Southwest pilot pay
11-05-2006 | 09:54 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
11-05-2006 | 10:50 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
From: Spartan
11-05-2006 | 11:17 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
I won't argue that in recent times MGT has been successful in circumventing SCOPE language in many contracts but mostly it has been through declaring Bankruptcy.
If you truely believe in what you say ask yourself why most Airline MGT's fight so hard to keep from giving SCOPE clauses to the Pilots?
Also do you really think things would be better today if there weren't ANY SCOPE clauses?
11-05-2006 | 11:32 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
From: Spartan
Another Idiotic statement. Without SCOPE clauses MGT's could have done what is going on now years sooner.
I won't argue that in recent times MGT has been successful in circumventing SCOPE language in many contracts but mostly it has been through declaring Bankruptcy.
If you truely believe in what you say ask yourself why most Airline MGT's fight so hard to keep from giving SCOPE clauses to the Pilots?
Also do you really think things would be better today if there weren't ANY SCOPE clauses?
I won't argue that in recent times MGT has been successful in circumventing SCOPE language in many contracts but mostly it has been through declaring Bankruptcy.
If you truely believe in what you say ask yourself why most Airline MGT's fight so hard to keep from giving SCOPE clauses to the Pilots?
Also do you really think things would be better today if there weren't ANY SCOPE clauses?
Idiotic? Maybe, but true. Add the no furlough clauses to the list as well. Who cares if it is being circumvented due to bankruptcy, the fact is that it's happening. So, what do we do next? The P-51 was a great airplane and we may all have been speaking German without it, but it doesn't mean I want to take it into N.Korea if the war starts tomorrow. Using your argument, they should still be in service today.
11-05-2006 | 12:08 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
Idiotic? Maybe, but true. Add the no furlough clauses to the list as well. Who cares if it is being circumvented due to bankruptcy, the fact is that it's happening. So, what do we do next? The P-51 was a great airplane and we may all have been speaking German without it, but it doesn't mean I want to take it into N.Korea if the war starts tomorrow. Using your argument, they should still be in service today.
Your really strecthing things a little don't you think?
What is your recommendation then??
Using your arguement I guess SWA and FedEX scrap their current scope language altogether? I guess the no furlough clauses should be completely scrapped too?
Maybe NW and DAL AA USAir and whoever else scrap all the SCOPE language.
Heck lets just agree that the regional guys should fly all MD-80's and A-320's for 60 bucks and hour..........that would fix things wouldn't it? Who do you work for again??
Again what is your recommendation?
11-05-2006 | 05:27 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
From: Spartan
I don't know why you're throwing a hissy fit about all this. I'm an ALPA member and wasn't puting the union down. The simple answer to all this is labor law reform, accomplishing it, probably near impossible. Any CBA out there today is one courtroom away from being as valuable as your favorite toilet paper. I don't have a law degree or MBA, perhaps you'll have all the answers? My recommendation: Get some sleep, your cranky today. 
11-05-2006 | 07:26 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
I think that calling Southwest a low cost carrier is a misnomer. At least WRT what they pay their pilots.
12 yr. 737 captain:
SWA $190 per hour
Delta $173
Cont. $163
Amer. $158
5 yr. 737 first officer:
SWA $114
Delta $105
Cont. $91
Amer. $93
Those are some Legacy straight pay pilot costs
12 yr. 737 captain:
SWA $190 per hour
Delta $173
Cont. $163
Amer. $158
5 yr. 737 first officer:
SWA $114
Delta $105
Cont. $91
Amer. $93
Those are some Legacy straight pay pilot costs
11-05-2006 | 07:30 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
[QUOTE=AAflyer;77007]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).
Yep that's what I thought too. Your defined benefit plan WILL go away. Simply because in order to compete with all the CH-11 airlines you must lower your cost. Since pay is close to other legacy carriers your retirement will be under attack. Not terminated certainly, but frozen.
Sorry I had to tell you the facts of life.......Jon 19 yr NWA 320 CA...........
Yep that's what I thought too. Your defined benefit plan WILL go away. Simply because in order to compete with all the CH-11 airlines you must lower your cost. Since pay is close to other legacy carriers your retirement will be under attack. Not terminated certainly, but frozen.
Sorry I had to tell you the facts of life.......Jon 19 yr NWA 320 CA...........
11-05-2006 | 07:35 PM
#30
Tri-tanic operator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
From: Doggie
>>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 ....
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.
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 ....
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.
My question is this ... who's passengers DOES ATA fly to Hawaii ???
Are you saying that they are not SWA pax ???
Just curious if there is a worm in your apple ?
Later, CC
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
