A New Approach to Pilot Pay at US Airways

[BoeingBoy]

I prefer a single pay scale. It saves training costs because you do not have people chasing money.

The savings in training could come down the road and the company is smart enough to know that. For the first several years - three to five at least - there would be more training as people were able to bid to the job they wanted for QOL, and even that could change until everyone settled into a job. That would be the case under the east bidding system, anyway. Probably not as much for the west since they have a single captain and single FO scale already.

BTW, my spreadsheet uses the number of line pilots on the latest east permanent bid - a conservative number because of the training department people. As I said earlier, the current TOS rates come from Airline Pilot Central which rounds to the nearest dollar. What I put up before was for captains only - it did not include FO's in the number of pilots or the current weighted average TOS rate. To have a true single pay scale the FO's would need to be included.

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

For the first several years - three to five at least -
Jim

And there is the problem. If it doesn't show a payoff within a year, you can forget about it. Parker is very strict with that rule.

 

[westcoastflyer]

Geez...Some of you guys hanging out on this web board too much. No...this is not some test by Hummel. The only USAPA rep I have discussed this with was Mike Gillies. I have been talking about this type approach to pay for a long time now. Even posted questions on it back a couple years ago on this site.

Regardless of whether we go DOH or NIC (and nothing is decided yet), I believe a better way to divide total pilot pay exists out there. The fact we have such disparity for essentially the same job creates the fight for the top, and with our airline only a lucky few trully make the top while less lucky end up supplementing the top. It works at other carriers and I think it is doable here. I will take a look at BoeingBoy's numbers and study it further...Thanks BB.

BTW...you never answered my question to you.

Sounds like a classic "Redistribution of Wealth" scheme. Did you happen to get some advice from President Obama on this?

 

[BoeingBoy]

And there is the problem. If it doesn't show a payoff within a year, you can forget about it. Parker is very strict with that rule.

In theory, there's $120 million still on the table - the supposed cost of the Kirby proposal. With my built in distrust of both company and union costing - both want the numbers to favor their position - I'm guessing that $120 million is really more like $100 million. If one assumes that the company will go 10% higher, that makes $110 million to split up among various things. So a single scale the a $200/hr TOS for captains and call it $135 for FO's is out of the question. But keeping captain and FO TOS at current A330 rates costs $39 million a year. Of course there are other components of pay that cost the company money but aren't reflected in the TOS rate - payroll taxes, contributions to the DC plan, pay for vacation, pay for sick, etc. I haven't included those in my cost numbers but the company certainly would.

Jim

 

[PullUp]

Try this on for size:
Single 15 year C/O-F/O scale at 100%/70% ratio. Pick your numbers - I started at 50/hr for year 1 F/O and 180 TOS for 15 yr Capt's. Have the F/O scale continue to 25 years to an eventual ratio of 100%/90%.
I believe AA gives its guys 3 bid bypasses for Capt upgrades, or else. Since bids happen haphazardly, why not make it time-based, triggered with the first available upgrade bid? Maybe make the time period 3 years? If displaced back to F/O, the higher percentage scale after 15 years would soften the downgrade shock if the carrier shrinks (again).
As a carrot for international, have a 10% pay override for international legs, defined as: do I need my passport to enter this country? This would include Canada, Carribean, Mexico, etc. and would apply to all a/c.
Index international per diem to the regions currency.
Increase Payscale annually by COLA or 3%, whichever is greater.
Include defined punative payscale increases past amendable date of contract.
Someone with a few hours and Excel could figure the cost curve of a 3 year contract with a fixed single payscale accounting for a stated static fleet and the age 65 attrition/new hiring coming next year.
The curve is skewed toward the senior TOS now, but in the future it should return to a more normal distribution, lowering total cost significantly. Our next contract needs to address this and provide returns for it.
Just my thoughts, no extra charge.
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Try this on for size:
Single 15 year C/O-F/O scale at 100%/70% ratio. Pick your numbers - I started at 50/hr for year 1 F/O and 180 TOS for 15 yr Capt's. Have the F/O scale continue to 25 years to an eventual ratio of 100%/90%.

I assume you're talking about a single scale for each seat, not a single scale for everyone. I'm not sure the company would agree to not having a low probation rate. Currently everything but the 190 is $25/hr for the first year, even in the left seat. The 190 rate is higher since it was assumed that most of those bidding it in the shorter term would be off probation, and the TA was for the shorter term (although it didn't turn out that way).

