~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
I don't know about SKW, but CHQ runs on a margin so tight that it seemed unsustainable as the airplanes get older and crews attain more longevity. ASA and CHQ are more mature companies. Our crews have more longevity, our airplanes are older and our operations more developed. CHQ is still run from the airport operations building in Indy - with cardboard boxes everywhere and a mid 70's Soviet government building feel. CHQ knows that its youth ( young crews and airplanes ) are the only way to keep operating at below real cost structures. As a result, CHQ is one very tough competitor - they must have growth, or they will die. The alternative is what ACA did. When the costs exceed the code share you can not lose money on every flight and make it up in volumeFL990 said:The company is doing the best they can at keeping the wages down as long as possible. They are also trying to convince us that if we get a progressive contract, it will hinder our ability to compete with the contract carriers. I disagree with this position. Because all of our profits go directly to Delta INC., it is cheaper for Delta to use us when possible due to the fact that anything above and beyond the operating costs is essentially like taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. When they use CHQ/SKWst, they must not only pay for there op costs but there profit as well. That is real money that is gone and I don't believe over a large scale, especially when we are talking about ATL and CVG, that CHQ or SKY could operate for cheaper in these hubs (when factoring in there profit).
The other angle of this is ALPA National's agenda. They do not want the sub culture of regionals to be able to out vote the major establishment. Simultaneously, the pilots at Major airlines do not want to see cost savings ( from their concessions ) allegedly used to support the purchase of RJs' that they do not fly. The best mutual solution is for these airplanes to be bought by someone else and flown by pilots who do not vote contrary to the powers that be within ALPA. ( CHQ is Teamsters )
ASA has sent their negotiating team into the perfect storm. ALPA ( by denying ASA pilots the ability to sign a deal with Delta ) has pretty much cut the wing bolts off the good CRJ-700.
There are too many variables to figure out if a sub-par contract would indeed result in any growth for ASA. Any deal for future growth could be undermined by ALPA's mainline agenda, competitive pay cuts at other carriers, the price of oil, or Delta's inability to secure additional financing.
We ASA pilots have no real negotiaing power because ALPA's agenda keeps us from having any scope. However, we can achieve many cost neutral improvements in scheduling and quality of life. Delta is not going to take a strike over things like a commuter clause, seniority based reserve call out & bidding. we have those issues won if we stick to our guns.
The money is another story. The second ASA's costs exceed CHQ's Delta has no economic reason to sustain our operation other than protecting their investment. ( and I think we are amazingly close, perhaps within $10 per block hour with CHQ potentially having an advantage because of the more efficient E145 & less longevity )
On the big question of money - it is a very personal decision. More than likely you need to figure out if it worth losing this job and this Company to achieve what you feel your job is worth? I will absolutely stand beside my MEC no matter how long it takes and even if it shuts down the airline - but - I have the luxury of another career that pays much better than ASA. Many pilots are similarly situated, but striking is like quitting your job. It is a hugely personal decision. Given what we know about the situation, we should be considering these things when we reply to ALPA's calls from the Wilson Polling Center.
Last edited: