A read for all negotiating pilots - Even the Meter Reader job, which requires no education makes $70k a year!

[UndisputedTruth]

Airsprint tried this merit system with several points given weights and then calculated using a formula which would spit out a pay raise each year. It would have a range from a marginal pay raise to a top level pay raise.

This was in force for a couple years and it was a disaster. The system was detested and it was canceled in 2022 by the overwhelming majority of the pilot group during the union drive that happened then.

Reason? It allowed to much subjective interpretation by management which allowed them to suppress wages by docking marks for either major things such as violations or minor (or bs) things such as not showing enough airsprint spirit (flair?).

[cdnavater]

Photofly,
Above is a very good, actually great explanation and you double down with below, you clearly have zero understanding of the industry and it’s needs.

With respect, you’ve missed my point. What I’ve been suggesting absolutely isn’t in the industry’s best interests. What you have now is 100% in the industry’s best interest, which is why you’ve been allowed to have it. It’s very much not in individual pilots’ best interests though, because look at how unhappy you all are.

Automation and standardization have made it so that there is essentially no difference between pilots in a given group. Charles Yeager and Average Joe will both be expected to follow the same set of SOPs, and assuming they both meet the minimum competency standards in doing so, that Charles is a far better pilot than Joe is irrelevant, and their respective values to their company are the same.

Let's address this point for a minute. It means (and it's true) that any pilot can expect to rise to the very high salaries that WB captains get, with no selection based on merit and without competition from their peers. I got poo-pooed for saying it, but it is true that anyone who enters the pilot profession has enough skill to rise to the very top levels of compensation. They simply have to wait long enough. Among all the better paying jobs this is unique. If you want to rise to be among the best paid lawyers, engineers, doctors, surveyors, technologists - you had better be damn good at your job. That means that a lot of people in those jobs who would like to, don't get there. Pilots? No such problems. All you have to do is wait. And anyone can do that.

I think that's a privilege position you have to acknowledge. And it comes at the psychological cost of zero individual input into your own career advancement, which is dehumanizing.

I have seen this scenario play out many times at non-unionized companies as highly experienced, highly competent pilots reach a level of skill that would merit better compensation only to be told to pound sand when they ask for it. They quit and the company upgrades or hires a less skilled, less experienced pilot that will do the same job for less.

There is nothing stopping the same happening to pilots now - being denied higher pay on the basis of seniority until they quit - except the union. In the same way that the union protects seniority now, it could protect skills-based promotion in the future. The problem you saw was the lack of a union, not the promotional basis. Now there are reasons why union houses promote on seniority - because it empowers the union, rather than the employee. And since it's the union that negotiates for you...

Photofly,
I can appreciate what you are getting at and really Slats has it nailed perfectly!
I’ve been doing this for about 30 years now and every time there has been a trend towards less pilot supply the smaller companies feel the brunt first and are the first to raise the wages enough to attract the experience they need to fill the seat but as soon as it shifts back, which it has every time, they will offer a choice, lay off or reduced pay. Take it or leave it.
In my entire career there was one and only one company that paid more for the same position based on experience, it was an extra 250/mth added to the base salary for every 500 hours of pic up to a max of 1500/mth. After that your experience mattered not.
The only reason they did this was the insurance company offered a discount on premiums for experienced pilots, that is the only reason, if they can’t see the benefit(savings) then bare minimum will suffice.
What you’re advocating would be great in another life but many schemes over the years have been tried and usually lead to a negative outcome.
One example of that, if a pilot managed to use less fuel, which is something that can be measured, they would get a year end bonus. This lead to one pilot routinely carrying less fuel to the point where they almost ran out one time due to not having the appropriate IFR reserve fuel.
Did the company know, they would almost certainly have to of known but would have denied it and hung that guy out to dry.
Risk vs reward always leads to more risk.
I have advocated to the union at Jazz to start pilots higher on the years of service scale if they come with more years of experience, nothing has ever materialized because the company has been able to fill the seats with the bare minimum and no real consequences yet!
You should examine the history of the early days of WJ where profit sharing lead some to cut corners including not de icing when they should have or the NAV Canada controllers who had shares in WJ giving priority to them and delay vectors to other airlines, they had to sell their shares, conflict of interest.
Humans are greedy and routinely step on others for their own personal gain, this industry being a significant example of that. The I’ll do it for free pilots who live off their trust fund, I sent a guy packing for that as a CP, but many took advantage.
The other thing, how many stories have your heard about shady lawyers getting ahead or same for real estate.
The unions in the airlines are protecting us from our own greedy nature and frankly I’m ok with it.
I actually don’t complain about my pay terribly much, I would much prefer more since my buying power has reduced over the last several years and absolutely believe we should get more, not because of my superior skill, because we are now in demand and need to capitalize on it.
Btw, I have done some of the suggestions here to increase pay, management, training save the company money but never at the expense of safety, however I have witnessed several examples of the ones that do. A few of them saved the company money right up until the cost them dearly and paid with their life.
Cheers

[photofly]

Airsprint tried this merit system with several points given weights and then calculated using a formula which would spit out a pay raise each year. It would have a range from a marginal pay raise to a top level pay raise.

This was in force for a couple years and it was a disaster. The system was detested and it was canceled in 2022 by the overwhelming majority of the pilot group during the union drive that happened then.

Reason? It allowed to much subjective interpretation by management which allowed them to suppress wages by docking marks for either major things such as violations or minor (or bs) things such as not showing enough airsprint spirit (flair?).

One advantage of seniority is that it's an objective measure. It's always seen as "fair". But there are many union jobs where promotion and pay is tied to performance without union (or member) problems: for example, police forces typically have very strong unions but promotion is based on ability to a large degree. It would be important to have promotion and pay based on a widely accepted and objective basis, otherwise your prospects become random, which also doesn't meet the bar of having any individual input. So replacing seniority with management bs isn't going to work, either.

In changing from one system to another there are always going to be both winners and losers; everyone has to be on board with that, even the losers. Eventually the system will become the status quo, but obviously change is going to hurt.

I think the airline and pilots deserve credit for trying something new, and it's a pity they couldn't make it work.

[goldeneagle]

One advantage of seniority is that it's an objective measure. It's always seen as "fair".

It's actually easier than you think to come up with a way to do pilot evaluation objectively. A couple decades ago I was involved in the implementation of FOQA for a couple airlines. The company I was working with built the recorders used for that program, it was funny actually. Data from the FDR cannot be used for anything along the lines of quality control, so, we had to come up with a different source. We packaged up the exact same electronics as the FDR, put it in a different box, placed it in a different location, but hooked up to the same data bus. Data from that recorder was downloaded weekly and fed into the FOQA system. First the data had to be made anonymous, then the analysis applied. Feedback from that analysis went to the training department. So just as one example, if the data started to show an excessive number of long landings, then the curriculum for the next round of simulator sessions would be adjusted to try eliminate that trend. There were many other things we analyzed for.

Reality is, if you want a purely objective way to measure pilot performance, just remove the step of anonymizing that data before analysis. There are plenty of metrics that can come from such an analysis, none of which is at all subjective. On a modern machine the QAR will show any exceedences, it'll show g forces on landing, bounces, and a host of other measurable metrics than can be easily quantified across a fleet.

I'll get my popcorn out now, waiting to hear the endless list of excuses as to why this would be a bad thing.

[digits_]

I'll get my popcorn out now, waiting to hear the endless list of excuses as to why this would be a bad thing.

https://www.peter-ftp.co.uk/aviation/mi ... 20Down.pdf

[cdnavater]

One advantage of seniority is that it's an objective measure. It's always seen as "fair".

It's actually easier than you think to come up with a way to do pilot evaluation objectively. A couple decades ago I was involved in the implementation of FOQA for a couple airlines. The company I was working with built the recorders used for that program, it was funny actually. Data from the FDR cannot be used for anything along the lines of quality control, so, we had to come up with a different source. We packaged up the exact same electronics as the FDR, put it in a different box, placed it in a different location, but hooked up to the same data bus. Data from that recorder was downloaded weekly and fed into the FOQA system. First the data had to be made anonymous, then the analysis applied. Feedback from that analysis went to the training department. So just as one example, if the data started to show an excessive number of long landings, then the curriculum for the next round of simulator sessions would be adjusted to try eliminate that trend. There were many other things we analyzed for.

Reality is, if you want a purely objective way to measure pilot performance, just remove the step of anonymizing that data before analysis. There are plenty of metrics that can come from such an analysis, none of which is at all subjective. On a modern machine the QAR will show any exceedences, it'll show g forces on landing, bounces, and a host of other measurable metrics than can be easily quantified across a fleet.

I'll get my popcorn out now, waiting to hear the endless list of excuses as to why this would be a bad thing.

Jazz has this system and I believe if you have an exceedance, you will receive a call, for sure, for a hard landing or so I’ve been told. As for what it’s actually used for, not sure but haven’t heard of anyone being fired or demoted.
I’m just not sure anyone has really thought this through, suggesting that a company with thousands of pilots somehow pay individual pilots more than the next guy based on whatever arbitrary metric you’ve come up with, 95% of the pilots a fairly equal and I’m fairly certain I won’t see it in my remaining career.
To that end, nothing real has been suggested here, peace, I’m out!

[goldeneagle]

I’m just not sure anyone has really thought this through, suggesting that a company with thousands of pilots somehow pay individual pilots more than the next guy based on whatever arbitrary metric you’ve come up with,

This would be no different than having folks on different pay scales based on a totally arbitrary metric like YOS. Years of Service is about as arbitrary as you can get, and does result in everybody ending up on different scales already, some advancing one month, others advancing a month or two later, all dependant on the date of hire. All that would be involved is changing the advancement from one level of the grid to the next such that it's based on your performance review results rather than the date of hire. It's absolutely no more complicated than the current system based on 'date of hire'. The only real difference is, bumping up to the next slot in the grid is not guaranteed to be an annual event. If performance reviews were done twice a year, it's very possible one could bump up twice in a year, and also possible one goes 3 or 4 years without a bump up, and the employee has control over the metrics measured to create the bump. That will motivate some, de-motivate others.

[photofly]

I’m just not sure anyone has really thought this through, suggesting that a company with thousands of pilots somehow pay individual pilots more than the next guy

You know General Electric has 172,000 employees all earning different amounts? Britain’s NHS has 1.5 million employees? I’m pretty sure the airlines could manage to keep track of which pilot earned what.

[rookiepilot]

It's a system that reinforces mediocrity. Unions have fought tooth and nail against merit based evaluation for teachers. How messed up is that?

[digits_]

It's a system that reinforces mediocrity. Unions have fought tooth and nail against merit based evaluation for teachers. How messed up is that?

Why is that messed up?

If you attempt to do merit based evaluations, you need a metric to base your evaluations on, and make sure it's fairly applied.

In reality, the people following their contract to the T would be considered to be difficult.
The ones who do more than their contract would likely get the raises.

While that might seem fair, it kind of negates having a contract in place in the first place.

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

[photofly]

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

Police forces, doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, civil servants (I have to keep editing this post as I think of more examples!)

In all these cases, junior staff are directed by staff of higher rank, and everyone can see that promotion purely by date of service would be terrible for morale, efficiency and safety. Frankly, it's amazing that pilots have got away with it for so long, because exactly the same should apply at the pointy end of a transport jet.

Try explaining to passengers why the only thing that determines which way round the two pilots in the front sit is that the guy on the left joined the company first. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

[digits_]

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

Police forces, doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, civil servants (I have to keep editing this post as I think of more examples!)

In all these cases, junior staff are directed by staff of higher rank, and everyone can see that promotion purely by date of service would be terrible for morale, efficiency and safety. Frankly, it's amazing that pilots have got away with it for so long, because exactly the same should apply at the pointy end of a transport jet.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the merit based evaluation system you're referring to.

You're talking about promotions. I'm talking about differentiating between 2 people doing the same level of job.

