Adios MESA at IAD - UAL Axes MoU

[WmuBronco]

I don't think that the SkyWest agreement was necessarily a bad thing. The economy was still at a low when this deal was signed. Skywest management and the pilots both knew this, and figured that in 18 months if things got better will change the rates. From the little time that I spent over there working for Skywest, I got the impression from a bunch of senior captians, that if management doesn't sit down and raise these rates at the end of 18 months. Say "hello" ALPA. Management there, will play ball before this happens. At least they didn't sign anything long term, like those guys/gals at MESA (hey they wanted their fearless leader to have a dozen more Harley's)

 

[reno]

G. Lee,

We gave management a temporary bone. We'll see in the next few months what they give back. In the mean time we still kept 100% of our pay and we secured a deal with UAL while our current pay is higher than our competitors and will be even better before '05.

I guess time will tell. Until then we can respectfully disagree, which is rare these days on these boards.

Regards,

Reno

 

[Morgoth]

General,

With nearly one third of the pay agreement's duration already over, and the economy turning around, I think history will show that the SkyWest pilots made a very shrewd business decision to vote for that pay agreement -- especially by insisting on a very short time-frame for the agreement. With the economy down and United looking like it was going to tank, they got the additional flying for a very few 70-seaters during this agreement's duration. You can bet that when this agreement is re-negotiated, with all the additional 70-seaters on order and the economy on the upswing, the SkyWest pilots will stick to their guns and insist on separate pay scales for the 50 and 70-seaters. If not, UPA (the in-house union a group of some senior RJ guys are trying to ram down their throats) will be on the property pronto.

Time will tell.....

 

[sf3boy]

General,
I like your explanation of the 757-767 situation. Mesaba management and ALPA thought the same way in 1997 with regards to first officers. We were told, "Don't think of it as lowering a 90K+ pound jet payscale, but think of it as really raising Saab 340 pay."

 

[Russ]

UPA isn't being rammed down anyones throat. It's an intelligent alternative to the questionable representation we have now. I am not a senior RJ captain, I am a mid range guy on the RJ who see's fundemental changes for the worse in the relationship we have with management. If you had asked me prior to the initial UA contract I would have said no to a union. Now I pray the younger pilots have come to the realization that SkyWest may be the airline they retire from. Despite what yahoos like gen lee say that isn't such a bad thing if there are improvements made. IMHO the greatest improvements need to come in the work rules. I can make it on the pay alright, even living right here in the middle of SOCAL.

I and some of those senior pilots alluded to are not so sure about seeing a raise for the 700. I really hope you can tell me in a year "see I told you so"

 

[Morgoth]

Russ,

I hope so too. Like I said, time will tell. I think SkyWest management would be very foolish to not give the pilots a well-deserved raise for giving them the "ace" I believe they requested during the last negotiations.

However, I find it interesting that most of the guys who seem to be in favor of UPA are a relatively small minority of very vocal RJ guys, mostly in SLC it seems. I have yet to hear of many EMB pilots at SkyWest in favor of UPA. In fact, no offense but there seems to be a vast gap in attitude between most RJ guys and most EMB guys. Some of my good EMB friends even refer to SkyWest RJ guys as "mainline SkyWest."

It just seems that a lot of UPA proponents have an axe to grind with SkyWest management. I recently heard one SkyWest EMB captain say that a lot of their EMB guys transitioned to the jet because their egos would no longer fit in the Brasilia. Makes you wonder.

 

[Gobi Gred]

I'd be willing to bet that when the time comes, management will tell us that they can't separate the pay scales for the fifty and seventy seater since we could feasibly fly both on a given trip. It would be too difficult and besides you are actually overpaid for the fifty seater is what they'll say. I'm also sick and tired of this pilot group talking like we negotiate a "contract". We don't have a contract! Without legal representation, management can do whatever they please.

 

[Morgoth]

Gobi,

I think management would be signing their death warrant if they did that. The pilots would unionize immediately and the amicable relationship management now enjoys would be over forever.

However, don't fall into the trap of thinking a contract will prevent management from doing whatever they want. It won't. Ask any UAL pilot. It's called "force majeur" (among other things). Contracts are violated all the time, and companies just say "grieve it." That takes time and money, and sometimes years to resolve.

In any event, I think SkyWest management is smarter than that. It would actually be fairly simple to differentiate between 50- and 70-seat pay on a single trip. It could be as simply as a software change to payroll's software. In any event, I don't think that's an argument that management could win.

 

[Russ]

There is a gulf between the EMB and RJ pilots for sure. That gulf cost us a union vote a few years back. Now as the RJ is the larger of the two fleets hopefully that can be overcome. The backing is no longer confined to SLC as it once was, a large percentage of RJ captains and a growing number of RJ FOs are in favor, at most domociles. My belief for the differences between the two fleets is seniority. The Brasilia crews tend to be fairly new to the company (SAN aside) and have not had opportunity to see the steady degradation of the relationship with SGU along with many givebacks in the form of bennies and now pay. The Bro guys are seeing reasonably quick upgrades, especially if in IAH and are content with the process.

 

[Morgoth]

Now as the RJ is the larger of the two fleets hopefully that can be overcome.

Does that mean forcing the will of the RJ guys on the EMB guys who do not want a union? It seems that will only serve to deepen the resentment and divisiveness already at work. RJ pilots at SkyWest are already seen as arrogant and self-important by their EMB counterparts. My question is this: If UPA does become the collective bargaining agent for SkyWest (and as you said, the RJ is now the larger of the two fleets on the property), what's to keep them from shafting the EMB guys in favor of the RJ?

