Notes on Atkin's visit to ASA crew lounge...

[~~~^~~~]

* As far as the 8% goes, he is talking adding 4.5% profit sharing (which would have been 4.6% over the last 6 months if anyone is splitting hairs) so the net change is -3.5%.

* I'm a fleet watcher - ASA was in line for 22 airframes under the previous order from Bombardier. 5 of those have gone to SkyWest and 17 are still up for grabs. We have something like 12 ATR's that are going away and Mr. Atkin has said before that he would like to swap those in such a way that it causes a minimal disruption (displacement) at ASA.

* This is the first time I've ever seen the President of our Parent Company in our crew lounge talking one on one with pilots (without the minons, handlers, or a room full of V.P.'s to stack the deck). Jerry Atkin's patience is impressive, as his his forbearance. Call me a suck up, but when a guy goes from an operation with a couple of Navajos to a market cap of 1.6 Billion he has my respect. Yet - I saw pilots call him a liar, say that they did not trust him, or management, then when he asked them for examples Pilots said "D'uh I dunno, no reason I guess." That is down right stupid. If pilots are going into a meeting with someone like that and are fool enough to open your mouth, pilots and your pilot group are best served if you have something intelligent to say. Someone could have mentioned how the 18 month deal for a 70 seat pay rate got passed over at SkyWest, or mentioned some of shennanigans Scott Young, Gary Hall, Nelson Debardeleben or Goat Boy have pulled - but no - people opened their big mouth and sounded like misinformed idiots.

* Jerry Atkin is holding the line on pass benefits at ASA - you can bet nobody else would. Brian LaBreque can afford to buy his tickets. (Perhaps we should make this part of our contract - it is compensation as far as I'm concerned)

* Today we got a message from our Crew Planning Manager with his personal e-mail address saying he wants reduction of sit times, less deadheading, pure lines and better distribution of block times. The memo included an explanation of the new tools they are going to test to accomplish these goals. He put his personal e-mail address at the bottom of the page! This is not the ASA I've worked at for for years.

I don't know how the issue with the training department's costs can be resolved. We ask a lot and get a lot from our IP's. They also have the power to shut this airline down (what if no one completes a training event for a couple of months - not a failure, just an incomplete?)

This deal is far from over, but Jerry Atkin impressed me in the crew lounge. The acceptance of an ASAP program and what appears to be a sincere attempt at fixing our schedules go a long way to impress me.

 

[Going2Baja]

Jerry is a stand up guy. Pres of SkyW at 24 - think about it! I bet you a dollar that he would reply if you send that email as well. I know for a fact that he answered his phone if you called his extension and would talk to you if he had the time.

Good luck - Baja.

 

[Mercyful Fate]

Be glad that Jerry is running the show now. The man knows this business, and hasnt lost touch with reality. Sounds like regardless of what happens, some of the thinking from the ASA guys will never change. Jerry has a huge task of turning this thing around, and it isnt going to happen overnight. Be patient guys....

 

[Tim47SIP]

Help!

Someone please explain something to me. I understand that in order to bid on an RFP that our CASM needs to be in the competitive arena. I have also read here that since BL threw in all of the 70 seat IP's, our 70 cost is to high to compete but our 50 seat cost is just right. HOW can you take out the IP costs and lower a CASM and still have to pay those individuals? Is our CASM made up of the total costs of the company or is it the cost to fly the aircraft minus the infrastructure to support the aircraft? I dont see how we can take the IP's out of the equation when they are part of the infrastructure??

Just trying to get smarter concerning this subject. Thanks.

 

[sweptback]

Someone please explain something to me. I understand that in order to bid on an RFP that our CASM needs to be in the competitive arena. I have also read here that since BL threw in all of the 70 seat IP's, our 70 cost is to high to compete but our 50 seat cost is just right. HOW can you take out the IP costs and lower a CASM and still have to pay those individuals? Is our CASM made up of the total costs of the company or is it the cost to fly the aircraft minus the infrastructure to support the aircraft? I dont see how we can take the IP's out of the equation when they are part of the infrastructure??

Just trying to get smarter concerning this subject. Thanks.

The IPs would be counted as a separate training or management item, rather as a direct cost of airplane operation. The costs would still have to be accounted for, but it would be in a different category. Just an example of how numbers can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to.

 

[rjcap]

Someone please explain something to me. I understand that in order to bid on an RFP that our CASM needs to be in the competitive arena. I have also read here that since BL threw in all of the 70 seat IP's, our 70 cost is to high to compete but our 50 seat cost is just right. HOW can you take out the IP costs and lower a CASM and still have to pay those individuals? Is our CASM made up of the total costs of the company or is it the cost to fly the aircraft minus the infrastructure to support the aircraft? I dont see how we can take the IP's out of the equation when they are part of the infrastructure??

Just trying to get smarter concerning this subject. Thanks.

Here is another way to look at it.

If you have 32 or so 700's how many 700 IP's do you need to satisfy training needs ??

Our IP's are paid based on the a/c they can hold seniority wise. Since the majority of all the IP's can hold the 700 that is what rate they are paid on. Its not based on need but what a/c they could hold if they were on the line. This is a skewed method of determining the 700 cost by including these IP's.

I have come across another issue that I am not clear on. While reviewing the Skywest 200 payrates my interpretation was that they are greater then the 200 rates at ASA. Adding the profit sharing to that rate would inflate the total rate above what our 700 pay rates are. If this is the case then how is ASA's 700 rates above the flat rate ( 200 and 700 ) at Skywest??

There are many questions about all this "concessionary talk" that are not clear. Unfortunately, BL's handling of the contract issue since the acquisition of ASA by Skywest has further angered and confused the pilots.

 

[~~~^~~~]

RJ Cap - you are correct. The difference appears to be the way costs are allocated at ASA. The fact that other airlines use non seniority list IP's for ground and sim training surely has a lot to do with it. Delta had $300,000 pilots being trained by $50,000 IP's. Here we have $60K Captains getting paid by $120K IP's. It has to skew the numbers.

I don't look forward to the change because we have a very good training department here. You get what you pay for.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Go Around-

Being in a similar boat I definately sympathize with you. I too need upgrade for the pay. More airplanes would get me that opportunity. However, when you say that you will not work for Mesa wages you actually contradict yourself. Taking this round of paycuts puts the whipsaw back on the Skywest pilots. What's to stop us in our race to Mesa wages causing you to "walk away?"

Pilots negotiate for pay, not for airplanes and equipment. ASA made a profit and continues to do so; we deserve fair remuneration, not a concession!

 

[HoserASA]

From another thread on flightinfo (CMR thread):

To refute your point, check this: AWAC just installed a 2-4.4% hourly wage increase our union negotiated as part of our original concession to United. We have an annual wage adjustment clause that compares the average of the six largest independent regionals to our pay year by year, and puts us at the avg. +2% if we're not at or above there already. Not trying to brag but our group does feel a little better these days. Every RJ group out there could have something similar.

Also, our MEC passed on word that Pinnacle's MEC is refusing to negotiate work rules changes and pay cuts, and no TA involving concessions will be given to the pilots to vote on. Mesaba is threatening to strike and will do so in the face of a forced 20% pay cut.

Hoser

 

[HoserASA]

Jerry says he wants an 8% cut on the 70. Apparently he's using three low regionals as an average instead of what AWAC uses, six largest! Maybe Jerry ought to raise the 50 rate to match SKW if he wants the cut in 70 rates. It's gonna get interesting.

Hoser