That’s not how pay works in the corporate pilot world. It’s all based on equipment and the peer group is the entire nation regardless of operation. Why would it be different at the airlines?

What about the idea that any airline can change its business model on a whim if they so desired?

Our "Peers" are anyone who flies 320s and 321s.

The issue is we can't use Allegiant or Spirit/Jetblue right now because their rates are not from a new CBA... You can't just be asked to average the rates of your peers, then be told your peers are the ones with no contracts and lower pay from 2018..

JB and NK never got new contracts. Their rates just went up to hold them over until they did a full CBA.

Therefore, unless they get new contracts, we can't average G4, JB or NK into any calculations.

I don't come to argue either. Everyone has an opinion. You skipping my (or anyone else's for that matter) comments is your loss (I suppose it's to only read those that you agree w/).

I don't skip anyones' comments. I've learned things here and I've taught as well. It's the whole purpose of the blog...

We are the lone ULCC. To me, back in late 2013 when Indigo bought F9, I thought they had a model similar to SWA in mind (w/ a twist). Low prices, tons of seats and querky/unique customer service that a segment of the population would enjoy. Lots of destinations focused on somewhat regional airline flying type of shorter trips focused on strictly those most profitable point to point destinations. TBH, (hindsight being 20/20), this would've been the SMARTEST plan.

Over the years, F9 transitioned into a strict ULCC - namely in poor customer service. EVERY thing was cheap, down to the cost of the aircraft lease, baggage handling crews and outsourcing of gate agents. This was MOST similar to NK in the lack of regard for the customer AND type of flying (more large base to base). Up until three years ago, NK was our closest peer. Now, IMHO, NK is barely an airline. It's unfortunate but true.

If you saw Burger King going out of business, would you say "Ah man, they ARE just like McDonald's" or would you say "Ah man, they WERE just like McDonalds?"

My answer to the mediator would be "We fly A320/21s with 240 seats from NYC to LAX, SJU to LGA and ATL to SFO. We fly around more people than some UA/AA/DL widebodies. We're a national airline w/ long haul and short haul capabilities and routes. If anything, our peer group is any 73/321 domestic only flyer who has the ability to carry 240 pax." This would be my justification for using their 76/330 pay rates as a STARTING place.

I think we are similar in that regard. I have yet to determine if that's a benefit or a detriment (sounds like more of the latter from your take).

Long haul? Uh, no… short haul domestic airline that does some tourist international destinations. 240 pax in a 321 and still can’t turn a profit. You want 76/330 rates… good luck with that, if you want those rates go to a legacy airline then because no mediator sees F9 as anything more than a smaller version of NK

turning a profit has nothing to do with pilot compensation.
that metric lies squarely on Biffle‘s shoulders.

It makes for a better argument in mediation. He willl argue and show they’re not profitable, so yes it does factor in overall compensation.

That argument is easily quelled w/ common sense.

If your company isn't profitable while paying the employees 40% less than other companies that are turning a profit, then labor costs obviously aren't the problem.

Also, pilot (and flight attendants) are DIRECT labor. Mgt labor is indirect. The more direct labor you lose (due to attrition), the more directly your product is affected. More thought should be put into the # of VPs we seem to have (and their salaries).

What exactly isn't long haul about trans North American flights? Just about ALL domestic airlines are domestic long-haul . . .

What you don't have is the global reach, the massive credit card deals and the higher end class of service that the big three have. They are not your peers.

And most certainly, the NMB will NEVER look at a 321 as a pay comparative to a wide-body, no matter how many bodies you put in that 321. They never have and they never will.

[QUOTE=dracir1;3950713]My answer to the mediator would be "We fly A320/21s with 240 seats from NYC to LAX, SJU to LGA and ATL to SFO. We fly around more people than some UA/AA/DL widebodies. We're a national airline w/ long haul and short haul capabilities and routes. If anything, our peer group is any 73/321 domestic only flyer who has the ability to carry 240 pax." This would be my justification for using their 76/330 pay rates as a STARTING play/QUOTE]

And the mediator would die laughing. AA flew an A321T with 102 pax. Ten first , twenty business, seventy economy. Pretty sure the yield was higher than what you get with 240. Also any WB has cargo.

[QUOTE=symbian simian;3951587][QUOTE=dracir1;3950713]My answer to the mediator would be "We fly A320/21s with 240 seats from NYC to LAX, SJU to LGA and ATL to SFO. We fly around more people than some UA/AA/DL widebodies. We're a national airline w/ long haul and short haul capabilities and routes. If anything, our peer group is any 73/321 domestic only flyer who has the ability to carry 240 pax." This would be my justification for using their 76/330 pay rates as a STARTING play/QUOTE]

[QUOTE "And the mediator would die laughing. AA flew an A321T with 102 pax. Ten first , twenty business, seventy economy. Pretty sure the yield was higher than what you get with 240. Also any WB has cargo./QUOTE]

What you don't have is the global reach, the massive credit card deals and the higher end class of service that the big three have. They are not your peers.

And most certainly, the NMB will NEVER look at a 321 as a pay comparative to a wide-body, no matter how many bodies you put in that 321. They never have and they never will."

I had no Idea the Mediators has so much free time they would come on APC and tell us all how it is. Unless of course YOUR NOT MEDIATORS WITH THE NMB ,and are in fact a bunch of keyboard general's so **** sure in your own view of things that you can't see any other way things might work out.

Mediating a contract like this is no easy task. the best out come from the Mediators perspective is if both sides walk away angry. The Idea of what fair pay is incredibly hard to quantify. The pay rates for various professions are widely variable (know any Teachers with Masters degrees that earn 40K/yr?)

What I can say is our company with the cadet program is spending over 100k on training per cadet. on top of 100K for the first year. with most bouncing within 3 years. Attrition this high is one of the reasons we are not profitable. That is just one, Dayturns, mini bases ,and the over staffing required to run those plays. It's not easy for a mediator to decide which metrics to use. Likely it will fall to what makes no side happy.

That said I am not sure what your advocating for. If we ratified a garbage contract I wouldn't be so sure our low rates wouldn't affect yours in mediation because while you might not think the sword cuts this way. I would bet it cuts the other way when/if your airline drags you into mediation trying to squeeze a little more "competitive advantage " out of the pilot group because say there is an economic downturn. You will be surprised how fast things like number of seats per plane matter and how little traction premium seating will get when the Mediator is "trying to balance things out" (Make no one happy)

We should all be advocating to make the Mediators job as easy as possible ALL A320 pilots should earn the same base rate. Under paying your employees by 50% is and will always be a competitive advantage. If it goes for to long your employers might start looking for ways to balance it out.

Long haul = augmented crews
Just because I flew my 321 from BOS-LAX doesn’t mean it’s long haul, it’s just a long flight.

I think this discussion is silly. Everyone who flies an A-320 in the US, regardless of the airline they fly for (but specially if you are a ALPA pilot), should be interested in Frontier Pilots achieving the same rates as everyone else. It is not good to have one pilot group significantly below the rest. Instead of having ego driven ****ing contests, why don’t you all cheer this group and hope we all come in line with everyone?

People will insist that their legacy is better and the ulccs deserve less... Just how it is.

Somehow, because we are at a ULCC, we are less of pilots, as shown by the way legacy pilots stick their noses up at us in the airports. (maybe its just angry triangle pilots)

When NK bots in their concession package we R helically wrapped around an incline plane…….

They're all friendly when they need that jump seat.

Kinda funny...I mean that is IF they even come up and say hi...

Then again only one Air Line seems to forget to do that, everyone else has been awesome.

I think JFK-LHR on a widebody is generally considered "long haul", even though it can be done without augmenting.

I had one get off, stare at me and not even thank me for the ride home. I was a little late showing and he never talked to me, he talked to my FO, then asked our FAs if I was going to show and he couldnt fly this plane because he flies Boeings.....

/yawn

Neither does Southwest (outside of the massive CC deals which they do have). And they make more than everyone. SW isn't our peer? Is Jet Blue?
VERY true. You are worth what you can negotiate. Is it a battle to get higher rates? Of course. But you need the pilot force that's willing to strike (or whatever the NMB lets us do). No votes are needed to see what that is.
Yes, and yes. I'm advocating for myself, my fellow pilots at F9 and the industry in general. There's NO WAY anyone can convince me that this company can't find a way to make $ while paying us industry rates. The thought process is preposterous. It may not be BB, but SOMEONE (probably more than a few people) can. No airline can (nor should) survive with having to pay it's labor less. That strategy just isn't viable long term in ANY business. I can't even believe this needs to be mentioned...

If we don't get industry rates it's because we as a pilot force weren't strong enough to demand it. I'd rather this company go out of business than to accept less. If either of those look likely, I will take my retro check and leave. The Big 3 are hiring again - maybe for a short while and maybe longer. Sooner or later they'll have to again and again and again.

You may want to check financials before you make statements like that. SWA USED to make more than others. Hasn’t been that way for a while and definitely not post COVID. Currently it’s DAL/UA making lots and everyone else making small profits of the big 4.

I do agree y’all should be seeking industry average rates for A321 on par with the big 4 NB rates. I hope you get it!

By make more I meant the PILOT rate.