From casual conversation with a police officer, a few nurses and the occasional volunteer firefighter, their remuneration depends on the amount of shifts they work at, the type of shift (day/night), the 'level' where they are at in their job (sergeant, captain, junior, senior, trainee, licensed, etc). And years of service.

I am not aware if it's possible for any of these jobs where employee A in year X in level Y would make more doing the same shifts as employee B in year X in level Y.

[cdnavater]

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

Police forces, doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, civil servants (I have to keep editing this post as I think of more examples!)

In all these cases, junior staff are directed by staff of higher rank, and everyone can see that promotion purely by date of service would be terrible for morale, efficiency and safety. Frankly, it's amazing that pilots have got away with it for so long, because exactly the same should apply at the pointy end of a transport jet.

I’m sorry, you’ve entered the ridiculous now. Explain exactly, not your opinion but exactly how Police or nurses or firefighters are paid differently based on merit. Show us how a police officer with the same amount of service is paid more than another with a merit based system.
I happen to know a retired staff sergeant and I guarantee other than promotion based raises, a RCMP officer is paid the exact same as another of the same rank for their length of service.
Same for nurses and firefighters, I have both in the family so I’m calling absolute bullshit here.
If we’re talking promotion based raises, we have that, it’s called command or captain upgrade and not all pilots of the same length of service are able to attain the promotion, not all are able to be training pilots, not all will be check A.
As for goldeneagle,
You’re talking about a human deciding whether another human deserves more money based on a performance review, how do you remove their bias, all humans have bias whether they are aware or not they do.
I personally think a professional should not have a sleeve of tattoos and would likely apply my bias to their performance review, how do we prevent this?
Oh I know, a pay scale based on ability(position) and length of service.
You guys have jumped the shark now!

[photofly]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the merit based evaluation system you're referring to.

You're talking about promotions. I'm talking about differentiating between 2 people doing the same level of job.

That's because this thread went off on a tangent about bonuses and "merit based pay" instead of "merit based promotion", which is what should be under consideration.

All jobs have some kind of rising pay scale - the longer you stay, the more you get. But I don't know of any other than being a pilot where the length of your sojourn is the only criterion not for a modest annual pay bump to encourage loyalty but for promotion to better equipment and then to senior, command positions and 5x increase in salary. It's unique, and quite absurd, if you think it through.

I’m sorry, you’ve entered the ridiculous now. Explain exactly, not your opinion but exactly how Police or nurses or firefighters are paid differently based on merit. Show us how a police officer with the same amount of service is paid more than another with a merit based system.
I happen to know a retired staff sergeant and I guarantee other than promotion based raises, a RCMP officer is paid the exact same as another of the same rank for their length of service.

I'm actually not talking about pay based on merit - that's a rabbit hole you all went down. I'm talking about pay based on promotion based on merit. A sergeant earns more than a constable, and an inspector earns more than a sergeant.

You don't get promoted to watch captain as a firefighter unless you're damn good and have the confidence of your colleagues, not just because you got employed first.

What do you have to do get promoted from B737 f/o to B787 captain? Merely grow old.

[rookiepilot]

It's a system that reinforces mediocrity. Unions have fought tooth and nail against merit based evaluation for teachers. How messed up is that?

Why is that messed up?

If you attempt to do merit based evaluations, you need a metric to base your evaluations on, and make sure it's fairly applied.

In reality, the people following their contract to the T would be considered to be difficult.
The ones who do more than their contract would likely get the raises.

While that might seem fair, it kind of negates having a contract in place in the first place.

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

Do you have high school kids? This is what that leads to.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ha ... dress-code

[cdnavater]

Which union jobs have a succesful merit based evaluation system in place?

Police forces, doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, civil servants (I have to keep editing this post as I think of more examples!)

In all these cases, junior staff are directed by staff of higher rank, and everyone can see that promotion purely by date of service would be terrible for morale, efficiency and safety. Frankly, it's amazing that pilots have got away with it for so long, because exactly the same should apply at the pointy end of a transport jet.

