Public shock/Delta FA’s paid during boarding

[Localizer]

I’m listening to an American talk show on the radio, and it’s funny hearing their shock that airline crews aren’t paid until the “door closed”, or “park brake released”. Delta has announced they’ll start paying FA’s while boarding. If they only knew what we put up with to fly …

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/9543907002

[WellThatAgedWell]

If pilot groups/unions proposed a contract that paid duty day rather than flight credit I think most pilots would vote it down.

It’s all the same shit just sliced different ways.

[C-GGGQ]

Why do you think that? (I’ve never fully understood credits vs duty day)

[Loon-A-Tic]

The remuneration process in aviation is the most convoluted I've ever seen, if there was one thing worth updating its this. Why can't it simply be; X dollars for X duty hours and anything above that is 1.5 times. I fully understand different rates of pay for different types of flying, short haul, long haul, wide body, single isle and premimuns for "non-normal" hours.

I've never fully understood the whole "credit" think and it makes my pay confusing I've given up trying to figure it all out at the end of each month.

[elonmusk]

I’m listening to an American talk show on the radio, and it’s funny hearing their shock that airline crews aren’t paid until the “door closed”, or “park brake released”. Delta has announced they’ll start paying FA’s while boarding. If they only knew what we put up with to fly …

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/9543907002

I've been saying this for years. Our unions in Canada and the USA do a terrible job making the public understand how we get paid. They see the inflated "hourly rate" and think everyone makes a hard $150-$300+ an hour as a pilot. When we all know that's not true. Even just the other day on some American news channel they were talking about Hawaiians issues finding pilots and how they "Start at $8x and hour!"

It's disingenuous at best, at worst it's straight up deception. Jazz did this with their FAs in the past, they would show up to their new job not knowing anything about the pay structure thinking they would make like $30 an hour. Then their first paycheck comes and they are shocked and feel cheated.

[goingmissed]

I’m listening to an American talk show on the radio, and it’s funny hearing their shock that airline crews aren’t paid until the “door closed”, or “park brake released”. Delta has announced they’ll start paying FA’s while boarding. If they only knew what we put up with to fly …

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/9543907002

I've been saying this for years. Our unions in Canada and the USA do a terrible job making the public understand how we get paid. They see the inflated "hourly rate" and think everyone makes a hard $150-$300+ an hour as a pilot. When we all know that's not true. Even just the other day on some American news channel they were talking about Hawaiians issues finding pilots and how they "Start at $8x and hour!"

It's disingenuous at best, at worst it's straight up deception. Jazz did this with their FAs in the past, they would show up to their new job not knowing anything about the pay structure thinking they would make like $30 an hour. Then their first paycheck comes and they are shocked and feel cheated.

At the very least, we should be paid for time worked.

[DanWEC]

Off the top of my head, I can only think of teaching as another job that requires a significant amount of work done outside of the primary task, for marking and prep, however theirs is a salaried position.
Whenever there are contract issues they start with a work to rule prior to a strike.
Could you imagine the turmoil if crews everywhere decided to only work while being paid for said work? Not to mention the surprise of the public?

[WellThatAgedWell]

Didn't some airline's switch to duty day pay.

The airline worked out over the past year how many duty hours vs how much was paid out. They averaged it all out and came up with a duty hourly rate of minimum wage for their FOs as a starting point. Then you have a bunch of places that are salary and if you look at hours worked they pay less than minimum wage.

No one wants to know these figures.

Take a air Canada new hire. They probably make less than a ramp attendant if they work out their duty time vs compensation. It's better to keep the inflated sounding flight credit.

[goingmissed]

Could you imagine the turmoil if crews everywhere decided to only work while being paid for said work? Not to mention the surprise of the public?

You mean just sitting in the plane and starting it up without running checklists, and then just leaving after we shut the engines off?

Didn't some airline's switch to duty day pay

Do you remember which airlines might have done that?

[digits_]

Even though financially it would probably be a break even, it might improve life a bit, because it would cost the company money to leave crew sitting somewhere doing nothing. Nowadays, most airlines are set up in a way that there is X hours of duty time they can waste for free, since you're on flight pay anyway.

[photofly]

Even though financially it would probably be a break even, it might improve life a bit, because it would cost the company money to leave crew sitting somewhere doing nothing.

Then everyone can complain about those darned companies, always trying to scrimp and save by calling FAs only at the last minute so they can pay them less and save money for the shareholders. Shocking behaviour.

[digits_]

Even though financially it would probably be a break even, it might improve life a bit, because it would cost the company money to leave crew sitting somewhere doing nothing.

Then everyone can complain about those darned companies, always trying to scrimp and save by calling FAs only at the last minute so they can pay them less and save money for the shareholders. Shocking behaviour.

Yes, and if that's what the company would choose to do, they deserve the complaints. There's a difference between calling them at the last minute vs having them sit in a terminal office for 6 hours.

If crew are sitting somewhere, then they deserve to be paid for their time.

[Localizer]

Duty pay would cut the amount of sits (airport reserve) that’s built into schedules.

[altiplano]

Duty pay would cut the amount of sits (airport reserve) that’s built into schedules.

And that sounds good until you realize what the effect would be. Absolutely if you switch to something like duty pay suddenly all the pairings would get hyper efficient.

The problem would be that we would take the pay cut based on the way it is now...

I can see the pitch from Management 2.0 justifying it...
"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hours"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same. That's fair."

Suddenly all pairing go to an average of 8 hours flight time in 11 hours duty time and the effect is we've given ourselves a 50% pay cut...

At AC, when the FAs got duty day minus 4 hours for their guarantee virtually all the airport sits disappeared. Not bad... forced efficiency without giving up their hourly rate because the company hates paying synthetic credits.

Thus shows that the companies hold the keys and unless you have someone very smart and protections and backstops in place the companies will fück you in the end. They have people full time whose only job is to find ways to fück and leverage labour and the contract.

[photofly]

Duty pay would cut the amount of sits (airport reserve) that’s built into schedules.

And that sounds good until you realize what the effect would be. Absolutely if you switch to something like duty pay suddenly all the pairings would get hyper efficient.

The problem would be that we would take the pay cut based on the way it is now...

I can see the pitch from Management 2.0 justifying it...
"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hours"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same. That's fair."

Suddenly all pairing go to an average of 8 hours flight time in 11 hours duty time and the effect is we've given ourselves a 50% pay cut...

Now you're thinking like an airline executive, and a good one, at that. Well done.

So be careful what you wish for.

[digits_]

Duty pay would cut the amount of sits (airport reserve) that’s built into schedules.

And that sounds good until you realize what the effect would be. Absolutely if you switch to something like duty pay suddenly all the pairings would get hyper efficient.

The problem would be that we would take the pay cut based on the way it is now...

I can see the pitch from Management 2.0 justifying it...
"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hours"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same. That's fair."

Suddenly all pairing go to an average of 8 hours flight time in 11 hours duty time and the effect is we've given ourselves a 50% pay cut...

At AC, when the FAs got duty day minus 4 hours for their guarantee virtually all the airport sits disappeared. Not bad... forced efficiency without giving up their hourly rate because the company hates paying synthetic credits.

Thus shows that the companies hold the keys and unless you have someone very smart and protections and backstops in place the companies will fück you in the end. They have people full time whose only job is to find ways to fück and leverage labour and the contract.

If you combine that with a minimum duty guarantee per month and a maximum flight time per month, then you'd be safe.


"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hour based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same based on a max of 70 flying hours/month. That's fair."

It should be possible to switch to a duty time based system without having excesses where people get screwed over.

And in the end, would it matter if you did an extra flight a day if it saves you sitting in a terminal for 6 hours? I'm sure some people would prefer it, while others would hate it.

[altiplano]

If you combine that with a minimum duty guarantee per month and a maximum flight time per month, then you'd be safe.


"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hour based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same based on a max of 70 flying hours/month. That's fair."

It should be possible to switch to a duty time based system without having excesses where people get screwed over.

And in the end, would it matter if you did an extra flight a day if it saves you sitting in a terminal for 6 hours? I'm sure some people would prefer it, while others would hate it.

You want to guarantee yourself same amount of duty at work as before? What's the point then?

Pilots are not smart enough to factor all the variables and achieve a result that benefits them when they don't hold the cards or steer the ship. The corporation is playing with a loaded deck, they control the variables, only they know what's coming, and every time you make a change they pivot and use it against you. That's history.

Besides you're still flight time limited in the month based on contract, CARs, and just what's reasonable, more efficient duty you'll run out of flight time.

Would it matter if I did another flight? For free? F-yeah. Flying is responsibility, it's work, it's tiring, I want to get paid for it.

Best thing is to get pay raises and improve duty rigs through traditional means. Men before us came up with the formula, it's worked super well for years but the weakness of the pilot body, the division, the lost sense of having to fight to achieve and maintain things has us circling the shitter, that's our problem today. We're a bunch of pussies who aren't accustomed to earning things the hard way.

[digits_]

If you combine that with a minimum duty guarantee per month and a maximum flight time per month, then you'd be safe.


"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hour based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same based on a max of 70 flying hours/month. That's fair."

It should be possible to switch to a duty time based system without having excesses where people get screwed over.

And in the end, would it matter if you did an extra flight a day if it saves you sitting in a terminal for 6 hours? I'm sure some people would prefer it, while others would hate it.

You want to guarantee yourself same amount of duty at work as before? What's the point then?

Pilots are not smart enough to factor all the variables and achieve a result that benefits them when they don't hold the cards or steer the ship. The corporation is playing with a loaded deck, they control the variables, only they know what's coming, and every time you make a change they pivot and use it against you. That's history.

Besides you're still flight time limited in the month based on contract, CARs, and just what's reasonable, more efficient duty you'll run out of flight time.

