Details on Delta TA
#871
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Well boo frickin hoo... I don't CARE if our "cost" to staff a 737 is higher. SWA has efficiencies built into their business model that Delta can only dream about. And Delta has revenue potential built into our business model that SWA can only dream about.
What matters in this comparison is how much we make. (And, really, I think the comparison should be SWA 737 to Delta MD-88/90, based on the type of flying done and number of pax carried.) If the average SWA Captain is making more, then that's a relevant data point that could be used in helping to make the case for increasing/restoring our pay.
Don't get so lost in the MIT data, sailingfun. There's more to the story than that.
What matters in this comparison is how much we make. (And, really, I think the comparison should be SWA 737 to Delta MD-88/90, based on the type of flying done and number of pax carried.) If the average SWA Captain is making more, then that's a relevant data point that could be used in helping to make the case for increasing/restoring our pay.
Don't get so lost in the MIT data, sailingfun. There's more to the story than that.
#872
The difference between sailingfun using MIT data and me using the data presented in the SWAPA/AirTran document is that the latter shows actual average pilot compensation, i.e. W2. Sailingfun's beloved MIT data comes from Form 41, which doesn't have all the context needed to determine whether it's really an "apples to apples" comparison of what one airline's pilots actually make on average versus another. The SWAPA data is actual stats showing what their averages were at the time of publication. The fact that it was presented in their AirTran Welcome to SWA sales pitch is irrelevant... i.e. either the data is correct or it is not. Are you saying it's incorrect and they just made up those numbers? If so, I'm assuming you have proof of that, right?
#874
#875
You know, I don't remember exactly what you said and I'm not going to take the time to sort through multiple pages to try and find it. I vaguely remember the post I think you're talking about and I also vaguely remember thinking that you wrote it in a way where it was wide open to creative interpretation. In other words, more of the same kind of political doublespeak legalese that I get from my reps. That's probably why I never responded. Care to try again?
#876
#877
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
I always find it interesting how when someone can't intelligently discuss the issue they try to redirect the conversation towards the poster, or who he may or may not be.
#878
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
You had 10 posts in a row earlier today spewing alibis for DALPA's inability or unwillingness to man up on C15.
There is no doubt that I am a greasy line schlub who demands accountability, transparency, and performance from "my" "union." That is my agenda.
Why are you and Alan Shore (and shiznit, herkflyr, sailingfun, et al) so clearly opposed to disclosing your (insultingly obvious) agendas?
Do you want less money and time off than we rate? Or are you a management type who makes good money no matter what contract we negotiate?
#879
No he doesn't. He has nothing to add, so he resorts to name calling and conspiracy theories. Frankly, I don't care whether Alan is an insider or not. Maybe you believe it better if all the "insiders" just clam up so you and purple and Carl can overrun the conversation. I don't know. If you want to discuss the issues, fine and I am willing to do that but when his childish ramblings are interjected they add nothing. You just like what he says because he's on "your side." I don't like what he says, because frankly it's juvenile the majority of the time which is why I have had him on ignore since before the wonderful banishment period that ended all too soon.
#880
The...MIT data...comes from Form 41, which doesn't have all the context needed to determine whether it's really an "apples to apples" comparison of what one airline's pilots actually make on average versus another. The SWAPA data is actual stats showing what their averages were at the time of publication.
What was the staffing situation at SWA at the time that those averages were derived? How much overtime was their average pilot flying? Was that overtime equally available to all, or did some bases do much better than others?
You have repeatedly held up this pamphlet as a proxy for the value of their contract, yet we now know that, due to their staffing changes, there is less overtime available today. Yet, their contract itself has not changed.
My point then, is simply that the MIT Form 41 data has neither less nor more validity and context than the SWAPA infomercial.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post