Nick and Jon raise a good point; a slight oversight in my thoughts. Much like any skill based occupation, the scarcity of a skill usually commands a higher rate. I'm guessing here; there are a few more Cessna 182 pilots than 777 captains. It is of course tempered by the fact that many airlines pay to train their pilots to newer and or bigger planes.... further tempered by the fact that those chosen for training are usually the 'senior of the juniors.' Of course, a pilots union, specifically it sounds like at Delta, saw an opportunity to translate a skill into a higher rate. In the case of the 777 pilots and their union who wanted a higher rate, Delta was at their mercy. Delta wouldn't (nor shouldn't) try to find pilots within their ranks that would do the job without the extra pay, as that would 'upset' the union. Even though Delta likely sponsored or out-n-out paid for the training. Continue to happens in the high-tech arena as well. Recent years of course have brought about a glut of certain skills. I'm sure there are a few L1011 and DC10 captains who are 'under-employed' and can't command the high-rates... And I completely agree with Jon, a pay-scale based strictly on seniority is ridiculous. That's how certain 'aged' civil servants, adding value at a secretarial and administrative level were being paid $40CAD/hour in some parts of some governments. Matthew On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 08:34 AM, WaterskiPilot@xxxxxxx wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/2003 10:23:59 AM Central Standard Time, > jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > >> A pay scale based strictly upon >> seniority makes more sense to me. Left seat, right seat--it wouldn't >> matter. > > Here are a few of my thoughts. If the situation above happened, you > wouldn't > have anybody who wants to be captain. Why take all the responsibility > if you > aren't being paid more for it? Also, some senior guys won't jump to > another > airplane because they would rather have the bidding seniority on the > smaller > equipment, or they don't want to go to school again. > > If a larger airplane implies more responsibility, why do it if I am > not going > to make more money for it. More bodies times more distance times more > training equals more money if you want the senior guy to bite. > Otherwise, > you will have the newhires going to whatever is open, not the smaller > equipment and reserve to "learn the ropes" as the situation dictates. > > I know that from an outsiders standpoint a one payscale rule looks > great, but > nobody on a my seniority list would buy it, unless of course everyone > is paid > at or above the top rate that we have now, which I think is not what > you were > getting at. > > Jim > Off to the box for the ride. > > Jim Hann > Waterski J-41 Captain > Lambert-St. Louis Airport (STL/KSTL) >