UAL/DAL Contract 2K/Southwest Pay Comparison
 

Both UAL and DAL are presently in a much better financial condition
than they were in 2000, with these contracts, due to the current significant merger synergies.
Southwest is also in a competitive current position.
Thought it would be interesting to compare 12yr. seniority UAL/DAL C2K to current Southwest.

The UAL/DAL payrates are the 2004 rates from the Contract 2000 tables.
There is also a "corrected" number that is the 2004 UAL/DAL numbers corrected
for the 19.3% inflation from mid-2004 to mid-2011.

The SW rate is adjusted for the way they are paid per trip.
Actual dollars per hour are 20-40% higher than the book hourly rate
due to the way SW builds their trips. The conservative number of 20% is used.

All decimal amounts are rounded down to the dollar.
Many of the DAL guys are fighting for the current SW rates
as an absolute narrow body minimum, and you can see why.

Captain

Co. ...............UAL........ UAL(corr)........ DAL........ DAL(corr).............SW
Acft.
737 small........228............271..............230.. ..........273.................252

737 large........254............302..............256.. ..........304.................252
320

757...............264............314.............. 267............317................

767...............264............314.............. 267............317................
200/300

767............................................... ...301............358................
400

777...............316............376.............. 319...........379.................

747...............355............422.............. ......................................
400

First Officer

Co. ...............UAL......... UAL(corr)........ DAL.......... DAL(corr)..........SW
Acft.
737 small........156............185...............157. ...........186................176

737 large........173............205...............175. ...........208................176
320

757...............180............214.............. .182.............216...............

767...............180............214.............. .182.............216...............
200/300

767............................................... .....206.............245...............
400

777...............216...........257............... .218.............259...............

747...............243...........289............... ........................................
400

1257:

Something I learned a long time ago is to present figures which really mean something and frankly I don't get what you are trying to say.

What we all need is a comparison of actual current pay rates not some mythical adjusted rates. What are UAL, CAL, DAL and SWA pilots really getting paid today. No adjustment for inflation, 2000, 2004 etc. Just the cold hard facts.

By doing so it will be shown how much greater SWA pilots are actually paid. You might also add in any cash payments to the associated 401K ("b/c") plans and add these values to the pay.

Apples to apples please!

There is nothing mythical about it.
-We are currently under bankruptcy manipulated rates that don't represent healthy efficient pre-bankruptcy companies.
-UAL is now more efficient and has better loads/metrics than their pre-bankruptcy condition.
-Management would love to keep you at bankruptcy rates while they have pre-bankruptcy income. This shows our compensation in line with the company's income/costs.
-The title is a Contract 2K comparison, by definition.
-The rates listed for UAL/DAL were the real 2004 rates had the bankruptcy not happened.(the last year given in the C2K contract)
-The adjusted rates are adjusted for the real inflation numbers, just like the inflation increases in any other contract. (19.3% 7/04-6/11)
-The Southwest numbers are real based on real pilots dividing W2 by real hours of pay time. The conservative examples were used.
-All showing current bankruptcy induced rates does is lower the expectations of people who buy into the idea that the company can't afford pre-bankruptcy rates.
-If you would like a different view, you're welcome to do the work I did for this one.

1257:

I'm with you on the idea getting of the substantial current underpaid at UAL/CAL but your numbers still don't tell me a story. BK happened and those numbers represent another time line which didn't happen. Since we live under the current contracts I believe it is so much easier to show current actual pay rates for a comparison.

Now is your story the idea that had UAL not gone BK this is what the pilots would have gotten paid? What does that prove to the world?

I appreciate your efforts but your work doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.

Please just tell us what your numbers mean in plain English.

Thanks!

Th formatting really didn't work on this post, PM if up have a PDF or Word file and I can post it for you as a download.

HSLD, it lines up on my browser. Is it wrapping around for you?
I can tighten the columns if that's it. It is long-hand, no excel/pdf.

Regularguy, are you a UAL/DAL pilot?

1257:

Formerly a UAL pilot but now a UAL/CAL soon to me integrated pilot. I don't like to think we are two different pilot groups, we UAL/CAL, are on the same page and looking for the same things.

Ok, then you should understand that our MEC is looking for % raises from bankruptcy numbers.
And that our MEC advised us to basically sell ourselves down the river out of fear and their self preservation during BK.
I believe we, new UAL, (and new DAL) should be negotiating from the pre-forced, pre-manipulated, pre-bankruptcy numbers.
Different perspective, and these numbers, and this thread, are about the former non-bankruptcy affected numbers.
Like I said, if you like comparing raises from bankruptcy numbers, that's a different point and another thread.

I know everybody likes to "cheerlead" on these types of blog boards but without "snapbacks" negotiated in each contract...good luck.

Without "snapbacks," your basis for negotiating and settlement are three things...where your existing contracts are, where the industry contracts are and where they're going, and, what the economy's doing.

Sorry, not my idea nor necessarily my position. It comes right out of Herndon and the US Government (NMB). Been there, taken the classes (and a few others).

Have to agree with Regular Guy, Mr. 1257. This chart is utterly useless for the masses, which is the focal point of any discussions. You chart is an outlier. i have an MBA in Finance and can tell you that, i may understand this but doesn't mean i can explain it's validity or applicability. Thanks for the work though. Straight pay comparison would be best.

This is what you want to see.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...Equivalent.htm

What video game is that from. US Airways 215 K in 1997?

This is total compensation. USAirways in 1997 was living under the glory days of the combined Piedmont/USAir contracts.

I had no idea they had that kind of contract back then

And the flawed (or corrupt) logic with that lies in the fact that we were
manipulated to take forced, borderline criminal, wage cuts overseen by the court.
To say that our current wages should hinge on those manipulated numbers is like saying after
the mob has been removed, you'll now give the mob deduction to some other group which makes it ok.
The wages were not negotiated, they were forced, and I'll strike over that alone.
Just can't believe guys are willing to give themselves paycuts from C2K because of the corrupt bankruptcy forced deals.
Don't doubt Herndon/NMB see it the way you said, but I will not support nor vote for that line of thinking or those numbers.

Really? You can't see going back to a free market negotiated wage, from a corrupt bankruptcy court forced wage?
Is that what capitalism has come to? If I can invalidate our agreement due to bankruptcy, I can take whatever I want?
Can the bank use bankruptcy to validate taking your home because the sale of it will allow the bank to exit bankruptcy?
That's basically what happened with the pensions and it was so bad they changed the bankruptcy code afterwards.

I really don't care if you guys want to call it present wage + xx% or C2K + x%, my point is the final compensation should be back at pre-bankruptcy numbers. Period.

Think about it, if you want less than C2K, you are voting to give yourself
a paycut with a healthier current company, from the previous better contract with a weaker company.
Iow you're asking to pay yourself less now than in 2001, while the present company is healthier and more profitable than it was in 2001.
I will vote NO loud and clear for any concession to the Contract 2000 agreement.
That includes scope, work rules and pay. It really saddens me to see people lower their expectations through being abused.
It's time to take it back. This merger, to being the largest airline in the world, easily has the synergies and justifies doing so.
Pay up now UAL mgmt.

I could appreciate that if we were coming off a regular contract. We however are exiting a artificially low, lender required, bankruptcy wage. If our co worker, retro pay recipient, in chief insists this is the new normal, I can assure you , the outcome will not be pretty.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a lot of it had to do with their "parity+" language.

This is why expectations are so low in the industry now. Too many pilots hired in the past decade at regionals don't realize how much was lost at mainline.

You have to ask yourself why are there so many regional pilots that don't realize how it used to be? Perhaps if WE the major carriers had not given so much scope relief there wouldn't be so many of THEM. With the greater number of THEM the negotiating bar was lowered on US.

I would love to see a big raise. However, to even believe that ALPA would be negotiating on C2K rates from the UAL contract is absurd. That contract was not sustainable the day it was signed. In that situation we had a leader in Jim Goodwin that was a bozo and was painted into a corner by Dubo. ALPA was using the strong arm tactics that had worked in the past and it was successful in getting Goodwin to basically sign anything to get the contract in place. However, if you go back and read the analyst reports after the contract it was evident the contract did not make financial sense to the corporation.

In my opinion that will be the last big win ALPA ever achieves. The game has changed and the new leaders of the airlines don't believe ALPA is relevant and they will work around via the court system in any manner they need to achieve their goals.

ALPA has lost its rudder. Time to rethink our representation. Bring it in house and let ALPA represent the RJ's groups. The conflict of interest by ALPA is huge and the only way to assure our future is to take it into our own hands.

Really? I thought we ALL voted and those new contracts were passed by the majority. If you want to strike you may be a solo member.

Again those were negotiated deals.




Is there a box on the ballot for "loud and clear"? Come on man you are going to give yourself a coronary. Let the JNC do its job. If you don't like the deal vote NO. If it fails and we move to a strike then so be it. But pumping yourself up on a web forum is juvenile.

Here is my question to you. If the contract is signed and passed by a majority and it doesn't meet your own personal threshold for greatness, are you willing to walk away? If you say you are not going to hold to your guns walk to walk if the majority doesn't agree with you, then please step away from the keyboard.

Ah, and the internet attacks begin.
Sorry, won't stoop to your bait. Obviously this is about what we'll
each vote for and stand for if the vote leads to a strike. It has
nothing to do with what we'll do after the vote is yes, employment wise.

An interesting viewpoint over on the Delta thread, along the same lines from a different angle.

So "asking" for C2K rates is absurd? If that is absurd, I would love to hear your opinion on the company asking for 250 94 seat rj's.

For this contract to pass, it will probably have to be a "big win."

I am absolutely 100% against the company proposal of 94 seat jets. If you read my post in other topics I believe scope is the number one issue. Big pay rates do no one any good if we all move back a seat with integration and further scope relief.

What I think is missing from the debate about the company proposal and what ALPAites fail to realize is this: that was an opening proposal by the company. It was their dream sheet. This is negotiations. The problem we have at UAL is the majority of the pilot group has only been through one real contract negotiation and that was C2K. We have had ESOP and BK contracts but the only true contract many ever saw was c2k. That contract was a blip on the radar screen and it did not make financial sense. It was hush money to allow US Air merger.

I tend to agree with you on this point...it was a 9-month-ago "dream sheet" no less.

However, with Flight and Duty Time coming out in the August/September timeframe, posting a 9 month old opener helps UAL prepare and determine where a counter needs to be. Although "slapped" by the NMB for violating the "gag" prohibition, there is minimal risk to UAL of pilot release because of the relatively short time in mediation to date. The NMB is also "sympathetic" to the notion that active counters in the financial sections are difficult to cost without firm F&DT. Things have been glacially slow in these sections for that reason.

Papered CPO doors are certainly the most visible and "exciting" aspect of the exercise for many line pilots. However, when taken in the context of 12,000 pilots total, it is but one component of a multi-faceted litmus test. Do not be fooled. The public release of the UAL opener is choreographed and serves a purpose. UAL is not so naive as to think that pilots would agree with their financial opener. The net reaction on many fronts, not just CPO doors, will tell them where they have to move and counter when F&DT is finalized in August/September.

Knowledgeable individuals are expecting a "rising pace" of proposal exchange from September through the end of the year. The time spent in mediation to date will only help the pace.

It also doesn't matter whether it is ALPA, APA, SWAPA, etc., going through the RLA negotiation process with pilots is like running a marathon with a herd of cats. Anything that helps the pilots stay engaged is a plus, even if choreographed for other reasons.

I agree...

Management is sending this out as psych-warfare. They're saying,"Look, this is where we started and look how far we've compromised with this TA...we are working together to make a happy family!"


They can suck it! We are professional pilots! FUPM!

!257:

Thanks for the thoughts on how much the group should hold out for. I have my desires also, but I will leave it up to the JNC and MEC to hand us a contract they believe we should vote for. I don't want one of those, "here is the Company's best offer, vote NO for us."

If it isn't worth the vote then let the mediation play out and the cooling off period begin. At the end self help begins.

As that time approaches be prepared to watch the Company prepare for a strike. This will include the pre-qualification of Captains, the leasing of airplanes to outfits who will fly our Company's routes and the hiring of replacements. They will also be sneaky and attempt to outsource more flying. Oh I'm sorry that is already happening.

My question was rhetorical.

So it is acceptable for the company to make ridiculous requests in their opening proposal since it is their dream sheet opening section 6 negotiations, but it is absurd for ALPA to breathe C2K rates? It seems you are affording the company the ability to shift the center point of negotiations towards their wishes.

As a side note, those blip on the screen C2K rates have been gutted by 31.2% since 2000 solely due to inflation.

Agreed.

Here is another comparison from what the Delta guys are currently looking at.
W2 equality with Southwest with our 70hr. guarantee v. their 78hr. guarantee.
And how the fleets compare proportionally if you equalize the W2 on similar equipment.

Did you see the ALPA opener? I suspect it was a dream sheet also. You dont seem to understand the concept of negotiations.

Lambourne,

I fully understand the concept of negotiations. But it's not about me. It's about the comments you made above which shows you as a company apologist.

In regards to that, I have made it quite clear to my representatives that in no way will I stand for or sit through a sales job during a contract TA road show. I want the facts only as to what the TA says and even a comparison to the current contract to show improvement areas. Can even understand presenting the facts on tradeoffs to get certain things. But all I want are facts and not an influence on how to vote, either way. If I sense a sales job, I've told my representatives that they will see me walk out and leave it to my own reading comprehension skills to decide how to vote.

Not apologizing for anyone. I think the company and ALPA are el'effe'ed up.

Here is a good example. ALPA, "Training by bulletin". All the hoopla and chest beating about this program. The LEC emails telling everyone NOT to do the training. Then when the MEC finds out the legality of the issue they have to do an about face. So ALPA wants to do this in a classroom. However, if the company were doing this in a classroom I can guarantee most of the ALPAites would be moaning and groaning about having to attend a class that could have covered everything in a bulletin. I still remember the fuel seminar and have heard the same thing about flywize. The problem with ALPA now is that they have become Chicken Little.

Between the infighting and and luminaries of ignorance and pompousness that inhabit the ALPA offices I have lost a great deal of respect and faith in it as a whole. The biggest problem I have is that I am paying a great deal of cash to ALPA each year for very little in return. Where is the ROI for being an ALPA member now?

The double standards that exist among those most loyal to ALPA is actually quick entertaining. The chest beaters and thumpers probably had their CBT's done well in advance of telling everyone else NOT to do theirs. I don't get nearly the rhetoric from the company as I do the ALPAites. So if that is why you think I am a company apologist then so be it. Let the JNC do their job and if you don't like what is presented vote NO. If it passes and you are a NO voter then please resign. No sense staying here if you are not happy with the majority. Might as well find a utopia for yourself.

L

Again, you distinguished ALPA's possible contract stance as absurd and the company's as a normal course of business. Your statements are your statements.

We all have our issues with ALPA. Yours it would appear, are stronger. Any chance you were recently an LEC Sec/Treas?

Personal attacks do not make a valid argument and your closing sentences make no sense. If I were to vote no and 51% said yes, that, is the beauty of the union. We all pretty much want the same thing, the difference is how we get there.

Lamb, the other consideration could be you leaving UA for a company that doesn't have ALPA representation on their property. Wouldn't you want to try a different financial advisor to get you a better return on your money??