hatetobreakit2u

they also got this way by default

im sure years ago when they were starting out the received all sorts of flak from the legacy guys for working for less. now some of those guys prob wished they signed up for the one they used to knock. thats why alpa needs to set a nationwide pay rate for a/c type to fix the "hit or miss" cycle that is aviation

SWAcapt

Yes.
We give the company the first 11 minutes of overfly. Then; 12-16 min = 0.1 trip, 17-21 min = 0.2, 22-26 = 0.3, 27-31 = 0.4, 32-36 = 0.5, 37-41 = 0.6, 42-46 = 0.7, 47-51 = 0.8 and so on. A trip is based on a mileage formula. Our minimum pay is one trip. If I fly HOU-AUS in 23 minutes, I still get one trip. A trip converted to time equals about 55 minutes. The accepted conversion is to multiply a trip-for-pay (TFP) by 1.1393 to come up with an hourly equivilent. Ie, my $173.63 / trip = $197.82

WEACLRS

Thanks. That explains it well!

jwes

I think, but I'm not sure that American also has different work rules (that might be better) than SW. Plus, they have a pension ( I know it's going away soon) but still. If you take that into consideration it might pan out.... I do know that SW has a very good health plan and its not terribly expensive.
Just something to add in the equation.

jlv1969

Does SW have lines that are all 2 day trips?

AAflyer

The pension isn't going anywhere, it is still very well funded. AA contributed roughly $10K into my defined beneftis plan (and the bulk in the B Fund which is mine now). Work rules are certainly better than many other companies now. As for not being productive, if you want to fly up to 100 hours a month here at AA you can. There are provision in the contract that allow it. Wether it would be appropriate with guys on the street is another conversation. However it can be done.

Hey crjammin,

I am an 8th year FO on the 80 making $99 an hour. If I bid the A300 with Int'l overide it would be $114 a hour. Not sure were you get off poking fun at that with those rj rates you make.

We are in sect 6, and everyday there is more resolve to get back what we lost.

AA

It is so funny to see so many rip on AA, DAL, or UAL, but they will line up a mile long to make nothing in the right seat of E-190.

jwes

Hey AAflyer, I'm glad the pension is doing well. I wish some of the others could have done that. You guys made some big sacrifices in work rules and hourly pay to keep AA afloat, well done!
A union leader I believe recently said at AA, "I'm going to due my best to make AMR as much money as they can while times are tight, but when they start making a comeback, I'd like to get as much of it back as I can." or something to that effect. Ya it's not all about hour pay, it's work rules, health insurance, time off, flexibility in overtime or reserves..... A lot of these guys don't see that.

AAflyer

jwes,

Thanks for teh support, a lot of people did not want to take the cuts, especially out side of BK, but it has worked in our favor so far. I am hoping we ALL get back what we lost in the past.

I would like to look at cuts as a loan, or temporary investment to the company. A way to help until they get back on their feet, however I do not want subsidize poor decisions, management bonuses or fuel.

Should be an interesting year in 2007.

Regards,

AA

Widow's Son

>>No scope language.<<

With all due respect, you either don't understand scope or don't understand our contract.

We have scope language that is arguably the strongest in the industry. It's strength lies in its simplicity.

I don't have a copy in front of me, but what it says is that any flying controlled by the company must be flown by pilots on the swapa seniority list. Period, dot. end. Other scope clauses are pages long and talk of percentages of variables.

Oftentimes, a sentence or two are stronger and more resilient than a chapter or two. The more verbiage there is, there more the precepts become subject to interpretation.

We specifically waived that provision temporarily with the Morris acquisition during the transition. Other than that, the scope provision of the contract has held tight, unlike our peers.

Code share is different than scope. We have never had code share language until the recent side letter.

Yes we could get RJ's tomorrow, we could get 777's as well. Neither of those issues involve scope as both would have to be flown by swapa pilots.

What can't happen is for the company to contract with SkyWest or Mesa to fly RJ's in SWA colors carrying SWA passengers. That is what scope is all about.

AAflyer

I agree, the shorter and simplier the SCOPE statement is the more rock solid it should be, however we have had ,and others have had the same statement your contract has. "All flying performed on behalf of the pilots onthe respective list".

IMO, the reason the issue has not been pursued by your managment team is you do not operate a hub and spoke system that requires feed! Your feed comes from the ability to market your product such as people are willing to drive up to a couple hundred miles away (leaving out the regional feed segment).

Many legacies have found ways to creatively circumvent a scope clause, your management has had no reason to (yet, and hopefully ever).

Regards,

AA