Wages were negotiated by ALPA when the airlines were converting equipment DC3 to DC4's. They saw the DC4 as a threat to jobs. The DC4 carried two to three times the passengers, flew further and faster. They saw job losses. What they make today is based on the same contract principals negotiated then. That negotiating team shold be in the airline hall of fame. Airports I guess figured wear and tear on runways. One factor about the 747 landings. Traffic following a 747 has increased spacing that wouldn't be required if it were small aircraft. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Wright" <jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 2:24 AM 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.