That's easy. First some math:

The going 12 CA rate (AA/UA/DL) for A321 (includes 320 for AA) for 2025 is 375.28 (according to recent contract comparison). If those #s are off, apologies. That rate goes up by 4% for each airline next year to $390.29. However, the min monthly guaranteed hours differ for each airline. MMG for AA (lineholder) is 65. DL lineholder is 65. UA lineholder is 70. So, the "cheapest" monthly compensation FOR JUST MMG for 2026 will be $25,368.85. Keeping our MMG of 75 hours, the rate needed for equivalent compensation is about $338.25.

However, the issue with reserve MMG is different. Reserve MMG for AA (Long Call) is 73 and (Short Call) is 76. DL MMG varies between 72-80 based on ALV. UA MMG is 73 for 8 months of the year and 77 for Jun, Jul, Aug and Dec. If we keep our MMG at 75 hours but are paid only $338.25, the monthly compensation (as mentioned above) of $25,368.75 is less by anywhere from $2731.41 to $5,853.65. So, accepting a less rate sells our reserves short.

Further, we must factor in that AA/DL/UA all have international overrides of $6.25, $6.50 and $7.00 / hr respectivley for all flights outside CONUS, AK (and Canada for UA). Also, they all pay at least $1.00 more in per diem. Of course, this doesn't apply to all flights but it does add to the bottom line (I can imagine A321 international goes senior at those airlines).

So, the real question is - WHICH IS BEST. Higher rate but less MMG or vice versa. The answer is quite obvious - higher rate w/ less MMG is far superior given 1). lower MMG means less hours of flying needed per month, and more importantly 2). any "overtime" or above MMG credit is obviously paid at the higher rate.

So more math: let's say a 12 yr DL A321 CA credits 79.5 hours in a month (in 2026). His/her pay would be $31,027.26. With a new rate of $338.25, the F9 pilot would need to credit 91.73 hours (or with 1.25 override - 86.3 hours).


I WILL GLADLY ACCEPT LESS MMG FOR A HIGHER RATE. In fact, I'm hoping that happens.

Given just these few items, the fact that the bottom 50% (or sometimes more) could be on reserve given a base closure or lack of flying or whatever, we really should focus on equivalent compensation for them. Either pay the higher AA/DL/UA rate or reduce the # of hours that reserves need to be on call.

Yes, yes it does. I've got the math on that as well...

Our contract became amendable on Jan 16, 2024. Let's use that date for start of retro.

I don't remember the 2024 12 CA rates for us or the big 3. The 2025 12 yr CA rate for AA/UA/DL is $375.28. That rate goes to $390.29 on 1 Jan 2026. Let's say we get a contract July of 2026 and it MATCHES the current AA/UA/DL rate (humor me). To get a TRUE amount of actual retro pay we would need to get the differences in pay for each of 2024, 2025 and 2026.

For 2024, let's estimate the rate difference at $90/hr. The monthly difference (using MMG for both airlines of 75) = $6,750. For a year, $81,000.
For 2025, the rate difference is $105.21. For a month, that equates to $ $7,890.75. Yearly is $94,689.
For 6 months of 2026, the rate difference is $120.22. Monthly difference is $9,016.5. Yearly is $108,198.

For 2024, 2025 and 6 months of 2026, a 12 CA at F9 has made $229,788 dollars LESS than his/her counterpart at the big 3. Anything short of this amount is less than full retro. And, of course, that difference goes up by $9016.5 every month (until 2027 when the difference increases). BTW, the difference amounts get HIGHER when compared to years less than 12 AND it assumes we get rates that same as 2026 AA/UA/DL.

In order to pay full retro to the entire pilot group, the cost would be $500M+. Full retro isn't going to happen (hasn't happened in the history of the industy IIRC) but THERE ARE A FEW WAYS TO NARROW THE GAP.

The BEST way to make up for less retro is to obtain an EQUIVALENT rate BETTER than current AA/UA/DL. Same pay rate at AA/DL/UA but less MMG, higher premium pay percentage, move vacation days, higher min day, etc. Again, THESE QoL PROVISIONS NEED TO BE SOLID provisions that can't be changed/negated by company action. Training pay needs to go to 5 hrs / day. 150% DH pay. 20% DC to 401k. Etc.

