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!

 

[Papa Woody]

It goes like this:

The "second lowest, no net gain" concept was perfect for the company when there was a surplus of qualified pilots.....the years after 9/11.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way....there is a shortage of pilots, and something like "highest pay with signing bonus and no more dewsh-bag managers" is what's needed from the G.O.

But they don't get it.

 

[GeekMaster]

It's been a few days since I've posted on our contract negotiations, but I finally had a chance to catch up with a CNC member. Of course they are under a gag order and didn't tell me anything they aren't saying publicly, but at least I have a better clue as to where things are/may be. Here are some thoughts on the subject.

ALPA HAD NO CHOICE but to deny a side letter request to grant relief on f/o pay. I feel very bad for them, but here's the deal on that. ASA hid their poor hand on that issue as long as they possibly could. After negotiations broke down with no agreement Friday night, they had no choice but to ask for status quo relief. Personally, I "suspect" they might have even requested it during the final hours Friday night after both sides had exhausted the "authority to give" on proposals.

We have ALL agreed (ALPAites and silent majority alike) that ASA management was not likely to give any more than absolutely necassary to avoid release and that barring release, they had NO MOTIVATION to settle a contract. WE WERE ALL WRONG!!! They had this dirty little secret about not being able to recruit and hire. It finally came to a point of desparation that they've now gone public with it. So what exactly does it all mean?

It means that for the first time we have acknowledgement that the pilot market is a player in this game as well. Since many of the other regionals are offering nice cash signing bonuses for completing training and better first year rates, who in their right mind would have ASA as their first choice? So, ASA wants relief to compete for those pilots. They still don't give a crap about the guys on the upper end of the seniority scale and would love to see them all go to better jobs.

What happens now depends on the NMB. I'm DEFINITELY not looking for a release right away. It was my understanding that last weeks sessions involved significant "give" from BOTH sides; not just ASA. I would really like to see a couple more sessions right away. I think with both sides looking to meet in the middle, they might have a chance to get it done outside of a release.

Here's a point of view to consider. I think it's very important to settle "outside" of a cooling off period if possible. That would represent that the company came to terms "willingly" and not just to avoid a strike and would be a lot less likely to begin shrinking ASA. Here's the bad news though; WHATEVER THEY GIVE US OUTSIDE OF A RELEASE WILL ALSO BE GIVEN TO SKYWEST TO KEEP ALPA OFF THE PROPERTY. Expect that as a new standard to compete in the new pilot market.

I have not changed my view that if we fail to remain competitive with SKW airlines we will shrink. THAT'S STILL TRUE. I just think that with the new "pilot market" player on board, BOTH airlines will benefit. Again, I think it's very important to settle "outside" of a release so that SKW inc. loses some it's ability to whipsaw by claiming they were forced into the contract terms.

 

[Tomct]

If the company REALLY wanted to get things done...they would give us what we want in the contract and get this over with!! As far as new hires getting bonus pay etc......EAT SH!T!!! BL, CT and SH can all KISS MY AZZ! GIVE US OUR CONTRACT NOW!!!!:angryfire

 

[wms]

Contracts are settled at the eleventh hour, so the thought of settling this without a release is not likely, no matter what the primary issue is.

The lack of pilots will probably drive the remainder of the contract. If the company starts offering raises to pilots who don't even work here yet, they can afford to give us one with COLA. And if they can offer thousands of dollars in hiring bonuses to pilots who don't work here yet they can afford 100% retro to those of us who are already here and have been loyal productive employees.

The union has a habit of just saying no without a counter-offer. The response should've been first year pay can go up, as long as all pay meets our original proposal.

 

[www.]

The union has a habit of just saying no without a counter-offer. The response should've been first year pay can go up, as long as all pay meets our original proposal.

The Company was not asking for pay raises they were asking to give incentives to get people in the door. DR has been asking for this for sometime. They want to give a hiring bonus. The pilot group should not be responsible for the hiring of pilots at ASA. They are paid to fly airplanes. Plain and simple. ALPA represents the pilots at the airline, not the ones trying to come here.

 

[wms]

The company doesn't need permission to give bonuses, but they know if they do they'll be acknowledging they have the money for retro. So the alternative would be to increase first year pay, which according to the memo is what the company wanted to do. The fact is we're in negotiations, and everything asked for is subject to something in return.

 

[www.]

The company doesn't need permission to give bonuses, but they know if they do they'll be acknowledging they have the money for retro.

Bonus, is considered pay so they can not give a bonus because it would violate status quo. No changes in pay or work rules during status quo.

They only way around this would either the company and ALPA agree to it OR the company pays the said pilot prior to becoming and ASA pilot.

As for the "memo"...ASA flight operations management today sought relief in the Status Quo of our current contract to give raises to new hire pilots.

If the company wanted to increase the rate agreed to, 1st year pay, by the parties they could being they are already under Section 6 negotiations. This has to do with getting pilots in the door, not the 1st year pay.

 

[av8er2]

Scott Hall saying they were caught up, BS! That shows they don't know what they are doing.

 

[Medeco]

Geek,

What makes you think its then end of ASA if we out price Skywest?

How about this, we raise the bar, then Skywest pilots have one more incentive to go ALPA on property now that a good portion of them have seen what SAPA really is?

Just one more possible outcome.

Bottomline, if the CNC comes through with a nice gain, everyone including the scared minority will benefit.

I just how they will step up and say I was wrong. Because, if the reverse happens, then I will.

Medeco

 

[GeekMaster]

SH saying they were caught up was a pure Bull hockey ploy to silently have pilots pick up open time for July with no premium pay. Nothing was announced but he doesn't have to. He only has to announce that premium time "IS" available. He was counting on guys picking it up out of habit and it's worked. I spoke with a capt this week who got hit. He picked up a trip and had it assigned to him before realizing it was straight time.

I agree with www. that it's not our position to hire pilots but I think www. would agree that if they are desparate enough to seek "status quo" relief, that becomes significant negotiating capital for us.

Since none of us officially know just how close they got or how much each side "gave", everybody's just guessing at this point. If it's really that close, I fully suspect they'll come to terms pretty fast on pay issues. That leaves Retro as the primary obstacle.

So here goes WMS this question is for you. YOU OBVIOUSLY FLY THE 50 OR THE ATR so answer this. How much do you suppose the 70 seat drivers and the training department guys are going to get under your 100% retro deal? Calculate it based on current rates because that's about where our table position is on the 70. Last time I checked, 100% of 0 raise is ........dang my calculator's broke. Remember, the training department guys are paid according to the highest equipment they can hold. Based on the low man on the totem poll for the 70, that pretty much covers the entire department. ......OH YEAH, the CNC has already pretty much come to terms on what will be a cut on their overrides.

Is that fair to them? Still supporting that 100% retro WMS?