Jazz & Thomas Cook = 6 757's

[teacher]

I'm sure those flying smaller types would disagree. Why should only those few flying larger aircraft be rewarded with bigger pay cheques? It's not like the work is harder, if anything it's easier? I agree that we need to be careful as to not lower the bar of pilot wages in this country but yet show me another company that pays over 100G to fly a dash 8. The sooner the ENTIRE industry gets away from this outdated and inefficient pay structure the better we all will be. It's not like the company will be paying less in wages just the same per pilot. The percentage of cost for wages when negotiated properly should be the same.

[Stinky]

You leave status pay in place and you become some of the lowest paid 757 pilots in the world. To me that's a problem.

Why would it be a problem if you also have the opportunity to be one of the highest paid Dash 8 pilots in the world. We spread the wealth and bid lifestyle instead of aircraft.
For the guys that need to keep two type ratings current give them a few thousand dollar bonus or premium.

If you put it to a vote its not hard to see which way it will go since only the top 10% will hold this. Likely junior Captains will bid right seat and only F/O's with 5+ years have a shot at it.

[countryhick]

You leave status pay in place and you become some of the lowest paid 757 pilots in the world. To me that's a problem.

Then you simply do not understand the concept of status pay.

[ACAV8R]

Countryhick,

Just so I understand the concept of status pay......Do your rates fluctuate with the number of pilots on your seniority list? e.g When you negotiated the rates you had say 1500 pilots. Few years later you're down to 1300 at the same status pay? Would be a pay cut right? (collectively)

Going to be a pretty sweet gig doing 8 Kingston standups a month on the Dash 8 making $150,000!

[habs]

Country Hick is correct: a lot of you do not understand status pay. And I'm glad you don't; it keeps you archaic as we progress.

[countryhick]

Rates do not fluctuate, what is in the CA is there for the duration. Yes, if you look at it from that angle, the company is paying 200 fewer pilots, so they are saving money, and the collective group is not paid the same amount, but the individual pilot will not see a reduction in pay. Equal years of service = equal pay rate.

As we are currently in negotiations, no new pay scales are available. However, I cann assure you that our MEC will not bring us anything less than a substantial improvement to our current (AC owned, CCAA era concessionary) contract

[mbav8r]

ACAV8R, I'm trying to make sense of what you are getting at but there is none to be made. If we were not on status pay and went from 1500 to 1300 pilots, the only benefit is to the company. Likewise with status pay reducing 1500 to 1300, the benefit again goes to the company. My paycheck stays the same regardless of how many are on the roster. The benefit to me, from status pay is I get paid the same as an F/O on the Dash or RJ. So I choose the aircraft that will give me the better lifestyle. It really is that simple no chasing metal, not giving up lifestyle for money. My only decision is whether I want to wait until enough are below or take a BOTL Captain spot on reserve, when the time comes.

[Mône]

MEC announced there would be no seperate payscale for the 57.

Status pay is the way to go

[Brick Head]

This is your choice guys and gals. But...

Status pay has many great aspects. However it also has a significant problem, and the reason I always balk at the idea. It is because it makes the smaller aircraft non viable on a route by route basis. Marketing departments look at viability on a segment basis. They don't care that a 777 runs way below cost due to a status system when assessing the viability of YYZ-YWG on an EMJ. In the case of an EMJ on status pay it would price it way out of the market. At the end of the day we would be operating more wide bodies for less and fewer narrow bodies for more. The end result is lower wages overall.

In Jazz's situation this doesn't apply directly since when they bid on work it is on an average per mile basis. How they then divide up the money is up to them. However indirectly the impact will be felt everywhere.

Status systems discourage smaller types and encourages larger. I mean that is really what has made the system so attractive to both Jazz and ALPA. The larger the aircraft capacity the cheaper the pilots get. Which is part of the glaring problem we have before us. AC's CPA partner has used the system to undercut and provide cheaper labor at the upper end. It is a problem for AC because it gives TC a cost advantage. It is problem for the profession as well because it will create downward pressure on wages. What do you think will happen to a new 757 start up operation? Or someone looking for contract renewal? They will have to work for wages that are comparable to your status pay in order to compete.

So you may think it is great. I think there are a lot of pluses to it. But at the end of the day I would much rather see you guys get the pay checks you deserve when you fly that aircraft. But that is up to you.

Congrats on the contract once again.

[habs]

Brick:

In a staus pay system you cannot look at wages on the large a/c without considering the wages of the smaller ones; they are clearly linked. In your example of start-up 757 only (single type) operator I can't see the prolem since those pilots could easily argue they don't fly anything smaller and thus merit at least the average 757 pay of similar type airlines/pay schedules (non-status). When negotiating you tend to compare your own airline to that of a similar one. Like AC A320 wages vs. Westjet 737 wages. And another thing: at Jazz most have realized the true benefits of lifestyle the staus pay system offers; I think these are one of the plus sides you mentioned. There are numerous others. Training costs being a huge one. It's been a while since I read Milton's book, but in it he makes reference to the cost of upgrading a pilot to a vacant captain's seat at US airways (I think that's the airline). I believe the cost was around 1 million $ after all was said and done with all the other vacancies it creates. Status pay creates incentive to stay on your equipment for a lot of pilots. Just another example. Again, like Tony S. always says: apples and oranges when discussing status vs non-status pay systems. I believe status pay will be the way more and more airlines will go. That, or here in Canada, our future College of Pilots will set a new standard if (and it's a big if) all pilot groups from all airlines buy in.

