Should Pay Depend On Aircraft Flown?

[I_Money]

So here is the question - Should a United 747 pilot be paid more than a United 737 pilot? I don't believe flying a 747 is anymore difficult than a 737, in fact a 737 has more critical phases of flight so if anything they should get paid more, as they do more. British Airways and UPS both pay solely on years in service for the reason - they want pilots to bid planes because of the lifestyle each aircraft provides rather than wanting it for more money!

What is your vote?

[wheelsup]

I say no, *IF* the pay rate is such that allows for the cross-section of aircraft flown. For example, if your Company operates CRJ-200's up thru CRJ-900's, the single pay rate shouldn't be based upon the -200. It should be a blended rate based upon the quantity of each aircraft.

It's a win-win for the Company AND employee group IMO. The Company gets to cut down on training costs, and the pilots don't have to worry about bidding a bigger aircraft for an increase in pay.

[jayllamas]

I say yes...the bigger the plane means bigger responsibilities and more lives in his hand......just an opinion..

[Maximillian_Jenius]

I voted yes. Also add America West/ US Airways West to the airlines that pay dependent on time of service and not equipment!

[Texasspilot]

I don't see a problem with it just so long as the pay is in line with the top end responsibility.

As for your 747 vs 737 argument.....a 1900, or dash should get payed more than a 747. But pay is based on responsibility AND years with the airline.

In fact i'm not against a flat FO salary and Capt salary.

.

[typhoonpilot]

I fly for an airline that pays on years of service and like it. That said we only have A310s, 777s, and A330/340s right now. We'll be getting 747-800s and A380s so my choice of airplanes are all large. We have a 6 year seat lock for Captains, but that can be reduced based on company need. I'm happy on the 777 and bid purely for lifestyle because I don't have to chase a higher paying airplane. My six year seat lock ends right when the 747-800 arrives . Maybe I'll bid it, or maybe not, it depends on where it flies to and how the schedules are.

If the majors in the States would go to this system, even with narrow body and widebody differences, it would save them a ton of money in training costs. Guys would stay put on the airplane they like.


Typhoonpilot

[PositionAndHold]

I've been thinkin about this for a while. Not to sure how to get it out in type, but I'll give it a shot.

The number of PAX should not even be considered when it comes to pay. I think that pay should be based on a speed/complexity category. Kind of like the A,B,C,D cats for approaches. We all share the same airspace so we are all responsible for the same number of people. Just ask the GOL airlines crew that collided with a "little" corporate jet. Are the guys in the EMB any less responsible then the guys in front of the 737 for the saftey of people in other aircraft? Nope, we all share that responsibility equaly.

That brings me back to the different catagories of speed/complexity. I fly FO on a "little" Lear 45. We flight plan 450Kts/.81m and cruise at around FL430 to FL490 routinely. Now, this isn't meant to be a my plane goes higher or faster or farther p****ing contest at all. I know there are trade off's when it comes to range/payload/speed. I'm just saying that pilots should be paid based on a combination of complexity and speed of equipment flown.

I know this may not make a ton of sense, and I wish I could state my argument a little better. But this is the best I've got for now.

[wheelsup]

This is kinda going off on a tangent, but...

One thing I've always wondered is when a union goes to negotiate a contract, why is their pilot group worth more in pay than another?

I've heard the saying "you get what you negotiate", and that certainly is true. But to give an example in the regional world, why is second year pay in a 50 seat jet ~$24/hr at some companies and ~$35+ at another? As pilots, are the latter companies' FO's doing ~$11,000+/yr more in work to make them worth the extra expense? I don't think so. How does the union negotiate a pay rate that is that much different from another ALPA carriers pay rate?

So, to get back on track, pay is based upon what you can negotiate .

In the corporate sector, I think what I wrote makes sense - someone could be paid more or less depending upon their knowledge/skills and what they do for the company rather than the type of aircraft flown. It's based in part upon aircraft size, but I think it also has to do with how you interact with customers/clients and your job duties outside of flying the airplane.

[PanJet]

Originally Posted by typhoonpilot

I fly for an airline that pays on years of service and like it. That said we only have A310s, 777s, and A330/340s right now. We'll be getting 747-800s and A380s so my choice of airplanes are all large...

