Chperplt

You cannot simply take our pay scales and multiply it by X hours and figure out what we're actually making. Not only do we get 130% for all flying above 81 hours, but we also have ample open time available for pick up on days off paid above guarantee. (in most bases) When lines have 15-18 days off each month, picking up an extra trip or two doesn't generally harm the social life.

Reserve pilots are also able to pick up day off flying paid above guarantee. We have reserves picking up 30+ hours of day off flying each month getting paid 100+ hours, and only being called out once or twice on reserve days.

Our $1.00 per hour per diem sucks, but since the company isn't required to pay it on out and backs (99.9% of our flying) we'll take it for now and try to improve it in the future.

Add in profit sharring if we can continue to turn a profit for the entire year, and it all adds up.

CE750

Save your breath friend... the risen Lord Himself can descend and explain these things to some and in the end they're going to hate. Hating is much easier than being happy for many in our profession today.

Bravo on the profits!

TimSmith

CE750,

I respect your professionalism and posts. You are right about the ill will exhibited on these boards. This next part is not a slam, just a difference in opinion that I think is VERY significant. I prefer a minimum amount of money guaranteed so I can prepare a budget. Anything extra is just that: extra. I can pay down debts, get ahead investing, retire, etc. Therefore I expect anywhere I apply to have a minimum level of guaranteed money, not promises the money will be there. We all know that when companies go through hard times they shrink costs. Non-guaranteed labor expenses will always be on the chopping block early on. While the company may go through a rough patch financially, I have to be able to pay my bills. If my income shrinks from an acceptable level to only 75% of previous income, that is unacceptable.

You took a chance with SkyBus. If you remember my posts, I always wished you folks well. After that experiment in the present market I kinda figured you would change your mind about promised money. The fact you have not is OK too, we just differ still. I think it is only prudent for me to market my services for a professional level wage as a minimum. Anything extra is then a happy occurrence and not a "whew, I'm glad that money came in."

Take care and let us know where you career lands next. Good luck!

CE750

tim, I always appreciate your cordiality and informed debate. Given the right people behind it (and my SX experience has opened my eyes on that a bit) I would accept another job just like it. As you may know, that the original business plan for skybus called for 33% higher wages along with the options package. However the founder of the airline was viewed as too soft to manage the airline and was replaced by the companies BOD. This and much more has come to light about the major missmanagement of the airline on almost all fronts. So given the right circumstances, I would do it again now that I'm "older and wiser"

stinsonjr

The article states that they are hedging fuel, and with the Ex-SWA'ers aboard, that is a natural. That is an expensive proposition - need cash AND credit. Cash in the bank helps that. I think Allegiant is doing fine - they are working their plan much more successfully than others. I bet the Skybus, Eos, MaxJet, ATA, and Aloha guys would trade with Allegiant guys in a heartbeat. I do think that the pilots need to get more, but as far as Allegiant, I think they are doing great.

Chperplt

Not sure who's you're referring to with the fuel hedge comment, but Allegiant is not hedging any fuel.

stinsonjr

This is where I gleaned that they were hedging fuel. Am I reading this wrong? Sounds like they made 9 cents per share on their hedging activities.

Chperplt

That's not from fuel hedging....

Here's the pertinent piece of the report that explains that.


Allegiant Travel Company provides the following guidance to investors, which is subject to revision in the event of changes in our operating environment, including, without limitation, changes in fuel prices:


-- We expect second quarter 2008 year-over-year departure growth of at
least 33% (previously 35%) and ASM growth of at least 25%.
-- By the end of 2008, Allegiant Air expects to operate at least 37
(previously 40) MD-80 aircraft.
-- We expect 2008 capital expenditures of $45 million, with an estimated
$36 million for six aircraft and $9 million for engines and other.
Capex in the first quarter amounted to $8.0 million.


We have no fuel hedges in place and our current policy is not to hedge fuel prices.


Allegiant Travel Company
Non-GAAP Presentations
Quarters Ended March 31, 2008 and 2007
(in thousands, except per share and per ASM amounts)
(Unaudited)

We do not qualify for fuel hedge accounting treatment under FAS 133. To facilitate investor comparisons with airlines that do qualify for fuel hedge accounting, we provide adjusted non-GAAP measures of net income and operating expense as if we did qualify for fuel hedge accounting, by excluding the mark-to-market non-cash gains or losses on fuel derivatives from net income and by treating cash gains or losses realized on fuel derivatives as part of aircraft fuel expense. We believe use of these non-GAAP measures assists investors in understanding the underlying economic performance of the Company without regard to different accounting treatment for fuel hedging activities.

The SEC has adopted rules (Regulation G) regulating the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Because of our use of non-GAAP financial measures, adjusted net income and adjusted aircraft fuel expense, to supplement our consolidated financial statements presented on a GAAP basis, Regulation G requires us to include in this press release a presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP measures, which are net income (which reflects the mark-to-market non-cash loss or gain on fuel derivatives), and aircraft fuel expense (which is not impacted by the cash gain or loss on fuel derivatives), and a reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measures. Our utilization of non-GAAP measurements is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income, aircraft fuel expense and other measures of financial performance prepared in accordance with GAAP. Adjusted net income and adjusted aircraft fuel expense are not GAAP measurements and our use of them may not be comparable to similarly titled measures employed by other companies in the airline industry. The reconciliations to GAAP measures follow.

Derivation of adjusted net income (excluding non-cash mark-to-market loss or gain on fuel derivatives) from net income:

SaltyDog

Comes out of the other employees hides as well. I like well paid mechanics, F/A's, gate service people. etc. Wouldn't straight line the pay, some skill sets should pay higher (pilot/mechanic, etc), but you get the idea that all employees would argue for higher compensation.

Agree and fair, challenge is that so many live beyond their means. I met S/O's living like Capts and Capts living like the CEO <g>. I personally plan one step below. As S/O lived like I was at the regional, As F/O lived on S/O rate, as way junior Capt now living at F/O rate. Fortunately, the wife agrees.
Though when I was a 'commuter' pilot, I counted per diem as income since pay was so miserable.

bbtp

stinson -

i agree w/ you. while it may not be "fuel hedging" under whatever gaap accounting standards, clearly algt is hedging against increases in the price of fuel via whatever related derivatives.

apparently it worked for them as it padded their profit by an additional 25%+. good on 'em.