One more thing: in the end it will be the managers who decide which pay system is most cost effective in each individual airline. Thus, when negotiating, pilot groups will compare themselves to thos airlines of similar structure.


Humans have a fear of the unknown; it's natural. Status pay is a bit of an unknown to most pilot groups and it's natural to see it as a threat. For now.

[RFN]

Forgive my ignorance, but does British Airways not use a status pay system?


Does anyone know how it works for them?

[ACAV8R]

I'm out, have fun.

[Brick Head]

Forgive my ignorance, but does British Airways not use a status pay system?


Does anyone know how it works for them?

RFN,

Not sure exactly what form their pay takes. Status pay has been around for decades. The hybrids within what people call status pay is almost limitless. Every thing from linking the pay to formula pay, throwing it in a pile, then dividing it. To doing the same but separating narrow body from wide body. To just having names move up a list, getting paid for the equipment your name sits on no matter where you might actually sit. To just a pay scale linked to nothing which is the hardest type to keep up industry standard with.

Habs,

You make it sound as if Jazz is a pioneer in the status pay world. It has been around for decades. Been researched off and on for the same length of time by both CALPA and ACPA. There is no doubt there are many alluring things about that type of system. The main flaw has always been it ignores the economics of capitalism. It makes a group very competitive at the top end while comprising competitiveness at the bottom end. You may be the highest paid -8 pilots and lowest paid 757 pilots today. But you risk becoming just the lowest paid 757 drivers tomorrow.

The next economic problem is that you are not providing the same cost structure to your customers as a result of the system. One is getting a much better deal than the other and they compete with each other.

Face it your choice of a status pay system has more to do with getting out of regional flying come hell or high water by allowing your company to be very competitive at the top end at the expense of the low end.

[RFN]

Well of course there has to be a down side to status pay.
Your point of not being cost effective at the Dash 8-100 end is well taken.

That said, I will personally back status pay at Jazz as long as I work there, because of the options it gives senior guys to fly whatever they want, without risk of losing pension income. This will enable them to enjoy doing whatever they like, which is the whole point of seniority anyway in my opinion.

My opinion is also tainted as I have no seniority. Despite that inconvient fact, under status pay I would gain from 757s that I would never set foot in.

Pilot unity across a company is very important, and a poisonous environment kills more than just morale.

[Localizer]

The next economic problem is that you are not providing the same cost structure to your customers as a result of the system. One is getting a much better deal than the other and they compete with each other.

Face it your choice of a status pay system has more to do with getting out of regional flying come hell or high water by allowing your company to be very competitive at the top end at the expense of the low end.

Brick Head,

Good post overall, but there is one point I need to address above. The customer (Air Canada) doesn't suffer from a higher paid -8 drivers. That is a set contract .. its the shareholder that suffers on the payouts. Instead of paying out $450 million to shareholders next year .. it'll be $375 million.

When it comes time to re-negotiate the CPA .. that may come into play .. but IMO I doubt it.

Cheers!

[HavaJava]

If (and I stress "if") ALPA can nogotiate a substantially higher status pay scale due to the arrival of the 757's it sounds like an ok plan. However, if your pay scale remains even remotely close to what it is now, I still maintain that Jazz pilots will be leading the constant decline in wages and working conditions in this industry. You will very quickly become the pariah of the industry as your fellow pilots in all aspects of the industry (tier 1,2, and 3, charters, etc) see how your contract has managed to lower the bar for all pilot negotiations in the future.

I was talking to a former Jazz MEC member and he made it pretty clear to me that the current contract pretty bluntly says that pay rates can not be changed even if you get B747's...

Good luck with that one...I hope for the sake of the industry that Jazz pilots can negotiate a fair status pay system for when the 757s arrive.

[Localizer]

Why can't you say .. "Jazz pilots, congrats on the new contract and I hope you folks get a huge uplift in your status pay. Go get'em!"

And a little faith might go a long way ... but instead you've already seemed to have marked us for dead?!

Thanks for the never-ending support ...

[rudder]

Well of course there has to be a down side to status pay.
Your point of not being cost effective at the Dash 8-100 end is well taken.

What could appear to be a high pay rate on the smallest equipment is subsidised by the millions $$ in training cost savings to the company because there is no equipment hopping for nominal pay increases. These savings are even more apparent as the number of equipment types increase. In other words, the typical amortisation period of initial type training costs will be longer in a status pay system than an equipment based pay system.

[teacher]

The company isn't saving any money by using status pay when the percentage of cash from revenue spent on pilot wages is the same from a stratus pay company to a formula paid company. XX% is XX% whether it's divided evenly or by aircraft size.

Like it was stated a million times status pay savings come from a more stable and predictable work force and training costs.

It also doesn't use the junior pilots to subsidize the lifestyle of the senior pilots and most of all pilot morale is generally higher. For commuters it's awesome as you can pick the type that overnights at home the most and not be concerned with losing pay because of it.

[HavaJava]

Why can't you say .. "Jazz pilots, congrats on the new contract and I hope you folks get a huge uplift in your status pay. Go get'em!"

I did say that:

Good luck with that one...I hope for the sake of the industry that Jazz pilots can negotiate a fair status pay system for when the 757s arrive.

Forgive me if I have my doubts...I guess time will tell. I will be ecstatic if you manage to prove me wrong.

[SaskStyle]

Has anyone given any thought to the 150 SkyService pilots who are out of work because your company took over the flying?

You as a pilot group have an opportunity to set an example.

Instead of debating the merits of your payscale...debate the merits of leaving fellow pilots on the street.

Remember they were doing just as you were. Trying to put food on the table.

[Redwine]

Or you leave status alone, give everyone a collective raise and become the best paid dash pilots in the world. Status pay is the way it should be. Money of seats or engines is the stupidest way to calculate wages and I mean all the disrespect. How can you argue that a 777 guy flying 9 times a month doing 18 legs should get paid more than a dash(or Embrear) guy doing 4-8 legs a day working 14-15 times a month? Their flying close to the same amount of people for the same ticket price during the same amount of flight hours. I would even argue that the margins are higher for the regional flying. Regardless status pay has been proven to work well and add stability to a company and I hope it stays. It promotes pilot unity among the workforce with no competition for the higher paying positions as well as reducing training costs.

There's a reason over seas (Europe/Asia) heavy flying is often left to the younger pilots and regional flying is done by more senior folks who want to be home for dinner.

Great post!

Imo SP is the best thing since sliced bread!


I

[flyinhigh]

[quote="SaskStyle"]Has anyone given any thought to the 150 SkyService pilots who are out of work because your company took over the flying?
quote]


Buddy take a walk, Sky Service was doomed from last year when signature went into talks with Sunwing. THOMAS COOK, again THOMAS COOK NOT JAZZ AIR put sky service out of its misery.

Get over it, this didn't happen because we walked up and said, hey we want your flying, we'll do it cheaper. No they knew we were looking, came to us to see if we could do the contract and together our MEC, Management, etc came to an agreement.

I do feel for these guys, I really do. But I'll let you in on a secret. If we aren't doing it, Enerjet, Canjet, Transat, AC Vacations, Flair, just to name a few would have stepped in. (Oh but wait Jazz is working on a 10 year old contract that was forced on them so there scabs) a heart beat for these passengers. We were just proactive enough to get it first.

Said it before, Sask. Have a few pints on me, I wish you well and do hope you find work soon. Cheers

[rudder]

Has anyone given any thought to the 150 SkyService pilots who are out of work because your company took over the flying?

That is not what the newspaper summaries (based on court docs and exectutive interviews) said. TCCI kept SSV afloat after RG advised TCCI that they would have to close in January after they could not meet a debt obligation related to the previous sale transaction of of SSV by RP. TCCI assumed the obligation which allowed SSV to continue to operate. The newspapers reported that TCCI gave SSV a little breathing room to restructure (read re-finance). Clearly they were unable to do so and the result was the final petition by TCCI to liquidate SSV to meet at least a small portion of the aforementioned debt obligation.

Sad for all concerned but completely erroneous to suggest that the author of the demise of SSV was anybody but the corporate ownership. Poor decisions, poor timing, and corporate greed all contributed to the ultimate outcome.

[SaskStyle]

Has anyone given any thought to the 150 SkyService pilots who are out of work because your company took over the flying?

That is not what the newspaper summaries (based on court docs and exectutive interviews) said. TCCI kept SSV afloat after RG advised TCCI that they would have to close in January after they could not meet a debt obligation related to the previous sale transaction of of SSV by RP. TCCI assumed the obligation which allowed SSV to continue to operate. The newspapers reported that TCCI gave SSV a little breathing room to restructure (read re-finance). Clearly they were unable to do so and the result was the final petition by TCCI to liquidate SSV to meet at least a small portion of the aforementioned debt obligation.

Sad for all concerned but completely erroneous to suggest that the author of the demise of SSV was anybody but the corporate ownership. Poor decisions, poor timing, and corporate greed all contributed to the ultimate outcome.

I don't understand your point.

The details of how or why SkyService disappeared isn't what I'm commenting on.

I said Jazz took over their aircraft and has advertised that they will, in essence, replace their flying.

I just find interesting that there such a celebratory mood.

There is no expansion. There is no growth. There is no reason to be excited.

All that happened was one company took over the flying of another. And the pilot's of company A have slammed the door in the face of the pilots of company B.