flyguy81

I also think the SWAPA graphic is incorrect. Upgrade time on true WB ar DL is nowhere near 6 mos.

Pilots generally accept that a 767 is a WB plane. I could care less how big it is or how many people it holds. I care about what it pays. The only 767 variant that pays WB rates at DL/UAL is the -400.

The lower variants are lumped in pay with the 757 and are largely domestic (one reason I said we should be negotiating 757/67 pay…it’s the largest domestic plane in operation among OAL’s and we deserve it due to our many legs a day and liability). I’m all for trying to get WB pay though and would like to see a breakdown on revenue generated/liability (cargo+pax) by a WB pilot vs avg SWA pilot just to see if we’re in the same ballpark. If we are…I’ll vote no til we get what we deserve.

Lewbronski

Right. At Delta, the 767-300ER and the 767 300/200 pay the same and are not considered true WB there. The 767-400ER pays the "true" WB rates. The upgrades that are available at less than one year at DL are not to the "true" WB 767 variants. That's why I explained specifically which 767 model (the 767-300/200) I was using in the career path I outlined. That's why I said:

If a DL FO could upgrade to a "true" WB CA seat at six months, their 30-year career compensation would increase to $13.701M vs $11.832M for "only" being able to upgrade to a "not-true" WB CA slot at six months.

With DL's new TA, the 767-300ER, 767-300/200, 757, and A321N all pay the same. The 767-400ER is grouped in a higher pay band with the 787, A-350, 777, and A-330. The career path I proposed has an upgrade to a "true" WB at the 25-year point on the A-350. That's based on current DL upgrades.

But regardless, under the RLA, we are only required to "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements." The courts have not interpreted "reasonable" to mean that we must accept the company's definition of "industry standard" nor other airline pilot unions' ideas of what pilots ought to be paid. We don't have to use RASM, or CASM, or NB pay bands or any of the other metrics that TSMITR over OTOF might suggest are mandatory. We can make an entirely reasonable argument for industry-leading pay out of the liability that we incur as a result of our significantly larger number of block hours and takeoffs and landings. We don't have to use that argument either. We could also make a reasonable argument for industry leading career compensation out of the need to attract exceptional pilot talent or whatever else we can reasonably assert demands industry leading pay.

We simply have to be open to making an agreement with the company. And btw, that does not require us to move toward the position of the company. As the US Supreme Court explained, "the labor laws allow economic strength ultimately to control the establishment of contract terms, regardless of which side may have better reasons for its position … It is ‘permissible for a party to engage in `hard bargaining,' utilizing its economic power to its advantage to retain as many rights as possible’ subject only to necessity that there be a subjective ‘desire to reach ultimate agreement.'"

The bottom line is, as the Supreme Court described, that the side that has more economic strength is the side that prevails (unless the other outside outsmarts them). Let's not let the company outsmart us when the economic conditions have never been more in our favor in the modern history of the airline industry.

If you want to insist that we must establish the criteria for our pay rates by a strict and confined comparison to OAL's NB rates, then realize you're doing so without any mandate from the RLA. How does that serve us? How does that serve you?

You're needlessly limiting our (and your) ability to attain industry-leading career compensation. That's MILLIONS of dollars of difference over the course of 30 years that you're willing to give up for no reason better than "that's the way we've always done it." Again, the RLA does NOT require us to do it that way. Is doing it the same old way worth millions of dollars to you over the course of your career? Is the SWA psychic wage worth that much money to you? Is SWA that much better than DL or the other airlines that pay their pilots millions more for less work during their careers?

flyguy81

You might already know this but a DL CA buddy got back to me when I asked if the quick upgrade is abnormal or just a sign of the times.

He said:

During Covid they were going to furlough a metric ton of people. PSP finds prevented that. DL parked planes like the MD-80 early and in the shuffle…the “would be” furloughed didn’t have a plane to fly so they sat at home and collected 717 FO pay at guarantee.

When things spooled back up quickly, those who weren’t assigned a plane were via vacancy bids. CA’s who’d been downgraded (quick MD-80 upgrades) re-upgraded or went to the WB…same with some FO’s. This carried a 2 yr seat lock (there’s some ways out of the lock like upgrade).

People who can and want to take some of these spots can’t sue to the seat lock which should expire this year. At that point…the dust should settle so to speak and the new “normal” will be more visible.

UAL has a 1 yr requirement before upgrade and their global rsv is terrible hence their unfilled CA bids.

