If we had a 10.5 hour/day duty rig, would that not be a significant raise? See how hourly rates don't tell the whole story?

Have you seen what FedEx gets for vacation?

 

I understand your point and if we got something crazy for rigs I might reconsider.... But not everyone benefits from rigs the same, the long haul flights almost never see much rig on their trips. With PBS we don't have vacations that touch trips, also with the value of a vacation day being so low 2 weeks of vacation in a month only means about 7 days additional actually off. While work rules are important pay rates are too.

 

Hey Flamer, et al :

Also, sit and have a beer with a FedEx guy. An ALPA carrier with MEMRAT for everything avoids many of the current problems at DAL, and they have a better contract/pay/retirement / workrules/ rig than SWA...IMHO.

Regards

 

Totally agree. But its not a "pay raise". Its a pay RESTITUTION!

 

I see your point. I am lucky that a few of my closest friends and Squadron mates work for a variety of carriers and I get to compare apples to apples. That is why I know our apples are not the shiniest. It would be nice if someone like DALPA put out a detailed one stop shopping contract comparison so DAL pilots could each decide what is important to them. And, we could use it as ammunition to show we are not even close to the overall compensation at many other carriers.

What I really want to see:

End of year W-2 divided by TAFB. That may be a hard number to get ahold of.

 

Sounds like it's time to post this again:

Perspective on Pay

Here’s a little perspective on our pay rates using October 1, 1986 and January 1, 2000 (1996 concessionary contract – preC2K) rates:

Let’s take a look at some examples of these past rates, and see what it would take in 2012 for true restoration of the buying power they provided:

(First we’ll look at some MD-88 Captain 12 year rates as a basis for comparison, and then we’ll look at some 767-300 Captain 12 year rates for the same comparisons.)

October 1, 1986 MD-88 Captain (12 yr) Rate: $135.53

January 1, 2000 MD-88 Captain (12 yr) Rate (pre-C2K): $175.00

January 1, 2012 MD-88 Captain (12 yr) Rate: $167.68

Adjusted for inflation to 2012 – (source: Tom’s Inflation Calculator)
The 1986 rate of $135.53 would be $280.13 in 2012.
The 2000 (pre-C2K) rate of $175.00 would be $233.58 in 2012.

To bring the October 1, 1986 rate to its inflation-adjusted value of $280.13 in 2012, would require a 67% increase to the current contract’s 2012 MD-88 Captain (12 yr) rate of $167.68.

To bring the January 1, 2000 (pre-C2K) rate to its inflation-adjusted value of $233.58 in 2012, would require a 33.5% increase to the current contract’s 2012 MD-88 Captain (12 yr) rate of $167.68. In other words, our new 2012 contract would need a 33.5% increase to this rate just to bring its buying power to the same level as the 1996 concessionary contract rate!


Now for the 767-300 –

October 1, 1986 767-300 Captain (12 yr) Rate: $158.21

January 1, 2000 767-300 Captain (12 yr) Rate (pre-C2K): $203.25

January 1, 2012 767-300 Captain (12 yr) Rate: $188.96

Adjusted for inflation to 2012 – (source: Tom’s Inflation Calculator)
The 1986 rate of $158.21 would be $327.01 in 2012.
The 2000 rate of $203.25 would be $271.29 in 2012.

To bring the October 1, 1986 rate to its inflation-adjusted value of $327.01 in 2012, would require a 73% increase to the current contract’s 2012 767-300 Captain (12 yr) rate of $188.96.

To bring the January 1, 2000 (pre-C2K) rate to its inflation-adjusted value of $271.29 in 2012, would require a 43.5% increase to the current contract‘s 2012 767-300 Captain (12 yr) rate of $188.96. In other words, our new 2012 contract would need a 43.5% increase to this rate just to bring its buying power to the same level as the 1996 concessionary contract rate!

*** Obviously, C2K buying power restoration would require substantially greater percentage increases than the ones shown above. ***

 

OK-sounds good. 100 beans says the CEO and other managements salaries/bonuses increased by a much larger percentage than what you posted. Many see those percentage increases as being scary and unrealistic. Fortunately, many don't.

 

No.. it's not. If it is, please explain at what point you stop sacrificing your QOL for the Benjamins.

 

Excellent point, Columbia! This is what scares me the most about being represented by DALPA. From everything I have gathered here, on the DALPA Forum, official DALPA communications, and private emails and phone conversations with my reps, DALPA is squarely in the "scary and unrealistic" camp with regards to those kinds of percentage increases. In other words, something far short of restoration appears to be DALPA's "realistic" objective. I don't want someone representing me who thinks like that.

Like I've said before, it's certainly not ideal to be "switching horses" this close to Section 6. It would have been better if this had come up at least a couple of years ago... but, unfortunately, I don't think our pilot group was quite ready for it at that point. In any case, I'd rather go with a somewhat "unknown quantity" who has objectives that are more in line with what I think are appropriate than to stay with a "known quantity" that has objectives that I think are wholly inadequate and inappropriate.

I think there's still time to get it right before Section 6, one way or the other. For me, it just comes down to how likely it is that DALPA's going to change. From what I've seen so far, I'd have to say not likely at all.

 

I agree with this.

I believe the fear campaign that many are selling will work and DPA will not get voted in before contract time. ALPA will do just what we expect and come up with a sub par contract but will use some fear mongering/this is the best we could do to sell the thing to the pilot group. At that point, ALPA will have shot themselves in the foot and those who were on the fence will not be anymore and ALPA will be voted off campus.

This is my prediction.