surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Excellent. . .get at it son.
Unions and Pay
- Thread starter ppragman
- Start date
- Status
Excellent. . .get at it son.
skydog
New Member
I think both PCL and Seggy need to go back to the original post. The guy was asking why regional carriers pay FO's so little, and was looking for a frank discussion of the pro's and cons of unionism. I chimed in with my observations gleaned from over a dozen years in this business. You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like them. But I stand by them.
The funny part about this is that the point I made in my original post; that FO's are paid the wages they are because unions don't want to expend negotiating capital on First Officer's pay, was also stated by PCL. We agree on this point. Yet for some reason, PCL seems to think I'm wrong. Well, if I am, that means he's wrong too. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here.
By the way PCL, you need to do a little research of your own. These guys weren't choosing to sit in the right seat. They had no choice. United bought ARW for the ORD slots, chopped it up, and then sold off the pieces, while UAL ALPA stood by and did nothing. As a result, there was no growth at Air Wisconsin for years. Those guys sat FO for as long as they did thanks to the actions of UAL managment, and the inaction of their union brothers.
I'm sorry that Seggy gets paid so much less for his work than Horizon pilots, which is the only other Q400 operator I can think off. But do you think that maybe, just maybe there might be other factors at work there other than union vs. non-union? Local demograhics, economies of scale, perhaps? Sure the union/non-union thing is a factor, but not the sole reason for it.
To the OP, this is one of the downsides of unions. There is a certain militant faction of union membership who insist that everything is "management's fault" and that the union folks are righteous solders in the fight. My experience has been that the union guys ##### stinks as much as management's. It's just a different smell
The funny part about this is that the point I made in my original post; that FO's are paid the wages they are because unions don't want to expend negotiating capital on First Officer's pay, was also stated by PCL. We agree on this point. Yet for some reason, PCL seems to think I'm wrong. Well, if I am, that means he's wrong too. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here.
By the way PCL, you need to do a little research of your own. These guys weren't choosing to sit in the right seat. They had no choice. United bought ARW for the ORD slots, chopped it up, and then sold off the pieces, while UAL ALPA stood by and did nothing. As a result, there was no growth at Air Wisconsin for years. Those guys sat FO for as long as they did thanks to the actions of UAL managment, and the inaction of their union brothers.
I'm sorry that Seggy gets paid so much less for his work than Horizon pilots, which is the only other Q400 operator I can think off. But do you think that maybe, just maybe there might be other factors at work there other than union vs. non-union? Local demograhics, economies of scale, perhaps? Sure the union/non-union thing is a factor, but not the sole reason for it.
To the OP, this is one of the downsides of unions. There is a certain militant faction of union membership who insist that everything is "management's fault" and that the union folks are righteous solders in the fight. My experience has been that the union guys ##### stinks as much as management's. It's just a different smell
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You're still wrong. You've pointed out Eagle, for example, where anyone who actually holds an FO bid is paid at roughly 60% of Captain pay. You want to point to the 12+ year scales, but everyone at those years can hold a Captain bid. In other words, you're throwing out a red herring. The 18-year FO payrate is irrelevant. The 3-year FO payrate matters, and ALPA negotiates very hard for that rate.
You mean to tell me that 15+ year pilots at Air Wisconson couldn't hold a Captain bid? I'm aware of the history with the UAL purchase and whatnot, but I simply don't believe that CA bids were going that senior at any point.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
To maintain their base and equipment, they certainly did.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Well, that's a very different story. Upgrades at Eagle on the -700 used to be at 12 years (not sure what they are now), but upgrades on the Saab were at 5 years. Personally, I wouldn't feel that I was properly representing my pilots if I focused on raising the 12-year FO rate when upgrades are available at 5 years.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
There's a reason the airlines don't make any money. And as for your quest for mediocrity, I'm sure you'll make it with an attitude like that. Your goal should be to be the best you can be. You want to be exemplary. If you don't, you probably picked the wrong career. This is not a job for "middle of the roaders." This should be like Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. That's what we shoot for. Anything less is unprofessional.
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
13 years for DFW CRJ / 9 years for ORD CRJ
9 years for DFW/ORD EMJ / 10 years for LAX
10 years for MIA ATR / 8 years for SJU ATR
The FO pay scale stops going up at year seven. Looking at the upgrade times I think we need to work on the FO scale.
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
My guess is you don't fly for a 121 airline. Because at my airline exemplary is the standard. If you don't meet that standard your out the door. I see no way one CA/FO can be better then any other CA/FO at my company.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
People have families, lives, and commitments outside of aviation that may mean its more important to them to stay at a base than to upgrade. That's what unions are supposed to be for, helping the employees. Forced relocation for an upgrade doesn't sound like help to me. I'm not trying to be contrary here, I would jump on an upgrade in a heart beat because the potential for pay increases in the future are so great, and sides' I don't have a family or anything of the like. Some guys however, may live in different circumstances.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I fly 135 and the conditions within which we fly demand professional exemplary performance, so I understand that point, but simply being "not worse" than the guy next to you is not good enough. That's doing the minimum.
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
So if every pilot at your company is exemplary then
"not worse" than the guy next to you = being exemplary
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Damn, I didn't realize upgrade times had gotten that high over there. I figured things had improved after the flow-backs left. If that's the case, then there is merit for looking at extending the payscale to 12 years for FOs. Thankfully, your 16 year contract will be up soon.
:yeahthat:
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
My company isn't an airline, so its apples and oranges. There are some guys who are better at really short field stuff, their are some guys who are faster with freight runs (i.e. can really throw boxes) there are some guys who are really comfortable operating VFR in low vis, and low cx. Etc. We all shoot for high standards, just some guys are better at some aspects than others because we all come from different back grounds.
And I guarantee you, exemplary isn't the standard at any airline. The standard is that which is outlined in the 8410-1 (or whatever the form is for 121 rides) and just because you can pass a 121 PIC/SIC ride does not mean you're exemplary, it means you can pass the check ride. We've all flown with "bad captains" or "terrible first officers," they passed their ride. So don't give me the "121 is a wonderful world of the best most highly trained pilots," because its simply not. How exemplary can someone be when the minimums for a job were just six months ago "250TT, 50Multi." Seriously? At 250TT you still have wet ink on your certs and you're going to honestly say that the standard is "exemplary?" Look, even 135VFR requirements are 500TT. If someone has been flying for 20,000TT and he's not better than the guy next to him with 250TT there is a serious problem.
Standardization in the required callouts, checklists etc. aren't anything special. Nor are they indicative of a professional and elite airline. We had that at an IFR 135 freight outfit, because you need a common core of experience in order to sucessfully complete the mission. If you're not talking the same lingo you're not going to be able to do anything. That doesn't mean that both of the crew members were identical in their operation, that doesn't mean that both of the crewmembers were equally good, it just means that they are going through the motions which are requisite to that stage of flight. If you complete another trip to XYZ airport without killing yourselves that doesn't mean that you are outstanding exemplary aviators, it just means you got through another average day without incident.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
The reason airlines don't make money is because we all want to be standard.
Righto there buddy, you should call Southwest and let them know exactly that.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
You.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Ah come on. . .let's add airspeed in there just for kicks. +/-5kts.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
And therein lies the problem: how to define performance metrics that wouldn't negatively affect safety. Sorry, but it can't be done in this business.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Actually, the other Q400 operator in the United States is Lynx out of Denver, which is nonunionzed as well. They make LESS than I do as well.
Want to talk about demographics. Would love to. Horizon is based in the Pacific Northwest, which can be pricey. Lynx is based in Denver which can also be an expensive city to live in. However, nothing has a higher cost of living area than the metropolitan New York City area, which is where our Q400s are based.
- Status
