Guest rance Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 I guess according to mr.Beaulieu no one in Canada has earned their wings unless they've flown for air canada. There were alot of angry private pilots that didn't appreciate his comments (not to mention professional pilots). I guess he got tired of hearing "size matters" from the ladies in his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Washington Irving Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Yeah, I guess you are right. By the way, does anyone have the statistics on what an acceptable failure rate is on new types being introduced to a fleet whose pilots are sooooooo experienced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Washington Irving Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 I guess you are right... On a completely unrelated topic, what is the normal failure rate for highly experienced crews transitioning to a new fleet type? Is 50% normal? How much would that cost the training department? That certainly has to cut into the bottom line somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 The normal failure rate is extremely low. Not a factor amongst professional airline pilots (JAZZ and AC). IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 "Yes and my but hasn't rm done a wonderful job." That's not the point. What happens to him is entirely the BOD's decision. If he's ever replaced, his successor will probably make as much as money as what he's making now. The reason is that it's not everybody who can tackle that job. Most would be instant failures, with disastrous consquences to everyone, including me and 40,000 others. The CEO has the _responsibility_ for the company with the billions of dollars of cash flow. It wont be worth any successful manager's time and effort to tackle the immense problems at AC without adequate compensation. The BOD isn't about to hire a CEO who's got no experience in these matters. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 "I guess according to mr.Beaulieu no one in Canada has earned their wings unless they've flown for air canada." It _is_ an insulting and patronizing attitude on the part of an ACPA officer. It shows an elitism that's actually harmful to the company. Being hired at one or the other is mainly a matter of being at the right place at the right time. I can tell you that skill levels and judgement at the mainline don't necessarily beat everything I've seen elsewhere. It's partly AC's fault, as they usually start the brainwash process during the 550 (introductory) course. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 “Now, why do I think that flying a bigger aircraft should warrant more money? Because if you screw up you can potentially kill more people... that's why.” That statement is only true if said crash doesn’t cause any collateral damage. It’s all a bunch of bs anyway. I’m most interested in getting my butt safely to the gate. If it arrives in one piece, so do those I carry in trail regardless of their numbers. ”The other factor is strictly dollars and cents. It would be good to pay all pilots the same. However, if you paid the Dash-8 Captain the same salary as a 747 captain, you'd have to sell an awful lot of tickets to break even. (This, by the way, is the reason why the 50 seat RJ's are inappropriate for the mainline, IMO).” Status pay shares the wealth respecting the professional qualifications of your colleague instead of awarding max bucks to the very few that are fortunate enough to get to hold top dog posts. ”Then, you do want persons of superior experience on bigger aircraft to actually want to take on the responsibility of taking care of all of those persons and make the front page if they screw up; for the same pay, who would do it for any length of time? Why don't we even pay captains and F/O's the same? Because of responsibility.” Again, that’s BS and I’ll use BA as an example. They have status pay which seems to result in the juniors flying the long haul gigs on the heavy’s and the seniors on the short haul narrow body ac. “Neil From England” is a case in point. In fact and correct me if I’m wrong but, doesn’t BA give up that last five or more years of “experience” in favour of a “freedom 55” retirement policy? YOS pay makes up for the benefit the corp realizes through a pilots growing experience. ”Remember, a super-tanker captain makes more money than a dorey captain. For the same pay, I'd pick the dorey because I could be home every night, and I wouldn't have to put up with the responsibility.” Welcome to the BA / Jazz way of doing business. ”You could say the same thing about our RM. Why does he make so much money, comparatively? Because he's responsible for a company with a cash flow of billions of dollars, affecting many creditors, shareholders and employees.” Why then does he make the bucks? He crashed the plane and when the wreckage is located we’ll know the fate of its 40,000 pax! DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 "Why then does he make the bucks? He crashed the plane and when the wreckage is located we’ll know the fate of its 40,000 pax!" The matter that he may have failed has nothing to do with it. When he took on the job, he was awarded pay that matched his responsibilities. At that point, failure has considerable financial consequences for him personally. Your argument has to do with hindsight. Of course, had we known that he was going to fail, we wouldn't have paid him that much in the first place; in fact, he never would have been hired. But who would you have put in his place? First, you have to attract the CEO who has the expertise to run your business successfully. If you don't pay the bucks, you'll get who you deserve. Anyway, you can't blame it entierly on RM. There were many outside factors, and even internal ones, like his employer, the BOD. About BA, it's true that the relatively junior pilots tend to fly the bigger A/C. But it's up to management to consider the cost-benefit. Experience counts IMO, and if I was running things, I would rather have my most experienced pilots fly the bigger aircraft because of the relative liability, and you have to pay them adequately to entice them to accept the position. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhunter Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 The pay for size concept makes for an interesting debate. Is it a function of increased responcibility or simply economics…the bigger and faster the aircraft the less aircraft needed, the greater the revenue/cost ratio for the employer and consequently the higher remuneration. Add a seniority system and potential litigation and we are where we are. What is the free market value of an Aurora crew commander? Is Seaking flying more or less demanding than long haul oceanic? Personally, having had the pleasure of being exposed to all three I can say that the Seaking was far and away by far the most demanding flying in my career to date. Hoisting people off the heaving deck of a sinking freighter in the North Atlantic at 0300 Hrs. is a bit of an adrenalin rush. I have yet to be scared in a commercial airliner and sincerely hope that trend continues. Seems to me that to date, the more difficult the job the less I was paid. Hope it’s different for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rance Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 If an airbus crew flies 300 people to cancun in a day (return flight), and a dash-8 crew does 6 legs in a day, arn't both crews carrying 300 people per day.Why the pay difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skirt Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 This article distorts the truth. AC RJ pay is close to what the Jazz guys get paid. (We don't pay them 747 wages!) With our new TA, the 12th year (max) RJ capt hourly rate will be $98.00, and stay there for 6 years! How is that compared to the Jazz capt rate? How I love the Press! Don't ever let the truth get in the way of a good article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 The dash-8 Crew can only kill them 34 at a time if they make a serious error. The 320 crew can wipe out 180. In terms of liability in tort the numerical difference is huge. Is it the submission of the dash-8 drivers that they ought to be paid the same as the 320 guy or the 340 guy? If that is the case the PA31-350 driver ought to be paid more than the dash-8 captain and the 340 Captain. Single pilot IFR at night into 2400 foot gravel runways lit with flare pots off of a circiling NDB now that's a helluva lot more difficult than driving a dash-8 or 340 into YYZ. I guess the PA31-350 pilot ought to make more. Some kid out of the states just signed a 90 million dollar deal to play basketball and you guys think airline pilots get paid inappropriately? This is a stupid argument being made by a trade union attempting to raid the work of another trade union. In the end the profession will be destroyed and you will all be working for 50K per year. As I have said before enjoy the view gentlemen because that is all you will have. That article in the Globe and Mail yesterday made pilots look like idiots. It is my intention to get back into the airline business as management; with morons like the guys in the Globe willing to sell themselves as the lowest bidder I can make alot of money employing people with that kind of mentality. The world needs sheep and aviation is full of them. As Michael Douglas said in Wall Street "Sheep get slaughtered." Labtec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "If an airbus crew flies 300 people to cancun in a day (return flight), and a dash-8 crew does 6 legs in a day, arn't both crews carrying 300 people per day.Why the pay difference?" Simply because more revenue is being generated by the larger aircraft, so there's more money to pay the crew. Conversely, an airline couldn't possibly make any money given the margins if it paid Dash-8 pilots the same money as the big airplane crew. Remember, the Dash-8 may have flown 300 persons that day, but each over 150 miles only, whereas the 300 in the airbus would have flown over nearly 4000 miles return. That's 1,200,000 Revenue Passenger Miles for the Airbus, versus 45,000 for the Dash-8. The airbus passengers would also have paid considerably more for their tickets than the dash-8 passengers, especially considering that a significant number of dash-8 passengers would have interlined. Seniority pay is realy an averaging out. The pilots who fly the big planes make less than elsewhere, whereas the ones flying the small ones get paid more that elsewhere. If the company got rid of the big planes, do you think that they would keep on paying the small plane pilots the same?, no because the pay savings on the big plane would not be able to subsidize the extra cost on the small plane anymore. Now consider if Jazz did get the 110 seat RJ's. Is there an agreement to raise the seniority based pay, since the higher RPM's on those types could potentially better cross subsidize the dash-8's. What if the props were dropped and nothing but jets were kept. Would the seniority based pay go up because the airline produces more revenue? In the long term, you have a can of worms on your hand. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "If an airbus crew flies 300 people to cancun in a day (return flight), and a dash-8 crew does 6 legs in a day, arn't both crews carrying 300 people per day.Why the pay difference?" Simply because more revenue is being generated by the larger aircraft, so there's more money to pay the crew. Conversely, an airline couldn't possibly make any money given the margins if it paid Dash-8 pilots the same money as the big airplane crew. Remember, the Dash-8 may have flown 300 persons that day, but each over 150 miles only, whereas the 300 in the airbus would have flown over nearly 4000 miles return. That's 1,200,000 Revenue Passenger Miles for the Airbus, versus 45,000 for the Dash-8. The airbus passengers would also have paid considerably more for their tickets than the dash-8 passengers, especially considering that a significant number of dash-8 passengers would have interlined. Seniority pay is realy an averaging out. The pilots who fly the big planes make less than elsewhere, whereas the ones flying the small ones get paid more that elsewhere. If the company got rid of the big planes, do you think that they would keep on paying the small plane pilots the same?, no because the pay savings on the big plane would not be able to subsidize the extra cost on the small plane anymore. Now consider if Jazz did get the 110 seat RJ's. Is there an agreement to raise the seniority based pay, since the higher RPM's on those types could potentially better cross subsidize the dash-8's. What if the props were dropped and nothing but jets were kept. Would the seniority based pay go up because the airline produces more revenue? In the long term, you have a can of worms on your hand. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "The airbus passengers would also have paid considerably more for their tickets than the dash-8 passengers, especially considering that a significant number of dash-8 passengers would have interlined." Say what brother? Check the fares out. That little Dash has done very well from the profit per seat mile for our airline because the yield is better. AO did over a billion in revenue turning back tens of millions to AC so that AC could continue to provide raises and bonus payments to its staff. It's kind of funny when you think of it, the airline that constantly lost money was giving a larger and larger cut of the diminishing take to the emnployee's. Now why is the company in trouble today? Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Labtec, It would appear that the Jazz pilots could actually increase their pay rates and still be below your current contract rates. So, in order to "capture the work" ACPA will have to significantly Lower their standards. Who's ruining who?? I don't think that ALPA is Lowering the Bar, they have merely ducked a bit to clear the obstacle. If ACPA keeps the bar nice and high for the work they do, or end up with, it will provide for a target level when the company eventually is righted and the profits again justify the pay. GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 You didn't address my questions about what happens to your seniority based pay when there are major fleet changes. I guess there's no upside; just a downside... "That little Dash has done very well from the profit per seat mile for our airline because the yield is better." Yield doesn't answer the question. You have to compare the crew costs per Revenue Seat Mile. A wide body's RSM per hour is roughly 10 times what it is on a turboprop, and pilots are paid by the hour. So the flight crew costs per revenue seat mile would be 10 times higher on the turboprop, given the same hourly pay. So there's less money for Dash pilots because you can increase fares only so much with fewer numbers of passengers (RPM's). Anyway, yields are plunging, especially on short haul routes, because of competition by WJ and CJ. Nothing against Dash's. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "This article distorts the truth. AC RJ pay is close to what the Jazz guys get paid. (We don't pay them 747 wages!) With our new TA, the 12th year (max) RJ capt hourly rate will be $98.00, and stay there for 6 years! How is that compared to the Jazz capt rate? How I love the Press! Don't ever let the truth get in the way of a good article! " It's your posting that distorts the truth - tell us how many AC RJ Capts are actually on the RJ pay scale past year 4. They're all getting paid as 320 FOs, right? The scale is meaningless if nobody is actually on it and besides the hourly rate is only one part of crew cost. Factor in: crews/aircraft, productivety, benefits etc and then you get the "Truth". seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skirt Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Seeker, Truth: I don't know how many are paid 320 FO rates, but for your info the rate will be around $110/hr (max years) after the TA takes affect. Still COMPARABLE to Jazz. ($92/hour next year to $108/hr in 2008) I was only commenting on the article and how it would leave the impression that all AC Capts make 250K and don't do multiple legs in a day etc (big assumption and so very not true!). It didn't address the other things you alluded (sp?) to in your post, and neither will I, since