I don't have a copy of ASA's contract handy....could somebody please explain what this "unstacking" language is all about?

To those who are under the spell of management, I suggest that the next time you're at cruise... do a little calculating as to what the entire crew is making on the given leg you are flying, versus the amount of money that is being combusted in the rear of the aircraft. It's high school math, and at XJT we have the fuel price paid by the company right on our paperwork (ask the fueler if you need to).

If you do this, you will see that if you are an FO like myself that your entire salary for the flight is comparable to the cost to the company incurred when ATC let one extra dude take off before you when you already had them both turning. Note too that NOBODY from ASA or XJT has asked for fuel conservation measures in the last few years.

Crew salaries and benefits are a minute fraction of the equation. They could double our pay and have nearly the same bottom line.

Pilots suffer from (appropriately) enormous egos, but don't allow your judgement to be clouded as to how much your big fat check is hurting the company's shareholders.

How do you figure?

total pilots * credit hours per year * hourly pay rate = rough estimate of pilot labor cost

If you take hourly pay rate * 2, you don't get anywhere near the same total as hourly pay rate * 1.

I get the point that pilot labor costs are a smaller part of the budget pie than some of the other slices (fuel, facilities, maintenance, aircraft leases)...but to say it's an inconsequential slice is in denial of reality.

At ASA, we just got this giant pay cut from DAL. The way they *were* running an airline and making money doesn't work after that. So, they're trying to figure out how to run an airline and make money in an age of lower total compensation from the primary mainline partner. Keeping crew/labor costs lower is one of the ways they can try to achieve that.

I'm not endorsing it or saying it's right or the best way, but it's one facet in a multi-faceted approach.

Crew salaries and benefits are a minute fraction of the equation. They could double our pay and have nearly the same bottom line.

Crew salaries and benefits are still only part of the crew costs. Training, tsa requirements, parking, jepp updates, overhead, and hotel costs are all part of your cost not just your pay rate. I'm sure someone already said this but there are quality of life increases that I want that do have a cost, that our competition does not have.

You are factually incorrect. Crew costs are the largest component of total operating expenses per the the agreements we have with our mainline partners. I'm too lazy to look at the 2010 data but the 2009 numbers showed crew costs at 29% of total operating expenses. Yeah, double that and there will be no affect to the stockholder. :rolleyes:

Project APU? Performance Cost Index? Attilla (sp?)? Those are three major efforts to save fuel at ASA over the last several years to cut fuel costs.

Airlines historically operate on very low profit margins - when you're only set to make 1-4%, doubling our salary would quickly eat into that profit!

Don't misunderstand, I think there should be a uniform, mainline level salary for all part 121 operations. But realistically, let's shoot for what we can actually get.

Just like the CEO's do!

True - JO at Mesa seems a prime example in this case!!

Agreed.....

Earnings (or lack there of) call is today at 11am i believe.....lets see what they have to say.

You have to remember that under capacity purchase agreements, the regional carrier does not pay for the fuel, so your calculations mean nothing because fuel does not impact the bottom line except in special cases such as ferry and test flights. Delta and Conited pick up the tab at the pump, then pay a contractually predetermined fee to the operator for the departure of that flight. This predetermined fee in ASA's case is less than what it costs the company to operate the flight, so it becomes management's duty to bring the company's cost structure below the point that the fee for departure is more than the cost of operating the flight, thus bringing the company back to profit. Doubling the crew cost would indeed hurt the bottom line.