Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
MemTrash
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 112
SWA/FO said:Not here at SWA... Why don't you visit airlinepilotpay.com and look for yourself, although I don't think its 100% right with its TPF (trips for pay conversion to hourly). If you look at airlinepilotpay under CARGO you will see Fed Ex lags behind ABX in pay. Have a nice day.
SWA/FO, I did just what you said and you are right about ABX. Funny thing is all the (large companies) CARGO guys make more than SWA. Add our B-fund and 50% A fund to that and wow you are way behind. As I said before Herb is a master... that makes you a puppet! All in fun!
I'll let someone else explain to you what the A and B funds are. I've got to rest and get ready for golf with CaptMark tomorrow.
Capt. X
Nose over!!!
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Posts
- 115
SWA/FO
5 Star Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,520
Memtrash,
Whats the point? You think that site factors in QOL? You think that site factors in profit sharing account or stock options? Doesn't really matter to me because I'M HAPPY WHERE I'M AT and it appears your happy where you are at.
I brought up ABX because I was wondering who was paid the best in the freight business. I was trying to figure out what you guys are after, there at Fed Ex and UPS as far as a contract, raise etc... You guys are like Oranges and we are Apples. You almost can't compare the two.
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
Innovations
1. First practical two-way radio
2. First reliable static-wick
3. Radio Altimeter
4. Gyro-stabilized auto-pilot
5. ILS
6. Weather radar
7. First airline to use electronic flight simulators
8. First to employ electronic computers to map out the safest and most fuel efficient route
9. First airline to install production-quality collision avoidance systems
10. It's DC-8's were the first to qualify under the FAA's all-weather landing program.
11. First female stewardesses
12. Elrey Jeppesen was a United Airlines pilot
...the list goes on and on...
Okay, maybe 7, 8, and 11 made them some money, but the rest were for the good of the industry.
I like SWA. I have lot's of friends there. UAL (and the other legacies) were around in a time when innovation meant safety and large technological leaps in the aviation industry, not just "we'll give them a cup of Coke instead of the whole can" or "I can get you from Houston to Harlingen for $39." They couldn't go to Boeing, Lockheed or Douglas and tell they wanted a DC-3 with dual ILS's a weather radar and GPWS. That stuff had to be invented. By the airlines. United for many years had a Boeing 247 that was converted to a flying laboratory to use developing and testing these new technologies. That's innovation.
Remember when you climb into your -700 that almost all the technology around you was pioneered by a legacy. One that sunk a LOT of money into developing that equipment so you and your passengers can get to point B safely. It's a shame hardly anyone remembers.
Just my $.02
scoreboard said:
1. First practical two-way radio
2. First reliable static-wick
3. Radio Altimeter
4. Gyro-stabilized auto-pilot
5. ILS
6. Weather radar
7. First airline to use electronic flight simulators
8. First to employ electronic computers to map out the safest and most fuel efficient route
9. First airline to install production-quality collision avoidance systems
10. It's DC-8's were the first to qualify under the FAA's all-weather landing program.
11. First female stewardesses
12. Elrey Jeppesen was a United Airlines pilot
...the list goes on and on...
Okay, maybe 7, 8, and 11 made them some money, but the rest were for the good of the industry.
I like SWA. I have lot's of friends there. UAL (and the other legacies) were around in a time when innovation meant safety and large technological leaps in the aviation industry, not just "we'll give them a cup of Coke instead of the whole can" or "I can get you from Houston to Harlingen for $39." They couldn't go to Boeing, Lockheed or Douglas and tell they wanted a DC-3 with dual ILS's a weather radar and GPWS. That stuff had to be invented. By the airlines. United for many years had a Boeing 247 that was converted to a flying laboratory to use developing and testing these new technologies. That's innovation.
Remember when you climb into your -700 that almost all the technology around you was pioneered by a legacy. One that sunk a LOT of money into developing that equipment so you and your passengers can get to point B safely. It's a shame hardly anyone remembers.
Just my $.02
Last edited:
Gorilla
King of Belize
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Posts
- 1,132
Sluggo_63 said:
Excellent post Sluggo. Much of what made the airlines as safe as they are today was brought about by the great men and innovators of the '30's right up to the present day; both pilots and enlightened management. That stuff wasn't free. The legacies bore the cost burden ($$ and lives) of crashed aircraft and ultimately the necessary improvements to make the air carrier environment what it is today.
