Southwest pilot pay
 

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 :eek:

Good point, although the term "low cost" doesn't have to mean low "labor cost" as you've pointed out. SWA is successful because their managment has kept their total operating cost below their operating revenue and can bring their product to the marketplace cheaper than other airlines.

They do face significant challenges in hedging fuel into the future, although with the track record I wouldn't worry too much.

I think AA should be known as the "low cost carrier"
At least in terms of pilot pay.

Note to self: call marketing get them to come up with a new slogan

Can any SWA pilot quote me the scope clause to their contract?

Or e-mail me?

No scope language. Only mention about equipment pay differential is that if we acquire -400/600/800/900's and they can not be opperated interchangably with the -300/500/700's, then there will be a 5% pay differential. I do believe that it will be addressed in our next contract.
We could buy RJs tomorrow but then again, how would increasing our seat-mile cost fit our bussiness model?

Airline Domestic Unit Costs (Cents per Mile)
2nd Quarter 2005

Southwest 7.1

American Eagle 14.2

Comair 14.1

SkyWest 13.3

Pinnacle 12.8

Atlantic Southeast 12.3

ExpressJet 12.6

Mesa 10.3

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41; Schedule P1.2. T100; T2 Data

Keep in mind that when the SWA pilots negotiated their contract (and extensions) they were no where near achieving an "industry leading" contract. SWA management, however, has lived up to their bargain and continued to pay the agreed-upon wages while other companies have continously sought concessions. Thus, SWA didn't so much rise to the top as all the others fell.

SWA is currently involved in an aggressive cost reduction program. Unlike other carriers, SWA looks to impact their employees LAST. SWA's pay scales are fully in line with the company's goals of maintaining an overall LOW COST structure.

Can anybody say what the first year of pay will be? I know I can multiply the rate by guarantee but what is typical first year pay?

What about 2nd year pay?

And what is a typical 3-day trip worth in hours?

Thanks

First year 60-65 K, second year 95-102 K. Those #'s include 5k in per deum.

I don't think a Delta 737 Captain makes more than 145 an hour these days, 12 year guys on the 757 makin' 155. Those are the pre 14% cut post 32.5% cut. Awesome profession...

I'm just curious. SWA doesn't pay by the hour, but rather by the trip. Is that correct? Do you get paid extra if the trip is over block?

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

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

Thanks. That explains it well!

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.

Does SW have lines that are all 2 day trips?

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.

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.

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

Scope
 

>>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.

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

That's the way scope used to be written. ALPA lawyers got involved and scr*wed the pooch. They created loopholes thorugh mgmt could drive a truck -- taxi an A380.

What an idiotic comment.
Who invented the scope clause?

Answer..........ALPA

Which in turn produced the 'alter ego' airline...

These days the only scope worth a damn is the mouthwash variety.

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?

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?

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. :)

Add NWA 12 yr 320 CA: $136...in fact our 747-400 is paid less than SWA

[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...........

I am well enough versed with SCOPE and code shares ... I presume the side letter you mention addresses ATA ...

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

is there a known link where I could read up on SCOPE? I'm little confused

As far as the SWA/ATA codeshare goes, SWA takes and keeps the revenue for all the pax that ride SWA planes, and ATA keeps all the revenue from their segments.
The theory is that the combination creates more traffic for each carrier that they originally wouldn't have had. There is no control of ATA by SWA. There are also no overlapping segments except for one obscure one that only lasted a few weeks before ATA pulled out of it. It isn't a scope issue, it is a code share issue, but certainly something to keep a watchful eye on.

Not that obscure. It was RSW. ATA was serving RSW before WN ever entered FL. Our management refused to operate in competition with WN, and WN managment did have a say in our operations as long as they were loaning us money to exit bankruptcy.

John Dennison, our interim CEO (retires in Jan.), came from WN. We were all well aware of where is loyalties lay.