Try explaining to passengers why the only thing that determines which way round the two pilots in the front sit is that the guy on the left joined the company first. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

You added after my original quote, so I’ll address the added crap.
Pilots are not simply prompted based on when they were hired, that determines when not if they can achieve it. There are many who fail first attempt, many who fail a second attempt and end up in front of a review board. Sometimes they are counselled to return to FO for more experience but to simply say they are promoted because of a date of hire, is ignorant and shows a complete lack of understanding of the job. You have no business talking about airline pilots and their method of pay with your lack of understanding.

[photofly]

Pilots are not simply prompted based on when they were hired, that determines when not if they can achieve it.

Firstly, why should date of hire be considered even remotely relevant for when a pilot can achieve promotion?

Secondly, honestly what proportion of pilots never make captain and retire as first officers?

Thirdly, what is the merit-based procedure for moving from, say, n/b f/o to w/b f/o, or 737 captain to 787 captain?

If you're happy that you have a merit-based promotional structure, and that being a better pilot is the way to end up earning more by the end of your career - if you're happy that your own individual skills and efforts lead to faster promotion than some of your less able and less committed colleagues - then there's clearly nothing you could change for the better. But I think if that were the case, pilots would spend a lot more time worrying about how to do their jobs better and actually achieve that promotion to bigger and better paid equipment, and to a command position - like every other job in the world - and less time worrying about which other group of pilots is screwing them over in the latest union manoeuvrings.

[rookiepilot]

Pilots are not simply prompted based on when they were hired, that determines when not if they can achieve it.

Firstly, why should date of hire be considered even remotely relevant for when a pilot can achieve promotion?

Secondly, honestly what proportion of pilots never make captain and retire as first officers?

Thirdly, what is the merit-based procedure for moving from, say, n/b f/o to w/b f/o, or 737 captain to 787 captain?

If you're happy that you have a merit-based promotional structure, and that being a better pilot is the way to end up earning more by the end of your career - if you're happy that your own individual skills and efforts lead to faster promotion than some of your less able and less committed colleagues - then there's clearly nothing you could change for the better.

Haven't you heard PF? This whole site somehow is now restricted for "professional airline pilots only"

Scan your proof of ATPL and Union card to comment.

[photofly]

Haven't you heard PF? This whole site somehow is now restricted for "professional airline pilots only"

Scan your proof of ATPL and Union card to comment.

It's a reasonable response if you think I'm attacking airline pilots pay, or whatever. I'm really not. I genuinely want pilots to earn packets and packets of money. I'm pointing out some of the reasons why comparing pay in this industry to other jobs (again, refer to the thread title, because that's what this thread is all about) needs to be done with caution. The whole pay and promotion structure is very unusual.

I could be completely wrong, in which case, what does it matter?

[cdnavater]

Pilots are not simply prompted based on when they were hired, that determines when not if they can achieve it.

Firstly, why should date of hire be considered even remotely relevant for when a pilot can achieve promotion?

Secondly, honestly what proportion of pilots never make captain and retire as first officers?

Thirdly, what is the merit-based procedure for moving from, say, n/b f/o to w/b f/o, or 737 captain to 787 captain?

If you're happy that you have a merit-based promotional structure, and that being a better pilot is the way to end up earning more by the end of your career - if you're happy that your own individual skills and efforts lead to faster promotion than some of your less able and less committed colleagues - then there's clearly nothing you could change for the better.

The merit is, you have to be able to pass the process, it’s not a guarantee, ability plays a significant part.
Go back in the conversation, when 95% of the group are similar in capabilities, what other metric would you use?
How would you apply this, if pilot A has 5000 hours and 1 year of service and pilot B has 6000 hours and 6 months of service but there is only one Captain spot available, who gets to attempt the upgrade?
What if Pilot A and B have the same date of hire, which one upgrades first if not based on seniority?

As for your assertion we all went down the rabbit hole, it has been said several times that airline pilots all do the same job safely, 95% are equal in skill and the airlines simply want a safe pilot who can do the job, they don’t care if one has more skill as long as the minimum skill is met and you continued the same theme about merit based pay, you are being disingenuous about your culpability of where this conversation went.

