I'm certainly not.

Welcome to the Delta whine and cheese party

Holy Cow! Seriously?

Honestly? I don't want any hourly rate charts. I want a comparison of 100 / 75 / 50 / 25 / 5th percentile W2s, retirement contributions and Annual TAFB. My hunch (only a hunch, because I havent seen this data) is that we'd look pretty bleak.

I think the point being made is that while the SWA TA is good, its not all that good...and not much better than what the company has on the table...and the UA extension was merely a place holder with rates below what we rejected (agreed that there were few if any concessions but only because they lag in so many areas already, thus their extension didn't help anyone).

And you can also correct your assertion that "full retro" was achieved at any time since the BS flag was raised on that one by one of their own.

It's an apples and hummingbird comparison dude. If you do that only within the 737s you have good numbers. Other than that, notsomuch.

I'd be interested in both. I'd like to see total earnings for all these carriers, AND hourly rates, with and without DC, and PS. I'm curious who works hardest too.

I'd also like to see how we stack up in other areas, vacation, sick, etc.

Bottom line is that in terms of what the various airlines are getting, we have no idea what we're talking about. Everyone is approaching these discussions based on what they think the facts should be, not where they are.

It certainly seems like the various airlines are using the others as benchmarks... Why wouldn't we be good at comparing ourselves?

As far as process goes, it might be nice to have a (mostly) clean rate like UAL, but no one seems to be fighting to have their contract. Everyone wants a solid TA that reads like UPS, but no one wants to wait, and the math looks poor.

These various stories all matter, and the limitations of the RLA matter, and the participation of the NMB also matters, especially since we invited them in. So maybe it's a good idea to consider the pattern established by all this bargaining?

Seems like everyone wants to be different, yet our outcomes are remarkably similar.

Then you have accepted the notion that equipment should be as predominant a factor in earnings as it has become. And as 737s replace 757s and CS100s replace MD88s, you'll similarly accept a regression in earnings for Delta pilots.

I think what we all care about is time given to one's employer, and what one receives in exchange. I don't mind comparing very similar forests (e.g., annual W2 or annual TAFB) comprised of very different trees (hourly rates, trip rigs, reserve days/month) - it's the big picture that matters in the long run. Unfortunately, we often debate the trees and completely miss deforrestation right in front of our eyes.

James/T has long championed banded pay-rates, but what you propose makes a lot of sense: career earnings vs. time-at-job earning that money is where the real comparison lies. It is a useful metric, and indeed, the real measure of how "well" we get paid relative to other companies.

Southwest pays nearly 130 equivalent hours per month using their "trip" flight pay system, we see nothing close to that on a regular basis, yet our NB guys spend more days on the road earning their paycheck?

Let's compare total W-2 pay, contributions to retirement, and Time Away From Base, and see where we fall.

After all, don't we all want "more money, more time off?" That's the way to measure it and get it.