Singapore sets first A380 pay rates
 

Well the benchmark is set, lets see if other airlines follow ! :eek:

What a lot of nonsense.

The job is the same, whether you're flying a 73, a 318, 75, 76, 74, 320, 340 or 380 etc.

The only difference is how much time you get to spend at home and that is determined by us when we choose where we will work and on what.

Nonsense ? The union is trying to get the guys a part of the increased revenue. Nothing wrong with that.:D

Silverhawk,

I guess you would rather make the same salary the rest of your career - right? What a lame response. Pilots do aspire to earning more over their careers. Using a per-seat metric to gauge a salary scheme would work for me (salary greater when you fly more seats). Your way of thinking is way too old-school.......... Don't live in the past!

Silverhawk is probably new in this industry, and does not know:

Decades ago, US ALPA established a certain criteria for work compensation.
They tied salary to gross weight/size of aircraft. Of course, factored by
hours flown and other variables.

The reason was: they tried to make the companies share with their pilots part of their productivity gained via A/C size .

Part of the industry went along with this criteria, making the cost of piloting a percentage of the product output, per aircraft, per hour flown.


Cheers..

This can be a very interesting discussion that goes back years, probably forty or so.
When I flew the 737, four sectors a day, five days a week I could generate some very impressive productivity figures, passenger revenue kilometers etc. etc. but was always beaten down by the L1011 Tristar fleet who claimed they were more productive. How? One full flight for, say, eight hours, thirty six hours in a hotel and another full flight back followed by at least two days off, who, would you say, is the more productive? The various arguments ranged back and forth but, I noticed, always depended on which fleet you were on!

Have to say that having eventually made it to the 747 fleet I was happy to take the money!

BCal, I think, introduced a pay scale that totally ignored the fleet, aircraft size etc. but paid you as a Capt/FO based on years of service. The rationale was that this meant that people flew the fleet that suited them best and you didn't get disgruntled crew sitting down route saying they had to go long haul for the money. Probably long haul allowances would have been better than short haul but that would only compensate for time away and I always regarded them as pocket money!

SIA's idea that they could drive the A380 rates down to the B777 and lower than the B747 is just plain daft and I am surprised the management ever allowed it to go to court, unfortunately there is very little real aviation experience within the upper echelons of SIA management, just 'Bean counters'.

How to Airlines who operate a mixed fleet of A320 and A330 from the same pilot pool tackle this (Monarch, Iberworld, etc) ?

Not completely familiar with the situation but it seems fair that basic salary should be the same with sector pay higher on the days you operate the '30 because of the greater distance. Overall productivity about the same, say the 10 sectors you operate the '20 in 3 days equals the 2 sectors you operate in the '30 in 3 days.

As mentioned above, it gives the 60+ chaps a change to go back to short haul and sleep in their own bed's every night without taking a pay cut.

Pay ought to be based on landings/month.
Thats when you're most obliged to use your hard earned experience.
No guesses which fleet I'm on....
:ok:

In Monarch all pay is based on seniority regardless of fleet.

If SIA thought they couldn't staff the flight deck at the 744 salaries then they would have offered higher salaries in the first place. This is union manipulation pushing salaries above free market rates.

MrS

Absolutely nothing to do with 'union manipulation', indeed MrSurrey, if you knew anything of SIA you would know that union manipulation of the management is simply not possible.

In this instance SIA offered the B777 rate to the A380 crews, less than the 744 rate, yet SIA has always accepted that the larger the aircraft the larger the dollars. The union were unable to reach an agreement with SIA and sought arbitration and won, that, in itself, in Singapore speaks volumes!

If the free market rates were applied to pilots salaries we would never be on the same rate of pay two years running! You are not a pilot, are you, MrSurrey? I can't think of any profession that would accept the instability of ever fluctuating pay scales, there is almost always a base rate to work from.

OK my mistake, i thought the original payscale offered was 744 rather than 777. still not a fan of unions though, pilot or not ;)

Not to upset any A380 first officers, but why are CA and FO salaries so close?

Flame suit on.:}

Longarm

Not true. Monarch have the B scale, which was a productivity bonus in recognition of the arrival of the A300 and now A330 as well. The amount of people who get it varies as the fleet size of wide bodies does.

EGGW

SR71 - "Pay ought to be based on landings/month.
Thats when you're most obliged to use your hard earned experience.
No guesses which fleet I'm on...."

I disagree. That's where you "gain" all that "hard earned" experience before moving on to something larger that flies longer.... Those there already have this "hard earned" experience you refer to, and are hence paid accordingly for it

Well said Gengis, going from a lovely tropical day in Durban to a bitter cold day in Anchorage within the same week requires concentration.

And if anyone is wondering, ALPA(S), the SIA pilots association is just that, it is not a union and never will be but a bunch of very well meaning people who try very hard to keep their hand on the tiller and ensure that terms and conditions, hotels, COPs etc. remain reasonable. On A380 pay they dug their heels in and won, all credit to them, I just hope the 'management' don't try to take it out on the individuals concerned, they have done it before. A very brave bunch of people MrSurrey, you should admire them.

And as you know EGGW productivity scale (B Scale, fatboys pay whatever you call it) is based on seniority and has nothing to do with your fleet. (although by virtue of seniority wide body pilots are more likely to be on productivity pay).

That is true longarm, apart from the majority of F/O's who operate these types, who are not on Scale B/fatboys pay.

S if you get more for the larger aircraft. This means a 200 to1000 hr f/o who could aford to pay for a larger type rating and get employed in the right seat has demonstrated a level of experience and service that other more financially challenged havent.

Salaries should be on length of service and seniority not type. We have too many newbies way out of their depth on our widebody fleet. Luckily they do get the same money. They do however strut around bathing in the false assumption by the unwashed that the size of their experience and talewnt is directly proportionate to the size of their type. Much to the chagrin of some infinately more experienced f/os who didnt have the dosh to spare.

Size isnt everything ...apparantly:ugh: