but it's apparent that an RJ will still have higher yields than a 402. The only issue is that the RJ pilot will come to work for $23/hr (hey, I've done it), whereas the 402 guy would bail for greener pastures if the pay wasn't good enough to keep him there.