Ah, ok I took your statement wrong. I agree they probably make the most on average of all NB pilots.

All good.

But to that point, SWA has been losing money (and it wasn't just the Maxxes). They are changing their model. The are having to adapt. The one thing they're not talking about is concessions. They still pay more than everyone else.

And, I'd be surprised if they didn't start profiting more given that everyone is hiring now w/ the expectation of more demand.

Enough of the BS 10 hr 3 days SDT 5 hr and the NTR crap……
5hr min CALANDER day

Yeah, they are making out with so much money because of those.. or 16hr 4 days, My schedule would be like 100hrs instead of 72hrs of credit if we had min DAY.

To any first airline F9 pilots reading this. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. Having to do a 3 day worth 10 hours is disrespectful of our time and min calendar day will fix this issue.

Be careful. Crazy talk like that will bankrupt the airline. Just like Spirit.

So just do your 10 hour 3 day and be happy you get to fly a jet.

Shiny.

You get to for a shiny jet.

Our planes are not shiny…costs too much money in the eyes of the company to clean them and maintain them properly. Why would they care for a plane that they lease? That’s the way they treat our fleet. Even the new ones look beat, fast! I’d be curious to know if the extra fuel cost from increased drag from grease actually nets zero, or costs the company more money than the cost of cleaning them. Same old jump over a dollar to save a penny logic.

FORCE productivity or make them go under!

You don't have trip rigs? You can call it a 3 day all day, but it is less than 35 hours TAFB. So if it started Monday morning at 6am and ended Tuesday at 5pm it would be fine if it paid 10 hours? Even if you now have to commute in day before and pay for the hotel? You have a trip that is commutable on both ends. If you get calendar day, you will work calendar day. No more 11pm start, 10am finish, they are paying for the whole day, they will use you the whole day. Say goodbye to being able to commute on both ends. If it is the red eyes you don't want, get a better override. If you don't make enough money get a higher rate. Asking for calendar day and thinking the trips will stay the same? Priceless. Stop looking at the calendar, and look at TAFB. This a 24/7 job, not 9/5.

You are literally saying that starting work 1 minute after midnight should pay the same as starting work 23 hours and 58 minutes later at 1 minute before the next midnight. Think about that.

Right. I provided an actual example where they just changed a trip to make it harder, for the same pay, and less commutable but it now fit the calendar day pay criteria. My point was not well received and this still polls highly as a want in the pilot group. It’s one of our tops asks.

I commuted to red eyes at NK for over a decade. Did I love it? NO. But having no nights in a hotel I paid for helped. Almost all the LAS guys were complaining about the same thing. And I would show them the BNA/IAH 2 day. Show at 00:10, long layover, fly back. Exactly the same as all the other "3" day trips that started 30 minutes earlier. #optimizer

I think you should preface this with the fact that you are now at an airline that does in fact have a calendar day min. The other fact is not everyone commutes, and while TAFB is nuanced when compared to calendar day, the majority of the industry has a calendar day min AND a TAFB rig.

Will a pairing builder build to reduce costs, sure, but you are in the very very extreme minority of pilots that does a 22:00 show and 10:00 release 3 day and thinks that’s the same as doing a 2 day during normal hours with the same TAFB. They are not the same. You can appreciate that now that you live in base. Enjoy the quality CBA you now work under.

We have trips that start at 8am or 8pm, then one leg or a few legs, sit for 27-35hrs, then fly one leg or a few legs home the 3rd day and credit 10hrs or maybe 12hrs. You can't pick up any other trips on those days unless they are redeyes or give you the rest required. It is a 3 day. it should be 5:15 min day.

If I go somewhere one day at 7pm, then spend 30hrs in a hotel the 2nd day, then fly one leg at 7am home, that is a 3 day. I should get 15hrs minimum. Ideally, 15h45min.

The intended consequence of daily min is to get rid of 24+ hour layovers. Of course most of those will disappear. That's an intended consequence and if the trips become more productive as a result, that's acceptable. Commutability lost? I'd rather that than what we currently have. Commute friendly schedules at least in my situations where I've had to commute, can be tiring and make for a really long first & last day.

I don't disagree however that we should always look at the results of any added or altered language, but min daily is a top ask for a reason. 50 hour Detroit layovers? Really? lol

We should still have some 20+hr layovers... There is always a middle ground. There should be a little something for everyone, but defeinitely not a majority of a base's trips 10-13hr 3 days with 25+hr layovers.

Okay so let’s say it’s a 10pm start to Detroit currently. Sit for 24 and fly back on day three in the morning. Now it’s just a 00:01 start, shortened rest by 3 hours, same return. What was achieved?