That's a different debate.

The 737 is a much more capable aircraft. It can fly from SLC to SJC and from SJC to JFK. Both probably much cheaper than the 88.

Because it is more capable, it should be paid more.

I don't even think the 88 can fly from SLC to ATL on a hot summer day, unless you take off without a full load.

I'm not trying to disrespect the 88 pilots, because they work equally hard. It's just that when the pay was established on the 737N, it was high because of the contributions it made to the company bottom line.

The "Rogerina" made me smile. Excellent creativity.

 

Since your new to this site I'll try to give you a bit of slack. GIMME A FREAKIN BREAK!!! Are you with management? 88 mentioned this months ago. The mission of our 88's compare with the swa 737's. Swa pay for the 88's should be our base pay and scale up from there. Our 900's are 757 replacement jets. They should pay far more than the swa rate. An 11% raise is just a slap in the face. After all that our pilot group has put up with for the last decade+ we are ready for a heck of a lot more than a measly 11%.

 

Same mission with the 88 having more seats.

However, I compared a 12 year DAL 777 FO to an 8 year SWA 737 FO with a similarly large gulf.

Padre, I have to ask, what is your goal in posting here?

What you are posting seems to me that you are trying to make some case for us to be willing to shoot low. You are not making your case.

You said earlier that you were junior. I take that to mean 2007 or later hire. Why would you think that a 4-5 year DAL FO (at a global powerhouse airline) should be compesated on their w-2 less than a national regional that flies 737s (honestly, no offense intended to SWA lurkers)?

 

First of all... Completely false statement.

We had this little thing in the contract called 3B6. Great leverage. DALPA gave it away. 3B6 is the reason for the 73n rates.

Second, go dig up your copy of "Flying the Line" you will find in that the basis for payrates evolved from a formula that took into account weight-speed-pax/payload. This formula was what led to significant increases at the dawn of the jet age.

However, I am beginning to believe that you may actually have much in common with Tomahawk 58. I'm thinking you have never owned a copy of that book and that there is high probabilty that you spend a majority of your week in a cubicle.

 

I think DeadHead mentioned something about sideboob.

 

I'd like to avoid the APA path.

They tried to justify their huge "ask" using a number of analogies; former pay rates adjusted for inflation, management compensation, former sacrifices. None of it matters. Get over it.

We all need to live in the here and now. What you guys made in 2004 does not matter to the NMB. That's a brick wall that you cannot get by. If you think that you are going to get a 43% pay raise, you are going to wait, and wait, and wait, and bypass thousands of dollars of income.

I'm suggesting that all of us need to analyze any deal that comes our way, evaluate it based on today's industry, and make a rational decision. That's all. If we get more than SWA on an hourly basis and I don't have to kill myself flying that type of SWA schedule out of SLC for the next 10 years, I'll vote yes (on the pay part). Scope needs to be evaluated independently.

That's what I want.

 

Standby for incoming!

 

Sorry, meant to show one of the right side.

 

Like we used to yell in the Army!!
I-N-C-O-M-I-N-G!!

 

You don't have to lecture me about the time value of money.

You have no credibility, SWA pay rates mean nothing without the SWA contract. Go back to your cubicle.

APA is a red herring.