Would it matter if I did another flight? For free? F-yeah. Flying is responsibility, it's work, it's tiring, I want to get paid for it.

Best thing is to get pay raises and improve duty rigs through traditional means. Men before us came up with the formula, it's worked super well for years but the weakness of the pilot body, the division, the lost sense of having to fight to achieve and maintain things has us circling the shitter, that's our problem today. We're a bunch of pussies who aren't accustomed to earning things the hard way.

Imagine if the situation was reversed though. If the system was established that you got paid per duty hour, and then someone suggested you would get paid per flight hour.

I'm sure someone would bring up 'but hey, they might have us sitting in a terminal for 6 hours for free! don't do this!'

If anything, getting paid per hour at work, is the standard for most employees. Being paid per flight hour, is the deviation from the 'worforce norm' so to speak.

Both sides undoubtedly can come up with situations in which you would be worse or better off than before. But I think the desire for being paid for the time spent at work is quite understandable.

[altiplano]

If you combine that with a minimum duty guarantee per month and a maximum flight time per month, then you'd be safe.


"Average duty time for all pairings last year was 11 hours based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"Average flight time during those periods was 4 hour based on an average 70 flying hours/month"
"You are paid $200/flight hour so $200 x 4 ÷ 11 = $72.72/hr is your new duty hour rate and you would make the same based on a max of 70 flying hours/month. That's fair."

It should be possible to switch to a duty time based system without having excesses where people get screwed over.

And in the end, would it matter if you did an extra flight a day if it saves you sitting in a terminal for 6 hours? I'm sure some people would prefer it, while others would hate it.

You want to guarantee yourself same amount of duty at work as before? What's the point then?

Pilots are not smart enough to factor all the variables and achieve a result that benefits them when they don't hold the cards or steer the ship. The corporation is playing with a loaded deck, they control the variables, only they know what's coming, and every time you make a change they pivot and use it against you. That's history.

Besides you're still flight time limited in the month based on contract, CARs, and just what's reasonable, more efficient duty you'll run out of flight time.

Would it matter if I did another flight? For free? F-yeah. Flying is responsibility, it's work, it's tiring, I want to get paid for it.

Best thing is to get pay raises and improve duty rigs through traditional means. Men before us came up with the formula, it's worked super well for years but the weakness of the pilot body, the division, the lost sense of having to fight to achieve and maintain things has us circling the shitter, that's our problem today. We're a bunch of pussies who aren't accustomed to earning things the hard way.

Imagine if the situation was reversed though. If the system was established that you got paid per duty hour, and then someone suggested you would get paid per flight hour.

I'm sure someone would bring up 'but hey, they might have us sitting in a terminal for 6 hours for free! don't do this!'

If anything, getting paid per hour at work, is the standard for most employees. Being paid per flight hour, is the deviation from the 'worforce norm' so to speak.

Both sides undoubtedly can come up with situations in which you would be worse or better off than before. But I think the desire for being paid for the time spent at work is quite understandable.

A lot of people are also paid based on productivity, and that's how we're paid. The formula pay system is based on pilots being compensated relative to the potential of their production. weight/speed/etc.

Trip and duty rigs are the way we protect ourselves from wasting time not being productive.

[digits_]

You want to guarantee yourself same amount of duty at work as before? What's the point then?

Pilots are not smart enough to factor all the variables and achieve a result that benefits them when they don't hold the cards or steer the ship. The corporation is playing with a loaded deck, they control the variables, only they know what's coming, and every time you make a change they pivot and use it against you. That's history.

Besides you're still flight time limited in the month based on contract, CARs, and just what's reasonable, more efficient duty you'll run out of flight time.

Would it matter if I did another flight? For free? F-yeah. Flying is responsibility, it's work, it's tiring, I want to get paid for it.

Best thing is to get pay raises and improve duty rigs through traditional means. Men before us came up with the formula, it's worked super well for years but the weakness of the pilot body, the division, the lost sense of having to fight to achieve and maintain things has us circling the shitter, that's our problem today. We're a bunch of pussies who aren't accustomed to earning things the hard way.

Imagine if the situation was reversed though. If the system was established that you got paid per duty hour, and then someone suggested you would get paid per flight hour.

I'm sure someone would bring up 'but hey, they might have us sitting in a terminal for 6 hours for free! don't do this!'

If anything, getting paid per hour at work, is the standard for most employees. Being paid per flight hour, is the deviation from the 'worforce norm' so to speak.

Both sides undoubtedly can come up with situations in which you would be worse or better off than before. But I think the desire for being paid for the time spent at work is quite understandable.

A lot of people are also paid based on productivity, and that's how we're paid. The formula pay system is based on pilots being compensated relative to the potential of their production. weight/speed/etc.

Trip and duty rigs are the way we protect ourselves from wasting time not being productive.

The funny thing is though, the less productive a pilot is (fly slower, don't accept shortcuts etc), the more money he will make...

Who else is paid based on productivity? Sales employees usually get a commission, but that's the only big group I can think of.