I don't have the info on both sides to draw an accurate conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest buskipper Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 One thing that Beaulieu didn't mention is ACPA's move-up agreement that allows Jazz pilots to get credit with up to four years of service time. Such a Jazz pilot will start at $57,000/year, be able to buy back his pension, and have not interuption in his travel privileges. All he has to do is meet the minimum requirements by passing a standard pilot interview and meet the performance requirements. Over 600 former Jazz pilots have moved up under this agreement and several hundred (I think) under the CAIL/CRA move-up agreement. Almost all major airlines in the US have this type of an agreement in place. You have to wonder why someone would not take advantage of this program. It's obviously a personal choice to apply or not. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 “You didn't address my questions about what happens to your seniority based pay when there are major fleet changes. I guess there's no upside; just a downside...” Personally, I don’t see the downside. If the corp is willing to pay me a good buck (as they do) for the job I do today, I’m willing to fly a bigger and better machine for the same coin I get today. Under that scenario I have only one other expectation that I consider reasonable. The new profit sharing plan should compensate me according to the success of the new Jazz. ”"That little Dash has done very well from the profit per seat mile for our airline because the yield is better." Yield doesn't answer the question. You have to compare the crew costs per Revenue Seat Mile. A wide body's RSM per hour is roughly 10 times what it is on a turboprop, and pilots are paid by the hour. So the flight crew costs per revenue seat mile would be 10 times higher on the turboprop, given the same hourly pay. So there's less money for Dash pilots because you can increase fares only so much with fewer numbers of passengers (RPM's).” With the fares of today it’s really difficult to quantify the yield per arguments. All I know for certain is that AO made tons of money for the parent corp using D8’s exclusively. For one reason or another, AC failed to provide any positive return on its operations regardless of any analogy that might be applied to the argument. ”Anyway, yields are plunging, especially on short haul routes, because of competition by WJ and CJ.” Yes they are. Had ACPA not been allowed to rule the roost AC may have been able to allow Jazz to effectively compete from the start with WJ et al perhaps avoiding the present circumstance we now all find ourselves in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Thank you for your opinion. Beaulieu also failed to describe the Picher fiasco. If you take Picher into account you won't be left wondering why "someone would not take advantage of this program" of ACPA's creation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "Yes they are. Had ACPA not been allowed to rule the roost AC may have been able to allow Jazz to effectively compete from the start with WJ et al perhaps avoiding the present circumstance we now all find ourselves in." Let's get this straight: I loathe ACPA. You're absolutely right about them ruling the roost. The RJ's didn't fit in the operation. One sign was that nobody wanted to fly them, as the seniority in both left and right seats was rock bottom. I also do think, that it was disingenuous for the OAC group and their representatives to beging the process of a merger when the times were not good, only to back off and eventually scuttle the union because they didn't want to accept the reverse during improving conditions. ACPA, and their founders especially, are responsible for taking their constituents as much as 20 years back when they tore up the CALPA contract ten years ago. What was left of the working conditions, they had difficulty having respected because the contract language is so vague at times. The lack of respect that the company has for the contract has a lot to do with ACPA not taking a stand on upholding it. That being said, I think that seniority based pay for you guys is not a good idea in the long term, since it will be very difficult to have your collective salaries raised in the event bigger aircraft arrive. If the average size of the aircraft did get smaller overall, you can bet that the company would want to reduce your salaries immediately. There's also going to be resentment in the future, when your group discovers that your pay for flying comparable equipment is going to turn out to be the lowest in the developped world. Regards, Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest buskipper Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Def, Actually, I try not to offer personal opinions and instead try to report only the facts. Beaulieu wasn't even at AC when the Picher Award came out. However, he was smart enough to realize the benefits of the move-up agreement. As I am sure you know, a number of former Jazz management and even some union guys made the transition too. ACPA's creation? Only because the ALPA team at Jazz has refused to even discuss it. Now that they seem to have embraced scope clauses maybe they will one day want to sit down and improve the move-up agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 All I said was "Beaulieu failed to describe.." nothing about his AC DOH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.