Scoping out intellectual arguments
You seem to have the position that its a foregone conclusion that ASA aircraft will be transfered to Skywest. Why is that? No not why you have the foregone conclusion but why is it that JA would WANT to transfer aircraft to Skywest? Two RATIONAL reasons come to mind.
1. It makes economic sense over the long term to transfer aircraft since Skywest operating costs are lower than ASAs. JA knows that lower operating costs makes the company more competitive and thus more secure.
If ASA compensation rates and operating costs are so far behind Skywest and the rest of the industry - why would that be the case? If that is true then WE should be the lower cost option. It should be the Skywest pilots who should be worrying about scope. Could it be that our operating costs are not? Depends on the individuals you ask and the sources you quote. Eclar Consulting completed an analysis of regional airline non-fuel related operating costs for Aviation Week and Space Technology that was published in the November 6, 2006 issue. According to their analysis, as of 2006, ASA labor rates were more expensive than SW and our operating costs were also. Its only one analysis but significant as they have no dog in this fight.
Since labor rates are tied to productivity and since operating costs are tied to both productivity and the operating culture of the pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics, you can't just compare labor rates. For example could it be that Skywest is more productive and therefore less expensive in moving passengers because their pilots fly across aircraft sizes? Could this possibly reduce the required numbers of crews Skywest has to hire compared to ASA? Nah - that couldn't be it, but I digress.
2. JA wants to transfer assets to an employee group that is overall more company friendly, and customer service oriented, knowing that those qualities ultimately manifest themselves in a more competitive market position.
Could it be that Skywest pilots are overall more happy with their working conditions than ASA pilots? How could it be that a non-union carrier has a better working environment - that can't happen! Everyone knows that unions deliver higher wages, better benefits, and better work rules - or do they? That is an arguable question with facts to support both sides.
Question? If these two conditions are true, then why don't we create an environment where the incentive is to transfer aircraft FROM SKYWEST to ASA?
All of you who are calling for the destruction of our customer service numbers, slowing down the operation, etc, are simply incentivizing JA to move ASA aircraft to SW. All of you who refuse to adhere to the fuel savings program are increasing operating costs and reducing profitability. Thus all you are doing is validating management's argument that they can't afford the compensation levels we are asking for. You call for improvements in scope but create precisely the environment that requires scope and incentivizes JA to break the union. In short, you are playing right into JA's hands - he must be laughing his ass off reading these posts.
The lack of critical thinking skills in some of these posts are downright scary.
Well, since that part has not been TA'd, I'm holding out hope. I will not vote for any TA that does not include protection from what I believe Skywest/Delta is planning after the contract gets signed, which is retire ASA 200's and replace them with a Skywest (or Pinnacle/Mesa) 900. They are set up in ATL now, and given the choice of giving replacement airframes to ASA or Skywest....JA will pick Skywest everyday and twice on Sunday! WE MUST PROTECT OUR JOBS!
You seem to have the position that its a foregone conclusion that ASA aircraft will be transfered to Skywest. Why is that? No not why you have the foregone conclusion but why is it that JA would WANT to transfer aircraft to Skywest? Two RATIONAL reasons come to mind.
1. It makes economic sense over the long term to transfer aircraft since Skywest operating costs are lower than ASAs. JA knows that lower operating costs makes the company more competitive and thus more secure.
If ASA compensation rates and operating costs are so far behind Skywest and the rest of the industry - why would that be the case? If that is true then WE should be the lower cost option. It should be the Skywest pilots who should be worrying about scope. Could it be that our operating costs are not? Depends on the individuals you ask and the sources you quote. Eclar Consulting completed an analysis of regional airline non-fuel related operating costs for Aviation Week and Space Technology that was published in the November 6, 2006 issue. According to their analysis, as of 2006, ASA labor rates were more expensive than SW and our operating costs were also. Its only one analysis but significant as they have no dog in this fight.
Since labor rates are tied to productivity and since operating costs are tied to both productivity and the operating culture of the pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics, you can't just compare labor rates. For example could it be that Skywest is more productive and therefore less expensive in moving passengers because their pilots fly across aircraft sizes? Could this possibly reduce the required numbers of crews Skywest has to hire compared to ASA? Nah - that couldn't be it, but I digress.
2. JA wants to transfer assets to an employee group that is overall more company friendly, and customer service oriented, knowing that those qualities ultimately manifest themselves in a more competitive market position.
Could it be that Skywest pilots are overall more happy with their working conditions than ASA pilots? How could it be that a non-union carrier has a better working environment - that can't happen! Everyone knows that unions deliver higher wages, better benefits, and better work rules - or do they? That is an arguable question with facts to support both sides.
Question? If these two conditions are true, then why don't we create an environment where the incentive is to transfer aircraft FROM SKYWEST to ASA?
All of you who are calling for the destruction of our customer service numbers, slowing down the operation, etc, are simply incentivizing JA to move ASA aircraft to SW. All of you who refuse to adhere to the fuel savings program are increasing operating costs and reducing profitability. Thus all you are doing is validating management's argument that they can't afford the compensation levels we are asking for. You call for improvements in scope but create precisely the environment that requires scope and incentivizes JA to break the union. In short, you are playing right into JA's hands - he must be laughing his ass off reading these posts.
The lack of critical thinking skills in some of these posts are downright scary.