Right now, while our pay is stagnant, we're falling behind at a rate of about 15% per year (we are currently about 40-45% behind depending on the year group of pay). So, it's worth it to me to vote no IF we can get > 15% improvement in the next negotiation (given it's within the same year). Ie. a no vote would necessitate our NC asking for 15% higher rates AT LEAST.

no way Barry pays half Billion for " full retro"

Of course not or he would have already given us a contract…. Logic is hard for most.

G4 lurker here and I see a similar sentiment from a few people here and it just makes think “thou doth protest too much…”

if you actually felt that way (instead of pure posturing) then you’d be outta here years ago. You’re either completely clueless (doubt it), incredibly unintelligent (which isn’t true), posturing (likely), un-hireable (possible). Because if you were actually committed to only working at F9 if F9 paid you more than the legacies rates then you’re a fool and I don’t believe that to be the case.

you knew in 2022-2023 that F9 was never gonna pay above legacies rates yet you stayed… why? Are you un-hireable? Or did you stay for whatever personal reasons you have and now you are posturing about voting no a TA that paid legacy rates.

again, you and a few of my brothers at G4 also “protest too much” and claim they’d vote down rates that are industry leading because we do more with less as well.

I’ll stop lurking, but from what I’ve seen at G4, this attitude and mentality is not helpful and only builds division within the membership. I’ve seen it firsthand with the FIVE different negotiating committees we’ve had during our four years of negotiations.

Wow, five would be a big number if you had been in section 6 negotiations for a decade!

Our union has been filled with fraud, corruption, drama, lawsuits, etc i’ll just within the union.

The teamsters have reached a new low that I didn’t think was possible.

But supposedly, it’s all gonna work out great and we are gonna get legacy rates and be able to sleep in our own bed every night because Sean O’Brien said some mean stuff to management on TikTok

we need this Alpa drive to just happen already

How exactly would one know that?

Keep in mind that F9 had the highest paid pilots pre 9/11. Of course, that was long ago, new owner, new circumstances, yada, yada, yada but why would ANYONE think they would be paid less perpetually after 1 contract cycle?

HAHAHAHAHA you trying to justify this? G4 had industry leading rates from about August 2016 to 2017 and then the legacies jumped (starting with delta) us. But I never thought our union hating founder (Gallagher) would actually pay us on par with legacies. Did you know nothing about Indigo, Franke, BB, etc?

If you nickel dime your passengers, gate agents, why wouldn’t the bosses nickel and dime by far their most expensive labor group?

I’ll list them:

1. Indigo
2. ULCC
3. Look at your margins, they were great and you still didn’t get close to industry leading when compared to how far behind you were with the legacies.
4. Hiring standards. F9 has never been as competitive as the legacies with their hiring standards (post bankruptcy and indigo acquisition). It’s not a dig, G4 is the same way. It doesn’t do anybody any good to ignore reality.
5. Revenue differential between the big four and F9.
6. F9 is not “too big to fail”.

Fair points.

Perhaps you're right. When I was hired 10+ years ago, my thought process was simple - this airlines is the new SWA (who started out paying its pilots less but as it grew, compensated them appropriately to where they are the highest paid now). Of course, Franke is NOT Kelleher but why would anyone take AND STAY at a job 100% knowing they'll never get what others who do the same get?

The answer is - they wouldn't. And you can stop w/ the "un-hireable" silliness - if F9 hired someone and they have the hours and don't have a DUI since, they're attractive to every other airline. The problem, as you have pointed out, is hope. In this business where seniority requires that you pick the right horse from the start, we all hoped (not expected but HOPED) either mgt would eventually come around (ala SWA) or that we as a group could force the issue (via unity and self-help). As they say, hope is not a plan but it is something real to many people.

Maybe that's a pipe dream, maybe not. Every contract cycle is the chance to find out. Personally, I don't think the pilots here at F9 have the necessary unity but I'm on record stating that I actually WANT to strike - one because I already know the POS TA that we'll end up getting won't be enough but also out of curiosity to see if the RLA is viable. But I have issues so . . . there's that.

As for now, given the years invested, that's all I can do until our new TA becomes an AIP and the math favors leaving. Then I will collect my retro check and leave.