Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Skywest CEO meets with ASA "leaders" Q&A

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Medeco

SQUIB
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Posts
1,064
FLIGHT OPERATIONS LEADERSHIP MEETING Q&A

SEPT. 20-21, 2005
JERRY ATKIN, SKYWEST, INC. CEO Q&A
Q: What do you see as the vision for ASA’s future?
A: We will operate SkyWest and ASA as separate carriers. One reason is because they

are two big companies and if we keep them separate its keeps the leaders close to where

the rubber meets the road. We don’t want to get out of touch with our people.

We do intend to set high objectives for ASA. I don’t mean to say that to make you feel

bad about your company because you’ve accomplished much and you should be proud of

your many accomplishments. But we intend to move the bar higher.
Q: Do you see ASA flying for other carriers other than Delta?
A: Our objective is to add a third codeshare to the SkyWest, Inc. portfolio. We want

ASA to be able to competitively bid on other work outside Delta and create growth. We

want to grow to help with the cost competitive side of things and not for growth’s sake.
Q: What is the future of SLC?
A: As much as I know yo u want me to, I cannot give you a definite answer to the future

of ASA’s SLC operation. We have to start where Delta needs SkyWest and ASA to be.

We need to make sure both carriers are equally cost competitive and we plan for new

aircraft to go to both carriers.
Q: Will we see additional hubs in the future?
A: Based on today’s existing system, I don’t anticipate that since Delta’s hubs are not

changing.
Q: What about pass privileges?
A: We don’t have a firm answer on that, yet, but honestly, I expect it will be less than

what you have now. It only makes sense since Delta will be adjusting the pass benefits

for their own people.
Q: What about the fleet plan for ASA?
A: I have no final answer but we will get six CRJ200 in the first half of 2006 and I

expect they will come to ASA. SkyWest, Inc., has 22 CRJ700/900s on firm order for

delivery in 2006-2007 and we still are finalizing the numbers of how many 700s and how

many 900s or 705s we will receive. We anticipate all of these aircraft will be delivered

by July 2007.
Q: What is the plan for our IT needs? Will we move from Delta Technology and

the equipment we currently use?
A: We want to get full use of the equipment we have and look at the capital expenditures

for equipment we need to replace and or add. We’re still working on that plan.
Q: What is the future of the ATR?
A: Current plans are to retire the ATR from ASA’s fleet by July 2007.
Q: What about adding first class in CRJ700s?
A: We are looking at having all new CRJ700 to include dual class. We are unsure about

retrofitting our current fleet. Financing is the big question there.

BRAD RICH, SKYWEST, INC CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Q&A
Q: Are you concerned about Delta giving growth to other regional carriers?
A: Moderately. We’re confident that we will have the best product, financial resources,

quality of people and good equipment. Combine that and we’re going to get our fair

share of growth. We don’t want to give them a reason to look anywhere else.
Q: Will you rectify difference between pilot labor costs?
A: I doubt if we will ever fully reconcile the difference between labor costs but I’m

confident we can work it out. At SkyWest our base wage is low but we make it up in

performance compensation. I think we can make progress by tying it to performance

compensation.
Q: Do we still have all our gates at Atlanta?
A: ASA will have all its current gates at Atlanta. We do have our gate subleases from

Delta and US Airways on Concourse D and all gate leases remain as they were before

SkyWest, Inc. purchased ASA.

SAM WATTS, ASA VICE PRESIDENT – PLANNING AND LOGISTICS Q&A
Q: What does the contract provision “fly aircraft on own account” mean?
A: It means that we cannot operate flights for revenue generation purposes exclusively

for ASA, with the aircraft covered by the agreement. The contract does include specific

parameters and limitations on the operation of flights under the “EV” code in selected

Delta hub cities.
Q: How will average guys know how ASA is performing against the metrics we are

given in the Delta contract?
A: It is every leader’s responsibility to keep the information out there for all team

members so that we all know where we stand. We’ll use myASA, division publications,

face to face briefings and other means to ensure all ASA team members are kept up to

date on our goals and how we are performing against each of the goals.
 
Hmmmm, more talk about the -900/705. I wonder how they are going to approach this pay wise with ASA. I don't see them offering pay scales for the 200, 700 and 900, since SKW only has the scale for 50-99 seats.
 
Q: What about the fleet plan for ASA?
A: I have no final answer but we will get six CRJ200 in the first half of 2006 and I expect they will come to ASA. SkyWest, Inc., has 22 CRJ700/900s on firm order for delivery in 2006-2007 and we still are finalizing the numbers of how many 700s and how many 900s or 705s we will receive. We anticipate all of these aircraft will be delivered by July 2007.

Sounds like the rumors may be true. I was in 70 differences training this week and the instructor said B.H. was seriously looking at buying the 705's , but that he was waiting on finallizing the deal until the new pay agreement was voted on. By the looks of it management will probably cram a yes vote down all our throats and we will be flying 705s and 900s for 50 seat pay.
 
viper548 said:
Hmmmm, more talk about the -900/705. I wonder how they are going to approach this pay wise with ASA. I don't see them offering pay scales for the 200, 700 and 900, since SKW only has the scale for 50-99 seats.


