hollywud Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I would appreciate any and all responses to the following questions. Under the current situation the airline is facing, did ACPA consider revising their pay structure to a YOS system – if not why not? What are the feelings among the pilots at AC vis-à-vis YOS and Formula pay? Thank you in advance for you feedback. Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 The only way a YOS pay system will save the company money is if it comes with significant restrictions on who gets to move on equipment bids. Every time someone retires (in either system), there would be a cascade effect as someone had to fill their spot... and so on, unless a rule came into effect to say that you couldn't just move up one equipment type. By moving to a flat pay system it simply means that, instead of pay being the primary driver for moves to different equipment, seniority becomes the primary driver and pilots would simply try to be as senior as they could on whatever aircraft they could hold with a bit of "size matters" pride mixed in. The real downside for a pilot to a flat pay system is that it has the effect of simulating an airline with one aircraft type. That means that the only times you will be senior in your career is when you are about half way up the list as an F/O and when you become a senior Captain. So, pilots hired later in life will either never be Captains or only very junior ones, regardless as to the aircraft they choose to fly. In the meantime, you don't have the option of accepting lower pay by staying on a more junior aircraft thus getting the ability to get Christmas or summer vacation or weekends off as you do in a multi-fleet system. I would be interested to know how a company like WJ, with a single fleet AND a single base, handles "sharing the wealth" from top to bottom. I would think that their corporate culture would lend itself to sharing rather than "seniority rules". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I think I'm in a unique situation in that I can answer both your questions. I worked with Hollywud for a number of years overseas's in a Status Pay Airline. That Airline has a mix of A330, A321 & A320 Aircraft. There did not seem to be any animosity between the Widebody and the Narrowbody. Quite to the contrary the "better" flying was on the Narrowbody. With the same pay for each type individuals chose the type of flying they prefer. There was, and I suppose still is, a bit of resume building a well. Get the A330 on your license "Just In Case". We at WestJet are paid for the seat we occupy, not the size and weight of the Aircraft. We have one base so there are no bids for preferable bases. We will all be on the -700 eventually, so there is no preferable aircraft type. We have a point system to award vacations so there is no seniority system attached to vacation bids. There is no, "You'll be senior one day, then and you'll get Easter and Christmas off". Geez I hated that... As far as monthly bidding goes, we have a request system, whereby you put in a request for days off and the schedule builders do their best to accomodate you. We have quite a mix of guys and requests and it seems to work very well. Not everybody wants weekends off... All those items I mentioned inchman sees as a problem with equipment bid. If A/C went to a Status Pay system they would have to re-jig the way these other aspects of their operation worked as well. Some of it is not do-able. The single base for example. However, if people bid on the flying they prefer as opposed to the Aircraft and it's $ I'm sure significant saving's would be realized. I predict you'd see the senior guys flying North/South staying in the same time zone (easier on the body) and the young energetic types flying around the world crossing the time zones. That's my 2¢ worth. ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Another problem with the flat-pay system is that the pilots are stuck with the same pay scale no matter what equipment the airline owners decide to buy. Yet there is a theory that for every problem there is an equal and opposite opportunity. And if that theory holds true, than an airline with a flat-pay system could change its fleet (eg. try a few larger aircraft) without the worry about re-negotiating a labour agreement. Inchman commented above: The real downside for a pilot to a flat pay system is that it has the effect of simulating an airline with one aircraft type. I think just the opposite could be said - that the upside for the pilot group is that the a flat-pay system could simulate an airline to get more than one aircraft type. Just take this argument to the silly extreme: Say ACPA votes the TA down. Why not shut down the AC flight ops and use Jazz, WestJet, JetsCo and SkyService to fly those Canadian voters stranded across the country and around the globe? Within 120 days Jazz and WestJet could ratchet up a dozen ground schools and soon thereafter cover all the 'mainline' flying. The real kicker? Pilot payroll costs drop by 60% (or is it more?) overnight! Of course most of the rest of the AC employees wound still be required - reservations, customer service, maintenance, ramp services. OK - don't jump on the silly-wagon, I'm just saying what is possible. And trying to add colour to the flat-pay discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 "So, pilots hired later in life will either never be Captains or only very junior ones, regardless as to the aircraft they choose to fly." How's that any different from a status pay system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I believe