And, by the way, there are quite a few senior EMB guys on the west coast in FAT, PDX, and SMF to name a few. They choose to stay in the EMB for QOL purposes and to avoid commuting, among others.

 

[Russ]

The pilot population as a whole will elect or reject UPA, not RJ pilots. If UPA is voted in, it will represent you as it will me. It is not a matter of shafting EMB pilots if the majority of pilots desire UPA versus SAPA. If you feel UPA is not for you, then vote no. I am sorry if you feel disenfranchised but the majority of pilots at SkyWest are RJ pilots. Not bragging, far from it, the EMB is more of a mans aircraft than the CRJ will ever be.

I am very aware of the demographics of the Bro fleet as I was on the aircraft till just a few years ago, based on the coast doing UA flying. I have friends in most if not all of the EMB domociles.

 

[Morgoth]

I think it would be interesting to know the breakdown percentage of pro/con UPA opinion based on equipment type. Specifically, I'm curious why so many RJ pilots (senior and junior) are pro-UPA, and so many EMB pilots (again both senior and junior) are reluctant to say the least. I truly don't think it has much if anything to do with experience or lack thereof.

 

[jayme]

I'm curious why so many RJ pilots (senior and junior) are pro-UPA, and so many EMB pilots (again both senior and junior) are reluctant to say the least.

Please state your sources. If you talk to 10 RJ pilots and 10 Brazilia pilots, that doesn't amount to anything. I'm on the 120 and I'd like to see upa voted in. Over half of the EMB pilots I talk to like the idea of UPA. But I'm not about to state that MOST brazilia pilots want to see a union at SkyWest, because HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW! THERE ARE ABOUT 650 OF THEM!

 

[Morgoth]

Please state your sources. If you talk to 10 RJ pilots and 10 Brazilia pilots, that doesn't amount to anything. I'm on the 120 and I'd like to see upa voted in. Over half of the EMB pilots I talk to like the idea of UPA. But I'm not about to state that MOST brazilia pilots want to see a union at SkyWest, because HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW! THERE ARE ABOUT 650 OF THEM!

My sources are the pilots I talk to on a daily basis, not to mention the ones I fly with. Also, my observations of attitudes and discussions of different RJ and EMB pilots in various crew lounges.

But, as you'll notice, I never once said that most Brasilia pilots are against a union. I'm just stating my personal observations and the opinions of those I work with.

 

[surplus1]

Strega7,

Ah, so you did see that.....I would like to forget that, and it really doesn't even hurt me whatsoever, but it will hurt my friends still at regionals. That decision really affected the whole regional industry. It was HUGE.

[emphasis supplied]

General,

You're dead right on that one. Glad you have the courage to tell it like it is.

originally posted by reno....We gave management a temporary bone. We'll see in the next few months what they give back. In the mean time we still kept 100% of our pay and we secured a deal with UAL while our current pay is higher than our competitors and will be even better before '05.

I guess time will tell.

You're right, time will tell. It will tell that you didn't "give them a bone", what you really did was let them take you to the cleaners.
You seem to think that you "secured a deal with UAL" because of what you did to yourselves and to the rest of us.

The truth is you did not secure anything except lower wages for yourselves, and opened the door to the concept of "bidding for growth". Your actions led the way, forced AirWiskey to take a hit on their contract, and caused ACA do essentially they same (it was their management that saved them by saying no to UAL). You started the "low bid process" on carriers like Comair, put pressure on the Horizon contract, undercut the ASA, Mesaba and XJT negotiations, helped CHQ to take less than they might otherwise have been able to get, etc., etc., ..... all with the idea that you could "get something" that your management obviously already had ... a deal with UAL. [Maybe you didn't notice how long (after your decision) it took them to announce the "success" generated by your "vote". [The miraculous hour or two.] You can believe all the fiction you want to, but the actual events are there for all to see.... you paid for something they already had, and you hurt ALL the rest by doing it.

I won't be surprised if you rejoice again should you wind up getting the 700's from CMR and ASA, or forcing them to accept your low ball bid in an effort to keep their equipment.

The General is right.

originally posted by The GeneralYes you did--because you were one of the first to say, "Hey, we'll take expansion over pay." After your agreement, others followed or will follow, and the next thing you know your managment will NOT be able to give you that raise because it will not allow them to be competitive. >>>>>> you will get that much needed expansion, and everyone else will pay for it because you were the ones to start it. You should have atleast gotten some sort of raise for that 70 seater---even $5 an hour more..

The General is right again, Reno. You believe you will get better 70-seat rates in 18 months. Sure, by the time everyone else has been forced to "match" what you "achieved", you will learn the fiction of your 18-month dream. By the way, I believe the moon is made of green cheese too.

What you're far more likely to "get" is the lower 50-seat rates the others all may have to "negotiate" (with few exceptions) by then. Then you'll be able to claim that you got a "raise" for the 700s, because they pay more than the 50's (and less than everyone else got before your "deal".

Like it or not, reality is that your actions as a group substantially lowered the bar for everyone operating small jets with 70-seats and gave birth to the concept of "bidding for growth". The trickle-down effects are still coming.

What's ironic is that Mesa gets all of the flack. The truth is that while the Mesa agreement makes no one proud, they at least have the excuse of being under intense pressure from an alter ego. You were not under any "pressure" at all, you just let your beloved management pull the wool over your eyes. Too bad we can't both be the "fly on the wall" at their private cocktail parties.

If you could just say that you did what you felt was in your best interest and you didn't consider or care how it would affect others, I could maybe deal with that. Pretending that you didn't hurt anyone and you didn't take, in effect, a pay cut, is just plain baloney and it sticks in the craw.

Like you said Reno, time will tell. Meanwhile this pilot has no empathy with your groups' position and nothing to thank you for.