Skywest CEO meets with ASA "leaders" Q&A

[wms]

Anyone consider the effect the E170 would have on ASA's parking plan?

I think they need jetways. At least they always used them when I rode on them.

 

[FL990]

Cram a yes-vote down our throats? How exactly do you think they're going to do that? Here's an easy way to avoid that unpleasant scenario: VOTE NO.

90 seaters for 50 seat pay...thats just not going to happen. They know that...but we have to get over this wet dream that our pay and quality of life will some day match the majors...cause it won't!! In fact, the majors are nothing like what they used to be..they QOL and pay are going the other way.

Every negotiation, contracts keep getting better and better which is good for us. The problem though, eventually the guys at the top get dropped and replaced with the guy who is willing to work for less.

In short, a strike at ASA will not happen any time soon. The vote would never pass and if it did, we had might as well just hand in our notice instead of striking because we will be signing our own "resignation." I for one and not willing to throw everything away and risk layoffs...etc...for 3 or 4 dollars more per hour...or for an extra guaranteed day off per month. What good does it do the average line pilot if we get this great contract, and then 2 years later, the company is shrunk down to nothing and we are all out of jobs...NONE.

We have to be realistic...again, we will get improvements but don't expect some huge pay raise...ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!

 

[difete]

Several guys I have talked to all have said "no" to the vote, including myself. I do not understand then, lets say mngmt says ok then... no, but we still have a 50-99 seat agreement. Does this mean if the 90 comes into property it still will be flown at 50 seat pay?

 

[Sinca3]

FL990,
This attitude is what is killing our negotiating power. When mgmnt thinks it can keep dragging there feet they will. If they think they can bring our contrct down they will.
You have the right to voice your opinion and I have no problem with that hell I'm all for it. Just voice your concern/anger towards the powers that be. Try the ALPA boards , go to an MEC/LEC meeting or call your status rep. Let them know your concerns and any ideas you might have. The more information the powers that be have the beeter decisions they can make.
Just my opinion and not meant to be a slam on you or your concerns. I just think your opinions on this board are more detrimental than beneficial.

 

[No Delay]

Man...I am so confused! I guess I am somewhere in the middle. I agree with FL990 and Sinca3.

We are talking a couple of dollars an hour...I just don't think that is going to make me or break me. But I know we can't just let management run all over us.


I am having a hard time understanding what the big deal is in having a different pay scale for different size airplanes. I know some of you are passionate about it...and that's definately your right. It's just don't get it. To me, it is the same amount of work to fly a 40 and a 50 seat...I can't see the 70 or 90 being that much more work????

Do mechanics have a different pay scale for the airplanes they work on? F/A? What about the rampers (it definately more work for them)???

I think pay should be based on experience...maybe an increase in the upper ranges in longevity scale. I think there is more value in an experienced pilot versus a pilot who can fly a 50 or a 90 seat airplane. (Any I am way at the bottom of the experience ladder, so I am not trying to give myself a raise).

Scheduling issues and QOL issues just seems like it would be so much more important to fight about. I would like to see major improvement in QOL, a slight pay raise across the board, and maybe a bigger spread (increase) in the longevity payscale.

 

[Sinca3]

Delay,
The reason there are different pay scales for different size a/c is b/c the more seats the more revenue making abilities. The pilots that fly them want to share in the higher revenue capabilities of these a/c not just let mgmnt pocket the $$ (which most have been doing the past 20 yrs). I think one pay rate is a possibilty but it should be alot different than the Skywest or PSA deal. UPS makes it work along with several other carriers.
As for QOL issues don't even get me started.....

Cheers

 

[Halo_RJdriver]

YOU fence sitters need to realize we are talking careers at skywest. IT is no longer a stepping stone. 3 OR 4 an hour raise is not going to send us to the bankruptcy judge. QOL improvements are not going to send us there either. LETs stop selling out ourselves and our fellow pilots by agreeing to work for sub-standard pay and work rules. There is no reason SkyWest can't survive on 19 milliion a quarter instead of 20 million other than their ego may take a hit. GOOD HELL nO DELAY WAKE UP


PS DO YOU REALIZE A SENIOR CAPTAIN AT ASA MAKES ALMOST $20,000 MORE A YEAR THAN A SENIOR SKYWEST CAPTAIN!