As a carrot for international, have a 10% pay override for international legs, defined as: do I need my passport to enter this country? This would include Canada, Carribean, Mexico, etc. and would apply to all a/c.

Again, probably not something the company would agree to unless the contract total additional cost fit whatever they'll pay. Upping the override and applying it so widely is not peanuts. I'd suggest folding the override into the pay scales as part of the higher pay rates.

Index international per diem to the regions currency.

Almost certainly not something the company would agree to because of the complexity of changing it - in a pay period for those that do a lot of international, there could be at least 14 different per diem rates since exchange rates change daily (as well as during each trading day).

Increase Payscale annually by COLA or 3%, whichever is greater.
Include defined punative payscale increases past amendable date of contract.

Like everything you've mentioned, this too increases cost. So it comes down to how much money goes into these vs raising current scales and other sections.

The curve is skewed toward the senior TOS now, but in the future it should return to a more normal distribution, lowering total cost significantly. Our next contract needs to address this and provide returns for it.

Everything you mentioned increases cost, not lowers it. So far the only thing that lowers cost is new hiring - assuming a low probation pay rate which you seem to want to increase.

My simple TOS spreadsheet is one thing, doing the calculations with the changes you suggest gets pretty complex fast and some things are impossible to calculate - what will be the dollar/euro or dollar/peso exchange rate in two years, for example.

Jim

 

[PullUp]

Thanks for the bump, Jim. Whaddaya think?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks for the bump, Jim. Whaddaya think?

That was my mistake clicking on the wrong button or something. I've since added my comments, which is what I meant to do to start with.

Jim

 

[algflyr]

Yes, it can run separately. You're living it now. And it is not disputed that the FAA made mainline put those MDA aircraft on its certificate because they had to go somewhere.

You are right that they can be run separately. However the pilots of the MDA division were ACTIVE mainline US Airways pilots. You may try to say "but they couldn't bid to other mainline positions." That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that they were active mainline pilots. There is no way around that.

As we know, we are currently operating the East and the West separately on the same certificate. So would it be wrong to consider the West pilots are not active mainline pilots?? After all, you cannot bid into CLT, PHL or DCA. You cannot bid the 767 or A330. So are you an active mainline pilot? Also, when we eventually merge the two groups, do you expect to get credit for your longevity on the West before the integration of the two groups? Of course you are mainline and will get credit of your length of service on the West. It's the same situation for the MDA pilots...

 

[Move2CLT]

You are right that they can be run separately. However the pilots of the MDA division were ACTIVE mainline US Airways pilots. You may try to say "but they couldn't bid to other mainline positions." That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that they were active mainline pilots. There is no way around that.

As we know, we are currently operating the East and the West separately on the same certificate. So would it be wrong to consider the West pilots are not active mainline pilots?? After all, you cannot bid into CLT, PHL or DCA. You cannot bid the 767 or A330. So are you an active mainline pilot? Also, when we eventually merge the two groups, do you expect to get credit for your longevity on the West before the integration of the two groups? Of course you are mainline and will get credit of your length of service on the West. It's the same situation for the MDA pilots...

You had to be furloughed to fly for MDA. End of story.

You couldn't flow up to mainline. End of story.

MDA was never discussed as being mainline by the east MC in neg/med/arb. End of story.

Nic agreed. End of story.

You have no legal standing. End of story.

MDA WAS NOT mainline. The only ones that seem to be carrying this fiction on are easties. No one else seems to agree.

 

[767one]

I am posting the following letter which has been forwarded already to USAPA reps and other boards. I welcome fellow pilots questions, critical discussions and ideas. I feel we are in a very unique position to have a system put in place like this now that will not harm anyone's current pay and would greatly benefit ALL pilots here at US Airways. Looking forward to the debate...


A fair, balanced and rational idea for all of our pilots.



Fellow pilots, I would like to propose a different approach to all of the challenges we already have and will face here in our careers at US Airways and beyond. I will fore-go the detailed history we all have endured here for the past 20 plus years. But looking back it is clear the old approach to pilot pay and career advancement has let most of us down. Thanks to terrible business decisions, inept leadership, sour economy and 9/11, just to name a few influences, we as a pilot group have suffered great economic loss and continue to do so now. As we re-group with new union elections, a continued ridiculous battle for seniority fairness and a new contract, I believe the time is ripe to consider a paradigm shift in our approach to pilot pay.



I am proposing we consider a pay system based solely on Length of Service (LOS). It is not something completely new. Other carriers such as UPS. BA and others use this with no issues. I believe eliminating the differences pay and closing seat pay gaps will help ALL of our pilots, Jr. and senior, east and west, achieve a fair and balanced compensation for the remainder of our careers. We have a system in place right now that creates a group of haves and have-nots, fosters ill will between groups all wanting the same limited access to the top pay "golden ticket", and is the driving force behind union dis-unity. I believe we are in a unique situation right now that could allow implementation of such a system due to the fact we are so out of whack with our current pay rates, and also facing the possibility of having a court ram the Nic down our throats. Regardless of whether we prevail with DOH or not, a LOS pay system will help all of our pilots who came into this career expecting to pay dues at the beginning, advance to wide bodies and left seat and be fairly compensated all the way to retirement. Reality is this, there will be NO internal growth allowing career progression. Only mergers and retirement attrition will allow movement to higher paying positions under our current system. In fact there could be even more downsizing ahead. I am not smart enough a number cruncher to have all of the answers but consider the following points and look at your own careers and see if you agree with me that taking apart our old approach to pay would not benefit you.



I propose LOS pay with a reducing difference between left and right seat pay as the LOS increases ( i.e. the gap between L/R seat would be a slight override, say 10% vs. the 45% plus we have now) and allow a slight override for Int'l trips and holiday pay.



--LOS pay would take away the need to chase seats at the detriment to your lifestyle. Pay based solely on the amount of years you work here allows you to bid any equipment, base etc, simply based on your lifestyle. It would benefit commuters who now travel to reserve, older pilots who have to fly long haul and senior pilots who have to bid low positions just for the better pay. UPS and BA have their most senior pilots flying mostly narrow body short trips and the Jr pilots doing Int'l wide body flying. I don't know about you, but the best time to fly time zone long haul is when I'm young, not flying to 65. Take a look at pilot mortality rates after retirement. I believe it is healthier to not be forced to fly something just to make pay.



--LOS protects pilots during downturns and seasonal schedule changes. It also takes away a weapon management has used against us. With LOS we don't care if they buy Baby Busses, 172's or Space Shuttles. We are skilled, trained, experienced professionals. Pay me for those skills regardless what you want flown.



--LOS protects against outside forces such as the Nic. I am a Jan '89 hire, was furloughed one year in 2003, returned to start MidAtlantic in 2004 and have trained and typed on every aircraft we fly except the A-330. Thanks to outside forces I am looking at having every West pilot, including the 2005 new-hires, jump ahead of me and take higher pay positions under our current system. Now I am all about fighting the Nic, but one thing I have learned is once Judges, Lawyers and Jury's get involved, you are no longer in total control of your own career. LOS takes away any loss from a Nic type seniority merger.



--LOS is fair. It has always amazed me that we have such difference in pay between pilots. The lucky few who had the timing to catch all the right waves and get fast upgrades and wide bodies are paid two and three times the last pilots on board who just got in line at the wrong time. It can be argued that those very few top pay positions are supplemented by the much lower pay of others. It doubly amazes me we have such an emphasis on the few top pay seats when: 1) here at US Air we don't have but a few wide bodies to go around, and 2) the old line of " don't worry...you will get there someday" simply does not happen here anymore. There will be NO internal growth for the foreseeable future, only attrition. We all know there is not one bit of difference between any one of our pilots skills, training, etc. There should not be any difference in how those pilots are paid. Even the huge difference between left seat/ right seat can change. Once a pilot has been hired, trained, and gained experience and type ratings, the gap between the two seats pay should narrow. Yes, the Capt. has the ultimate responsibility for everything and should have increased compensation for that. But I believe a fair and balanced approach is more like a 10% difference, not the large difference we have now.



Talk about working for unity...if there are no more haves and have-not's...no more old dogs and Jr. angry pilots...we could bring this entire pilot group together for the first time to fight against the real foes out there and achieve the airline and career we all have wanted since we first grabbed the stick here.



I am sure there are many who will disagree with me and want to stay with the old system. Some will argue it can't be done...cost too much...whatever. I am just a dumb fighter pilot when it comes to numbers and I am hoping others will take a look at this idea and crunch numbers better than I ever could. But consider the fact that due to our extreme low pay right now, we have the ability to build a fair LOS pay system that would still raise ALL pilots pay. Yes the top seats would probably not gain as much under this system, but...they would still gain regardless, and they have been receiving the top pay all along while the rest have endured much lower pay rates. My simple military mind looks at it like this. Under our old system we have rates in mind for each seat in a new contract, and that total package costs X per year. Taking that same X piece of the pie we can build LOS scales for Capt. and F/O that closes the gap between left and right seat as the years increase and produces a fair and well compensated rate for all.



