You are absolutely correct, it had nothing to do with aircraft economics, intended route structure, aquisition cost etc, etc. It was all about the payscale.
Jetblue To Reconsider E190 Order
- Thread starter ISP
- Start date
You are absolutely correct, it had nothing to do with aircraft economics, intended route structure, aquisition cost etc, etc. It was all about the payscale.
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2004
- 160
- 0
Jetz:
Another BS flag at FULL staff.
What kind of idiot, orders a brand new jet with all the complexities of putting it on the certificate, proving tests, parts supplies, pilot training costs....you get the point don't you......because of "pilot pay creep"?
This "creep" as you so eloquently put it, amounts to $300 bucks per pilot/ per month assuming a 90 hour line and a 3 buck an hour raise per year.
The 318 would have paid LESS. Every carrier I have worked for paid a couple bucks an hour more or less for larger or smaller variants of the same type. Ask an American pilot about their pay for the MD-80.
I wasn't present at the meeting where the Embraer was decided upon.....put it this way. I have been in the jet and it makes a normal RJ look like a Cessna. Next time you have the chance to get in one, I recommend it.
Boomer
Another BS flag at FULL staff.
What kind of idiot, orders a brand new jet with all the complexities of putting it on the certificate, proving tests, parts supplies, pilot training costs....you get the point don't you......because of "pilot pay creep"?
This "creep" as you so eloquently put it, amounts to $300 bucks per pilot/ per month assuming a 90 hour line and a 3 buck an hour raise per year.
The 318 would have paid LESS. Every carrier I have worked for paid a couple bucks an hour more or less for larger or smaller variants of the same type. Ask an American pilot about their pay for the MD-80.
I wasn't present at the meeting where the Embraer was decided upon.....put it this way. I have been in the jet and it makes a normal RJ look like a Cessna. Next time you have the chance to get in one, I recommend it.
Boomer
Salmon37
Member
- Oct 22, 2005
- 17
- 0
I guess I never considered that angle. However, I still think single type fleet simplicity trumps the other arguments. It works for LUV.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
A little quick with the trigger there... hey Boomer???
First of all your $300 bucks/pilot/month is way off. Try comparing 5 year capt/fo rates on the 320 with 5 year capt/fo rates on the RJ and then recalculate it.
As for pay rates, I don't know what airlines you've worked for (only can assume not many majors) but every airline I've worked for has the same rates for the same equipment. When I flew for TWA. The DC9-10, -30, -50, -60 and the MD82 and MD82G all paid the same. At UA the 319 & 320 pay the same and are interchangeable for scheduling purposes. No seperate 319 and 320 crews (Didn't think of that one did you?). The 737 pays the same as the Airbus too. The 757, 767-200, &-300 all pay the same and are again interchangeable for scheduling.
Delta is in the process of simplifying their fleets and will be heading the same direction. Continental has had 2 pay scales, widebody & narrowbody, for a long time.
So spare me the lecture, rookie. Your idea that every airplane has it's own rate is outdated at best. B6 management most certainly crunched the numbers on that before choosing another airplane. And the long term savings from having a "big airplane" / "small airplane" pay scale is significant. Especially when there is a fine line between the mission these airplanes are capable of.
They would not have been able to pull that off with the 318. Can anyone on this board imagine 2 pilots of same or similar seniority, trained in the identical airplane (as far the FAA is concerned), able to go from one airplane to the other from leg to leg without any regard for what's on the other side of the cockpit door, yet one earns half of what the other does?
As far as a single fleet type goes, consider that LUV has many different configurations of the 737 (300, 500, 700) etc. These aircraft also range significantly in age. A 15 year old 737/300 is a whole lot different than a brand new 700. Parts are in many cases not the same.
Look at it this way, Ford has produced the mustang since the 1960's, and still produces it today. Tell me how similar is brand new 2006 GT to a 1967 fastback? Sure the same guy can drive either one, but the car itself is a whole different animal altogether.
I wouldn't get too fired up over a 2nd fleet type.
v1
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2004
- 160
- 0
767Jetz:
Before you inflate your chest, remember the fact that you know squat about me....you have no idea how long I have worked for a major, have no idea about my experience level....nothing. I have flown for 3 majors for a combined total of almost 17 years. If this makes me a rookie in your eyes, then so be it.
What you do know is from your perspective. AA still pays their pilots based on the aircraft type. At my former carrier, a CRJ200 paid less than a CRJ700....same aircraft for scheduling and FAA purposes. At my former carrier before that, the 737-300 paid less than the -400. The 757 paid less than the 767.....both the same for FAA and scheduling purposes.
Of course there are exceptions. CAL is one. UPS is another. USAirways pays aircraft in groups now. This was initially done to keep guys from bidding the MD-80 to get another 4 bucks an hour. ($340/month) and spending 10K of the company's cash training them.
My $300/month is dead on.....it is comparing a $3/hr raise from a one year increase in longevity including premium pay. You are comparing a 100 seat jet to a 156 seat jet. JB set the 190 pay based on the seating capacity. First year Bus CA is like 110.....190 is like 72. Do the math. It is nowhere near half.
The 190 is for longer, thinner routes where frequency will make the difference. 600 seats a day in a market only yield 4 BUS departures but yield 6 E190 departures. I am sure they crunched the numbers and the numbers favored the E190. Further, as another poster mentioned, there are many costs associated with aircraft weight. Landing fees for instance....fuel burn....etc. The 318 would have like 120 seats.....so you need another flight attendant. Lots of variables that you nor I are aware of.
The fact that you call it an RJ shows how far off base you are. JB management kept the RJ moniker off the jet because they don't want the customers to think of it as an RJ.
Personally, I think the 318 might have made more sense too, but as I said I wasn't privvy to the pros and cons.
Boomer
Before you inflate your chest, remember the fact that you know squat about me....you have no idea how long I have worked for a major, have no idea about my experience level....nothing. I have flown for 3 majors for a combined total of almost 17 years. If this makes me a rookie in your eyes, then so be it.
What you do know is from your perspective. AA still pays their pilots based on the aircraft type. At my former carrier, a CRJ200 paid less than a CRJ700....same aircraft for scheduling and FAA purposes. At my former carrier before that, the 737-300 paid less than the -400. The 757 paid less than the 767.....both the same for FAA and scheduling purposes.
Of course there are exceptions. CAL is one. UPS is another. USAirways pays aircraft in groups now. This was initially done to keep guys from bidding the MD-80 to get another 4 bucks an hour. ($340/month) and spending 10K of the company's cash training them.
My $300/month is dead on.....it is comparing a $3/hr raise from a one year increase in longevity including premium pay. You are comparing a 100 seat jet to a 156 seat jet. JB set the 190 pay based on the seating capacity. First year Bus CA is like 110.....190 is like 72. Do the math. It is nowhere near half.
The 190 is for longer, thinner routes where frequency will make the difference. 600 seats a day in a market only yield 4 BUS departures but yield 6 E190 departures. I am sure they crunched the numbers and the numbers favored the E190. Further, as another poster mentioned, there are many costs associated with aircraft weight. Landing fees for instance....fuel burn....etc. The 318 would have like 120 seats.....so you need another flight attendant. Lots of variables that you nor I are aware of.
The fact that you call it an RJ shows how far off base you are. JB management kept the RJ moniker off the jet because they don't want the customers to think of it as an RJ.
Personally, I think the 318 might have made more sense too, but as I said I wasn't privvy to the pros and cons.
Boomer
B
B.O.B.
Guest
Reality hurts that Neelman and his buddies are shafting the JB Pilots on this gig!
767jetz, is 100% correct on the pay/ac type he mentioned. Do you think JB is going to pay the pilots the same rate on the 190 and the 320? Maybe you should go and smoke what Neelman is smoking!
