I want all the widebodies to pay whatever the new 777 rate is. What's so bad about that?
The argument goes:
Let's say you have 9 airplane types, and each pays a different rate. Let's also say you are thinking about going to banding, and want to have 3 airplanes in each of 3 bands.
This assumes everyone is content with the staffing aspect of pay banding. The theory goes that people jump airplanes for money; and this causes training churn, which makes pilots unavailable. By eliminating the churn somewhat, you effectively increase productivity. If you are getting a raise out of the deal, it becomes a "pay for jobs" discussion.
So now we implement the banding as part of a PWA. You set up your pay bands and dollop a 10% raise on the highest rate in your new band, and each aircraft in each band "snaps up" to the highest rate in each band.
Everyone's happy, right?
Wrong.
The pilots already on the highest paying equipment in each band get a 10% raise. Good news, right?
But the pilots in the formerly lower paying aircraft in the new pay bands get a "bigger raise" because their pay snaps to the highest in each band. They get the pay bump to the highest AND get the 10% raise.
"Not fair". "Your choosing winners and losers!" are some comments, in addition to those who are opposed on the staffing issue.
Getting the 10% raise isn't the issue. The issue is that a large group of pilots in each band are getting bigger "raises". If it's one thing a pilot hates worse than a good deal, and that's someone else getting a better deal, even if that "better deal" is making the same money.
When you stop to think about advancement, the pilots at the top of the lower bands have access to the top pay in the next band sooner than they might have; that dampens that argument some. What's left is the pilots already at the very top who are left with just the 10% raise.
As always, things are more complicated than they seem.
Richman
