Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
The problem is not with how they arrive at the data, but what the airlines submit on their Form 41. I have been trying to get a true breakout of our augment ops as well as stage length for aircraft type, and to date no one will has that information in a public source.
In response to you last point, it is my belief that adjusted data will make our case. Form 41 data is where the problem is. Now you can take a bid package and do the math yourself but that is time consuming. I can venture to guess what it is base on our summer 2011 block hrs and active pilots that were line flying, but alas some of that data is not publicly disclosed, so posting that info in a no, no. ( I will say that my rough math puts our block hrs per pilot over that of a SWA pilot)
Not sure I agree.
It's right there in plain sight (and we ought to use the data):
2010 Production
(for every dollar spent on pilot pay, heres how many ASMs were produced)
DAL 93.2 $/ASM
SWA 70.6 $/ASM
That means SWA got 32% fewer ASMs from every dollar of pilot pay than Delta did in 2010.
-SWA doesn't have augmented crews
-SWA doesn't make the same contributions
-SWA made lots of money
Clearly, pilot pay isn't the factor to running a highly profitable company.
But it can be an anchor on a poorly run company.
let's see if I can make my point using some other numbers:
AS 83 $/ASM
AMR 86.4 $/ASM
Both American and Alaska show relatively low production on the bottom scale of their respective peer groups. Yet, you would never know one of these is making record profits and the other near bankruptcy looking at these numbers.
My take -- this is a good metric.
"The street" looks at metrics like ASM CASM and RASM to determine the efficiency and production of an airline.
Dollars spent/ASM on pilot compensation directly affect RASM a key metric measuring an airlines productivity.
Cheers
George