BA is on status pay. How does that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B75/76 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 My understanding is the payscale can still be based on fleet type. Then if there are, say, 50 Captain seats on the highest paid type, the 50 most senior get that pay regardless of which type they actually fly. The theory is it would reduce movement between fleets for the sole purpose of getting a raise. I believe KLM does it this way. Anyone know for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 Inchman, I can see that some of your argument favoring Formula Pay have merit, but in the end I truly believe that it is purely a mindset that needs to be overcome. Here’s why: You said,” The only way a YOS pay system will save the company money is if it comes with significant restrictions on who gets to move on equipment bids.” I say; since Air Canada is predominately an Airbus operator, a YOS pay structure would have suited both sides nicely because ultimately it would save the Company money in training costs and give the pilots more fair access to lifestyle needs. How so? Most likely, restrictions on equipment bids would not be necessary as pilots would (when the dust settles) place themselves on the fleet that best suites their life-style needs and not necessarily their monetary ones. Let me ask this question. Does Air Canada pay different dollar amounts if you fly the A319/320/321 or if you fly the A330 then the A340 the next trip? If so, can you see the punitive costs to this sort of system for the company? In reality you have just 2 aircraft types, but potentially at 5 different rates. If not, then you are already party way there to a YOS system. You said,” The real downside for a pilot to a flat pay system is that it has the effect of simulating an airline with one aircraft type. That means that the only times you will be senior in your career is when you are about half way up the list as an F/O and when you become a senior Captain. So, pilots hired later in life will either never be Captains or only very junior ones, regardless as to the aircraft they choose to fly.” I say, you are right it does simulate an airline with one different aircraft type. What is wrong with that? Where I disagree with you is on the statement on seniority. Seniority is important in your formula pay system for items like scheduling and vacation. All of these issues could easily be addressed to be more equitable for the junior pilot. I know one thing, I would rather address the ‘fairness factor’ on scheduling and vacation before I had to choose to bid down, lower my salary, just so I could get Christmas off. This reeks of Seniority doing a disservice to the junior pilot. Very old school if you ask me. In the end, it is up to your pilot group to decide what pay structure you want. Now that I have worked under both systems I can tell you the YOS pay is far superior. No more, chasing aircraft because someone 50 years ago suggested that superior pilots needed to fly the superior aircraft, and thus needed to be compensated for this overall superiority. I’ve said this before; it takes no more talent to fly the A340 as it does the A319. It only exists in ones mind. In the end it is the junior pilot that pays for this mindset. Regards, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 I wanted to mention in my follow up, that most, if not all, carriers here in Asia have a YOS pay structure. In Europe I believe it is very common as well, and, if my sources are correct, Emirates too have a YOS pay. The reason again is a) cost savings to the company and fairness to the pilot group. CF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 FYI.....Different pay systems have been studied numerous times over the years by the former Calpa.....and by ACPA..and have been rejected every time when analysed in depth.....our formula pay system has been determined over & over to be the best system..So good luck, examining other systems......but they will never get past scrutiny from the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 I probably shouldn't have included the "never be Captains" statement. In general, you're obviously gonna have to be 1/2 way up the list in both systems to become a Captain. But after that, under formula pay, it's relatively easy to become senior if you stay back on the more junior aircraft instead of moving to the bottom of the next. Under formula pay, if you prefer to chase the heavy metal, you effectively choose to remain junior. Under status pay or YOS, you will have little choice to be senior until you have many more years of service, as the top of all aircraft will tend to attract more senior pilots now that money's not a factor. As somebody else said, in many cases, the domestic aircraft become more desirable because they don't transit as many time zones. So, instead of pilots moving "left to right" to new aircraft as they become more senior, they will tend to move up to the most senior position they can hold across the spectrum. I have always likened it to a pouce café, with the most senior pilots floating to the top. I'm not suggesting that YOS or Status Pay are bad, but there would haved to be some other major changes to the contract to help make sure that not only the most senior pilots benefitted from the change and that everyone would share the wealth. Socialist principles have never really been a mainstay of the seniority based airline business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 I suppose not.......... but the best - not even close. cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.