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
First of all Boomer, you fired the first volley with this comment:
My assumption about your experience was predicated on your simplistic analysis of the issue. Please forgive the error of my observation that your knowledge of airlines is not commensurate with your years of experience.
Your fixation on the $3/hour raise is not Germaine to my point. Labor cost is historically the largest expense to an airline. Recently it has become second only to fuel cost. This is why the first place management comes to save money is the employees. With Jet Blue at the break even point and on the verge of losing money, don’t you think the #1 and #2 costs of the airline would be at the top of the considerations when making strategic decisions?
With a fleet of only Airbus, there is only one direction for cost to go… up. Even if it is only a few bucks per hour per pilot. I am not comparing a 100 seat jet (E190) with a 156 seat jet (A320). I am referring to the A318, which depending on seat pitch is barely over 100. I flew the 320 and 319. There is not even so much as differences training between the types. Can you show me one airline that pays differently for the A318/A319/A320/A321? So by choosing the E190 they were able to establish a much lower pay scale than if they chose the 318. This is VERY significant and DID play an important part in their selection process.
According to Airline Pilot Central the difference between the E190 and Airbus is $3920 per captain per month, and $2480 per f/o per month. That is just straight pay assuming 80 hours and no overtime. Add 3% 401K contribution and the numbers climb to $4038 and $2554 respectively. That’s and average of $3395 per pilot per month (at least).
So the answer your question, “What kind of idiot?†I guess would be Jet Blue's CEO.
My assumption about your experience was predicated on your simplistic analysis of the issue. Please forgive the error of my observation that your knowledge of airlines is not commensurate with your years of experience.
Your fixation on the $3/hour raise is not Germaine to my point. Labor cost is historically the largest expense to an airline. Recently it has become second only to fuel cost. This is why the first place management comes to save money is the employees. With Jet Blue at the break even point and on the verge of losing money, don’t you think the #1 and #2 costs of the airline would be at the top of the considerations when making strategic decisions?
With a fleet of only Airbus, there is only one direction for cost to go… up. Even if it is only a few bucks per hour per pilot. I am not comparing a 100 seat jet (E190) with a 156 seat jet (A320). I am referring to the A318, which depending on seat pitch is barely over 100. I flew the 320 and 319. There is not even so much as differences training between the types. Can you show me one airline that pays differently for the A318/A319/A320/A321? So by choosing the E190 they were able to establish a much lower pay scale than if they chose the 318. This is VERY significant and DID play an important part in their selection process.
According to Airline Pilot Central the difference between the E190 and Airbus is $3920 per captain per month, and $2480 per f/o per month. That is just straight pay assuming 80 hours and no overtime. Add 3% 401K contribution and the numbers climb to $4038 and $2554 respectively. That’s and average of $3395 per pilot per month (at least).
So the answer your question, “What kind of idiot?†I guess would be Jet Blue's CEO.
While I'm certain that the 190s (and 170s as well) are heaven to passengers used to the hell of CRJs, the reality is that they are still lightweight toy jets that are now used on very long thin routes.
When the 737 debuted, it was used as a regional jet. Its range was short and people didn't mind sitting on it for an hour or two.
Then the engineers at Boeing took it to the extreme and now the latest 737s fly transcons and to Hawaii. :down:
Problem was, on shorter feeder routes, the airlines demanded lighter weight, more fuel efficient airplanes. They also wanted to pay the pilots much less money.
So instead of 737s feeding the AA and UA hubs at ORD, during the 1990s we got 19-66 seat turboprops instead of the 737s and 727s that passengers had grown used to.
Passengers didn't think much of turboprops, and airlines, emboldened by cheap fuel in the 1990s (compared to the relative expensive fuel of the early 1980s), signed on to buy large numbers of CRJs and ERJs. Everyone said that pax preferred them to props, but it didn't take long for everyone to realize that the economics of 50 seaters just ain't there.