I’d guess looking at AA’s upgrade time might be the way to go for career progression planning comparison….they don’t have ridiculously short upgrades even with massive retirements. It’s shorter than us for sure…but not 6 mos.

Lewbronski

So, at some point in the future, DL "should settle" into some sort of "new 'normal.'" But, right now, what they have in real life is the ability to upgrade in six months (or less) to the 767-300/200. What will the career progression look like when it settles and when will this settling occur? And why should we use that future undetermined "new normal" progression to base our career earnings comparisons on vs what is actually occurring right now in reality?

And, let's say, as you suggest, we use AA's career progression model with DL's TA rates applied. In that case, a new hire flies the 737-700/800 for three years (SWAPA says 2-3 years to upgrade at AA, so we'll use the more conservative number). Then, they upgrade to the not-true-WB 767-300/200 fleet. Then, after nine years, they upgrade to the true-WB 777, as SWAPA reports is available at nine years at AA. The 30-year career earnings in that case is even higher than the six-month upgrade scenario. Total career earnings under that progression scenario equals $12.657M instead of $11.832M.

Oh, but that's not a realistic upgrade scenario? Okay then, if instead of upgrading at three years to the 767-300/200, they upgrade to the 737-700/800, then they rake in $12.583M over 30 years, which is 70% more total career compensation than a SWA pilot will earn during that time. A SWA pilot would have to average crediting a little over 161 TFP each and every month for 30 years to equal that amount of compensation.

But all of the above ignores the bigger issue: it is entirely possible and logical to construct a reasonable argument using a variety of avenues of attack to justify SWAPA demanding industry-leading career compensation, retirement, benefits, and work rules. We could assert, among several other available arguments, that if pilots at Delta can earn 70% more than pilots at SWA over the course of their careers while blocking, on average, less hours and logging, on average, fewer takeoffs and landings than us, then we deserve to not only equal their career pay, retirement, work rules, and benefits, but we also deserve a premium on top of all of that for the additional liability we incur and risk we carry. But that is by no means the only reasonable argument we have available to us. It's just an example.

The RLA would allow us to make that argument while remaining well within the bounds of good faith bargaining.

And even more importantly, right now, pilots have the greater economic strength in the equation. As the Supreme Court explained, "regardless of which side may have better reasons for its position," economic strength is the determining factor in controlling the establishment of contract terms.

Let's not waste this opportunity to advance the welfare of ourselves, our families, and our profession by allowing the company and FH to outsmart us. Insisting on limiting our contractual demands to the bounds of the NB world is playing right into the hands of the company when the RLA makes no such requirement of us. It is allowing ourselves to be outsmarted.

Fly4FunAA

If SWA wants to stay relevant over the course of the long term, we will have to secure a contract that is nothing less than industry leading. If not the attrition will only continue. SWA needs a strong reason to attract pilots given the current status quo. Why would a new hire come to SWA, given the current culture status, and work 4 legs a day vs go to Delta and get paid the same if not more for less work? We have to have the best contract otherwise we will still lag in overall QOL. Work smarter not harder.

hockeypilot44

That and 1 year at company got you to 75 percent of overall list. That will change as hiring slows.

flyguy81

I agree that the industry and pilot market have never been better for getting massive contract improvements. Look at regionals! I wouldn’t have ever had 1st yr RJ FO’s with no degree making more than a 1st yr legacy FO on my bingo card. If we fail to secure DL level improvements then that’s on us.

RJSAviator76

Personally, I don't think much of Delta this time around, especially how they donated their retro back to the company and Wall Street. They had it all and they choked. They'll hide behind pay banding and soft money, which is great. But this was the generational opportunity and from what I've read, they've squandered it.

Lewbronski

Personally, I agree with you. DL could’ve done much better than they did. They did choke. But we’re in danger of choking even more than they did.

As far as I know, SWAPA isn’t even attempting to equal or better DL’s TA career earnings. Our “asks,” in terms of rates, are based strictly on NB comparisons, not career compensation. Have you heard differently? That’s multi-millions of dollars in lost compensation over the course of our careers.

We don’t have to forego demanding industry-leading career compensation in order to achieve full retro.

We have the leverage available to us to match or exceed the OAL’s career earnings, and get full retro with an interest penalty applied, and achieve industry-leading retirement, work rules, and benefits.

But to achieve those things, we have to demand those things (and then wield the leverage to pry them out of the company’s stingy hands). As far as I know, though, we’re not demanding all of those things.

mulcher

No streak will stay intact I guess. With the exception of the SAV.