Cool then DAL rates it is with just a few months of lag.

That is delta’s A320 rate. They have a higher A321 and 737 rates ($275/$273 respectively). I averaged all delta A32X/737 rates for my delta comparison.

264+273+275=812 812/3=270.67 270.67*1.04=281

You can wordsmith all day but the bottom line is that your argument is fundamentally the same as those who don't respect pilot pay and professionalism. The peer tier argument is not applicable to deserved pay rates for the job we do and on the equipment we fly. If we can offer world class 1st class beyond our peers, we can get paid for doing equal work, at a minimum. Peer comparisons could be applied to ammenities for pax but not for our pay. We are just as professional as anyone else.


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Never said anything about pay.

Got it.

The weighted average jives with the average.

SWA rates lag DAL average rate by about a year.

Industry leading rates a year after DAL. Wonder if that is a deal killer?

So you don't think we can negotiate beyond our peer grouping?

And who defines this peer group? What does the grouping apply to? Services offered, ticket cost, pilot pay, pilot work rules, size of airplane? Clearly you have some expectation of applicability to the term peer or else you wouldn't have used it.


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

The dude asked what our peers are. We are a non-ULCC/ that flies narrow body aircraft mostly domestically with some South American/Caribbean. The airlines that most closely match this description are SouthWest and Alaska.

I made no value judgements, and implied nothing about pay/negotiations.

Complete bullpucky. An absolute lie. The post that you responded to and directly quoted follows:

It was about nothing other than peers with regard to pay/negotiations. By quoting this post and responding to it, you more than merely implied. Go ahead and backpedal, but your true colors keep showing themselves.

I'm not packpedaling. When I write a sentence, you should take the words for exactly what they say, and leave your own interpretations out of it. If you can't see that your own biases are coloring how you read that paragraph, I don't know what else to say to you.

I said that we are most like Alaska. We are between the ULCC and the other Legacies. That's a statement of fact.

You are assigning meaning to my response that isn't there. I will not state my opinions on negotiations or what is acceptable on this site.

You can't quote a message, reply to it, then claim that your reply was unrelated to the quote, and that any inference of a connection reflects bias. It would be biased to take your comments out of context, not to quote you accurately in context.

Keep backpedaling. Actually, don't bother. We've already established that pretty much anything you say can't be relied upon to have any commonly accepted meaning.