So the Canadian and Brazilian companies came up with larger toy jets. They are lighter and cheaper than the stubby A318 and 736, neither of which has sold at all. Last time I looked, the A318 had sold a whopping 26 copies, most to Frontier and Mexicana. And Boeing has sold an earth shattering 71 736s.
As a passenger, I would much prefer to sit on a 736 or a 717 than on a 190 or CRJ-90, but that ain't gonna happen, since those are mainline jets and mainline pilots want to be paid (rightfully so, IMO) mainline rates to fly them.
So like lemmings, airline execs are frothing at the prospect of flying 90-100 seat toy jets (big RJs) at reduced pay rates. Add to that the lower landing fees (due to lighter weight) and better fuel economics - and passengers will have to endure more and more of them.
Everyone (except the airline CEOs and CFOs, that is) would have been much happier if A318s, 717s and 736s had replaced the 50 seaters. Duh. But with lightweight toy jets now seating 90-100 pax and costing many millions less than any of the 717, A318 or 736, the airlines are gonna buy the toy jets every time.
Neeleman hopes to prove wrong the conventional wisdom that low-cost airlines ought to stick to one single fleet type to keep costs down. I completely agree with Busdrvr. I personally hope Neeleman fails, and fails miserably. And I'm a B6 stockholder (stupid me).
When the 737 debuted, it was used as a regional jet. Its range was short and people didn't mind sitting on it for an hour or two.
Then the engineers at Boeing took it to the extreme and now the latest 737s fly transcons and to Hawaii. :down:
Problem was, on shorter feeder routes, the airlines demanded lighter weight, more fuel efficient airplanes. They also wanted to pay the pilots much less money.
So instead of 737s feeding the AA and UA hubs at ORD, during the 1990s we got 19-66 seat turboprops instead of the 737s and 727s that passengers had grown used to.
Passengers didn't think much of turboprops, and airlines, emboldened by cheap fuel in the 1990s (compared to the relative expensive fuel of the early 1980s), signed on to buy large numbers of CRJs and ERJs. Everyone said that pax preferred them to props, but it didn't take long for everyone to realize that the economics of 50 seaters just ain't there.
So the Canadian and Brazilian companies came up with larger toy jets. They are lighter and cheaper than the stubby A318 and 736, neither of which has sold at all. Last time I looked, the A318 had sold a whopping 26 copies, most to Frontier and Mexicana. And Boeing has sold an earth shattering 71 736s.
As a passenger, I would much prefer to sit on a 736 or a 717 than on a 190 or CRJ-90, but that ain't gonna happen, since those are mainline jets and mainline pilots want to be paid (rightfully so, IMO) mainline rates to fly them.
So like lemmings, airline execs are frothing at the prospect of flying 90-100 seat toy jets (big RJs) at reduced pay rates. Add to that the lower landing fees (due to lighter weight) and better fuel economics - and passengers will have to endure more and more of them.
Everyone (except the airline CEOs and CFOs, that is) would have been much happier if A318s, 717s and 736s had replaced the 50 seaters. Duh. But with lightweight toy jets now seating 90-100 pax and costing many millions less than any of the 717, A318 or 736, the airlines are gonna buy the toy jets every time.
Neeleman hopes to prove wrong the conventional wisdom that low-cost airlines ought to stick to one single fleet type to keep costs down. I completely agree with Busdrvr. I personally hope Neeleman fails, and fails miserably. And I'm a B6 stockholder (stupid me).
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2004
- 160
- 0
767:
Your fixation on the pay issue is perplexing.....all airlines sans LUV have different aircraft that they pay different rates on. I do agree that if there were 318's on the property, they would pay a SIMILAR rate. However, this is only one part of the equation.
