Any news from Washington from ASA/alpa?

[JoeMerchant]

Bingo!

They said it was all about QOL when the economy was bad. ALPA drug their feet until it improved. Then it did, we secured QOL, and ALPA convinced the pilots they "needed" money and 100% retro to put pressure on the company. Now they have raised the pilot group's expectations so high that no TA will achieve a vote over 70%.

However, I see recalls coming if it doesn't get settled soon, one way or the other.

Your exactly correct JP... the MEC is responsible for managing the pilots expectations, and they didn't do this.... they actually raised the expectations..... Managing pilot's expectations isn't a pleasant thing, but it is necessary.....

The longer this drags out, the longer the improvements that have been made are going to be held hostage and the longer we go before the next negotiations.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

How would you know that?

The NMB threatens management with a release, and the NMB threatens ALPA with "parking" or more meetings..... The longer this drags out, the more money management saves.... therefor anything the NMB does to extend this indicates that it is siding with management... very simple concept...

 

[79%N1]

Many pilots don't understand how negotiations work. I hear all the time, and have talked with CNC members who say they are told by many pilots, that they want top pay and bonus plan, scope, full retro and improved retirement. You can't get tops in every category! It is supposed to be a give and take. You trade them one thing for something you want more. Or you accept something management wants (ie PBS) for something you want more. I also hear many CNC members are frustrated that early on (5 dang years ago) they were directed by the group that the most important thing to attain was QOL improvements, i.e scheduling and reserve, trip and duty rigs. After fighting for and achieving that, the members now change course and say we want top pay and full retro. Now we come in with iron clad scope/job protection. It has kind of tied their hands. I think if we were willing to compromise on one or two areas, and achieved a couple others, this could get done. Unfortunately, I think the staus quo will continue. Remember, we are losing money every day, because there are raises and bonuses in this proposed agreement, (and now a signing bonus of some kind), as well as many QOL improvements many of us would like to get to enjoy - sooner than later. I'm not willing to sign without some job protection that binds Skywest to our agreement, but maybe that will cost us something we need to be willing to give up.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Now we come in with iron clad scope/job protection. It has kind of tied their hands.

It was stupid at any point to not consider scope the #1 issue in any contract.

I've worn out three keyboards trying to convince pilots on the regional level that scope is important. They are finally getting the message.

Our ALPA reps were around when the PID request was filed and they knew then and know now how important scope is. The problem is they have taken their orders from a relatively un-informed pilot group instead of providing the necessary leadership on this issue.

Of course, we pilots who participate in Flight Info are a little better informed and it is up to us to get the word out and support our MEC / CNC in making the right decisions that will result in a contractual foundation that can be built on.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Many pilots don't understand how negotiations work. I hear all the time, and have talked with CNC members who say they are told by many pilots, that they want top pay and bonus plan, scope, full retro and improved retirement. You can't get tops in every category! It is supposed to be a give and take. You trade them one thing for something you want more. Or you accept something management wants (ie PBS) for something you want more. I also hear many CNC members are frustrated that early on (5 dang years ago) they were directed by the group that the most important thing to attain was QOL improvements, i.e scheduling and reserve, trip and duty rigs. After fighting for and achieving that, the members now change course and say we want top pay and full retro. Now we come in with iron clad scope/job protection. It has kind of tied their hands. I think if we were willing to compromise on one or two areas, and achieved a couple others, this could get done. Unfortunately, I think the staus quo will continue. Remember, we are losing money every day, because there are raises and bonuses in this proposed agreement, (and now a signing bonus of some kind), as well as many QOL improvements many of us would like to get to enjoy - sooner than later. I'm not willing to sign without some job protection that binds Skywest to our agreement, but maybe that will cost us something we need to be willing to give up.

I love it when they say "all the pilots I talk to say..." or "the Wilson polls show...". What pilots actually answer when Wilson calls? The same ones who always come up to the CNC members and reps in the crew lounge. The MEC is going on a very vocal sampling of 20% of our pilots who keep saying they're ready to burn it down if they don't get everything they want.

Meanwhile, the other vocal 20% of us who are calling for reasonableness and realistic expectations are being brushed off as anti union or pessimists or fringe wackos with an axe to grind..

The 60% majority of the rest either don't care or don't say how they feel.

I want to see a poll of 100% of our members before then next time I hear an ALPA rep say "this is what our pilots want..." again. Or let us vote on a TA for the same result. If the TA passes, we're there... the majority are satisfied. If it fails, then go for broke. Either way, it's the only way to truly gauge our pilots "needs".

 

[79%N1]

I'm with you, but.......the only effective scope is one that we are NOT asking for, and most MEC members say we cannot achieve, one list with SKYW. Don't forget, their pilots - while technically have no say or recourse - will fight that tooth and nail. SO, what can we get there that is effective? A block - hour guarantee? A % of Skywest flying to be done by ASA? This is what they are asking for, as well as a no furlough clause. It's a no cost item, so why wont management agree to it?!?!? Things that make you go hmmm! Pay rates are further apart than most think. We proposed ExpressJet rates plus 1 or 2 % (which is a hugh increase on the 200), and the company went up 1% from their last offer. That is a hugh gap. That, and no scope/ no furlough........no way anything happens today to really close that hugh gap!