 

[No Delay]

Sinca3,

Wouldn't a REAL and FAIR profit sharing plan or performance bonuses better address sharing in the extra revenue?

Let's say I am flying the 50 seater and you are on the 70 seater. We fly the same # of hours and similar schedules. Is it fair for you to make more money just because the airplane you fly made a little extra money? What if you fly your 70 to a city that is also served by Airtran and your route is not that profitable because of competition...I on the other hand, fly my 50 seater to a city / or route that is much more profitable. Shouldn't I then (based on the your logic) get paid more because my flight generated more revenue? Then, what about passenger loads? What if your 70 has only 5 people on board? Have you generated more revenue? What if my passengers are only connecting to go to Asia? That ticket has got to be making more $$.

Again, what about the ramper? If the airplane he loads generates more rev...should he get paid more? Fueler? etc. Difference pay makes more sense for rampers, gate agents, and F/A more so than for the pilots. Don't get me wrong...pilots should make more money...I am only talking "difference pay".

It's just not a fair system. Wouldn't it make more sense that you got paid more because you are more experienced. If we are the same experience (seniority) then shouldn't we get paid the same regardless of the profitability of our plane / route? (I realize senority does not always equal experience - but it is really the only system we have). Then, as the company it makes money, we all share in it equally.

 

[No Delay]

Halo,


I agree! Raise the whole damn payscale!

I am only arguing the concept of difference pay.

 

[viper548]

Halo,


I agree! Raise the whole dang payscale!

I am only arguing the concept of difference pay.

If the whole payscale is competitive with the largest a/c that's flown then i'm all for it. UPS has only one payscale, but it's based on the large a/c not the small a/c

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I am only arguing the concept of difference pay.

So if SkyWest were to have 777s would you argue the pay for them should be at the same rate?


If one route is making money and another isn't then that's management's fault, not the pilots. They should be compensated fairly based on the amount of revenue that aircraft makes for the company. If it's a 30 seat Brasilia it's a certain amount. If it's a 777 it's another and variations for everything in between.

 

[Bluto]

I am having a hard time understanding what the big deal is in having a different pay scale for different size airplanes. I know some of you are passionate about it...and that's definately your right. It's just don't get it. To me, it is the same amount of work to fly a 40 and a 50 seat...I can't see the 70 or 90 being that much more work????

Where do you draw the line? How arbitrary is our current 50-seat rate? Should it be used as a universal rate for all aircraft? The Brasilia is more work to fly than the CRJ. Shouldn't they be paid more? School teachers work harder than NBA basketball players. Shouldn't they all earn $20 million a year? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE????

 

[Bluto]

90 seaters for 50 seat pay...thats just not going to happen. They know that...

I think you're being very optimistic. I think they have every intention of having us fly 90-seaters and beyond for our current 50-seat rates.

We have to be realistic...again, we will get improvements but don't expect some huge pay raise...ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!

Nodoby's asking for DAL +1%. It'd be really nice to industry average 90-seat rates. If we vote yes on the current agreement we will be setting a new low for 90-seat compensation. Kind of silly for one of the most profitable airlines in the U.S.

 

[viper548]

I think you're being very optimistic. I think they have every intention of having us fly 90-seaters and beyond for our current 50-seat rates.
Nodoby's asking for DAL +1%. It'd be really nice to industry average 90-seat rates. If we vote yes on the current agreement we will be setting a new low for 90-seat compensation. Kind of silly for one of the most profitable airlines in the U.S.

I agree, it's more like MESA +1%

 

[No Delay]

They should be compensated fairly based on the amount of revenue that aircraft makes for the company.

This just doesn't make sense to me! If I fly my 50 seater full and you fly your 70 seater with 40 people...then I should make more than you? What if it is a ferry flight? Hasn't generated any revenue...are you working for free?

There are certainly routes that are more profitable than others...should I be paid more if I fly a more profitable route.

I think you are assuming more seats = more revenue...and in most cases that should be true BUT that is not always the case. Let's say I agree with you and get more pay per hour for a bigger airplane because it generates more money. Are you willing to have money deducted from your pay if that airplane is not full?

I just think a pilot should be paid for being a pilot (fair amount based on experience / seniority)...but also have a FAIR profit sharing / performance bonuses so that we all can share when the company makes money.

I do agree there is a big difference between a RJ and 777. But who operates RJs and 777 with nothing in between? Most times they use a range of aircraft. Senior guys (who would make more because of longevity) fly the bigger a/c.

I do agree there should be more than $5 or $6 / hour pay between a 3 yr. captain and a 10 yr. captain. I think this is what should be addressed more than a/c difference pay.

BTW, all of this is just my opinion...doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. Just sharing my 2 cents. Good discussion, though!

 

[viper548]

Should the CEO of a very large company make more than the CEO of a very small company?

 

[Sinca3]

Delay,
Where the a/c are flown and how many people fly on them is not our job. Our job is to fly the a/c where and when mgmnt tells us to. Therefore the only thing we can control, or negotiate, is the $$ amount we are compensated. It is not our job to fill the seats or decide what a/c is suitable for what city pair, just to fly. Therfore the pay for a/c size makes sense if you look at it that way.
I am not saying this is the right way just the way ALPA and airline pilots looked at it in the past. I agree a profit sharing plan is a good idea for most places, but ASA is a different beast. No matter what you offer rampers, gate agents, mechanics etc. they aren't as motivated to get a plane out on time as the flight crews. The manpower in ATL is the worst in the industry and i have been to many airports in the country. I don't see how a profit sharing plan would work for us (the pilot group) at ASA. If there was a plan placed in front of me that made sense I likely would vote for it.
Cheers

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

This just doesn't make sense to me! If I fly my 50 seater full and you fly your 70 seater with 40 people...then I should make more than you? What if it is a ferry flight? Hasn't generated any revenue...are you working for free?

If my 100 seat aircraft is empty and your 50 seater is full then that's not my problem. That's management's problem for not selling the seats. I want to be compensated fairly based on the amount of revenue an airplane generates. Or let me rephrase that. I want to be compensated fairly on the amount of revenue an airplane CAN generate. If management screws up how much it actually makes that's their fault, not mine. Labor costs are constant. My pay should be a constant part of the cost per seat mile (csm), not variable based on each and every flight. If I fly a 50 seat airliner that can make $1000 profit per flight then I should be compensate accordingly. If I fly a 100 seat airliner that can make $1500 per flight then I should be compensated accordingly. If I fly a 500 seat airliner that can make $10,000 profit then I should be paid accordingly. I don't understand why you don't think it should be so. If you think everyone should be paid the same because we're all pilots then that's management's argument. If you take that stand then you've destroyed 80 years worth of pilot labor precedent.

 

[No Delay]

Baby Face (SkywestCRJ)


Valid points! Very valid points! And in one sense I agree.

And I didn't say all pilots should make the same...I said more focus should be placed on experience than equipment. I know my system would not work across the board...and there are obviously differences between a CRJ and a 777.

But I also don't believe it is realistic to think every that every airplane will be full of passengers paying the highest price on every route. If a manager could do that...he would be like...God!

All I am hearing is a 90 seat airplane can make this much money so I should be paid this amount...and I think their are just too many other factors that influence how much money an airplane generates.

If you say this airplane can make X amount of money so I want to be paid Y amount per hour...what happens if doesn't make that much? Or what happens when Airtran moves in? Just too many variables.



I do agree with you on the concept of profit sharing and ASA in Atlanta. We have some of the worst employees! I don't know how that would work either.


Again, I will be the first to tell you some of this stuff is way over my head and there are people a lot smarter than me working on it....It just aggrivates me when all someone wants to say is "It's a 90 seater so we have to have more money!" It is almost like they are saying it just because that is what a pilot should say. I am not saying they are wrong...I just want hear the logic behind their statements.

Again....good points!

 

[Dave Benjamin]

I agree, it's more like MESA +1%

The 900 rates will be less than Mesa rates.