Market based compensation vs. union negotiated pay

SpiraMirabilis said:
Current day regional airline pilot. As we discovered working at McDonalds is of greater compensation than that. I'm not aware of any corporate pilots, excepting perhaps 'personal pilot of someone rich or famous' who is compensated higher than a mainline airline pilot. NetJets is for the most part equivilant, once you get into large cabin and BBJs.
Click to expand...
McDonald employees have to stand on their feet for the entire shift, have people yell at them that the burgers (feces) are not the way they wanted them...pilots sit, punch buttons, sign some forms and don't smell like grease...
That being said you can't compare jobs strictly on wages. You have to compare time off/time gone/base/retirement/bene's and various other variables. To say that the guy that flies a wide body makes more money so therefore has a better job than the guy that flies a private jet that's home 29 out of 30 days a month yet makes $20,000 less a year is to gloss over some very important "facts".
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Need 1200 hours to work freight, the entry barrier is higher than RJ FO which can be shoved into the cockpit at 200 TT.
Click to expand...
I got a buddy that got a part 141 program bought off by the FAA that theoretically could have a 135 hr guy get a comm multi inst. I still for the life of me don't understand why ALPA doesn't support make codifying longstanding industry minimums into regulation or better yet an ATP.
 
ppragman said:
No no, legacies/majors. The regionals seem to think that training is cheaper than paying pilots, which doesn't seem to compute to me, anyone know the cost of a q400 type by chance?
Click to expand...

Not sure on the Q400 but the cost to train to an RJ type is around $10k-$15k for the upgrade. Initial is more. So it is very cost effective for turnover to happen, since we have guys here that make $95/hr or something vs. a new CA making around $65/hr. So the company recoups the cost in the first 4 months if an 18 year guy leaves and is replaced by a 3 year guy.

Not that that will happen. But for turnover to happen around the 5-6 year mark is a positive for the company. Not to mention with more seniority comes more vacation, etc.

If the majors could do that I'm sure they would love it as well. Don't let them fool you!

If pay was more flat and didn't increase like it does now I have a hunch pay would be better across the board, because people could take their stuff and go to a better company. The way it is now, once you sign on the dotted line you are indebted to your company for better or worse unless you want to go back to making an adjusted $10/hr-$12/hr starting pay.
 
As it is now, being union at the regional level has essentially made us compete with the lowest bidder. I've seen my union company take paycuts and work rules cuts, all while shrinking while other union companies grow exponentially with lower pay rates. I like to get paid but money doesn't mean crap if your company is put out of business and you have to start over again.
 
wheelsup said:
I've seen my union company take paycuts and work rules cuts, all while shrinking while other union companies grow exponentially with lower pay rates.
Click to expand...

Sounds like "market based pay" in action to me. You should be happy about that.

I like to get paid but money doesn't mean crap if your company is put out of business and you have to start over again.
Click to expand...

Talk to a Midwest guy about that. Of course the RAH crowd is pleased. But then again, its the "market based" theory at work. Again, you should be tickled pink.
 
mojo6911 said:
The answer to that is quite obvious. Just take a look at his posts in any user fee thread. If you destroy his argument, he just resorts to his childish ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.
Click to expand...

But if you disagree you are a scab. :sarcasm:

It is old, and hard to read that sort of stuff. I don't believe in "blocking" either....
 
wheelsup said:
In most industries your pay is dictated by the market. That is if your skills are in demand, and you bring added value to the company your pay will reflect that (for example an experienced CEO). If you have a mediocre skill set that a lot of people have (say stocking grocery shelves).

While I support the idea of a union and protection and all, I have to say I am partially against how unions see themselves as needing to increase the pay for their workers.

Shouldn't the pay for the position be set by what the market is willing to compensate that person for their skills vs. some value that the union places on that employee?

If you owned a business, and employed two people who made widgets. One guy cranked out 3 widgets an hour the other made 5. Yet both are paid the same? How fair is that? What incentive does the guy who makes more money for you to continue to make 5 widgets an hour?

Do you think unions protect people who shouldn't be protected? Let's say you have a pilot who routinely defies company procedures? The union is obligated to represent them. But should they be?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the standardization and safety aspect of airline labor. As an airline pilot we are not in an environment that allows differentiation of crews. We are chosen for the job and then trained exactly how they want us to do it. Granted some may struggle more than others we are expected to perform to standards. That's why an Ivy League degree or anything else doesn't matter. It's all about standards that we all must meet, therefore one pilot isn't worth any more than another because of previous training experience except for hiring minimums which serve to decrease the applicant pool. Without the unions I don't believe any regional captain would be making over 65K, however, I don't believe first year FO pay would be as low either.

As far as safety goes, because of the restrictions of the FARs the widget argument doesn't make sense because we all have the same restrictions due to safety. Some airlines have adjusted the FAR regs lower, but it remains that pilots cannot produce more than those adjusted values.

As for market based vs. union negotiated compensation I'll leave that up to you. I just wanted to bring up the standardization and safety issue to the discussion.
 
I believe a union should negotiate for as much as it reasonably can....that's it's purpose to it's membership. At the same time, what they negotiate for and what can realistically be had does depend on a number of factors. With many airlines not making money, something will have to be cut from somewhere in order to raise pilot wages, sad but true. Still, if the union shoots for the stars, and the company obliges them or close to it, then more power to all.
 
BajtheJino said:
That being said you can't compare jobs strictly on wages. You have to compare time off/time gone/base/retirement/bene's and various other variables. To say that the guy that flies a wide body makes more money so therefore has a better job than the guy that flies a private jet that's home 29 out of 30 days a month yet makes $20,000 less a year is to gloss over some very important "facts".
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. I actually agree with Baj on something. Gotta look outside and make sure there's not a meteor about to end the world or something. :)

CEOs in the airlines aren't exactly a good measuring point, either, experienced or not. I know of a couple that came to their respective airlines WITH experience, and they're work doesn't really match up with their pay. (as in they get paid WAY more then they should based on the what they've done to enhance the profitability of the company) The CEO here ran at least one other airline into the ground already.
 
wheelsup said:
Do you think unions protect people who shouldn't be protected? Let's say you have a pilot who routinely defies company procedures? The union is obligated to represent them. But should they be?
Click to expand...

I'm going to leave the pay issue thing aside, but as far as the protection thing goes...

Have you spoke to anybody who does this for your pilot group? Over here (and every other ALPA carrier I know of) the union very rarely "protects" a pilot but rather ensures that the pilot was terminated (or disciplined) per the contract. We recently had a guy return to work because ALPA got him his job back. He was fired because he was caught (for the third time) banging a woman in the galley while the airplane was parked on the gate. However, HOW the company fired him and the evidence they used to do it was completly wrong. Should the guy be gone? No question about it. Very few people like him. However, is it fair that he was fired over trumped up charges (he was arrested for something but later released when the witness admitded to making the story up)? Certainly not.
 
hemaybedid said:
As for market based vs. union negotiated compensation I'll leave that up to you. I just wanted to bring up the standardization and safety issue to the discussion.
Click to expand...

You bring up some very good points. I guess mine is still, did unions artificially push up pilot pay at the major level causing pay at the lower levels to be driven down because so many people want that opportunity to work for the "big shot" majors?

Companies like jetblue and Allegiant all have much much lower pay but they don't seem to have a problem finding experienced pilots to apply? Is that a reflection of what our true market worth is as an airline pilot?
 
BobDDuck said:
I'm going to leave the pay issue thing aside, but as far as the protection thing goes...
Click to expand...

That's a good point, unions need to keep the company straight as well. There are i's that need to be dotted and t's that need to be crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top