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

Southwest duty rig

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
Every time SWA's TFP comes up in a conversation I'm left wondering why your company makes it so convoluted. Multiply flight time by an hourly wage, apply any rigs and you're done. What's with the TFP conversion? What purpose does it serve? (BTW, great duty rig!)

Because if you mulitply 730 x $168 you get $122,640. That's around $100k off my W2 this year. I'll take the TFP conversion and rig package.

Know what I mean?

Gup

p.s. Jhill - I was mainly speaking to the "outsiders" using my KISS concept.
 
Why not convert the TFP rate to represent the actual hourly rate? Instead of $168 X 730 X 1.13, simply convert $168 to $189 (168 x 1.13) and use that as an hourly rate. It's the same amount of money. It just seems unnecessary to have the extra step of converting to/from TFP. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear to serve any purpose that I can tell. It's not right or wrong, just weird.

My understanding is it's a leftover from when SWA first started and they were paid by the trip (TFP) from LUV to somewhere in TX, AUS I think. It was a flat fixed amount times how many 'trips' you did. I would think that by now it would be cumbersome for everybody concerned to hang on to that methodology. Hey, there's something to be said for tradition if that's what this really is all about. It's still weird.
 
Pay by the mile, not by the hour.

Crews are indoctrinated to get the job done efficiently, and not drag their heels for an extra tenth. The rigs have blurred the line between hourly pay and distance pay, but the traditon of operating efficiently continues at SWA.
 
Whoa. Don't say "credit hours" and "trips" in the same sentence. Keep it simple.

2 hours of duty pays 1.48. Period. Other rigs may apply.
actually, it doesn't pay 1.48 period. if you say that then guys who get paid credit hours get a distorted view. you have to explain TFP vs. the credit hours, which I did.

I doubt my 1.33 credit hours per 2 duty hours is perfect, but it paints a far more accurate picture to most guys than 1.48 trips per 2 duty hours. NO ONE besides SWA guys know trips for pay and frankly many of us don't know them as well as we could/should. me included.
 
"Get her Done". Once those engines are started, get her in the air. No sense wasting gas on the ground. Besides, time saved in the middle of the day means more time at the next stop. At the end of the day it equals another beer at the bar.
 
Last edited:
Why not convert the TFP rate to represent the actual hourly rate? Instead of $168 X 730 X 1.13, simply convert $168 to $189 (168 x 1.13) and use that as an hourly rate. It's the same amount of money. It just seems unnecessary to have the extra step of converting to/from TFP. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear to serve any purpose that I can tell. It's not right or wrong, just weird.

My understanding is it's a leftover from when SWA first started and they were paid by the trip (TFP) from LUV to somewhere in TX, AUS I think. It was a flat fixed amount times how many 'trips' you did. I would think that by now it would be cumbersome for everybody concerned to hang on to that methodology. Hey, there's something to be said for tradition if that's what this really is all about. It's still weird.

Caveman,

The REAL reason it won't change any time soon? Because that's the way we've always done it. DAL-HOU 1.0. No single operation can pay less including an air-return to the airport. Yes, it's convoluted somewhat, but nobody on either side is looking to change it. The W2's work for us and the company apparently.

Since changing it would involve negotiations, you have to ask what's the motivation and what's the tradeoff. Who wants it and why.

It's not important for us to be "like everybody else" so I can't see a reason either side would want to change the metric.

-fate
 
Thanks for the HOU correction Fate. Tradition is a good thing and that's as good a reason as any to keep TFP.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top