This is exactly the crux of the point I was trying to make. I can see increasing wages with seniority, but that pilots' wages are a function of seniority AND equipment type doesn't seem justified. Because something large is going to have a senior person flying, the current formula ensures that big planes have extremely expensive pilot labor costs to extent where much of the economies of scale are neutralized. A pay scale based strictly upon seniority makes more sense to me. Left seat, right seat--it wouldn't matter. Type of equipment--that wouldn't matter, either. I would envision pilots still bidding trips based upon seniority (with some sort of provisions to avoid "training daisy chain" costs caused by type hopping as Bob Mann mentioned). I would think (due to what Mathew described as the "bigger = newer = cooler = prime pickings" factor) that the senior people would opt for the bigger/newer/cooler planes anyway and that would address the issue where the bigger planes need more experienced crews since there is greater responsibility. And if it didn't, the airlines could step in with a floor that says you have to have a certain number of years' experience to fly the larger types. Of course with a system like that in place, given the history of airline labor relations, what happens when all the pilots with enough seniority to fly the larger planes inevitably try to game the system by bidding to fly A319s or 737s? ;) Regards, Jon -- Jon Wright mailto:jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx 425-635-0338 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Laflamme" <dplaflamme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Re: Big planes vs. little ones > There is a pay differential for the type being flown, > compounded by a differential for seniority. And I'm sure that this is the > case at all the US airlines that fly more than one type in their fleet.