 

[79%N1]

I want to see a poll of 100% of our members before then next time I hear an ALPA rep say "this is what our pilots want..." again. Or let us vote on a TA for the same result. If the TA passes, we're there... the majority are satisfied. If it fails, then go for broke. Either way, it's the only way to truly gauge our pilots "needs".[/quote]

I'm with you. Let's take the poll. Is it possible? Has it ever been done? I would love to see that, and it may be a great tool to move this along.

As far as my post, I'm relaying what people I talk to say to me...of course, there are other opinions, this is just the prevailing attitude of those I discuss this with. One even told me, he will vote no on any TA that does not inlude at least a $40,000 bonus for him! Pretty myopic view of this process. IMHO.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I love it when they say "all the pilots I talk to say..." or "the Wilson polls show...". What pilots actually answer when Wilson calls? The same ones who always come up to the CNC members and reps in the crew lounge. The MEC is going on a very vocal sampling of 20% of our pilots who keep saying they're ready to burn it down if they don't get everything they want.

Meanwhile, the other vocal 20% of us who are calling for reasonableness and realistic expectations are being brushed off as anti union or pessimists or fringe wackos with an axe to grind..

The 60% majority of the rest either don't care or don't say how they feel.

This is a key point here. I always used a 33%/33%/33% rule for any divisive issue, whether political or other. JP is more correct with ALPA issues, especially at a regional, with his 20/20/60 rule. The sad fact is that more than half of the pilots at a typical regional don't care about either side of this debate, and don't have a clue as to how this process works. They are simply here to build time and move on. THEY DON'T CARE about EITHER side of this debate. Meanwhile the rest of us fall into one of the minority groups....

So if EITHER side of this debate says they are following the will of the majority, then they are lieing.... the true MAJORITY doesn't even know this debate is going on.....

If you want to see this for yourself, ask 10 pilots if they can explain the difference between the LEC and the MEC, and if they know who their status reps. are..... It's like watching Jay Leno asking questions on the street.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

It was stupid at any point to not consider scope the #1 issue in any contract.

I've worn out three keyboards trying to convince pilots on the regional level that scope is important. They are finally getting the message.

Our ALPA reps were around when the PID request was filed and they knew then and know now how important scope is. The problem is they have taken their orders from a relatively un-informed pilot group instead of providing the necessary leadership on this issue.

Of course, we pilots who participate in Flight Info are a little better informed and it is up to us to get the word out and support our MEC / CNC in making the right decisions that will result in a contractual foundation that can be built on.

Fins,

I can speak from personal experience that there was little concern given to scope and job security during the early stages of negotiations. I remember early strategy sessions in Herndon where I was the only one who even asked about scope and job protection. BR and the rest of ALPA legal always liked to wisper to each other before they answered my questions. Our two senior members of the CNC alternated between sleeping and staring into space while these questions were asked.....

Your correct that the current leadership understands the importance of scope, and your correct that they are taking their orders from a relatively un-informed pilot group. However they are also taking their orders from an informed ALPA national that has other priorities that are not necessarily the same as ours...

 

[ohplease!]

unfortunately we've had our chance at the "poll" you guys want and once again apathy reigned. The election for reps was the best chance we've had to change the course of things and not enough pilots thought it was important enough to even vote on. I did my part and voted for change and became as involved as the MEC here would allow me to be ( have a difference of opinion with our alpa group and see just how much they want your involvement then...). Unfortunately (IMHO) it was not enough and now I must accept the direction this MEC is steering us, for now....change may still come eventually.

 

[JoeMerchant]

unfortunately we've had our chance at the "poll" you guys want and once again apathy reigned. The election for reps was the best chance we've had to change the course of things and not enough pilots thought it was important enough to even vote on. I did my part and voted for change and became as involved as the MEC here would allow me to be ( have a difference of opinion with our alpa group and see just how much they want your involvement then...). Unfortunately (IMHO) it was not enough and now I must accept the direction this MEC is steering us, for now....change may still come eventually.

Your absolutely correct! This past election was a referendum on whether to change direction, or continue down the same road. It had the largest turnout EVER for an ASA representive election and the turnout was still only 46.6%! Regardless of which side of the debate you were on, more than half of us couldn't even be bothered with voting.... after all it takes about 30 seconds to do.....

The simple fact is, the majority doesn't care one way or the other....

 

[JoeMerchant]

I want to see a poll of 100% of our members before then next time I hear an ALPA rep say "this is what our pilots want..." again. Or let us vote on a TA for the same result. If the TA passes, we're there... the majority are satisfied. If it fails, then go for broke. Either way, it's the only way to truly gauge our pilots "needs".

I'm with you. Let's take the poll. Is it possible? Has it ever been done? I would love to see that, and it may be a great tool to move this along.

As far as my post, I'm relaying what people I talk to say to me...of course, there are other opinions, this is just the prevailing attitude of those I discuss this with. One even told me, he will vote no on any TA that does not inlude at least a $40,000 bonus for him! Pretty myopic view of this process. IMHO.

1. Yes a poll for everyone is possible. We did it when we started negotiations, and ALPA is currently doing it with the age 60 issue. It can be done.

2. Regarding the bonus, let's just assume an average bonus/back pay of $20,000 - half of what this pilot told you he expects. That would be $32 Million just in backpay/bonus. Combine this with the rest of what we are asking for, and it exceeds the total net annual profit for ASA.... is that realistic?

 

[regionalcap]

1. Yes a poll for everyone is possible. We did it when we started negotiations, and ALPA is currently doing it with the age 60 issue. It can be done.

2. Regarding the bonus, let's just assume an average bonus/back pay of $20,000 - half of what this pilot told you he expects. That would be $32 Million just in backpay/bonus. Combine this with the rest of what we are asking for, and it exceeds the total net annual profit for ASA.... is that realistic?

So you think after 5 years of negotiating, ASA is going to be hurt by a one-time 32 million dollar hit. Hardly. Divide that 32 million by 5 and you get just over 6 million. Try being a little more realistic. They can afford it. Skywest, inc made about 147 million last year.

 

[JoeMerchant]

So you think after 5 years of negotiating, ASA is going to be hurt by a one-time 32 million dollar hit. Hardly. Divide that 32 million by 5 and you get just over 6 million. Try being a little more realistic. They can afford it. Skywest, inc made about 147 million last year.

ASA made about half of that, which would be about 75 million. Throw in the rest of the improvements, and the total increased cost would be about 75 million, maybe more. No company in their right mind would agree to give over their entire annual net profit to one employee group. What happens when the other employees then want the same thing? ASA quickly goes from profitable to losing money.... not going to happen....

Put your request under your pillow..... the tooth fairy is more likely to deliver.....

As far as the "5 years of negotiating", that cuts both ways. BOTH sides have drug their heels at different points. It was actually our side that started dragging out feet.... we were waiting for better times.... that didn't work out so well now, did it?

 

[ohplease!]

ASA made about half of that, which would be about 75 million. Throw in the rest of the improvements, and the total increased cost would be about 75 million, maybe more. No company in their right mind would agree to give over their entire annual net profit to one employee group. What happens when the other employees then want the same thing? ASA quickly goes from profitable to losing money.... not going to happen....

Put your request under your pillow..... the tooth fairy is more likely to deliver.....

As far as the "5 years of negotiating", that cuts both ways. BOTH sides have drug their heels at different points. It was actually our side that started dragging out feet.... we were waiting for better times.... that didn't work out so well now, did it?

I have to disagree here John. The total would be considerably less due to retirements, attrition to other airlines and the bonuses/back pay would be distributed based on the amount of time each pilot has been here during the 5 years of negotiating. We have many, many pilots that have been here only a year, maybe two and quite a few who've been here only a few months. The number of "senior" folk that have been here the entire 5 years of negotiations is shrinking daily and will be much smaller by the time we do sign a new contract (months from now if we even get a T/A out of this weeks meetings and we both know that isn't going to happen)

 

[JoeMerchant]

I have to disagree here John. The total would be considerably less due to retirements, attrition to other airlines and the bonuses/back pay would be distributed based on the amount of time each pilot has been here during the 5 years of negotiating. We have many, many pilots that have been here only a year, maybe two and quite a few who've been here only a few months. The number of "senior" folk that have been here the entire 5 years of negotiations is shrinking daily and will be much smaller by the time we do sign a new contract (months from now if we even get a T/A out of this weeks meetings and we both know that isn't going to happen)

Your right, but that is only because this is dragging out so long and the majors are hiring now. The backpay/bonus cost will continue to become a smaller piece of the total cost... and at some point it will become palatable to management. The longer this drags out, the smaller the total cost of what we are asking for becomes.... as longevity continues to shrink, costs are coming down.

I agree with you, but this was based on the pilot who told 79%N1 that he expected $40,000 in back pay... to simplify I cut that in half.... It just isn't realistic for people to be expecting $40,000 or even half of that in back pay....

 

[Texx]

The problem is the MEC didn't manage the pilot's expectations and educate the pilot group as to what is attainable. Your right about what the pilot group says they "want", but there is a difference between "wants" and "needs", and the MEC should understand this.....

And whom do we have to blame?

 

[JoeMerchant]

And whom do we have to blame?

You tell me Texx.... who do you blame?

 

[Texx]

You tell me Texx.... who do you blame?

You know the answer to that one.

 

[79%N1]

No closer to a contract! Done negotiating for the summer!