AA's C.R. Smith can be credited with the DC-3's success as much as Douglas.
When you jump into an RJ or NG737 and fire up the TCAS, GPWS, radar, autopilot, etc, think a moment about where that stuff came from.
SWA/FO
5 Star Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,520
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/brancatelli/2006-01-30-brancatelli_x.htm
This is in USAtoday..
This is in USAtoday..
scoreboard
Please keep moving...
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2004
- Posts
- 574
Your joking, right?
Sluggo, you must have gotten this off the United website, heres the rest of the story.
1, Radio: Well on it's way by 1934, prefected by the amatuers and Navy for ship to ship. United did nothing more than ADAPT it, not inovate it. I would suggest they only did it to save a buck, like not loose an aircraft.
2, Static wick. Two words: Benjamin Franklin.
3. Radio Altimeter:Sorry again, B-17s had em during WWII.
4. Auto pilots: Again, WWII
5. ILS, your kidding me, didn't you see the movie???
6 Wx Radar, again WWII
7. Ill give you electronic sims, but at what cost and did they invent them? No lear Siegler (-sp).
9. Production quality TCASS, so there was a non production quality version around? hardly, made by Honeywell.
10. First to qualify, but somebody else proved it, maybe Douglas corp? Ill give you this one.
11. Now your talking, you win.
And with every shred of evidence you bring up, I point out it was done to make money. Not to better the world. Oh, and you can get a full can of coke on SWA, just ask.
I'm not slamming legacies, good for what they went through, thanks to our forefathers, etc. But they did it for money. Please keep it real.
Sluggo_63 said:
Sluggo, you must have gotten this off the United website, heres the rest of the story.
1, Radio: Well on it's way by 1934, prefected by the amatuers and Navy for ship to ship. United did nothing more than ADAPT it, not inovate it. I would suggest they only did it to save a buck, like not loose an aircraft.
2, Static wick. Two words: Benjamin Franklin.
3. Radio Altimeter:Sorry again, B-17s had em during WWII.
4. Auto pilots: Again, WWII
5. ILS, your kidding me, didn't you see the movie???
6 Wx Radar, again WWII
7. Ill give you electronic sims, but at what cost and did they invent them? No lear Siegler (-sp).
9. Production quality TCASS, so there was a non production quality version around? hardly, made by Honeywell.
10. First to qualify, but somebody else proved it, maybe Douglas corp? Ill give you this one.
11. Now your talking, you win.
And with every shred of evidence you bring up, I point out it was done to make money. Not to better the world. Oh, and you can get a full can of coke on SWA, just ask.
I'm not slamming legacies, good for what they went through, thanks to our forefathers, etc. But they did it for money. Please keep it real.
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
scoreboard said:
I'm sorry if you can't remember back to the dark ages of aviation... the years before 1971. You do know that there were airlines way back then, don't you. Back in the 60's even the 50's... in fact there was an airline around in 1934 called United Airlines. Okay, I concede that the business plan wasn't drawn up on a cocktail napkin, and Pat Patterson didn't have to arm-wrestle for the right to use the United name, but despite those setbacks, it is still an airline. An innovative airline. And it predates WWII.
1, 3, 4, 6. UAL predates WWII (our involvement) by 7 years (more if you include Varney, NAT, and the others that formed United) They were instrumental in developing these technologies (the radio beacon, too... precursor to the VOR... google Thorp Hiscock [no joke])
2. Didn't know Franklin was flying around... I see your point, though
9. Ground collision avoidance
11. I hesitated to put this one on here seeing in what it resulted in these days. It used to be a good one though.
I still say that a lot is owed to these legacy airlines for their true innovations in the safety of today's airline industry.
Sluggo
SWA/FO
5 Star Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,520
Boeing started UAL, right? Boeing makes airplanes, right? Boeing did their research through UAL thus making safer airplanes and to sell more airplanes.
A lot of safety rules today are based on people getting hurt or dying. Trial and error, things never thought of until something happens... planes running into eachother, TCAS, TCA (class B) equipment requirements. Windshear before 1985? Now systems onboard to help with that. Controlled flight into terrain...etc... I think UPS has some good stuff going on with their moving map, that stuff was like in 3 D or something..
