SWA and SWAPA Negotiating -800s

[Bob_Sacamano]

Then we've never flown together. I tend to speak my mind. Perhaps too much. :beer:

Chase,

If you ever learn one thing be it this - "your FO" will tell you whatever you want to hear, even if it's not the way he thinks.

Just look at TA1 and TA2.

Gup

 

[SKC]

I am assuming that SWA wanted a deal with the stews about the -800 flying because they knew that they were going to get the 40 or so Airtran -800s if they merged. Is that right? It makes sense.

Regardless, all of you guys have a FANTASTICALLY GREAT DAY!


Bye Bye--General Lee

AirTran doesn't have any -800s. They only have -700s.

 

[livin'thesim]

If we aren't paid more for bigger airplanes- how did mgmt justify my pay in the turboprops?
"I know you're qualified for food stamps, but you actually get paid more per seat than a 747 pilot."

Because they fall for the same concept as well. When I flew a corporate 182, I probably made more per pax seat than any airline pilot in the world.

If you look at my posts- I'm an advocate for same pay. But I wouldn't be against the pilot group negotiating an -800 rate and blending it in- can't lose capitalism in this. Your post has too many misnomers to respond to. Makes me wonder if you're not a doug Parker wannabe....?

Blended rate is much more sensible, of course.

I think the justification for pilot pay is really based on the responsibility as a whole than the incremental differences between aircraft. The pay-per-seat also neglects the varying differences in workload and effort between types. A 4-leg 6-hour day in a DC-9 is a different animal than a 2-leg 6-hour day in a 737-800.

I also would like to see less differentiation between junior and senior pay, because a dollar earned today is worth several earned ten years from now, and a 401K dollar invested today is worth even more than that (theoretically).

Pay based on aircraft size is an acceptable way, but still a very crude measure of pilot worth.

As it is, it is such a tradition in the industry that everyone just assumes it is the best. Traditions die hard, no matter how irrational they are. I once had a guy tell me that he liked steep pay differences between junior and senior pilots because it gave him more to "look forward to".

Srsly?

Time value of money is a very, very hard thing to get most people to understand, even though it is so simple. Mostly because people don't understand money and wealth in the first place.


Also, you may want to look up the definition of "misnomer". A misnomer is mis-naming something. You perhaps would be better off accusing me of logical fallacies, faulty reasoning, or whatever. Irony, of ironies, you are actually guilty of mis-labeling my faulty reasoning, thereby turning the word "misnomer" into an actual misnomer. Anyway, my reasoning is consistent, and I think that you don't really know how to address the point made about pay for actual versus potential responsibility. It does not bother me that you disagree, of course. Inertia is tough to overcome.



Personally, I hope pilots everywhere make a ton of money and have lots of days off. But I hope that they don't use silly rationalizations to get there.

 

[PCL_128]

Responsibilty is a horrible argument at the bargaining table for more pay for bigger airplanes. But so is "we want it and you can afford it," as someone suggested above. The best argument is a revenue argument. A pilot flying a bigger airplane produces more product (ASMs) for the company, and therefore deserves a bigger slice of the pie.

That's not to say that you have to have split rates, of course. You can always do a single rate like UPS, which is basically just a blend for all aircraft on property. Has SWAPA said anything about what they're trying to achieve in this area?

 

[jonjuan]

Responsibilty is a horrible argument at the bargaining table for more pay for bigger airplanes. But so is "we want it and you can afford it," as someone suggested above. The best argument is a revenue argument. A pilot flying a bigger airplane produces more product (ASMs) for the company, and therefore deserves a bigger slice of the pie.

That's not to say that you have to have split rates, of course. You can always do a single rate like UPS, which is basically just a blend for all aircraft on property. Has SWAPA said anything about what they're trying to achieve in this area?

If they want more pay for more seats, what will their argument be when management says less pay for the smaller 717s?

 

[Hamburger]

The 800 has the potential for 30% more revenue and you want none of it. That to me is nonsense.

Should we assume you also support a pay CUT for the 717's you've not got?