In closing ,I strongly feel this is a much better approach to pilot pay for all of us. It takes away the huge income differences, which takes away the in-fighting to get the golden ticket, which takes away the weapons for management to hammer us with, which takes away pilot dis-unity. It allows for a pilot to only bid for lifestyle needs, not be affected by outside forces and mergers, be protected from downturns and receive a fair and generous compensation for his skills and experience based on his /her time with the company.



I am contacting my USAPA reps and requesting formal motions for the union to explore this option and hope you join me in it's support.



Fraternally,



Ward Motz

A-320 F/O

PHL

Great idea Ward as long as we use 330 captain pay as the base for all.


Regards,


Bob

 

[PullUp]

I assume you're talking about a single scale for each seat, not a single scale for everyone. I'm not sure the company would agree to not having a low probation rate. Currently everything but the 190 is $25/hr for the first year, even in the left seat. The 190 rate is higher since it was assumed that most of those bidding it in the shorter term would be off probation, and the TA was for the shorter term (although it didn't turn out that way).
Again, probably not something the company would agree to unless the contract total additional cost fit whatever they'll pay. Upping the override and applying it so widely is not peanuts. I'd suggest folding the override into the pay scales as part of the higher pay rates.
Almost certainly not something the company would agree to because of the complexity of changing it - in a pay period for those that do a lot of international, there could be at least 14 different per diem rates since exchange rates change daily (as well as during each trading day).
Like everything you've mentioned, this too increases cost. So it comes down to how much money goes into these vs raising current scales and other sections.
Everything you mentioned increases cost, not lowers it. So far the only thing that lowers cost is new hiring - assuming a low probation pay rate which you seem to want to increase.
My simple TOS spreadsheet is one thing, doing the calculations with the changes you suggest gets pretty complex fast and some things are impossible to calculate - what will be the dollar/euro or dollar/peso exchange rate in two years, for example.
Jim

Let's see, where do we start? How about this: in any negotiation, you ask for more than what you want first, then accept less. That being said, and a reminder that the numbers mentioned are just numbers randomly selected, let's begin.
How does a new F/O survive on 25/hr. seriously. In the real world this equates to 12/hr. Why even learn how to fly in the first place? Other airlines start at 42-45/hr., so what kind of talent are you attracting at 25? Anyway, 50/hr in the real world is 25/hr - an entry level wage for professional caliber employees, not 12.50/hr like a mcdonalds or wendy's trainee. Seen the price for a gallon of gas lately? How many HOURS does it take to pay for the fuel to get back and forth to work?
You keep mentioning increasing costs....isn't that what a new contract does? But in return the company gets increased productivity and happier workers that work toward the benefit of the company.
If you read my description, I'm describing two payscale columns, capt & f/o. The top of the capt scale I set at 180 and the bottom of the f/o scale I set at 50. I used a 100%/70% ratio between the two, so the 15 year TOS for F/O's is about 126. However, my f/o scale then continues to 25 yrs and the TOS at that point is set at 90% of 180 (162). This is for displacements and shrinkage, things we are all very familiar with. Since every pilot is hired as a captain (in waiting, some longer than others), the discussed upgrade clause makes sense (this would lower costs for the co...).
As for the international override, again I picked 10% just because its a nice round number. There is definitely extra work involved with any international flight whether it be to Mexico, Moscow, or Toronto. Pilots should be compensated for the extra work performed over and above a domestic flight.
International per diem could be indexed on a quarterly basis and be categorized by region, hell the federal govmt keeps track of every area on the earth for per diem rates. Also Jim, nowadays there are these devices called 'computers' and the 'internet' that store and process information faster than a human, believe it or not!
Right now if you plot a distribution of pilot seniority, the bell curve looks kinda like a snail - big head and small tail, skewed way to the senior side. As the old guys matriculate starting at the end of this year, the curve gradually shifts back into the middle due to hiring on the bottom. In 7-10 years, the curve will be normal, with most guys in the middle years of seniority, a few on the top and a normal ramp up from year 1.
This natural progression lowers costs more than any other item we could ask for in any contract. So, if mgmt is correct when they say they can't afford to pay the 'industry standard' (because of the heavily skewed curve), I tend to believe that. But down the road the seniority curve returns to normal distribution and wages can and should be higher - or else the company gets another windfall (relative to its peers) due to a low cost contract.
A single payscale lowers training costs (why change airplanes?) and should also lower insurance costs (pilots are experts in their aircraft that they stay in for years).
It also eliminates the 60/60 pairing problem in the Transatlantic aircraft. What's going to happen when all the Capts and F/O's are over 60 on the -330? A big problem indeed.
A single payscale is obviously agreeable to the company, since the west division already has one. Fashioned correctly, it would reduce costs to the company, increase compensation to everyone, provide incentives for upgrading, disincentives for switching aircraft, and provide insurance in case of downsizing.
Just one person's opinion, provided free of charge.
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