I've been told our new procedures at Southwest (checklist usage) maybe used at other carriers, we did most of that work with our SNORT team along with NASA.
YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,570
YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,570
CaptainMark said:
Actually at my commuter in the mid 90s SWA was a prime and only target of many guys. One in particular even cut the SWA logo into his farm field. The way I remember it then SWA was above the Legacies like UAL for quite alot of pilots. Yes, FedEx was also a prime target too.
?
Maybe this should be a new thread, I don't know. We touched on it here, so here goes:
Why continue to give people low fares? Are they not low enough? SWA's average fare last year was less than $100. $100 bucks! That is ridiculous. They could double that fare (or more) and it would still be more than fair! I know we can't do too much as pilots, and even less here on flightinfo, but we could discuss the pros and cons. I think it is woefully stupid to continue to pass on amazingly low fares to the flying public. They don't deserve it darnit! Everything is going up in all of our lives, why do we as air transportation workers have to be the chumps and give it up so cheap? There are other LCCs but I'll single out SWA: why are you worried about market share? I can't imagine why you even mention it. You have a great product, it has a value beyond price, you only go to 50 some places, but because you do it so uniquly, each time you launch a new place you (usually) create more traffic for every carrier in the neighborhood! You can grow indefinitly and have very little to worry about. Your only enemy (if you have one) is yourselves. Case in point: Your leadership is worried about costs and is out looking for savings (yes that is their job) and some have advanced the theory of pay cuts for you. I say no way, don't take pay cuts. I'm glad you make the big bucks and hope to see it emulated in CAL pilot contracts of the future. Although it stands in sharp contrast to the overall SWA pilot sentiment toward legacy pilots, I will not be invigorated in the least if SWA pilots end up taking a pay cut. Don't do it. Raise the fares and take the money. I promise, we will all go along with you, even NWA. Lets start charging people for this flying stuff like it matters to us.
And to that end: why do you think legacy contracts used to pay the amounts they once did? It is because you retired at 60 and you needed the extra dollars to bolster the somewhat early retirement age. Why does the SWA group so easily buy into the idea that we should work longer to make a good retirement? Heck with that. Lets get the dollars now and then decide if we want to work. Then it is an actual "choice" or alternative, when you don't have to do work longer.
Maybe this should be a new thread, I don't know. We touched on it here, so here goes:
Why continue to give people low fares? Are they not low enough? SWA's average fare last year was less than $100. $100 bucks! That is ridiculous. They could double that fare (or more) and it would still be more than fair! I know we can't do too much as pilots, and even less here on flightinfo, but we could discuss the pros and cons. I think it is woefully stupid to continue to pass on amazingly low fares to the flying public. They don't deserve it darnit! Everything is going up in all of our lives, why do we as air transportation workers have to be the chumps and give it up so cheap? There are other LCCs but I'll single out SWA: why are you worried about market share? I can't imagine why you even mention it. You have a great product, it has a value beyond price, you only go to 50 some places, but because you do it so uniquly, each time you launch a new place you (usually) create more traffic for every carrier in the neighborhood! You can grow indefinitly and have very little to worry about. Your only enemy (if you have one) is yourselves. Case in point: Your leadership is worried about costs and is out looking for savings (yes that is their job) and some have advanced the theory of pay cuts for you. I say no way, don't take pay cuts. I'm glad you make the big bucks and hope to see it emulated in CAL pilot contracts of the future. Although it stands in sharp contrast to the overall SWA pilot sentiment toward legacy pilots, I will not be invigorated in the least if SWA pilots end up taking a pay cut. Don't do it. Raise the fares and take the money. I promise, we will all go along with you, even NWA. Lets start charging people for this flying stuff like it matters to us.
And to that end: why do you think legacy contracts used to pay the amounts they once did? It is because you retired at 60 and you needed the extra dollars to bolster the somewhat early retirement age. Why does the SWA group so easily buy into the idea that we should work longer to make a good retirement? Heck with that. Lets get the dollars now and then decide if we want to work. Then it is an actual "choice" or alternative, when you don't have to do work longer.
Have you ever seen what a 60 year old fed ex pilot looks like after abusing his body with the funky schedules for so many years? And plz don't go to the fact that we now do the majority of our flying during the day...who is sleeping in boxes at Memphis and hauling the bread and butter of overnight delivery. $ is one thing...quality of life is quite another
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
