Jon, I buy your argument about the bigger aircraft having so many automated systems and longer legs that makes flying easier. However, they are more complex beasts compared to 737 or CRJ or PA34. If we followed the logic all the CFIs would be making 125K/year, which I don't have a problem with :) But bigger aircraft is like a bigger office in a desk job environment. Responsabilities increase, decisions you make have impact on more people. And this kind of a system does support people working their way up in the ladder.. Take care.. BAHA ACUNER - CFI,CFII,MEI www.bahadiracuner.com www.acuwings.com -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jon Wright Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 2:24 AM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Big planes vs. little ones I've never understood why so many fees and wages associated with commercial aviation are based upon the weight of the plane. Take landing fees. How does a 747 cost and airport more than a 737 to handle? Take a place like LGA that was suffering total gridlock pre-9/11. If they charged uniform landing fees, all of a sudden it would make economic sense to use bigger planes. Airlines wouldn't fly the so many commuters in and congestion wouldn't be so bad. Sure, this "penalizes" smaller communities and airlines, but capitalism isn't about "fairness," it is about allocating scarce resources in the most efficient and productive way. And pilot wages are also loosely based upon tonnage. Why does a 747 captain deserve to be paid so much more than a 737 captain? Sure there is more at stake with the 747 driver, but a 737 pilot flying a bunch of short segments is working a heckuva lot harder than the folks in the front of a 747 cruising somewhere over the Pacific. Again, this skews the economics of airline fleet planning. Sure it might make sense to fly 747s, but if the pilot wages guarantee the plane won't make a profit, airlines sure aren't going to fly them. Intuivitely, the airmanship required to fly one type of jet transport over another ought to be similiar. Jon -- Jon Wright mailto:jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Montano" <mmontano@xxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: Re: An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?) > RJs are annoying for several reasons. > > They are more cost effective usually because of the structure of pilot > contracts, which in essence is based on their egos. (My opinion... from > a flying family.) > > You can fly an RJ with 60% of the seats filled profitably, not because > it's cheaper-per-seat to operate, but because the two drivers up front > are being paid $20-$30k a year. > > Pay your RJ pilot $250k/annum, and suddenly you need to fill something > like 95% of your seats just to pay the driver! > > If pilots, crew and support staff were paid by the hourly and fairly > across the board, of COURSE flying the biggest baddest hunk of aluminum > in the sky is the name of the game.... but it's not.