The different aircraft, same pay concept is fairly new. AMR still pays their pilots based on the aircraft they fly, not in groups. Your assumption is that JB management decided to buy an aircraft STRICTLY based on what they could pay the pilots. This is an absurd assumption. As you know, smaller aircraft are inherently less efficient from a cost perspective. However, this aircraft is going to be used in markets that wouldn't support an airbus profitably, at least initially.
Your arguement is akin to UAL flying 767's from ORD-PIT instead of a 737 because of the fleet simplification issue. It must then be a conspiracy to defraud the pilot group of pay.
Since the 717 and 318 order books are almost empty sans a few orders, one can only conclude that the aircraft was uncompetitive based on CASM. Pilot pay is only one part of that equation.
Boomer
Your fixation on the pay issue is perplexing.....all airlines sans LUV have different aircraft that they pay different rates on. I do agree that if there were 318's on the property, they would pay a SIMILAR rate. However, this is only one part of the equation.
The different aircraft, same pay concept is fairly new. AMR still pays their pilots based on the aircraft they fly, not in groups. Your assumption is that JB management decided to buy an aircraft STRICTLY based on what they could pay the pilots. This is an absurd assumption. As you know, smaller aircraft are inherently less efficient from a cost perspective. However, this aircraft is going to be used in markets that wouldn't support an airbus profitably, at least initially.
Your arguement is akin to UAL flying 767's from ORD-PIT instead of a 737 because of the fleet simplification issue. It must then be a conspiracy to defraud the pilot group of pay.
Since the 717 and 318 order books are almost empty sans a few orders, one can only conclude that the aircraft was uncompetitive based on CASM. Pilot pay is only one part of that equation.
Boomer
I was on the 170 at USAirways and I can attest it's a great airplane pax wise. The problem is the software attached to it. The same problems had been and continue to be on going with the aircraft. The two years I was there I never once saw a tech. rep on the line. Re boot and re boot. It was the CTL-ALT-DEL aircraft.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Really? ALL airlines, huh? Well at UA we don't. Neither at TWA, USAirways, Northwest, Continental, Frontier, and many others. Sorry, but you are just daed wrong on that statement. I am not fixated on the pay issue. Only that as the second highest cost behind fuel, it is a very major consideration. Beyond the initial investment, the savings in pay by selecting the E190 over the A318 is significant and continues to grow year over year well into the future.
Good. Then you see my point that even IF they paid slightly less for flying the A318, they pay MUCH less (40% less to be exact) for the E190.
Once again you are off base. I never said it was STRICTLY the reason they selected the E190. I assert that it is a very major consideration. I assert that there is FAR more precident in the industry that supports equal pay for the A318/A320 than a separate pay scale for the same type rating.("sans" American Airlines). I also assert that JB pilots are only playing into the hands of their management by not negotiating better payrates for themselves and not reversing the trend of lower employee pay to support lower fares.
And why do you think the A318 would be unprofitable? What is it that makes the E190 CASM lower even with it's "inherent inefficiencies?" As you yourself point out, these smaller planes are less efficient on a per seat basis. The CASM is lowered not by reduced landing fees but by reduced crew cost.
The A318 would reduce training costs (pilots, fa's, ground support,etc.etc.), maintenance support, eliminate the cost of adding a new type certificate, and many other factors. And with the low demand I'm sure Airbus would have parctically given the jets away. OK, so as a lighter airplane the 190 might have lower landing fees and a bit lower specific fuel consumption. This is a fraction of the CASM. So I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and say that over time (a long time IMO) those factors would make it a wash. So what's left in the CASM equation? Yup... you guessed it! Labor cost. In fact I challenge you to name just one other component in the CASM factor, that the company has control over, that has as large an affect on CASM as labor cost.
If pilot pay is so insignificant, as you imply, why not pay the pilots just a few bucks less than the 320? Why 40% less? Can you imagine a JB A318 pilot making 40% less than a JB A320 pilot? There would be a revolution.
The bottom line no matter how you try to argue it is that the E190 is slightly more efficient than the A318 operationally, more expensive in aquistion/training, and 40% less expensive in crew cost (compliments of the JB pilots).
peace,
767jetz
CaptianBoomer
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2004
- 160
- 0
Jetz:
The reason the 190 pays 40% less is that it has 40% FEWER seats. I would guarantee that if they had chosen the 318, it would pay 20% less as it has 20% fewer seats. You are forgetting that in most cases, pilot pay on an aircraft was based on speed, weight, and seating capacity. Therefore a 747 paid more than a 707. The 190 is lighter and has fewer seats. Everything today pretty much goes the same speed.
You miss a few things when it comes to costs. Yes, the 190 is lighter. Therefore lower landing fees. Landing fees really add up with a high frequency service pattern. Lower fuel consumption. The 190 only has two flight attendants. It has a roomy cabin with seat pitch and width that exceed the Airbus. There are NO middle seats. The 320 that JB flies has 156 seats. The 318 would have 120 or so. This aircraft was deemed to have too much capacity. The company wanted a true 100 seat airplane.
Today the rates at U are in groups. Even with the groups, the 319 paid the base rate and the 320 and 321 paid more. Not so any more. UAL may pay the same for the 757 and 767, however it wasn't that way pre BK at either. The CRJ200 at PSA pays less than the CRJ700.
The 190 model is based on assumptions. The company placed the pay on the 190 so that it would generate profits for the company. The airbus only paid $80/hr when JB started. Lets revisit this after fuel is normal price and JB is making money with the 190. Then you can call us underpaid hacks.
Boomer
The reason the 190 pays 40% less is that it has 40% FEWER seats. I would guarantee that if they had chosen the 318, it would pay 20% less as it has 20% fewer seats. You are forgetting that in most cases, pilot pay on an aircraft was based on speed, weight, and seating capacity. Therefore a 747 paid more than a 707. The 190 is lighter and has fewer seats. Everything today pretty much goes the same speed.
You miss a few things when it comes to costs. Yes, the 190 is lighter. Therefore lower landing fees. Landing fees really add up with a high frequency service pattern. Lower fuel consumption. The 190 only has two flight attendants. It has a roomy cabin with seat pitch and width that exceed the Airbus. There are NO middle seats. The 320 that JB flies has 156 seats. The 318 would have 120 or so. This aircraft was deemed to have too much capacity. The company wanted a true 100 seat airplane.
Today the rates at U are in groups. Even with the groups, the 319 paid the base rate and the 320 and 321 paid more. Not so any more. UAL may pay the same for the 757 and 767, however it wasn't that way pre BK at either. The CRJ200 at PSA pays less than the CRJ700.
The 190 model is based on assumptions. The company placed the pay on the 190 so that it would generate profits for the company. The airbus only paid $80/hr when JB started. Lets revisit this after fuel is normal price and JB is making money with the 190. Then you can call us underpaid hacks.
Boomer
"Really? ALL airlines, huh? Well at UA we don't. Neither at TWA, USAirways, Northwest, Continental, Frontier, and many others."
Only recently has those airlines changed to a single payscale or actually combined some ie UA with 73/A320, we both know it was not so in the past. Frontier only operates one specific type, so the issue is not germane, had jetblue operated only one, it would most likely be the same, you pointed this out yourself.
Only recently has those airlines changed to a single payscale or actually combined some ie UA with 73/A320, we both know it was not so in the past. Frontier only operates one specific type, so the issue is not germane, had jetblue operated only one, it would most likely be the same, you pointed this out yourself.
The reason the 190 pays 40% less is that it has 40% FEWER seats. I would guarantee that if they had chosen the 318, it would pay 20% less as it has 20% fewer seats. You are forgetting that in most cases, pilot pay on an aircraft was based on speed, weight, and seating capacity. Therefore a 747 paid more than a 707. The 190 is lighter and has fewer seats. Everything today pretty much goes the same speed.
