SWA delaying new planes, adding used Westjet birds --article

[PCL_128]

If by "arrogant", you mean "has an opinion about an air tran leader spreading such ridiculous expectations" then yes. That's me.

No, by "arrogant" I mean "thinks he's better than everyone else."

I think it's much more arrogant to believe that you could be the lesser job, bought, and then think that you could improve on your AT date of hire.
How on earth do you think you're entitled to that?

It might have something to do with the fact that longevity and seniority have nothing to do with each other. You seem to have contracted a bad case of USAPA disease.

 

[Tripower455]

It might have something to do with the fact that longevity and seniority have nothing to do with each other.

Did you really just say this?

Seniority is based on longevity. This is Airline 101 stuff.

 

[PCL_128]

Did you really just say this?

Seniority is based on longevity. This is Airline 101 stuff.

Not true. I can't remember if the SWAPA seniority list shows longevity dates or not, but if it did, you could see plenty of cases where a pilot's seniority is out of order with his longevity. For example, a pilot is hired in 1990. He takes a 5-year leave of absence beginning in 2000. His longevity date will be adjusted (can't remember your CBA for sure, but I think it's after six months), so while his seniority will remain unchanged, he now has only 18.5 years of longevity, even though he was hired 23 years ago.

But that's not really the main point. The main point is that longevity and seniority only have even a tenuous link within a single carrier. They have absolutely no link across carriers. A 1995 hire date at UAL will get you a much different seniority position and bidding priority than the same hire date at SWA. Both have the same longevity (assuming no longevity adjustments), but they have very different seniority positions. Hence, longevity and seniority have nothing to do with each other.

 

[DonVerita]

A quick scan of the July PM MCO lines paying 99-100 tfp shows a range of 77-86 block hours (most are around 85 hours with 17-18 days off). The lowest paying lines are 89+ TFP, 73 hours block (not too many of them) and a bunch pay 105/106 doing 84-90 hours of block and 16 days off.

FWIW, I never even look at block hours on the bid lines, since it doesn't really matter, since between TTGA and ELITT, I rarely fly my awarded line. Total pay per day and late report time is what I look for. FWIW, the best paying trips tend to have the least number of legs.

How does that compare with AT?

I couldn't get back to you right away to continue our "discussion" because I had to wait for the July bid package to come out. I'm not on the 717, but I will use that category, in ATL, because it represents the largest group.

H= Highest credit line within days off group.
L= Lowest credit line within days off group.

Days off Block Credit Legs/Day (Avg.)

19 H: 79:48 79:58 3.0
L: 74:12 76:12 2.9

18 H: 80:26 85:39 2.7
L: 74:40 76:18 2.8

17 H: 82:25 83:22 2.8
L: 74:47 80:22 2.4

16 H: 87:21 87:36 2.7
L: 67:10 76:39 2.2

15 H: 85:23 86:28 2.6
L: 68:11 77:12 2.2


As you know, these are block hours. 60 minutes = 1 block hour. To get TFP, take the credit block number and multiply it by 1.13

The only piece of the equation that is missing is the Legs/Day average per Days Off category on the SWA side. That is an important metric as it relates to those OSW guys who insist on using end of month pay credit tally comparison vs. OAT guys who use hourly block pay rate comparison.

If a SWA pilot works more legs/day avg. than an ATN pilot, that would account for the higher final end of month pay credit figure, which is fine; you worked harder. However, it does not make for a good pay rate comparison. Only hourly rate converted to block does that.

As a side comparison to further my point -- A couple of years ago all ATN pilots received a "Wings of Welcome" packet from SWA & SWAPA. It was nicely done and was provided to answer some questions. One of the categories was, "Pay Comparison". Granted, this used our old contract pay rates rather than our new contract pay rates that we are under now. On page 5 it said that between May 2010 - May 2011 the average pay for a SWA F/O was $138,000. It then said that the average pay for a ATN CAPT was $158,000. Therefore, an OAT CAPT who involuntarily crosses the partition to become a SWA F/O loses an average of $20,000/year. That is a pay cut.

