fosters

Here's another way to look at it, cost to staff each aircraft on an annual basis:



That, IMO, is the best way to compare, because it looks at a companies operational efficiency. For example, it costs Comair about $558,000 per year per aircraft to staff it's fleet. It only costs ExpressJet $490,000 per year per aircraft - hence ExpressJet has about a 14% operational advantage. Said another way, ExpressJet could pay it's pilots 14% MORE and still be even in overall pilot costs with Comair. Both fly similar aircraft (all jet, 50 seaters for the most part).

The best way to compare would be to look at total block hours divided by total compensation, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to look up that data.

Utah

Those figures for SkyWest aren't very accurate. As of 12/31/06 we only had 2499 pilots, and I'd imagine only around 2100 at the start of 2006. Out of the 2758 pilots we have now, over 600 were hired just in the past year and are still on first year pay. The next 400 up the list are all on second year pay. Halfway up the seniority list is only a 11/22/04 hire date and goes to explain why we had such fast upgrades lately. (And also why upgrades for the current newhires will probably run much longer- now that those hired within last last 1-3 years have their 2500tt/1000turbine requirement met.) Less than 240 pilots have been here longer than 10 years.

Some other things to consider, Comair and Expressjet have an all jet fleet, while others airlines compared still fly the lower paying turboprops as well. SkyWest is staffed to around 500 EMB120 pilots.

Flyby1206

Pilot costs also take into account intial training, upgrade training, etc. SKYW has had a lot of these types of expenses even though they dont have 18yr seniority CAs.

fosters

Cost to staff the aircraft would remain the same in the cost per aircraft comparison, because it was year end figures, it has nothing to do with amount of pilots, unless they've added a few aircraft from the end of 2006, then it might change slightly.

The rest of what you're saying is the point of the article - that the longer pilots remain with the company the higher the companies costs are. However, I personally think operational efficiency has a lot more to do with it than straight up pilot pay - just look at SWA vs. any legacy right now.

tsween

2 common things i notices on all the comparisons done here

Mesa and Pinnacle show up last

Airsupport

uhm, my superior pilot eyes see mesba 2 times... number four (4) says mesaba, and number seven (7) says mesaba. like i said please post your source, otherwise they just look like numbers you calculated yourself. not saying they are wrong, just post your source.

and yes this is true, pinnacles pilot cost are low because our pay isn't that great, and very, very few people have been here for more than 5 years.

emsgoof

Looks to me like #4 says Mesaba, and #7 says MESA.

Airsupport

wow, there are more retards here than i thought...

Spartan07

Woah, what's with that? I see Mesa and Mesaba... Am I retarded? Am I missing some kind of joke? What's the dealio?

tsween

Do you have a first class medical?

or maybe you are not wearing your required corrective lenses