Thanks for the decision 83 lesson. While I've never solved the simultaneous equations, or run the regression, it's pretty apparent that the formula used by ALPA (which as far as I know does NOT include the number of seats, otherwise Fed Ex would pay nuttin) contains a sizable constant, ie, a theoretical 0 pound jet would pay a positive amount. Likewise, a 747-400 which could be configured to carry 4 times the number of pax (with an MTOGW approx 6 times as much) as a guppy, yet it only paid approx 50% more (1.5 times the guppy rate). If Good ol Dave got a good deal on some 30 seat Jungle Jets, would you be on here explaining to us how the pay rate that is 1/5th that of your A320 make sense? Personally, I think the payband should be FLATTER, not steeper. If the company wants tiny jets, fine. I'd still be away from home just as much, stay in the same crappy hotels, and deal with the same issues, with the added bonus of bigger wake turb issues behind the heavy. ADD Dave played you for fools, and everybody else gets to help pay the tab.
UAL may pay the same for the 757 and 767, however it wasn't that way pre BK at either.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was.
The 190 model is based on assumptions. The company placed the pay on the 190 so that it would generate profits for the company. The airbus only paid $80/hr when JB started. Lets revisit this after fuel is normal price and JB is making money with the 190. Then you can call us underpaid hacks.
which makes it more disturbing that the senior pilots signed on. I guess they were proof of concept that the 190 payrates wouldn't be a problem. What if Dave tells you the company needs A320 rates to be $50 an hour to make a profit? $40? $30? $20? where's your line? do you have one? What does fuel costs have to do with it? Should I go down to the local "loaf and jug" and demand that the cashier give me my gas for $1.50 a gallon and pick up the tab for the rest? Do you think ADD Dave would be raising the 190 rates if he'd hedged fuel? Or do you think he'd be patting himself on the back? why are you paying for his poor business decision? Then again, why do the rest of us have to pay for it? Thanks a lot.... :angry:
Thanks for the decision 83 lesson. While I've never solved the simultaneous equations, or run the regression, it's pretty apparent that the formula used by ALPA (which as far as I know does NOT include the number of seats, otherwise Fed Ex would pay nuttin) contains a sizable constant, ie, a theoretical 0 pound jet would pay a positive amount. Likewise, a 747-400 which could be configured to carry 4 times the number of pax (with an MTOGW approx 6 times as much) as a guppy, yet it only paid approx 50% more (1.5 times the guppy rate). If Good ol Dave got a good deal on some 30 seat Jungle Jets, would you be on here explaining to us how the pay rate that is 1/5th that of your A320 make sense? Personally, I think the payband should be FLATTER, not steeper. If the company wants tiny jets, fine. I'd still be away from home just as much, stay in the same crappy hotels, and deal with the same issues, with the added bonus of bigger wake turb issues behind the heavy. ADD Dave played you for fools, and everybody else gets to help pay the tab.
UAL may pay the same for the 757 and 767, however it wasn't that way pre BK at either.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was.
The 190 model is based on assumptions. The company placed the pay on the 190 so that it would generate profits for the company. The airbus only paid $80/hr when JB started. Lets revisit this after fuel is normal price and JB is making money with the 190. Then you can call us underpaid hacks.
which makes it more disturbing that the senior pilots signed on. I guess they were proof of concept that the 190 payrates wouldn't be a problem. What if Dave tells you the company needs A320 rates to be $50 an hour to make a profit? $40? $30? $20? where's your line? do you have one? What does fuel costs have to do with it? Should I go down to the local "loaf and jug" and demand that the cashier give me my gas for $1.50 a gallon and pick up the tab for the rest? Do you think ADD Dave would be raising the 190 rates if he'd hedged fuel? Or do you think he'd be patting himself on the back? why are you paying for his poor business decision? Then again, why do the rest of us have to pay for it? Thanks a lot.... :angry:
