Frontier reaches TA with pilots

[ualdriver]

i'm not even close to taking the time to post all the new rates from the TA...but here's a snapshot...let's take proposed 10 year captain pay and 5 year FO pay.
Captains (10 Year)

Frontier 146.37
Airtran 144.00
United 128.00
Jetblue 138.00
Alaska 148.00
SWA 194.00

First Officers (5 year)

Frontier 82.00
Airtran 72.00
United 78.00
Jetblue 72.00
Alaska 86.00
SWA 119.00

You tell me whose rates are 'dragging' down the industry.

I totally agree the the language with RJ's and turboprops needs alot of work..I see no reason to give away that many Rj's right out of the gate. But the rates anyways, aren't out of line.

(these numbers are from airline pilot central, and include only rates for A320 series or 737 series aircraft from the various companies)

The problem is that those hourly rates don't tell the whole story, with the big "story" being that if you get a 401K match or a DC contribution, those hourly rates can change significantly. I'm going to use your hourly rates as they are, then adjust them for the DC contributions/401K match contributions those same airline make using airlinepilotcentral.com as a reference. For example, UAL currently has a 15% DC contribution (soon to be 16%) which changes the picture. Airtran seems to have a big DC contribution as well.

Further if you get a tax free DC contribution match or a 401K match, you just can't take that "15%" for example and add it to your hourly rate because the match is TAX FREE and the hourly rate isn't. It's actually much more valuable than the straight 15% because you're not paying tax on that figure. Shield your eyes now if you don't like math: you have to take that tax free DC contribution and figure out it's pre-tax worth by using the following formula:

[DC contribution x (1/(1-tax bracket))].

I'll assume we're all in about the 25% tax bracket (rough estimate) and adjust Frontier's rate by 2% DC (per their TA), Airtran by 10.5%, United by 15%, JetBlue by 3%, Alaska by 3%, Southwest by 7.3% using the formula above. Example calculation using United Captain rates and the 15% DC contribution and the tax free DC implications =

128 x [ 1 + (.15 x ( 1/1-.25))] = 153.59998

Captain (10 year)
Frontier 146.37 + 2% adjustment = $150.32 (TA rate)
Airtran 144.00 + 10.5% adjstment = $164.16
United 128.00 + 15% adjustment = $153.60
JetBlue 138 + 3% adjustment = $143.38
Alaska 148.00+ 3.0% adjustment = $153.77
SWA 194.00 + 7.3% adjustment = $212.41

First Officer (5 year)
Frontier 82.00 + 2% adjustment = $84.21 (TA rate)
Airtran 72.00 + 10.5% adjustment = $82.08
United 78.00 + 15% adjustment = $93.60
JetBlue 72.00 + 3% adjustment = $74.81
Alask 86.00 + 3% adjustment = $89.35
SWA 119.00+ 7.3% adjustment = $130.29

Those hourly numbers are MUCH more accurate if you want to make comparisons. Further, if you figure the JetBlue guy is going to work around 80 hours every month, you have to add about 10% to his average hourly rate in order to take the time and a half into consideration above 70 hours. So the above JetBlue rates are artifically low and should be around $157 for the Captain and $83 for the F/O.

 

[climb2slow]

okay, so we also have a DC..or probably will...we also make 125% for time over 82 hours, and I routinely fly 85-90 plus hour lines. Basically this is all showing what we all know but seem to forget. It's the whole package that determines whether a contract is successful or not. Pilots get too hung up on whose rates are better or not, but no one takes into account things like per diem, Dc, etc. I appreciate you taking the time to post and help make that point.

 

[Aviator7576]

tax free

ualdriver...

I only wish that the dc contributions were "tax free." Instead they are "tax deferred" meaning you will have to pay taxes on them in the future. I think the only way to compare the different compensations is not necessarily with hourly rates but with hourly rates times guarantee. Come up with that list and it will be more meaningful to compare.

JMO

Aviator7576

 

[ualdriver]

ualdriver...

I only wish that the dc contributions were "tax free." Instead they are "tax deferred" meaning you will have to pay taxes on them in the future. I think the only way to compare the different compensations is not necessarily with hourly rates but with hourly rates times guarantee. Come up with that list and it will be more meaningful to compare.