[digits_]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the merit based evaluation system you're referring to.

You're talking about promotions. I'm talking about differentiating between 2 people doing the same level of job.

That's because this thread went off on a tangent about bonuses and "merit based pay" instead of "merit based promotion", which is what should be under consideration.

That's a huge difference. It would be good to define that if that's what you want to discuss.

All jobs have some kind of rising pay scale - the longer you stay, the more you get. But I don't know of any other than being a pilot where the length of your sojourn is the only criterion not for a modest annual pay bump to encourage loyalty but for promotion to better equipment and then to senior, command positions and 5x increase in salary. It's unique, and quite absurd, if you think it through.

Merit based promotion is already a factor and present in a lot of companies. Mainly smaller 703/704 ops, but even airlines have upgrade matrices where you need to meet certain experience requirements.

The seniority is not the *only* criterion. There are still evaluations and the need to meet standards. But, it is quite binary: you meet it, or you don't. Perfection does not get rewarded, that's true.

I recall a discussion about a 1500 hour FI attempting a DEC position at Jazz (and failing), which proves that your statement is incorrect.

It's an important factor (probably too important), but not the only factor.

[cdnavater]

Pilots are not simply prompted based on when they were hired, that determines when not if they can achieve it.

Firstly, why should date of hire be considered even remotely relevant for when a pilot can achieve promotion?

Secondly, honestly what proportion of pilots never make captain and retire as first officers?

Thirdly, what is the merit-based procedure for moving from, say, n/b f/o to w/b f/o, or 737 captain to 787 captain?

If you're happy that you have a merit-based promotional structure, and that being a better pilot is the way to end up earning more by the end of your career - if you're happy that your own individual skills and efforts lead to faster promotion than some of your less able and less committed colleagues - then there's clearly nothing you could change for the better.

Haven't you heard PF? This whole site somehow is now restricted for "professional airline pilots only"

Scan your proof of ATPL and Union card to comment.

Rookie,
No proof required, you should have an understanding of how something works if you want to post an opinion on it.
I myself am not what some would call a savvy investor, therefore I would never post on a web board how to invest your money.
I might ask for advice or how it works but to simply post authoritatively on a subject I clearly know nothing about would need to be called out, that simple.

[photofly]

The merit is, you have to be able to pass the process, it’s not a guarantee, ability plays a significant part.
Go back in the conversation, when 95% of the group are similar in capabilities, what other metric would you use?

Just looking at these two sentences together, they do rather contradict each other. If 95% of the group are similar in capabilities, then in no sense can ability play a part in whatever process is being used.

How would you apply this, if pilot A has 5000 hours and 1 year of service and pilot B has 6000 hours and 6 months of service but there is only one Captain spot available, who gets to attempt the upgrade?
What if Pilot A and B have the same date of hire, which one upgrades first if not based on seniority?

Well, simply, whichever pilot is better. It's up to pilots/airlines/the industry to decide what "better" means. Other jobs manage to have a way of promoting more able people, even from a group of peers who are all equally able to carry out their daily duties. I can make some suggestions, and you can argue with each one individually, but the concept wouldn't be impossible to implement.

[digits_]

Other jobs manage to have a way of promoting more able people

How do you know this?

The only thing you can determine is that the one who got the promotion is capable of doing their job, or not. There's no way to definitively know if they were the best choice for the promotion. Unless you promote every candidate for a month or so and see who performs the new job best. But that's highly impractical.

[photofly]

Merit based promotion is already a factor and present in a lot of companies. Mainly smaller 703/704 ops, but even airlines have upgrade matrices where you need to meet certain experience requirements.

The seniority is not the *only* criterion. There are still evaluations and the need to meet standards. But, it is quite binary: you meet it, or you don't. Perfection does not get rewarded, that's true.

Again, the point is getting missed in the noise. "Meeting a standard" is very different to being the best, or being better than your peers.
What is the merit-based process for moving to bigger/better-paid equipment, in the same seat?
What proportion of pilots, through lack of ability, retire as first officers?