ASA Mgmt cannot staff properly; wants new hire pay raises

[~~~^~~~]

They aren't getting shafted any more now than they were before

No kidding. I-20 was a regular "trail of tears" for all the new hires forcibly relocated to DFW, ATL, DFW, displaced, junior manned back, etc....

 

[rightseatjocky]

I vote we re-open Dallas. ya ya that's the ticket.

 

[Edct]

"previous statements by management like, “zero-net-gain contract,” and “we need to be the second lowest paid pilots or we’ll shrink-and-die,” do not help attract quality pilots either. "

Okay, I agree with the MEC's shootdown of this request as a good move toward completing the contract. But honestly, there are enough self-evident problems with ASA without having to misquote management. "Zero net gain" is one I do remember seeing come from them years ago at the beginning of this process, but "we'll shrink and die"? No. This quote comes from an official union email, not some web board. It should be written in a professional and honest manner. I have always assumed the union considered themselves to be on the moral high ground, but this along with several of their recent mailers have done nothing in my estimation to advance their cause. I don't know who writes these updates but please, calm down take a breath and state only facts. It's not necessary to make anything up to make your point.

 

[~~~^~~~]

*whew* that being said, the new hires like myself are stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of our loyalties. On the one hand, our first year pay blows harder than Katrina. Other hand I'm glad they rejected the raises because it's all or none, not just new hires. I want to see the entire pilot group as a whole do better and I know ALPA is doing what they're supposed to do by rejecting the offer. Then on the other hand I want to see the company do well, hire enough pilots so I might have a few days off and be financially successful so i have a job in a year or two from now.

In our new hire classes we're taught to hate the company because they won't budge on the "few remaining issues", were taught to be pissed at the MEC because it looks from the outside to a new guy that they're asking for the moon and then some.

So why did I choose to work here again? Oh yeah, damn good training dept, decent airplanes, lotta good people to work with, quick upgrade time livable pay the 2nd year (not to say it shouldn't be higher), really good people to work with (did I mention that already?)

Spudskier,

Congratulations and welcome aboard. When I hired in I thought scope was something used to get the garlic off my breath. However, later I learned that scope is the glue that binds you and the company to the contract. It is the wing bolts - you don't want to go flying without them.

Scope is probably THE "little thing" that is holding up our contract.

Our company would prefer that they have absolute control over "our" airplanes. They can transfer them, reassign them to new pilots, or just replace the pilots with other pilots. We would prefer that ASA pilots do all of "ASA's" flying.

You mentioned upgrades and second year pay. Keep those things in mind.

This year I will make $75,000 to $85,000 with 12 to 14 days off a month and fly an airplane that is a blast to operate. I spend weekends at home with a very hot wife. Probably sounds good to you. To do that, I've been here eight years.

SkyWest would like to replace me with a $58,000 SkyWest Captain and has told me that if I'm more expensive, I'm gone as quick as they can put the SkyWest sticker on the nose of "my" jet. In fact, SkyWest has done exactly that with almost 40 of our firm orders and aircraft that were in our fleet. Instead of upgrades, we had displacements as Captains like me got to go to other bases, then back to the right seat. FO's got stuck back on reserve.

You can argue that the $60,000 training cost for an FO and CA, plus the million in transfer costs negate the advantage, but at 11 pilots per aircraft SkyWest thinks they saved about a quarter of a million per year per airplane by chasing my happy butt out of here.

Now when you upgrade, when you get second year pay, there will be an incentive to chase you away also. We are told by our President that after five years, they want you to leave because you start to make money and get some time off.

Scope is the part of the contract which prevents your replacement. It is one of those "little things" that matter so much that we are willing to risk it all to obtain a contract which commits the company to our services, just like we commit our service to the Company.

I've long been on task to try to promote "all Delta flying done by Delta pilots." Obviously I have not been successful. Today 49% of Delta flying is done by Connection carriers. I hope you all the success and that you become one of those rare 30 year olds flying 767's. But the reality is, if you look at the sheer numbers, half of the pilots in the United States are going to be pilots like us at ASA.

We can't let the job of being a professional pilot become like being a waitress where you shift from resturaunt to resturaunt starting over with each new fad. For this to be a stable profession we need to force the Company to commit to its pilots, just like the pilots commit to the company.

 

[~~~^~~~]

there are enough self-evident problems with ASA without having to misquote management. "Zero net gain" is one I do remember seeing come from them years ago at the beginning of this process, but "we'll shrink and die"? No.

Dear ASA Pilots,

On May 25, ASA president Bryan LaBrecque met with leaders of the ASA ALPA MEC and members of the ASA ALPA Negotiating Committee to brief the pilot leadership on the decisions that were pending regarding aircraft allocations that may well determine the future of ASA and all of us who work here.

We felt it was critical to ensure that the ALPA leaders responsible for negotiations were fully informed and understood the importance of reaching an agreement on a competitive contract amendment and the possible ramifications associated with falling short of that objective. I am writing to you today because it is equally important that all of you also understand how these decisions may affect you and all of us who work for ASA.

Based on the exchange of proposals at the last negotiating sessions, the subsequent notice from the National Mediation Board that mediation meetings have been recessed indefinitely, combined with recent changes in Delta’s Network plans, it has been determined that SkyWest Airlines will now be the operating carrier of the initial deliveries of CRJ900s. Obviously, we had hoped and even announced that ASA was going to get the first 12 or 13 of the CRJ900 deliveries as part of a transfer of the SLC flights to SkyWest Airlines. Our announcement
on May 8 regarding the CRJ900s was based on an assumption that we would very soon have a new contract with competitive costs.

The fact is that the marketplace dictates to us what our costs must be; we don’t dictate to the marketplace. And, like it or not, our pilot costs are not competitive in all areas. We believe we can compete and earn business based on our CRJ200 costs but we must improve our CRJ700 and instructor pilot costs. Without competitive costs for the CRJ700 and CRJ900, we can’t expect to grow – or even hold our own – as long as there are marketplace alternatives. If we were the only game in town, we could possibly force higher costs on mainline carriers, but all of us know this is an extraordinarily competitive business.

Our Delta Connection Agreement (DCA) requires that by year three (2008), we must have average costs of all DCI carriers and that by year five (2010), we must have the second lowest costs of all DCI carriers. It is easy, but not realistic, to say that someone other than the pilots have to face that reality because the pilots weren’t part of the “negotiations” for that agreement. We could either abide by the terms of the contract offered by Delta or look elsewhere for another mainline partner. And, who believes we could get any better deal somewhere else, particularly with costs that were not completely competitive? Our future is tied largely to our contract with Delta, although with fully competitive costs, we potentially could establish partnerships with other carriers that could provide other growth opportunities.

Delta has made it clear that feed from regional carriers is now a “commodity” and the carriers who can deliver the service for the lowest costs will get the business. DCI carriers are really just “suppliers” and that is a harsh reality that I don’t like and I am sure you don’t like. But it is our reality. Safety and quality are a given, Delta and other carriers assume that we will provide both of these just like other regional operators. Cost is the decision maker, the deciding factor, not only at Delta but also at other major carriers who we hope to do business with in the future.

Page Two,June 7, 2006

So, what were our options? Bryan laid out for the MEC and Negotiating Committee what the company believed were our four options and what the results might be of each. At the time of Bryan’s meeting, all four options were still viable, but we have lost the opportunity to act quickly. Bryan made it clear, and I agree, that you, the pilots of ASA, will ultimately determine which path we follow.

• Option 1. We could have reached an agreement quickly that would make ASA immediately competitive
with other DCI carriers and enable the company to achieve the specific cost targets contained in our DCA. With competitive CRJ700 and instructor pilot costs, I firmly believe the first 12 or 13 CRJ900s would have come to us and we would be in a great position to fight to get more of the remaining units on firm order. And, it would have also positioned the company to compete for business with other carriers.
Unfortunately, we didn’t get the quick agreement and we are now in recess.

• Option 2. We could get an agreement that will make ASA competitive over time (the next 12 to 18
months) and meets the cost targets of the DCA. We might get some of the future CRJ900s but the
business case for us to get only a few of them is not very strong. And, during the time we remain
uncompetitive, we face the potential loss of some CRJ700s above the number currently operating in the
SLC hub.

• Option 3. If we had gotten an agreement, but with rates that are not competitive now or over time, it
would have made it virtually impossible for the company to achieve the DCA cost targets. In that event, it is unlikely that we will get any of the CRJ900 deliveries, at least none of the 17 currently on firm order for delivery in 2006 and 2007. And, it is certainly possible that we will lose CRJ700s above the number currently operating in the SLC hub.

• Option 4. We could reach an agreement after continuing negotiations beyond the next few weeks or even months that would make ASA either competitive or uncompetitive with other DCI carriers. The ultimate outcome would dictate the longer term future, but we most certainly would lose in the short-term with the CRJ900s going to SkyWest Airlines at the very least.

Let me leave no doubt that the company clearly would have preferred option number one. If we’re going to be successful, we know where we have to be with our costs. Our DCA and the current business environment make these clear. We have very little leeway in how we get there and the longer it takes to get there, the greater the potential of at least a reduction in future opportunities for new airplanes, new agreements and growth.

Once again, I believe that it is vital that there be no misconceptions about what is at RISK here and the
ramifications of the decisions we make. We have an opportunity to do what will produce the best possible
outcome for the company, ASA pilots and all ASA employees. The faster we become competitive, the better our opportunities for continued future growth and success together. I don’t like the prospects that we face with uncompetitive costs.​

Most sincerely,
Charlie Tutt

There is one of the letters which basically tells us we are risking our future by being so bold as to ask for a 15 to 20% pay cut after figuring in inflation. In the mean time it has been quoted that Atkin's pay is up 400%.

How about "Option 5" - scope that binds SkyWest to ASA pilots so we don't have to worry about the constant and arbitrary internal re-bidding that exists between one division and the other division of SkyWest, Inc?

Everyone can read the tea leaves and realize that we have to be cost compeitive. Even the major MEC's at Delta, United, NorthWest and Continental have adjusted. No, ALPA is not being unreasonable here IMHO. What we want is stability, which is something management should also want if they have a true interest in the "ASA Vision." Scope does not cost a dime, why does SkyWest insist that we pay to keep our jobs?

 

[GearUpLightsIn]

"previous statements by management like, “zero-net-gain contract,” and “we need to be the second lowest paid pilots or we’ll shrink-and-die,” do not help attract quality pilots either. "

Okay, I agree with the MEC's shootdown of this request as a good move toward completing the contract. But honestly, there are enough self-evident problems with ASA without having to misquote management. "Zero net gain" is one I do remember seeing come from them years ago at the beginning of this process, but "we'll shrink and die"? No. This quote comes from an official union email, not some web board. It should be written in a professional and honest manner. I have always assumed the union considered themselves to be on the moral high ground, but this along with several of their recent mailers have done nothing in my estimation to advance their cause. I don't know who writes these updates but please, calm down take a breath and state only facts. It's not necessary to make anything up to make your point.

If this helps you any, I sat in RGT last year and had Scott Hall say exactly that. We either get our 700 pilot costs in line or we will shrink and die. He said it several times. Just because you didn't hear doesn't mean the union is making it up either.

 

[Redan]

"previous statements by management like, “zero-net-gain contract,” and “we need to be the second lowest paid pilots or we’ll shrink-and-die,” do not help attract quality pilots either. "

Okay, I agree with the MEC's shootdown of this request as a good move toward completing the contract. But honestly, there are enough self-evident problems with ASA without having to misquote management. "Zero net gain" is one I do remember seeing come from them years ago at the beginning of this process, but "we'll shrink and die"? No. This quote comes from an official union email, not some web board. It should be written in a professional and honest manner. I have always assumed the union considered themselves to be on the moral high ground, but this along with several of their recent mailers have done nothing in my estimation to advance their cause. I don't know who writes these updates but please, calm down take a breath and state only facts. It's not necessary to make anything up to make your point.

Whether these are exact quotes or not, our management has made it infinitely clear in a multitude of ways that this is exactly how they feel.

 

[ASApuppy]

Don't you all remember the memo from CT that outlined the 4 options we had as we negotiated the contract. It came out a year or so ago. The last option was something about if we got what we wanted we would be shrunk.

I choose this option.

 

[shamrock]

Don't you all remember the memo from CT that outlined the 4 options we had as we negotiated the contract. It came out a year or so ago. The last option was something about if we got what we wanted we would be shrunk.

I choose this option.

Check post #45 on this thread, Fins dug it up for everyone.

 

[av8tor4239]

fly the contract and poh, go to work do your job and only your job go home and collect your check.. let alpa do what you pay them to do.. they are good at it and they will succeed!