 

[Tripower455]

Don. Here are a few examples culled from the MCO July lines

I only compared 19 day off, PM lines, because that's what I generally bid and hold as a mid level Capt. (FO lines are identical) and I don't have the energy to do more. I can't figure out how to make my bid program break down to legs per day, so i opened each line manually and did the math. It really doesn't matter, as the averages are gonna pretty close to the same. Maybe someone has more complete data already crunched, but I'll bet these averages are very close across the board re: pay per day/leg etc.

The average pay/block is 89.45 tfp/75.76 hours, for the 19 day off PM lines, of which there are 13.

To figure legs per day, I took the 2 highest paying, and 2 lowest paying lines and averaged the legs per day. All of the lines had 4 pairings on them with a mix of (mostly) 3 day trips, with a few 2 and 4 days mixed in.

The 2 highest paying 19 off PM lines are:

91.22 TFP for 79 hours block. 3.3 legs per day.
93.40 TFP for 80.05 hours block. 2.99 legs per day.

The 2 lowest paying 19 day off PM lines are:

89.10 TFP 72.35 Block. 2.91 legs per day
89.02 TFP 74.05 block. 2.91 legs per day

I am sure that if you averaged in the rest of the lines, it would be very close to 3 legs per day across the board, which looks shockingly similar to what you guys are flying.

You can figure the TFP/hour conversion and twist the numbers any way you want, but we are working very close to the same amount, assuming we fly our awarded bid line.

FWIW, I try to minimize commuting, so I more or less fly my line or ELITT up a few trips and average well over 100 tfp and still get 18-19 days off.

I rarely even bid on, much less get POT or even more rarely, work on my days off.

 

[JT12345]

Nah, flying's great. Just as long as it's no more than about 25 hours a month.

I would fly forever if they let me, and my retirement would be to only do it 50 hours a month max. Maybe less.

Retirement is a subjective thing. Don't let the financial wizzies define that for you. They are just snake oil salesmen collecting crumbs off your transactions, and can not be trusted. When their advice benefits them financially and promotes their system of madness and manipulation I don't know how you all think you deserve to stop working when you get older. Heck you live longer if you don't stop.

 

[Tripower455]

Not true. I can't remember if the SWAPA seniority list shows longevity dates or not, but if it did, you could see plenty of cases where a pilot's seniority is out of order with his longevity. For example, a pilot is hired in 1990. He takes a 5-year leave of absence beginning in 2000. His longevity date will be adjusted (can't remember your CBA for sure, but I think it's after six months), so while his seniority will remain unchanged, he now has only 18.5 years of longevity, even though he was hired 23 years ago.

But that's not really the main point. The main point is that longevity and seniority only have even a tenuous link within a single carrier. They have absolutely no link across carriers. A 1995 hire date at UAL will get you a much different seniority position and bidding priority than the same hire date at SWA. Both have the same longevity (assuming no longevity adjustments), but they have very different seniority positions. Hence, longevity and seniority have nothing to do with each other.

Again, really?

 

[scoreboardII]

Not true. I can't remember if the SWAPA seniority list shows longevity dates or not, but if it did, you could see plenty of cases where a pilot's seniority is out of order with his longevity. For example, a pilot is hired in 1990. He takes a 5-year leave of absence beginning in 2000. His longevity date will be adjusted (can't remember your CBA for sure, but I think it's after six months), so while his seniority will remain unchanged, he now has only 18.5 years of longevity, even though he was hired 23 years ago.

But that's not really the main point. The main point is that longevity and seniority only have even a tenuous link within a single carrier. They have absolutely no link across carriers. A 1995 hire date at UAL will get you a much different seniority position and bidding priority than the same hire date at SWA. Both have the same longevity (assuming no longevity adjustments), but they have very different seniority positions. Hence, longevity and seniority have nothing to do with each other.

You cant take a leave of absence here, your either on the list or off.

 

[Tripower455]

You cant take a leave of absence here, your either on the list or off.

And the most senior on the list have been on it the longest. Well, most of them.

 

[Phlintstone]

You cant take a leave of absence here, your either on the list or off.

Does a guy who takes a set of military active duty orders for a 1-3 years still accrue longevity?

Phred