90s diverted to Skywest

[Gobi Gred]

Dubya, A union is funded by the labor group it represents not by management. That's just one of the many differences.

 

[rtmcfi]

Hey Peter Griffen,
Does the company ask or require that you sit in the Cockpit jumpseat when you are NRPS in order to get one more person aboard? If a pilot from a different carrier, or hell for that matter SkyWest shows up to catch a ride to work, and the plane is full, and you are a NRPS passenger on a deadhead, will that pilot be in the actual, or waving at the plane as it leaves the gate? If they require you to sit in the actual seat if asked, how is it worded in your manual? To say your manual is not interpreted at managements whim is dishonest.

 

[Peter Griffin]

From the SKYW policy manual:

3. Deadheading To A Work Assignment​

A. When reporting for duty, a crewmember will:
1) Be provided positive space on-line.
2) At the discretion of the Company, be provided positive or space available
interline tickets.
3) Be asked to occupy a jumpseat if his/her boarding would result in denied
boarding of a revenue passenger (Pilot only).
4) Cancel a seat that has been reserved by crew support for the purpose of
deadheading if he/she does not plan to use the seat.

"Asked" is just like you said. We recieved a memo a while ago saying this was more along the lines of "required." I dont quite understand the second part of the question. If a pilot from a different carrier shows up to jumpseat to get to work, he can sit in the jumpseat his/herself (CASS, and, due to sheer cockpit area, not recommended on the Bro). Are you asking will a deadheading SKYW pilot be required to move for a SA passenger? No. Only for revenue passengers. Would the SKYW pilot voluantairly move so that a SA can have a seat in the back? I guess thats up to the pilot.

I never said that they stick to the manual 100%. This is one of those examples. The situtation of moving to the cockpit to accomodate another space positive passenger, obviously, a sticky situtation at best. I think thats why they came out and said that we sould move to the cockpit to get another paying passenger on. Is that right? I dunno. Its not an issue on the bro due to weight, and I would almost rather sit in the front of a CRJ than in the back next with 49 others. But I get the point and see both sides of the argument. I, personally, dont think its a big deal, but some others do, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I try not to forget that the passengers are reason why I get a paycheck.​

 

[Dave Benjamin]

I've been bumped from a UAL jumpseat. They have the same policy.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but you need to realize it's not a unique policy.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I just figured out what you were trying to say. Since a DH pilot is supposed to have a NRPS space in the back, would we "take" a jumpseaters only ride to accomodate another paying passenger? Frankly, it shouldnt matter whether a jumpseater is there or not - the paying passengers in the back win. What if that passenger is trying to get home to see a sick family member? I would NOT like to look a customer in the eye and say "Well, although I could sit in the cockpit, my buddy is trying to get to work, so you are just going to have to stay here. Sorry bout that. That will teach you to buy a ticket." And like Dave said, its definately not unique. I commute, I'd be pissed if it happened to be, but the jumpseat is a privildge, not a right. Plus, hopefully that deadheader isnt trying to specifically screw you, but trying to HELP the passenger. Unfortunately, the jumpseater gets screwed in the process.

 

[rickair7777]

I have and will give up a NRSP seat and sit up front to accomodate a NRSA, a jumpseater, or even a paying pax.

HOWEVER, I have also declined to do that on a 3 hour deadhead on the front-end of a 14 hour duty day. The jumpseat is tiring and uncomfortable on long legs, basically if I need the rest I won't do it.

 

[atrdriver]

They have proven they can still be profitable while treating their employees well. Ill get off my soapbox now :erm:

ASA proved that for a while as well. Then they brought in a management "team" that didn't have the same philosophy. That is the main reason we are where we are now. I hope for your sake that the same never happens to you,

 

[Erlanger]

As a non-union carrier SkyWest pilots are "at will" employees, have no contract, have no grievance process, have no safety committee, do not have legal help or advice, and the list goes on.

The Skywest pilots, while may be "at will" employees, do have a contract, do have a grievance process, do have a safety commitee and do have legal help and advice. Say what you will about the company taking those things away when it wants because there is no union. Hasn't been a problem in 35 years. Skywest simply doesn't just fire people because we're "at will" employees. Inspite of what you all my hear about someone getting fired at Skywest, the really did deserve to be.

 

[XPOO]

Erlanger...shush, dude! You weren't supposed to tell anyone we get all that stuff for free. Now those ALPA guys have got to find a new platform to try and stand on.

 

[Crash Pad]

ASA proved that for a while as well. Then they brought in a management "team" that didn't have the same philosophy. That is the main reason we are where we are now. I hope for your sake that the same never happens to you,

Just curious... George and John are the management team that cared about the pilots?

 

[flyforfood77777]

I have a hard time believing that pilots purchase airplanes with their wages.

Trojan

Well, indirectly, that is what is taking place. Lots of Skywest folks getting very defensive here. Nothing against them personally, but the ALPA stance doesn't seem very far-fetched or kool-aidish (new word). But that is just my opinion. And making fun of someone for having a type which may indicate a failed interview, OR a previous job has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Medeco]

Just curious... George and John are the management team that cared about the pilots?

Exactly! I hardly think so.

The fact is that ASA had a very short lived "good relationship" with its pilot group when a fellow pilot was in a VP of Flt ops position. He was instrumental in many of the current LOA's that we have in our 1998 contract.

Unfortunatly, when Delta bout us the new management "team", did not like Dan W. and he did not like Drew Bedson and the good relationship with the pilot ended quickly when Drew found a reason to boot Dan out.

Dan changed many things for the better in the contract and the training department.

1) We went from a 1 hour call out to 2.
2) He got rid if PFT and put the agreement in place for those who did PFT to be reimbursed over time.
3) He negotiated with flight safety to build a facility next to ASA.

The list could go on just read the LOA's we have in the back of our contract and his name is on the majority from the managment side.

Now he's just a line pilot like the rest of us. Thats too bad.

Brian Lebrecque could use some advice from this guy.

Medeco

 

[DrunkIrishman]

ASAP is not a safety committee!

The purpose of ASAP is, "to enhance aviation safety through the prevention of accidents and incidents." Whereas; the ALPA Safety Committee's purpose is, "to apply our professional experience and expertise to reduce risks in the air transportation industry."

ALPA gives the pilots a voice during the process. One example at ASA was with the smoke problems we were having. ALPA Safety got involved and informed all pilots at a time when the company was being, shall we say, less than helpful.

ASAP uses a pilot on the ERC, but not in the same capacity as with a safety committee. The ALPA Safety Committee works on behalf of all pilots to give us a voice in the design and implementation of new regulation or changes in airport/airspace.

 

[USCtrojan]

Well, indirectly, that is what is taking place. Lots of Skywest folks getting very defensive here. Nothing against them personally, but the ALPA stance doesn't seem very far-fetched or kool-aidish (new word). But that is just my opinion. And making fun of someone for having a type which may indicate a failed interview, OR a previous job has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I feel in this case that management is engaging in "self-help" or bad-faith bargaining if in fact this is true. Now that it looks like we may be released the question is, Skywest pilots and employees, will you fly our struck work? I sincerely hope not.

Trojan

 

[ASARJMan]

Just curious... George and John are the management team that cared about the pilots?

Been here over 20 years and have not seen one management team that cared for their employess at ASA, including G&J, Skippy, and now that clown BL!

VOTED IN FAVOR!