ASA Negotiations grind to a halt (again)! ASA management out of touch with reality!

[SSDD]

Well that's what I've been wondering. Some of you guys are saying you'd vote No without scope, but how would that be worded? Also, why haven't you guys filed for single carrier? I'm not by any means an expert in negotiations, but it seems to me that single carrier would be the first step, then a few things would fall into place.

Thanks

 

["GO AROUND"]

.........................

 

["GO AROUND"]

Actually, Skywest has taken a paycut each and EVERY year they didn't get atleast a COLA of about 3% or so.

So, looks like about 21% over 7 years, oops...I forgot about the 1%...20% over 7 years. Not too far from the paycut all those legacy carriers you mention took. Oh yeah, they started out making much, MUCH more than Skywest.

Noone is guaranteed a raise at any job. COLA raises included. No employer has to give a raise each year just cause the cost of living goes up. My wife didn't get a payraise this year cause the industry she is in is down right now.

You get what the company can afford, what you can negotiate, or move on to a job that can pay you more. I know the airlines are different but no raise is guaranteed in any job.

 

[VeeOne]

It is time for the pilot group to take a walk. Screw ASA and Skywest, these management groups suck and only deserve the worst.

Deserve the worst if WE strike??? What do they care- they just retire early. It's not like they haven't raked in the cash to sustain themselves anyway without ASA employment. All they have to do is live off the intrest from their bonus money.

Meanwhile, the pilots get to start over on probationary pay again. Sure some of the captains will move on, but how many of the more senior guys would be stuck when the music stops because they are too old to move on? Anybody over 45 ain't gettin' on with a major or Southwest- I promise..........

Geez, if we strike we strike- but no need to be all happy about it like Christmas is coming..........

 

[PCL_128]

PCL - Rez - someone edumacate me....

I've tried, my friend, but it doesn't seem to take.

Seriously though, your ideas about block-hour minimums are exactly how a regional carrier can secure scope. There's no way to guarantee any amount of flying from the major-airline partner, but you can certainly guarantee a certain percentage of block-hours flown by Skywest Holdings will be flown by ASA pilots. It would take a lot of negotiating capital to achieve it, but it is possible.

Of course, the far preferable solution would be a single list. All flying done by Skywest Holdings would be done by pilots on the single Skywest seniority list (represented by ALPA, of course). This is what really needs to happen. As long as the airlines are kept separate, there will always be problems, even with block-hour scope. There are many ways to whipsaw. It isn't just airplane transfers. As long as management has two pilot groups, they will be able to keep the whipsaw going. We need to stop these whipsaws once and for all.

 

[~~~^~~~]

doublepost....

 

[~~~^~~~]

Well that's what I've been wondering. Some of you guys are saying you'd vote No without scope, but how would that be worded? Also, why haven't you guys filed for single carrier? I'm not by any means an expert in negotiations, but it seems to me that single carrier would be the first step, then a few things would fall into place.

Thanks

A single carrier petition, if successful, would trigger a representational vote to see whether ALPA represents the combined group. ALPA is not certain of a win and is afraid of a single carrier move for its future, although it would be best for ASA pilots' future. Or it could be ALPA doesn't want to fire that bullet for fear it would not hit. ALPA got beat on the GoJets issue (where ALPA tried to do the right thing and go beat by Teamsters who was in bed with management against ALPA)

As far as achievable scope, we could contract for a percentage of SkyWest Holding's flying (like the Delta pilots current scope using a percentage of block hours and fleet ratios) with the assurance that if airplanes get transferred, the crews go with the airplanes, with longevity rights.

Or, a single list across separate companies could be done, like Chautauqua, Republic, MidAtlantic, Shuttle America, et. al.

It can be done - and it will be done - or I will vote to strike and remain on strike until all SkyWest flying is done by SkyWest (and their competitors). We ASA pilots are tired of being the whipsaw subsidiary of a holding company performing alter ego brand flying. This is our opportunity to restore at least soverignty over ASA flying (at no cost to our employer) not getting scope is not acceptable.

Jerry Atkin likes to talk about working as a team. Well put us on the team then. If SkyWest is unwilling to commit to my services, then I'm unwilling to commit my services to SkyWest. It is a fair exchange.

We ASA pilots have seen SkyWests' intentions, after the immediate transfer of at least 18 firm 700 deliveries, the 900 launch and transfer of our existing airframes. We can not have a contract without scope.

and I have high hopes for our over 45 Captains. Look at hour the Delta early outs got hired. Some are even at SkyWest with over a million in the bank, go figure.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Seriously though, your ideas about block-hour minimums are exactly how a regional carrier can secure scope.

Of course, the far preferable solution would be a single list. All flying done by Skywest Holdings would be done by pilots on the single Skywest seniority list (represented by ALPA, of course). This is what really needs to happen.

It would take a lot of negotiating capital to achieve it, but it is possible.

Thanks! Great post. You said it better than I did.

I'm not so sure it would take a lot of negotiating captial. No one has ever struck over a non economic issue before, have they? To me the idea of an employer committing to its employees in exchange for the same committment is common sense that even the NLRB and the press can sympathize with.

Just because mainline sold scope, does that mean we have to buy it? ALPA's negotiations at mainline carriers are different because at mainline ALPA put a dollar credit value on the sale of flying. If given that ASA and SkyWest are going to end up at nearly cost parity anyway, I don't think the mainline economic model applies here.

Management says we must be the cheapest to guarantee our jobs. We should not accept that logic. At cost parity, lets take pilot wages out of the equation and let management concentrate on running their airline.

 

[FDJ2]

I'm not so sure it would take a lot of negotiating captial. No one has ever struck over a non economic issue before, have they?

I think you'll find that in negotiations everything is, or becomes, an economic issue.

I wish you good luck in your negotiations, I think that block hour guarantees or flight hour percentages is your best bet.

 

[Morning Wood]

Actually, Skywest has taken a paycut each and EVERY year they didn't get atleast a COLA of about 3% or so.

So, looks like about 21% over 7 years, oops...I forgot about the 1%...20% over 7 years. Not too far from the paycut all those legacy carriers you mention took. Oh yeah, they started out making much, MUCH more than Skywest.

That is NOT a pay cut simply because you didn't get a raise. Having 30% (or more) less in your pocket every two weeks is indeed a pay cut. I don't think you can call each one the same thing. By your same logic, the paycut would actually be more than 21%, because you would have to count every year the 3% didn't kick in, not just the past 7.

The major pilots who have lost money (not COLA raises) did start off making MUCH more than SkyWest. Just as they started off making MUCH more than ASA, Comair, Air Wisconsin, and every other regional. What's your point?