Having only a cursory understanding of the industry, I have a broad idea of why pilot larger aircraft pays more than small aircraft in general.
However, its my impression that when it come to modern, long range aircraft, that twin engine aircraft can present greater demands of airmanship and crisis management in an emergency (engine out, whatnot) than a quad. Am I wrong? If not, why is it that A380/B747 piloting seems to command a (slightly) higher pay than nearly as valuable twins? Am I crazy to even think that a twin can be *more demanding* than a quad?
[btw - yes, I'm aware that its hard to compare pay across different carriers/countries. And also that A380/B777 pay at EK is equivelent. Still, it seems like the 4 vs 2 pay difference is somewhat true]
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Redbellyguppy
- Posts: 283
- Joined:
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
Generally the pay is proportional to seat count or gross weight.
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
Range and payload all lead to the revenue the aircraft can generate. From there, the pilots' slice is calculated. No specific formula but it’s determined through contract negotiations or set by management at non-union shops.
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
FlyHappy wrote:Am I crazy to even think that a twin can be *more demanding* than a quad?
Nope, you are correct. And not only that, but regional and short-haul pilots tend to do a lot more work than the longhaulers. Regional aircraft such as CRJs, ATRs and Q400s also come with less automation, so even more work for the pilots.
-
- george77300
- Posts: 1132
- Joined:
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
FlyHappy wrote:Having only a cursory understanding of the industry, I have a broad idea of why pilot larger aircraft pays more than small aircraft in general.
However, its my impression that when it come to modern, long range aircraft, that twin engine aircraft can present greater demands of airmanship and crisis management in an emergency (engine out, whatnot) than a quad. Am I wrong? If not, why is it that A380/B747 piloting seems to command a (slightly) higher pay than nearly as valuable twins? Am I crazy to even think that a twin can be *more demanding* than a quad?
[btw - yes, I'm aware that its hard to compare pay across different carriers/countries. And also that A380/B777 pay at EK is equivelent. Still, it seems like the 4 vs 2 pay difference is somewhat true]
At British Airways for example a Captain or First Officer with the same number of years at the company is EQUAL pay whether on A320/A380/B747/B777/B787. No pay difference at all.
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
Redbellyguppy wrote:Generally the pay is proportional to seat count or gross weight.
Generally that's only true for some airlines. It would be equally true, or incorrect if you prefer, to state that 'generally the pay is proportional to seniority'. And, no, larger MTOW/seat count is not always a consequence of high seniority.
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
george77300 wrote:At British Airways for example a Captain or First Officer with the same number of years at the company is EQUAL pay whether on A320/A380/B747/B777/B787. No pay difference at all.
That is true, but the pay rate is predicated on the original formula of weight/payload x speed. So years ago when British Airways (for example in this case) decided to go for "status pay" as this is termed, they added all pay rates (at the time) divided by the number of aircraft to determine a rate of pay. I am not sure when status pay started at BA, as they have done it for as long as I have known. It may well have gone back to the days of the BOAC/BEA merger.
But the roots are there. My uncle, who flew for BOAC used to chuckle that his VC-10 pay was slightly higher than 707 pay, as the aircraft was heavier.
So you are correct, all pilots presently make the same pay within a certain category, but the rate of that category was originally determined by the "old' method of payment.
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
A single engine twin is really no more difficult than a single engine out in a quad. For instance, I find a V1 cut in a 747 with an outboard engine failure slightly more difficult than a V1 cut in a 767 (at least in the simulator). In addition you are required to perform two-engine inoperative approaches in the quad (at least in the 747, only quad i've flown). That's significantly more difficult than a single engine approach in a twin. Twins are really not that much more demanding other than slightly more in-depth ETOPS rules (even the 747 at my employer is operated under some ETOPS rules now). A transport category jet is a transport category jet and they just aren't that drastically different whether they be a twin, tri, or quad.
The pay is based on tradition and somewhat arbitrary. The longer range/larger aircraft paying more is probably an additional way to reward seniority. Long range international flights are usually considered more prestigious and desirable, and therefore usually fall to more senior crews. Exceptions exist. UPS, for example, has the same pay for all their aircraft from the 757 to the 747-8. At my current employer the pay is based on the maximum takeoff weight of the airplane. Personally I prefer shorter range flights but have to accept lower pay when I bid the type of aircraft that operates those flights.
The pay is based on tradition and somewhat arbitrary. The longer range/larger aircraft paying more is probably an additional way to reward seniority. Long range international flights are usually considered more prestigious and desirable, and therefore usually fall to more senior crews. Exceptions exist. UPS, for example, has the same pay for all their aircraft from the 757 to the 747-8. At my current employer the pay is based on the maximum takeoff weight of the airplane. Personally I prefer shorter range flights but have to accept lower pay when I bid the type of aircraft that operates those flights.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 12408
- Joined:
Re: Pilot pay: twins vs quads
Read Decision 83 below for how pay became based on speed and weight.
Early in September of 1933, airline operators formally announced they were instituting a new lower pay system; ALPA be damned. They also wanted pilots to fly up to 140 hours per month, 160 hours for copilots. Behncke threatened a national strike. It was a desperate gamble, one which would have destroyed ALPA if it had actually come off and was lost. The National Labor Board (NLB) agreed to take on the airline pay dispute. The strike was called off.
After the crisis, Behncke admitted that if there had been a strike, ALPA would be finished. He also said: "I believe American Airways was the best balanced. They were pretty much together, and I believe they would have walked out to the last man. TWA would have collapsed completely, and I know that on United everything south and east of Chicago would have gone out, and west of Chicago it would have been just about half. The only way you can keep a striking element in line is to keep them informed. I figured it would cost $1,000 a day to conduct a strike, and our treasury had $5,000, so we would have lasted about five days. After that, our communications would have been cut, we would have been completely broken." Behncke carefully laid plans to enhance and secure the professional status of all pilots including their working conditions and overall safety.
Behncke's plan required protective Federal legislation to set safety rules, minimum salaries, and flight time limitations. He used clever public relations and political savvy. His many contacts with politicians were of great help. The fight went on through the period of the airmail cancellations of 1934 when one third of ALPA's membership was out of work. This led to Decision 83.
NLB hearings in 1934 before Judge Bernard Shintag of the New York State Supreme Court resulted in a decision which became the basic cornerstone of how first pilots should be paid. Copilots were rather overlooked. It did set the monthly maximum flight time at 85 actual hours. This was a real victory for Behncke.
Decision 83 written, by reference, into the Airmail Act of 1934 was without real legal standing. It became law in 1938 as part of the Civil Aeronautics Act. The next step was to be included under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) for a means of settling disputes. Behncke, with foresight, knew that without improving the formula, pilots would not share in productivity gains from newer, faster, heavier equipment. This problem would be tackled later, as would Behncke's constant pleas for more consideration for copilots, which up to no
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests