CVG767A

I'm wondering how it would be possible for the SWA data to be off by that much, given the way the data is collected. Is it being inferred here that Southwest lied on their BTS P10 form?

Imapilot2

enough about who gets more,,,,,,what does this profit say for our share checks? someone said earlier half. Is that close you think?

LuvJockey

I'm sure that'll be the next line. SWA lied in order to lowball Delta's pilot negotiations. SWA is coming to ATL. SWA is undercutting our fares. SWA is buying pizza for ATC. SWA is killing kittens...

Let me think here - roughly the difference between average compensation at SWA vs Delta is $193,000/$142,000. By my estimates, Delta's avg pay in ALL aircraft has to increase 36% to equal SWA wages. I have no idea what that means for narrow body rates, but I am estimating that it has to be around a 50% raise just to equal SWA wages.

You want real numbers, I'm about to give you enough to make your eyes water...for free. Why the heck can't you guys gather this information yourself when there are millions of dollars in compensation at stake? Profit sharing? Yougottabekiddinme.

CVG767A

I'm not baiting you, nor am I Southwest bashing. I really want to know.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that you guys were able to keep your pay rates when much of the rest of the industry collapsed over the last decade. Because of Southwest, we have a point of reference for recovering our contract.

As for Southwest coming to ATL, that's not even on my radar. When Southwest starts flying from New York to Prague and Venice, then I may take notice.

I'm having trouble with you saying one thing, and a government form saying something else. Why are the numbers so different?

LuvJockey

Sorry, got carried away. I assumed you were flamebaiting. Personal flaw on my part.

Long and short, huge error in SWA 2010 Part 10 submission. Looks to me like they had counted flight attendant management numbers with pilots, along with another weird change. In order for the submitted number to be correct, we would have had to grown by 15% in 2010. I don't think that we've ever managed that in 40 years and we most certainly didn't do it without adding a single pilot to the seniority list. All of our management pilots are already on our seniority list, as are our medical and military leave types. My personal suspicions are that it could have been a move to lessen an apparent increase in SWA management compensation, but that's a topic for another thread.

I just don't know yet how the total compensation numbers changed. If they included the other workgroup's compensation with pilot compensation, then the avg SWA will be over my $193,000 estimate. If they only erred on the pilot numbers side, it should be around $193,000.

How it happened, I don't know. Been trying all day. I am serious, there will be a major revision that shows up in the numbers next week.

CVG767A

No sweat--

My reason for being concerned is that we have to go into negotiations with hard data, rather than anecdotal evidence. By any metrics out there, we're due a large raise. The data, among other things, will determine the size of that raise.

LuvJockey

I would hope that DALPA is talking to SWAPA. Maybe they're cooperating. Avg W-2's are an easy metric, the rest gets complicated because we seem to have different paradigms on a lot of issues.

CVG767A

I would hope so, too. FWIW, I've tried to understand your pay system, but it's still clear as mud to me. We're left with searching for a metric by which to compare vastly different contracts. Are W2s a good metric? I'm not sure.

So far, Georgetg's method of comparison (PCASM)is the best ammunition that I've seen.

DAL 88 Driver

LJ,

There was a guy on our DALPA Forum who took the initiative to call your SWAPA President and discuss this pay issue. Your guy was adamant that the numbers stated in your Air Tran welcome packet are absolutely accurate. He also said that DPA had contacted SWAPA, but ALPA had not.

Like you said, with such an important contract and so much ground needed to be made up for us, I can't for the life of me understand why DALPA wouldn't be all over this! Instead, they try to sweep it under the rug and we get big DALPA supporters like Sailingfun and Alfa Romeo trying to dispute SWAPA's data and tout the MIT/government data source. Something is rotten in Denmark (actually, Herndon and Virginia Ave) and it doesn't bode well for our upcoming negotiations.

BTW, thank you for coming here and attempting to set the record straight. You are my new BFF!

LuvJockey

I think you're probably right. I would guess that when the new numbers are released though, SWA will probably be able to show more productivity (ASM's) per pilot. Of course, Delta has larger aircraft and longer stage-length, so maybe that number will be offset. I would think that the ideal metric for DALPA would be CASM for narrow body aircraft. If SWA pilots are more productive in ASM's per pilot for narrow bodies, then the CASM number would still understate the benefits and additional costs that are in the Form 41 data.

Ideal for Delta pilots would be stage-adjusted narrow-body total cockpit cost per available seat mile.