I realize Skywest & ASA both already operate the CRJ, but the CR9 just can't compare to the E170 in terms of performance or comfort... Given Skywest's and ASA's previous experience with the EM2 (probably not the best experience), you'd expect an opportunity to discuss the E170 with Embraer...

That CR9 is just a longer tube-version of the already pax-unfriendly CRJ....
 
On Your Six said:
I realize Skywest & ASA both already operate the CRJ, but the CR9 just can't compare to the E170 in terms of performance or comfort... Given Skywest's and ASA's previous experience with the EM2 (probably not the best experience), you'd expect an opportunity to discuss the E170 with Embraer...

That CR9 is just a longer tube-version of the already pax-unfriendly CRJ....
I agree, the E170/190 would be a much more comfortable plane for the pax. The CR9 would probably be more profitable though. it has a common type, common parts and less training events.
 
Mmmmmm?



Q: What do you see as the vision for ASA’s future?
A: We will operate SkyWest and ASA as separate carriers. One reason is because they

are two big companies and if we keep them separate its keeps the leaders close to where

the rubber meets the road. We don’t want to get out of touch with our people.

We do intend to set high objectives for ASA. I don’t mean to say that to make you feel

bad about your company because you’ve accomplished much and you should be proud of

your many accomplishments. But we intend to move the bar higher.

We do need raise the bar and get rid of the current mgt. Everyone here is sick of the old ASA way. Treat your people better. Respect our professional skills and give us a fair contract!!
Q: Do you see ASA flying for other carriers other than Delta?
A: Our objective is to add a third codeshare to the SkyWest, Inc. portfolio. We want

ASA to be able to competitively bid on other work outside Delta and create growth. We

want to grow to help with the cost competitive side of things and not for growth’s sake.

Competitively bid and race to the bottom.
 
Since when have companies cared what the pax think? I wish the pax could flex their muscle better but everyone knows it all about the fares.

:(
 
av8er2 said:
Q: What do you see as the vision for ASA’s future?​



A: We will operate SkyWest and ASA as separate carriers. One reason is because they


are two big companies and if we keep them separate its keeps the leaders close to where

the rubber meets the road. We don’t want to get out of touch with our people.

We do intend to set high objectives for ASA. I don’t mean to say that to make you feel

bad about your company because you’ve accomplished much and you should be proud of

your many accomplishments. But we intend to move the bar higher.

We do need raise the bar and get rid of the current mgt. Everyone here is sick of the old ASA way. Treat your people better. Respect our professional skills and give us a fair contract!!





Q: Do you see ASA flying for other carriers other than Delta?​








A: Our objective is to add a third codeshare to the SkyWest, Inc. portfolio. We want


ASA to be able to competitively bid on other work outside Delta and create growth. We

want to grow to help with the cost competitive side of things and not for growth’s sake.

Competitively bid and race to the bottom.




So are you suggesting not bid competitivly?...Won't that mean youdon't grow and you eventually die?
 
The reason why Skywest is not looking at the E-170/190 is because of the dispatch reliability of those planes. Which currently at $hit taco is 30-40%, while the SkyWest/ASA RJs are in 80% range.
 
The bottom line is the less they pay the pilots then the less they sell the seats for. Their profit margins aren't going anywhere but up. Salaries go down then Seat prices go down.

VOTE NO ON THE WORTHLESS 1.2%

VOTE UNION = LIVE BETTER
 
bmpilot2003 said:
The reason why Skywest is not looking at the E-170/190 is because of the dispatch reliability of those planes. Which currently at $hit taco is 30-40%, while the SkyWest/ASA RJs are in 80% range.

I suspect the dispatch reliability of SKYW RJ's is far higher than 80%.
 
bmpilot2003 said:
The reason why Skywest is not looking at the E-170/190 is because of the dispatch reliability of those planes. Which currently at $hit taco is 30-40%, while the SkyWest/ASA RJs are in 80% range.


It is the first time I have looked this up, but so far I found that at ASA for the MONTH of August our entire fleet had a 98% dispatch reliability.

I would imagine that means an average well abobe 90% for the CRJ fleet.

Medeco
 
I orignally said 80% because i didnt want to overstate the numbers. I also new that the number was most likely in the 90s. The fact of the matter is the CRJ is much more reliable than the "E-180".
 
bmpilot2003 said:
I orignally said 80% because i didnt want to overstate the numbers. I also new that the number was most likely in the 90s. The fact of the matter is the CRJ is much more reliable than the "E-180".
Is this your way of saying you pulled those numbers out of your ass?
 
no actually between Skywest and ASA i was told 80-90%, ASA being the lowers of the two. Just didnt make that very clear i guess.
 
When ASA first recieved the RJ's the dispatch reliability was so bad that GE sent techs in to help because their worldwide numbers for the engines was being hurt. The engine reliability was in the high 99's. ASA, with their short legs, at the time, were really putting a strain on them.

In fact the warranties had to be renegotiated because ASA said that the average cycle would be a little over an hour, like 1.2 or something. Of course back then they were running to CHA, MYR, MCN, AVL, PFN etc.
 
bmpilot2003 said:
By the looks of it management will probably cram a yes vote down all our throats and we will be flying 705s and 900s for 50 seat pay.
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.
 
Anyone consider the effect the E170 would have on ASA's parking plan?
 
~~~^~~~ said:
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.
 
Bluto said:
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!!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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 said:
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
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom