Skywest SAPA proposed pay package is out

[vtech]

VTECH,
The HEAD of the negotiating committee told me the last pay package was a net loss...

.... based on "not keeping up with inflation." It was more money. It was a raise. It was a bigger number. It just didn't keep up with iniflation so it was a "net loss." Was that his judgment? OK. I understand the argument. Keep telling yourself that and point me to all the other recent contracts that have kept up with inflation.

Did he also tell you the proposal being put out for a vote is the most he and the team he has worked with to put this proposal together can get from management and that going back to the table will not result in a better offer? If he didn't, go talk to him again and let us all know what he says.

 

[nimtz]

....

Did he also tell you the proposal being put out for a vote is the most he and the team he has worked with to put this proposal together can get from management and that going back to the table will not result in a better offer?

Simply the most awesome run on sentence in FI history.

 

[Dubya]

Simply the most awesome run on sentence in FI history.

Not even in the Top 10.

You aren't new here are you?

 

[Baronman]

Please vote "No" to any pay raises. We (ASA/XJT) could put that cash to use. Thanks pals.

 

[ArcticFlier]

No.

AF

 

[JoeMerchant]

No.

AF

'bout time you started posting again...Welcome back....:beer:

 

[Hootie9750]

No no no

 

[outtahere]

I'm sorry, but by "we" did you mean ASA before you were bailed out by SKW? I mean, weren't you just a giant turd in the Delta toilet that wouldn't flush until SKW bailed you out?

Before SkyW bought ASA, I believe our profit margin was something like 13.6% at one point. The highest in the airline industry. SkyW didn't bail us out, though they did save us from enduring Delta's bankruptcy. Don't get the big head, ASA is a better place to be than SkyW.

 

[Positive Rate]

Didn't read the whole thread, maybe someone already said something along these lines...so sorry, if its a repeat.


Vote yes. and then vote in/yes for a union.

 

[urflyingme?!]

.... Based on "not keeping up with inflation." it was more money. It was a raise. It was a bigger number. It just didn't keep up with iniflation so it was a "net loss." was that his judgment? Ok. I understand the argument. Keep telling yourself that and point me to all the other recent contracts that have kept up with inflation.

Did he also tell you the proposal being put out for a vote is the most he and the team he has worked with to put this proposal together can get from management and that going back to the table will not result in a better offer? If he didn't, go talk to him again and let us all know what he says.

ok vtech.

We made less because it was not a raise. Not using inflation, im talking plain dollars. Skyw would have paid out more cash with the old package.

 

[Bako Cap]

Before SkyW bought ASA, I believe our profit margin was something like 13.6% at one point. The highest in the airline industry. SkyW didn't bail us out, though they did save us from enduring Delta's bankruptcy. Don't get the big head, ASA is a better place to be than SkyW.

Whohoo, we're both tall midgets.....

 

[Ski Bum]

I read it, Dizel.

As expected, there isn't another regional that he'd like to work for other than Skywest. A lot of pilots have left other regionals to come to work for Skywest but very few, if any, have ever left Skywest to go to work for another regional.

Let's not confuse the pilots who were furloughed from Mesaba, or pilots who witnessed their jobs being taken by GoJets at TSA, or pilots who were employed for 8 months at ASA to see their SLC domicile close, or pilots who went to Mesa with 300 hours to build the 1000 hours before coming to Skywest with pilots who willingly left Comair, Air Wisconsin, Republic, and Mesaba to come to Skywest. There are many, many mitigating circumstances as to why a couple of hundred pilots on our list are from other airlines. I would be hard pressed to find more than one who said "I just think life is better at Skywest so I left my 3 years seniority behind and came over."

For those that want to "send a message" by voting "NO," ask yourself what was the result of the last "message" sent to management by voting "NO."

For those that want to vote "NO" and send it back to the table, ask yourself what was the result of the last time it was sent back to the table.

I totally agree. Without representation we cannot send a message. We must accept whatever they offer. If you could send a message and try to get more out of the negotiations, would you? Or do you think this pay proposal is fine?

Is everything perfect at Skywest? No. Is everthing perfect at any airline? No. Is there a better regional to work for. I don't think so.

Do I want Skywest to be a better place to work. Yes. Do I value my services to the company. Yes.

Will voting "NO" make Skywest a better place to work. No. If I vote "NO," will management value my services more. No.

So what will make Skywest a better place to work? HOW can you get Skywest management to value your services more?

Wow, I am starting to sound like another poster on this board that does nothing but ask open ended questions. Sorry. Didn't mean to do that.

I guess what I am getting at is according to Einstein "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Maybe the Skywest pilot group has tried SAPA over and over again and continues to get the same result (ie this is the best they will give us).
It is time to try a different tactic.

 

[BrickTop]

F*&K NO> What an insult

 

[difete]

I vote "yes". Why you all here at SKW think you have the power to pull a better deal? You think you will say no to this, and hurt mangmnt's feelings, so they will try to pacify you by increasing the offer? LOL.

There is no better offer after this. Ask me or the others that lived through this before. This is my third round at this, when you tell em No, the next offer is worse, and then it comes with a letter from SAPA beging to accept it or else... no raise. It gets voted in, then everyone waits until next time around.

Look, im all about better representation here, but for now, we must understand, this is all we have, and this proposal is all SAPA can do. So take it, wait until an opportunity to vote in for better representation arrives, and seize that oportunity. Thats my take on things anyway.

 

[amcnd]

Before SkyW bought ASA, I believe our profit margin was something like 13.6% at one point. The highest in the airline industry. SkyW didn't bail us out, though they did save us from enduring Delta's bankruptcy. Don't get the big head, ASA is a better place to be than SkyW.

Ya! So was SkyWest's. 14% wasn't uncomon back in the day... But delta caught on and said.."if were loosing money so should you"

It's like this Horuzon deal. Alaska is setting them up to make 10% profit (bait the hook) then when there sold, they pull the hook out and your only making 2% profit margins.. Thats just the way it is now.. Unless you get tired of the "big boys" pinching yor profits, then you do what Republic is doing...

 

[Flyerdan]

YES, that is exactly what it is! Those of us at Skywest that would love to see XJT force the three airlines to merge and be an integrated ALPA pilot group are left with nothing more than the hope that once again an ALPA pilot group will do the heavy lifting for us. It is sad but very true!

On a side note: I am extremely disappointed that it appears that the XJT ALPA folks are going to cave on the integration scope in favor of whipsaw protections.

I wonder how the majority of the XJT pilot group feel about that issue.

I was hoping to get a reaction from some XJT pilots (not flame baiting just wondering how most of you feel about this) about giving up on the seniority integration during merger language.

First, does it seem to be a true that this scope is being given up?

Second, do you agree with it?

 

[rjacobs]

I was hoping to get a reaction from some XJT pilots (not flame baiting just wondering how most of you feel about this) about giving up on the seniority integration during merger language.

First, does it seem to be a true that this scope is being given up?

Second, do you agree with it?

This is all how I understand it as it was explained to me.

The reason we "gave up", which we really didnt because our scope language is remaining intact, is two fold.

First is that none of the lawyers that we consulted with thought that if we took it to court we would win. The reason being is that they could not see a judge forcing our contract(not our whole contract but our one section) on multiple work groups across multiple lines. They did not think the judge would force an integration of all the various work groups-pilots, FA's, MX, DX, etc... That is the main reason.

The second, and this one is a bit more fuzzy for me, is that apparently we were reading the successorship section wrong and that it really did not have to do with if we were bought, but if we created another airline, ala gojet, and the company tried to do what TSA did and "create" another holding company to hold "ExpressJet Holdings" and "XYZ Holdings" thus keeping the pilot groups separate.

The third reason, and this is my own thought process, is that our management and BOD has proven that they have zero interest in running an airline any longer. If we forced the issue and SKW pulled out of the deal it would be 6-12 months before we declared BK, SKW came in as our DIP, asked the BK judge to remove the successorship section, bought us for half price(or less), we would have almost no leverage to get a decent contract or even be merged with ASA for that matter. Now if things were to go down like this, who knows, but its just my opinion of how things could progress had we stood firm and burned the place down.

 

[Flyerdan]

This is all how I understand it as it was explained to me.

The reason we "gave up", which we really didnt because our scope language is remaining intact, is two fold.

First is that none of the lawyers that we consulted with thought that if we took it to court we would win. The reason being is that they could not see a judge forcing our contract(not our whole contract but our one section) on multiple work groups across multiple lines. They did not think the judge would force an integration of all the various work groups-pilots, FA's, MX, DX, etc... That is the main reason.

The second, and this one is a bit more fuzzy for me, is that apparently we were reading the successorship section wrong and that it really did not have to do with if we were bought, but if we created another airline, ala gojet, and the company tried to do what TSA did and "create" another holding company to hold "ExpressJet Holdings" and "XYZ Holdings" thus keeping the pilot groups separate.

The third reason, and this is my own thought process, is that our management and BOD has proven that they have zero interest in running an airline any longer. If we forced the issue and SKW pulled out of the deal it would be 6-12 months before we declared BK, SKW came in as our DIP, asked the BK judge to remove the successorship section, bought us for half price(or less), we would have almost no leverage to get a decent contract or even be merged with ASA for that matter. Now if things were to go down like this, who knows, but its just my opinion of how things could progress had we stood firm and burned the place down.

WOW - that was an awesome response! Thanks for the insight and explanation. It certainly makes sense and seems like a real win for both the XJT and ASA groups. I hope the integration goes as smoothly as it can and wish you all the best of luck.

I sure hope ALPA will make another run at getting us to vote them in over here at the SKywest airline side of the house. I really hate the thought that you all will be doing the heavy lifting for us.

 

[the palm]

I really hate the thought that you all will be doing the heavy lifting for us.

So do we.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Not to get into an ALPA pissing match, but have you ever used ALPA services? The first time you actually use their services be it a lawyer fighting a grievance/arbitration specifically for YOU or have a doc in Denver go to bat for YOU for hours and hours with the FAA or when you ball an airplane up and within hours you have 100+ ALPA volunteers(accident investigators, CIRP, lawyers, etc...) at the crash scene(anywhere in the world). Should I go on? What would those things noted above cost you out of your pocket? Most lawyers charge a couple thousand retainer plus hourly, doc's the same. I paid about 1500 in ALPA dues last year and I know I got my money's worth.

ALPA is not perfect I will agree with you there, but the services they provide, when they are needed, are excellent and I guess you cant really appreciate them until you need them.

Since ALPA is so good at all these things, and I have no reason to doubt that they are or that these services aren't beneficial to the member, maybe ALPA should just stick to this and quit trying to represent every major and regional carrier out there fairly, which it can't do. Just a thought coming from a former ALPA member myself.....