Not to hijack the thread, but who do you fly for if you don't mind me asking? I keep pretty close track on who flies what, and maybe I missed it, but who has ordered both 748's and A380's?

Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I think a combination of seniority and aircraft complexity (not necessarily just size) would be a good scale to use. Just my $.02

[I_Money]

I am going to guess considering he is in UAE he flies for Emirates.

[Doug Taylor]

Pay, traditionally speaking, has usually been a combination of weight, speed and 'other'.

Larger airplanes generally generate more revenue than smaller planes so I think a pay differential is a good thing.

Otherwise, should a linesman manufacturing a BMW earn less than one manufacturing a Kia?

I'm not saying that there should be a HUGE differential between say a 1900 and a 777-300, but expecting them to pay the same is unrealistic IMHO.

[PanJet]

Originally Posted by I_Money

I am going to guess considering he is in UAE he flies for Emirates.

My guess as well. Guess I didn't realize they were getting 748's.

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Pay, traditionally speaking, has usually been a combination of weight, speed and 'other'.

Larger airplanes generally generate more revenue than smaller planes so I think a pay differential is a good thing.

Otherwise, should a linesman manufacturing a BMW earn less than one manufacturing a Kia?

I'm not saying that there should be a HUGE differential between say a 1900 and a 777-300, but expecting them to pay the same is unrealistic IMHO.

I originally voted that pay should be based on aircraft, not years of service. But some good arguements have been presented here. I still think that I prefer the pay for type. But if years of service pay was above average and in line with COLA, I'd not mind it much.

[Texasspilot]

Originally Posted by PositionAndHold

That brings me back to the different catagories of speed/complexity. I fly FO on a "little" Lear 45. We flight plan 450Kts/.81m and cruise at around FL430 to FL490 routinely. Now, this isn't meant to be a my plane goes higher or faster or farther p****ing contest at all. I know there are trade off's when it comes to range/payload/speed. I'm just saying that pilots should be paid based on a combination of complexity and speed of equipment flown.

Horrible idea.

For instance...your plane is capable at 490 and .81 but i bet you let the AP fly the majority of the time.

SO.. I say a king air, 421, even a citation deserves more pay because theres more stuff to do and they are generally flown single pilot. Airspeed and Alt are just numbers on dials above 10,000 IMHO.

[typhoonpilot]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I'm not saying that there should be a HUGE differential between say a 1900 and a 777-300, but expecting them to pay the same is unrealistic IMHO.

I don't think that is the question here. I understand this to mean pay in the same company. Not many companies are going to operate both a regional turboprop and a widebody jet.

I remember when I first heard that KLM payed based on longevity only. They had lots of young 747 Captains who wanted to go out and see the world and lots of old 737 Captains who wanted to stay close to home. At least that is what I was told. Made sense then and it makes sense now.


TP

[I_Money]

I know at BA they have the same policy, though I not sure it is split like that - it just seems people fly what they want to fly. The short haul guys like being home every night, though they might work 5 days a week. The long haul guys might work less days, but are away for more. Concorde was a slightly different kettle of fish - the seat lock was incredibly long, therefore it was not for some people. Also BA has a hotel in NY, and some people just hate it, as when you are there everyone knows you, and you can not just slam click as easily! So you could be relatively Jr. (10+ years) and bid the concorde as an FO.

[PositionAndHold]

Horrible idea.

For instance...your plane is capable at 490 and .81 but i bet you let the AP fly the majority of the time.

SO.. I say a king air, 421, even a citation deserves more pay because theres more stuff to do and they are generally flown single pilot. Airspeed and Alt are just numbers on dials above 10,000 IMHO.

Yes you do let the autopilot fly it. In fact in rvsm airspace(290-390) it is a requirement. Also an "auto pilot" is only as good as the person programing it. There are alot of different modes to switch between. It's not just a wing leveler and alt hold. It can and will get you into a whole bunch of trouble if your not careful. I am not arguing if you loose an engine in a King Air or a piston recip your not busy, you surely are. But there is a reason why some aircraft require two crew members and can't be flown single pilot. Looking back some of the busiest times were getting my Multi/Inst and shoooting single engine approaches. However nothing has made me sweat more then being the PNF in the Lear sim.

Texasspilot,I am just curious then, how you would go about basing pilot pay? I came up with an idea, with out bashing others. Lets hear yours. I am here to learn, not argue.

[PositionAndHold]

Otherwise, should a linesman manufacturing a BMW earn less than one manufacturing a Kia?

They should be equal. Say they both install a right front fender. If they use the same tools, work the same shift length, and install the same amount of fenders, then yes pay should be the same. Now if one was sent to a special school to learn how to use this brand new piece of high tech fender installing equipment. And was able to install twice the number of fenders per hour, then he should probably be paid more.

[Texasspilot]

Originally Posted by PositionAndHold

Texasspilot,I am just curious then, how you would go about basing pilot pay? I came up with an idea, with out bashing others. Lets hear yours. I am here to learn, not argue.

It wasn't meant to be a bash on you i just thought it was a bad idea.

As for pay i think the current "system" for corporate aviation seems to be the fairest system i can come up with. Start with the standard for your aircraft(which is based on size) and get what you can negotiate from there.

One reason being is that corporate jobs are so varied in both schedule and mission that comparing one company to another even with similiar aircraft could be like comparing apples to chevy trucks.

Another reason being is that one person can argue so many points in either direction. You could argue that your plane flys faster and higher than many and therefore should justify paying higher. I could argue thosse same points but why it should by payed lower because of it.

Also trying to put a corporate aircraft that flys 350 hours a year in the same boat as a airline guy that logs 1000+ hours a year doesn't quite seem fair if you were paying just per airplane complexity.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by PositionAndHold

I'm just saying that pilots should be paid based on a combination of complexity and speed of equipment flown.

I like your thinking

[Texasspilot]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

I like your thinking

Yah but those airforce fighter guys are gonna make 2 or 3 times what you do.

[PositionAndHold]

Also trying to put a corporate aircraft that flys 350 hours a year in the same boat as a airline guy that logs 1000+ hours a year doesn't quite seem fair if you were paying just per airplane complexity

No prob on the bashing Texas, I just read it wrong my bad.

But it seems that it kind of equals out in the end. The airline pilot might log more time. But he has an entire system working for him to get his aircraft off the ground. A small Corporate guy generaly does all their own scheduling, dispatching, weather, logistics (cars, hotels, catering a/c staging etc). So from a work stand point it is kind of balanced. But I do see what your saying when it comes to hours.

Also, what I am trying to get at is no matter what you fly it shouldn't be based on pax loads. There has to be a better way. If you take for example a Gulfstream/Lear with 8 pax, then move up to a ERJ with say 50 pax, and then on to a 737 with say 150. When you walk in the door and turn left it is about the same job, systems operation wise and flying wise. Not one of those crews has to think of very many different things then the other. At the end of the day there all twin engine, swept wing jets with modern avioncs and systems.

We as pilots as a whole need to raise the bar for every one accross the board. and try to get rid of the "if your not flying 121, your not flying" type of thing. We all know the airlines aren't what they once were and there are some very good 135/91 cargo/pax jobs out there.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by Texasspilot

Yah but those air force fighter guys are gonna make 2 or 3 times what you do.

They won't make to much revenue with only themselves onboard. They also don't have the range at high speed as the CX or the GV (without a tanker).

Please take this as tongue and cheek, because those guys deserve the pay for a multitude of other reasons. Comparing ANY military flying to civilian is unjustified.

[I_Money]

The only reason I think long haul guy should make more is because I believe there are some disadvantages on flying long haul - time change, being away 3-4 days at a time, etc. And the comment about revenue came up with BA a while ago - if you are going to base it revenue, BAs most profitable flight is something like LHR-GLA, should the pilot get paid more when they fly that one trip.

Should FedEx pay drivers of different vans different amounts?

[Doug Taylor]

Perhaps think of it like boats. Should there be a differential in compensation between the guy runningn the Jungle Cruise (it's a boat! ) at Disneyland and maybe the skipper of the QE-2?

Part serious. Part