JMO

Aviator7576

Yeah, tax deferred is a more accurate term. Replace "tax free" with "tax deferred" as you desire. The numbers remain the same

When I look at rates, I personally don't look at "guarantee" because I don't think I've ever been able to fly only "guarantee" at any point in my career, although I wish I could. Plus, if one airline had an artifically low "guarantee" but a high hourly rate, the product of the high hourly rate and the low guarantee could be misleading.

 

[F9 Driver]

10 year Captain DC is 5.5% at DOS up to 6% in one year.

5 year FO DC is 3.2% at DOS going to 4% in two years.

401K match is 5% of total comp.

 

[regionaltard]

Alaska - rates effected by government mediator

Not true. Kasher was a supposedly neutral arbitrator. Mediation is a whole 'nuther thing.

 

[Aviator7576]

ualdriver...

You should know (as a former P3 guy!), that the key is to get paid for a high guarantee without ever leaving the comfort of your home. In a perfect world, that is my goal...to work as little as possible and take home the megabucks. Just like the navy, however, my company seems to take exception to this concept of pay for little or no work. So it's a constant battle which I end up winning most of the time I think.

YMMV

Aviator7576

VP44/VP1 (back when Russia was the bad guy!)

 

[ualdriver]

ualdriver...

You should know (as a former P3 guy!), that the key is to get paid for a high guarantee without ever leaving the comfort of your home. In a perfect world, that is my goal...to work as little as possible and take home the megabucks. Just like the navy, however, my company seems to take exception to this concept of pay for little or no work. So it's a constant battle which I end up winning most of the time I think.

YMMV

Aviator7576

VP44/VP1 (back when Russia was the bad guy!)

Never flew the P3. Flew the Electra for Zantop!

 

[OpenClimb]

You guys wanted specifics...

Here are a few details of the TA with regard to Scope. My intent is to provide factual information with regard to what’s in the TA along with my opinion on the matter to help promote a discussion which will either (a) enlighten me to the point where I’m persuaded to change my opinion; or (b) give others something to think about as they cast a vote for or against the TA. This isn’t personal, it’s business. No name-calling, please. I’m fragile!

Section 1, Paragraph 3 discusses Scope.

As others have said, the TA allows unlimited turboprops up to 78 seats and 1 small jet for every 2 Airbus on the property at the time the TA is ratified. (This is paragraph A.3.b.)

For purposes of this discussion, let’s say we have 56 Airbus at the time the TA is ratified. Simple math says the Company could bring in 28 small jets. With me so far…?

Paragraph A.3.c. tries to protect the jobs of mainline pilots. Specifically, it says,

“Subject to Paragraph 3.b. above, once the limitations above are met [my emphasis], the Company fleet shall not be reduced without a prior and equal reduction of the SJ fleet, with the following limitations:”

The “limitations” word at the end of the last quote really should be “exceptions”—situations where the Company doesn’t have to maintain the jobs of mainline pilots. These exceptions are (and I’m quoting verbatim):

(1) “The requirement to reduce the SJ fleet shall not apply if the Company or Holdings cannot do so without incurring significant adverse cost or financial liability to itself”; and

(2) “The SJ fleet shall not be required to be reduced below the Base SJ Limit.”

My conclusions/fears:

(1) the Company could reduce the fleet size of mainline all it wants until they reach the 28 small jets limit. What would keep them from bringing 26 small jets online and reducing the number of Airbus to 15? (Remember, the job protections don’t kick in until “once the limitations above are met”}

(2) if we wind up with more airplanes than we need, the Company could park Airbusses (what is the plural of Airbus, anyway?) and be under no obligation to park small jets. They don’t have to reduce the small jet population below 28 airplanes (exception #2) AND they don’t have to reduce the small jet population if it would create “significant adverse cost or financial liability” (exception #1).

I have plenty of other reasons to vote no on this TA, but they’re all trivial compared to the lack of job protections provided by this scope section.

 

[ualdriver]

Limitation #1 would scare me a lot. Very easy to prove to a judge or arbitrator.