Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1504573)

No idea. All I know is that in 1989 SWA pilots were telling me they would never make as much as a Legacy pilot but they were happy. 20 years later, and with the gutting that I understand the legacies took in their contracts SWA pits are some of the highest paid in the industry?
Is it more likely that SWA jacked up pay or that other companies cut pay?

Jenny pays Johnny $20 to sweep out her garage.
Sarah only pays Jimmy $10.

After 6 months, Sarah cuts Johnny's pay to $8.
Jimmy is now the highest paid garage sweeper in the neighborhood.

This is what I've heard. Is it true? Somewhat true?
It seems John Carr's post makes sense.

Originally Posted by John Carr (Post 1504550)

I'd consider that to be a valid statement.

But the argument could be made that UAL and DAL's pre 9/11 compensation levels weren't sustainable. AA and NW were next in line for contracts. USAir used a "parity +" method. Even before 9/11, UAL's CFO was quoted that with downturn the economy was taking in 2001 that they'd be "getting some of that money back". Meaning, UAL would probably be asking for concessions down the road.

The new DAL and UAL pay rates aren't much more than their concessionary pay scales adjusted for inflation. And they pale in comparison to pre 9/11 numbers.

But I'd say sulkair's post pretty much summed it up in a nut shell. And ALPA national/Lee Moak's stance ISN'T going to help any.

Originally Posted by sulkair (Post 1504607)

pilot contracts have a frustrating lag time to find equilibrium with the true market. Heck by the time a good-times one is ratified, it's already the bad times and vice versa.

Originally Posted by GlobeTreker (Post 1504616)

I would argue that executive compensation industry wide is unsustainable.