This natural progression lowers costs more than any other item we could ask for in any contract. So, if mgmt is correct when they say they can't afford to pay the 'industry standard' (because of the heavily skewed curve), I tend to believe that. But down the road the seniority curve returns to normal distribution and wages can and should be higher - or else the company gets another windfall (relative to its peers) due to a low cost contract.

It's that 5-10 years down the road that management will focus on - signing on to a higher cost contract today for saving supposed to materialize that far down the road.

A single payscale lowers training costs (why change airplanes?) and should also lower insurance costs (pilots are experts in their aircraft that they stay in for years).

Another "eventually" lower cost. Training costs will increase for a large part of the time to a normal amendable date. So higher cost on the next contract for "eventual" savings on the next contract? What happens to those "eventual" lower insurance costs when you see the first 0-2 year FO's assigned to the A350 left seat, for example.

A single payscale is obviously agreeable to the company, since the west division already has one. Fashioned correctly, it would reduce costs to the company, increase compensation to everyone, provide incentives for upgrading, disincentives for switching aircraft, and provide insurance in case of downsizing.

I'm sure the company would agree to two pay scales - captain and FO. To reduce costs, that would mean top rate lower than the current east contract, at least to the amendable date of a new contract. There's no free lunch - you can't increase pay for nearly everyone on the east list and convince the company that "We'll gladly pay you in 5-10 years for a hamburger today." There's just too much uncertainty in this industry for management to sign off on potential savings a decade down the road to offset real cost increases today. At least not beyond whatever they're willing to pay for a single contract.

Just the $180/hr TOS for captains would cost over $40 million a year since nearly all pilots on the east list have over 15 years LOS.

And that's my opinion...

Jim

 

[PullUp]

$40 million? Is that all? Maybe I should increase the numbers! That's less than the CEO gets for dry cleaning reimbursement, isn't it?
I think you misinterpret my meaning with my proposal. These scales would be a basis for further increases with the payback being the normalization of the distribution ( not having so many at capt TOS should keep pay costs flat while increasing the rate for all).
The company (read: insurance underwriter) can always specify minimum seniority per position...i.e., must have 3 years for 190 capt, 5 years for 320 capt, and 7 years for 330 capt. Entirely up to the company and its insurers.
As you probably can figure out, I'm not particularly interested in saving more money for mgmt to line their pockets with. The pilots on both sides of the fence have been working for discount rates for too long. As far as I'm concerned, we deserve some payback. It's all about the W2 now.
Potential solutions need to be discussed, but not dismissed because "that's not the way we do it here...", or "mgmt will never go for that..." That attitude is self-defeating and worse than that - negotiating with yourself - an activity mgmt loves us to participate in.
As an aside, the dollar ain't worth what it used to be worth. Fuel at 4x 1994 rates, Food at 4x 1994 rates, Autos at 4x 1994 rates. Following this reasoning, our pay should be 4x 1994 rates. I know that is not realistic, but it illustrates how pilot pay has diminished to the point where this profession is no longer desireable to new entrants.
Pay needs to increase, but by how much is a matter for negotiators. I'm just throwing out ideas.
So, yep, costs are going up, no doubt about it. When the huge contract concessions were put before the membership way back when, the mantra from the negotiators was: give now, and you will be around to reap the rewards later. I'm ready. I'm ready to be able to pay for my kids college, take a vacation, buy a decent car, pay off my credit cards, and save for retirement - none of which is possible now living on 1994 wages.
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

$40 million? Is that all? Maybe I should increase the numbers!

Believe whatever you like - it makes no difference to me. If you want to believe that you can increase everyone's pay, keep or improve other things and still decrease costs, go for that fantasy. It'll just be one more disappointment but you should be used to that by now...

Jim