Skywest Rumor??

[120% Torque]

Thanks friend, I stand corrected. What this apparent unvalid story could have had to do with SkyWest is self explanitory. Reread what was written.

 

[Col.Hogan]

Skywest is still interviewing. The March jet class is all F/O's and all but about 7 are newhires. The cancelled the March EMB upgrade class(es?), but the april and beyond classes are still supposed to happen. I'm not sure what's happening with EMB newhire classes. Maybe Andy will post something.

Just about every rumor you can think of is floating around the line right now.

Scott
____________________________________________________
I have a buddy in an EMB class March 31st - HOG.

 

[skyrider]

Here's a little ditty to add to the mix

UAL Mulls Hub Closures in Reorganization
Monday February 24, 7:55 pm ET
By Erik Ahlberg

CHICAGO -- An executive for UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL - News) said Monday that the
airline is mulling the closure of its hubs in Los Angeles, Denver and Washington as part
of its reorganization plan.

Senior Vice President Gregory T.
Taylor said in court testimony that
UAL, parent of United Airlines, was
asked by its board of directors to
consider the hub closures as an
alternative. The board also asked
the company to look into the
possible sale of the airline's Pacific
operations, he said.

 

[Mookie]

General Lee,

I heard the same thing from a friend of mine in the same class. It was NOT a manager, it was a SAPA rep, and his comments were completely misinterpreted regarding the 737 and 300 pilot thing. It was an answer to a worst case scenario situation question from a newhire, and he was just being honest. I know, b/c I called the Rep who made the statement the next day to clarify it personally. But, he also said that "everything is on the table now." take that for what it's worth.

As far as all of the other rumors....who knows.....I'm still livin' the dream.

Mookie

 

[sleepy]

The rumour we are hearing at ASA is that the Skywest in-house union is proposing to Skywest management that they will fly 70 and 90 seat aircraft for 50 seat wages. This will allow them to take all of the 70 aircraft from ASA and Comair.

 

[Socalplt]

NO, you've got it all wrong. We want to fly the 717 at 50 seat wages!


Do you really think the pilots would propose flying larger aircraft for the same rate?

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Not quite...

First of all, we don't have an in house union. We have both: 1) An uncertified representative group (SAPA) that works with management on typicl issues relative to labor/management relations, and 2) A union drive that is sponsored by a completely different group (Unified Pilot's Association).

Second, neither party above, nor management, has proposed we fly 70/90 seaters at 50-seat pay rates. Our CEO and COO have both said they're looking at pricing operating and wage models at the lowest price in the industry, but in no way does that imply that we're going to do it for current 50-seat rates. Our VP Ops has always said we get paid appropriately for what we do--that may not be the absolute highest, but the highest consistent with controlled costs. It is silly to assume, and really unprecedented to assume we would be offered, or we would offer, to fly bigger planes that are more profitable for the company at current rates.

One could assume that perhaps a likely scenario would be Comair rates minus a couple percent for the 70-seaters, or a revised scheduled based on a reasonable multiple for 90-seaters. With capacity increasing 40% and 80% respectively, we could expect to see maybe 8-10% raise in the first aircraft upsizing, and another 8-10% raise for the second. Both would put us a wee below competitors, but still (some would argue) good wages for the type aircraft. A 20% raise for a 80% increase in capacity makes good financial sense for the company and fattens pilots' wallets, and allows operating efficiencies exponential to growth.

I've personally submitted a revised pay schedule (including proposed scales for even larger aircraft) to both our SAPA reps and senior check airmen (that they may hobnob with top management), and the feedback I've gotten so far is that the proposals are not out of line with management's thoughts of proposed rates. Of course, this is all a moot point until we at least take the first step and order a larger plane--that has not happened yet so this is all still very notional.

 

[sleepy]

Re: Not quite...

First of all, we don't have an in house union. We have both: 1) An uncertified representative group (SAPA) that works with management on typicl issues relative to labor/management relations, and 2) A union drive that is sponsored by a completely different group (Unified Pilot's Association).

Second, neither party above, nor management, has proposed we fly 70/90 seaters at 50-seat pay rates. Our CEO and COO have both said they're looking at pricing operating and wage models at the lowest price in the industry, but in no way does that imply that we're going to do it for current 50-seat rates. Our VP Ops has always said we get paid appropriately for what we do--that may not be the absolute highest, but the highest consistent with controlled costs. It is silly to assume, and really unprecedented to assume we would be offered, or we would offer, to fly bigger planes that are more profitable for the company at current rates.

One could assume that perhaps a likely scenario would be Comair rates minus a couple percent for the 70-seaters, or a revised scheduled based on a reasonable multiple for 90-seaters. With capacity increasing 40% and 80% respectively, we could expect to see maybe 8-10% raise in the first aircraft upsizing, and another 8-10% raise for the second. Both would put us a wee below competitors, but still (some would argue) good wages for the type aircraft. A 20% raise for a 80% increase in capacity makes good financial sense for the company and fattens pilots' wallets, and allows operating efficiencies exponential to growth.

I've personally submitted a revised pay schedule (including proposed scales for even larger aircraft) to both our SAPA reps and senior check airmen (that they may hobnob with top management), and the feedback I've gotten so far is that the proposals are not out of line with management's thoughts of proposed rates. Of course, this is all a moot point until we at least take the first step and order a larger plane--that has not happened yet so this is all still very notional.

So, someone from your pilot group did not tell a newhire class that your pilots are looking to under-cut ASA/Comair 70 seat pay rates in order to get the aircraft?

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Your point?

Sleepy --

So do you want to know if we're going to fly 70+ seaters for 50-seat wages (no) or are we going to "under-cut" ASA/Comair rates to get new planes (one could assume). You've asked two questions and both were answered previously.

I can sort of see your writing on the wall. This is not nearly akin to a Mesa/Freedom deal, nor is it relevent that we are currently non-union. Southwest Airlines took pay freezes in 1994, in lieu of stock option plan--even though the airline was already more profitable than most--in order to maintain their current cost structure making them more flexible, and competitive, in their planned growth years. They were both unionized and "undercutting" all the majors at the time

SkyWest has consistently had per hour wages that are a smidgen less than Comair and ASA (post strike, aricraft specific) or any other airline we are competing directly with. The pilots here are willing to make a little less per hour in exchange for profit sharing, stock options, a decent 401k, decent work rules and job security.

There is a difference between a dynamic well-managed airline with decent labor/management relations (not great, but not in the toilet), and an airline with antogonistic labor/management factions. We are the former where a lot of our competitors are the latter. There is certainly more to a competitive product than simply price, or cost, and in our case, there is more to our costs than simply $$/hr rates. Welcome to the market economy.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Re: Your point?

We are the former where a lot of our competitors are the latter. There is certainly more to a competitive product than simply price, or cost, and in our case, there is more to our costs than simply $$/hr rates.

Such as paying your newhires for training and springing for a hotel room while they are there, for example???