Originally Posted by
sailingfun
I am on the side of making sure we get the largest raises possible and the highest possible quality of life for me and my family while also taking care of the junior pilots.
All in agreement.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
If we could by magic get the NMB to release us at the amendable date we could force the company into a contract that would be the envy of every pilot in the world. It would be great for me. I suspect the bottom quarter of the seniority list would not like it much when the airline could no long compete to add flying and starting losing it rapidly.
Are we competing anyways? Seems we're mostly as Delta pilots competing against DCI. When SWA comes to town the airline is going to compete with them anyways. In the meantime UCAL, AMR and DAL have staked out their territories and neither is going to intrude knowing capacity control is the key to profitability. Don't screw with the system. This isn't the old days where you inserted your aircraft into someone else's market and started an airfare war.
This is a no growth and no intrusion industry now.
imho our only movement upwards will be on retirements, not growth. Unless of course we grow out the bottom in replacement of DCI?
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
Most pilots posting here are clueless about the contract process and what is involved.
We read our touch and goes.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
One of the things is costing. You have to use accurate numbers or you lose credibility.
Are you saying we should post accurate financial numbers here on the internet? If we had them? I bet that'd be illegal. [insert green smile guy here] But there is good numbers out there to be had on the internet of some smart people that dissect annual reports.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
That will be critical with the NMB. You can't use a SW number of average hours they fly and then use a Delta number based on 75 hours per month.
For the record, I've been using min reserve numbers. What happens above that is too much of a variable between two airlines with totally different pay systems.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
You have to use the Delta average. Its over 1100 hours a month much like at SW. On the 737 that puts the Average Delta CA around 194k a year plus another 9K more then a SW guy gets in the DC plan. or over 200K. Still that a lot less then SW but not quite what is posted here.
Someone asked earlier why ALPA was using 900 hours, not 1100 hours. How do we know 1100 hours is accurate? Does that include reserve pilots or is that just line holders? And if pay increased substantially and new rest rules were put in place and GS/WS flying got harder then 1100 hours wouldn't be the average whether by choice or by the system.
So why use 1100 hours when it may not be accurate in 2013? If we do we could really shoot ourselves in the foot when we can't achieve 1100 hours anymore but our pay parity was based off of it. I say we use min guarantee numbers because that may be where we all end up.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
There is a valid argument that the MD88 should be compared with SW. That is however debatable. The company will quickly point out that they agreed to the higher pay rates on the 737NG based on how efficient the airframe was and the extra profit it would generate. That was our position during the 3b6 process on the airframe. Now we are going to reverse that position and base it on seats. That may or may not fly with the NMB.
I agree the 88 line is debatable, but it's a worthy debate and I'm going to argue for it.
As to 73NG efficiency provided higher pay rates because of the higher profitability,
then why not higher rates on the super efficient 738 equaling MD90? Nobody seems to talk about bringing the MD90 up to 738 parity.
Especially given we're buying MD90s for $10M versus the super expensive 738 that according to SD or someone during the recent instructor meeting said it takes 25 days of flying to B/E.
The profitability of the airplane shouldn't be the basis of pay on it. The decision probably needs to be reversed. After all, if this happens we're going to pay DAL 737 pilots equal pay with SWA pilots flying 735s and 717s. Aircraft that in no way match the size and mission profile of a DAL 738 which makes up over 88% of our 737 fleet versus only 2% of their future fleet.
That's not equal work for equal pay, that's a mistake.
Originally Posted by
sailingfun
The bottom line is you can talk all day about SW. They have never generated anything industry leading. I don't really care about SW. I care about Delta and our future contract. I expect to see us get back to our historical quality of life advantage and pay advantage. Trying to make direct comparisons with flawed data is not the right way to start out negotiations.
I like that Sailing. No complaints. But I don't think comparing min guarantee is flawed, it's just math right off APC provided tables. But if you're about 2004 pay restoration then throw this whole SWA thing and let's go!
2004 pay restoration beats the living snot out of both SWA pay and the 15% increase plus COLA year to year that some seem to be gravitating towards. I mean we're getting reports of guys who'll take 15 or 20% on time increase and sell scope out to 100 seats in exchange.
But you know, if we get SWA pay for the DC9 as in 717 = DC9, and add $20-$30 more per hour for being handsome debonair Delta pilots a majority of whom funded their respective airlines recoveries, you're back to 2004 pay across the board.
So how about SWA + [$30/hr] but at least using SWA pay allows one to frame the argument around something tangible.
I believe these are 2004 numbers?
