Skywest TA??? Pay??

[ArcticFlier]

D@mn Surplus..........either my ADD just kicked in or it's because I've been up for 18 hours................I couldn't get through the last post you just made. Oh wait................it's 0300.

~What do I get out of this TA? Current pay.
~What are the possibilities? I get to fly a bigger airplane....for current pay.
~I get to be responsible for more people............for current pay. Someone once said that an airplane is no bigger than the cockpit. Tell that to the people on UAL 232 and then tell that to the people that were on the KLM and PAA 747's that collided in Tenerife. With responsibility comes privilege.....read compensation.
~What does this afford SkyWest? More income per aircraft flown.........for current pay.
~I get to settle cat fights between two (or more) F/A's.............for current pay. Hee hee..I like this one...........not.
~I get to fly a 50 seat airplane all day so I can fly a 70 seat one home to a CAT II (FAT) ILS to mins (80' agl) and land. Different sight picture, blah blah blah...................for current pay.
~Possibility of flying 737's or 717's................for current pay. Just pull out some seats.
~I get to give SGU the flexibility to grow this company with no promise of a pay increase............for current pay.

I could probably think of more...........but it's way too late.

How many ways can I say no.................let me count the ways....

AF

 

[surplus1]

To those of you that are eager to vote YES on this TA, you seem to have missed an important point. You think (based on what you write) that negotiating a pay rate for aircraft you do not have on the property and have no assurance of ever getting, will somehow mean that a handful of you maybe get to fly a stretched version of the aircraft you already fly, for the same pay. Here are some questions I hope you can answer; not for me but for youselves.

Why is it important to fly a larger aircraft if your pay remains the same? What do you think you will gain from that .... the "United deal'? Guess again for the devil is in the details.

Last year you voted against the Jets for Jobs protocols created by ALPA and the USAirMEC because it would abrogate your seniority and give 1/2 of the jobs to pilots from another airline. We were all proud of you.

This year you seem ready to vote yes on an agreement that you seem to believe will get you some new 70-seat jets, for the same money that you already make.

Apparently you have overlooked the fact that the UAL pilots' agreement contains a provision that requires acceptance of their version of J4J for anyone that operates 70-seat jets as a UAX carrier. If you vote for this TA you will still have to accept Jets for Jobs before you get any of those aircraft. So you get the airplane, shaft all the other regionals by lowering the bar, and then give the jobs you got to the pilots of another airline, along with your seniority. Wow! Such a deal.

IF you do this, it means you are voting for an agreement that undercuts other airline contracts just so you can give the jobs you think you're going to get, to the pilots of another airline, who will get "super seniority over you and take at least 1/2 and maybe all of the Captain slots. Does that make any sense?

Didn't you just say no to the idea that you should give the IAH flying for CAL to furloughed XJT pilots in the Left Seat? Why are you more willing to do this for UAL pilots than you seem to be for XJT pilots?

The terms of the UAL J4J program are not even finalized as yet so you don't even know what they really are. Will they be the same as the USAir protocols (50% of the jobs + super seniority) or will UAL pilots demand ALL of the Captain positions + super seniority? Just how much of your seniority are you willing to give up? Will you be happy that the pilots that come from UAL, who will be junior to you on the list, will get Captain seats and higher pay before your own FO's? Do you think that the terms of the UAL Jets for Jobs program will somehow be less onerous than the USAirways deal that you already voted down? Have you realized that Mesa has already accepted J4J and will have no problem doing it again?

I find it hard to believe that any of you are willing to do that and shaft all of us that already fly this aircraft for no more than a promise of nothing and an airplane that will be flown by the pilots of another airline. Incredible!

The idea that you might actually vote for this agreement is so scary that I just can't believe it.

Gentlemen, the ONLY logical vote is a resounding NO! Please wake up and smell the Coffee.

 

[jayme]

Surplus 1,

"Why is it important to fly a larger aircraft if your pay remains the same? What do you think you will gain from that .... the "United deal'? Guess again for the devil is in the details."

Yes, I think management expect to get the United flying. What "details" are you talking about?


"Apparently you have overlooked the fact that the UAL pilots' agreement contains a provision that requires acceptance of their version of J4J for anyone that operates 70-seat jets as a UAX carrier. If you vote for this TA you will still have to accept Jets for Jobs before you get any of those aircraft. So you get the airplane, shaft all the other regionals by lowering the bar, and then give the jobs you got to the pilots of another airline, along with your seniority. Wow! Such a deal."

The agreement says if an express carrier is to fly anything larger than 50 seats employment opportunities must be made available for United furloughees. If we wouldn't go for J4J back then, do you really think management would ask us to do it again. I think the deal probably wouldn't involve half of all upgrades to go to United furloughees. Time will tell.

"IF you do this, it means you are voting for an agreement that undercuts other airline contracts just so you can give the jobs you think you're going to get, to the pilots of another airline, who will get super seniority over you and take at least 1/2 and maybe all of the Captain slots. Does that make any sense? "

No, it doesn't make sense. I think our pilot group is not retarded. Do you?

"Didn't you just say no to the idea that you should give the IAH flying for CAL to furloughed XJT pilots in the Left Seat? Why are you more willing to do this for UAL pilots than you seem to be for XJT pilots?"

We aren't. You're making stuff up.

"The terms of the UAL J4J program are not even finalized as yet so you don't even know what they really are. Will they be the same as the USAir protocols (50% of the jobs + super seniority) or will UAL pilots demand ALL of the Captain positions + super seniority? Just how much of your seniority are you willing to give up? Will you be happy that the pilots that come from UAL, who will be junior to you on the list, will get Captain seats and higher pay before your own FO's? Do you think that the terms of the UAL Jets for Jobs program will somehow be less onerous than the USAirways deal that you already voted down? Have you realized that Mesa has already accepted J4J and will have no problem doing it again? "

That's right, the terms aren't finalized. So what the hell are you talking about? Super seniority? All captain positions?!? If we didn't go for that kind of crap with USAirways, why would we now?

Settled down dude. Stop trying to villainize things you don't understand. We don't know all of the implications either, but I don't think the sky will fall if it passes.

PS I voted no.

 

[JBcrjca]

Normally I tend to agree with Surplus1, but his last post was a bit overly dramatic. There's no point in getting all worked up over the UAL J4J proposal since, as Surplus1 himself says, the terms aren't finalized yet. I guess we have to burn each bridge as we come to it. I'd rather just keep 50 seaters if it means avoiding a J4J deal being crammed down out throats. Although I like seeing furloughed guys getting hired at SkyW (being furloughed would suck beyond belief), I'd rather they didn't get special treatment just because of the airplanes we might try to operate. Before I get bashed, I voted a big NO on this TA.

But I did just read something about SkyWest that is a bit disturbing. A fellow SkyWest pilot posted (on the SAPA board) an investment thesis written by Jamie Baker of JP Morgan written in April. Here are the highlights:

Quote:

SkyWest is the high cost leader among independent regionals. At an estimated $3570 per CRJ departure, we believe SKYW's rates are second only to ExpressJet's, leaving SKYW dangerously leveraged to the cost-cutting efforts at UAL and DAL.

Additionally, SkyWest continues to book its UAL generated revenue at long expired 2001 rates, having operated the entirety of 2002 without a definitive UAL contract. While the company has repeatedly indicated being "close" to an agreement, such statements have been steadily made for 70 weeks now, lessening our ultimate conviction. We cannot be certain, therefore, when a revised departure rate agreement will be reached with UAL, or if SKYW will be forced to modify prior period earnings. We are, however, confident that UAL departure rates will not be going up. United has indicated it is seeking as much as $170 million in United Express reductions, representing a 10-12% reduction in departure rates. An immediate reduction in fee per departure rates of this magnitude would be devastating to SkyWest, though yet still leave them significantly above competing RJ bids UAL has reportedly received. Using initial 2003 earnings expectations, a 10% reduction in departure rates absent any offsetting internal cost reductions would reduce SkyWest's operating margin to 4.1%

We do not believe SkyWest is otherwise capable of sufficiently reducing its internal costs to materially offset the level of reduction United is seeking. Furtermore, we expect Delta to seek to approximate whatever level of savings United ultimately achieves. Based on this level of reduction, we believe operating margins may compress by as much as 50%.

The narrowing labor cost arbitrage diminishes the appeal of regionals. Based on our analysis, a current 10 year CRJ capt at SkyWest receives $70 per hour, versus a pre-concession $209 for a captain on a United 737. However UAL pilots have now agreed to a new rate of $146 per hour for 737 and A320 aircraft. While this will not entirely erode the arbitrage, it does appear to cut it in half, therefore significantly diminishing the economic benefit of the next CRJ SkyWest is set to receive.

End quote

That's some pretty spooky stuff. SkyWest has historically been one of the most financially sound regional airlines. Who knows how far off target these analysts are, but the whole industry has changed. It doesn't take long to go from financially sound to teetering on the edge. But I did notice one thing in that quote... it says that SKYW costs will still be significantly above competing RJ bids UAL has reportedly received. Hmmm, I wonder what other regionals could have those lower UAL bids in already? If this SKYW TA somehow passes, I hope everyone doesn't start screaming about them 'leading the race to the bottom' or 'lowering the bar' (I still hate those phrases)....apparently that's already been done by several other un-named carriers with those lowball UAL bids. Now it becomes a fight for survival and getting those feeder contracts. This could get really ugly.

But just as reminder to those that want to bash me...I voted NO!!!

 

[Russ]

Surplus
Any company that flies a 70 or larger for UA will have J4J thrust upon them. Recognition of that allows me accept the proviso with the understanding that it will be a temporary situation. If UA wants large jets at express it will happen. No matter how many acts of what you believe to be moral fortitude impedes the progress it will happen by their design. The regionals don't operate in a vacuum. If we don't someone else will and I am the worse for it in the long run. The altruistic side recognizes that it will put some pilots back to work. They may not be pilots you like, but they are pilots none the less.
You have choosen your line of demarcation as majors vs regionals, I have drawn my line elsewhere.

 

[Skull-One]

Re: Quit slammin' the General...

Why are you guys slamming General Lee on this topic? He brings up a great point - Skywest wants to lower the bar for pay like Mesa and Chit-Talk. Shouldn't that be of interest to others? Well shouldn't it? Huh??????????????? He brought it up - and nobody else did...

Heavy Set, you are really starting to tick me off.

First of all, it's CHA-TAH-KWAH, not "Chit-Talk."

Second, CHQ is not lowering any bar and never has. CHQ was a turboprop airline that turned into a jet airline and CHQ Pilots are now fighting for a JET AIRLINE contract. You don't go on strike to take a pay cut!

I'd like to see you back your rhetoric with facts! If you can't support a charge, don't make one.


EDIT IN: A fellow pilot posted this. I do not take credit or blame for it.

___

I'm going to repost the spreadsheet I posted a while ago which compares delta connection carriers. We had an ACA jumpseater today and showed him Bryan's letter. He said ACA has not voted in these concessions and he didn't think it had much chance of passing. Bryan's little spreadsheet also does not compare major items that CHQ sucks in (like cancelation pay, overtime, deadhead). Also fails to mention the rates for Skywest are only for 18 months. The pilots agreed to this freeze to secure their United flying which was rebid. ASA is a contract behind everyone just like us which is why they are near the bottom.

YOS Comair / ACA / SkyWest / ASA / CHQ
1 - 57.99 / 57.41 / 56.03 / 54.46 / 50.96
2 - 59.79 / 59.20 / 57.77 / 56.08 / 52.49
3 - 61.62 / 61.02 / 59.54 / 57.78 / 54.05
4 - 63.55 / 62.91 / 61.40 / 59.50 / 55.68
5 - 65.51 / 64.86 / 63.29 / 61.29 / 57.35
6 - 67.53 / 66.86 / 65.25 / 63.13 / 59.07
7 - 69.62 / 68.93 / 67.27 / 64.39 / 60.46
8 - 71.78 / 71.06 / 69.35 / 66.32 / 62.35
9 - 73.99 / 73.26 / 71.49 / 68.31 / 64.30
10 - 76.29 / 75.53 / 73.71 / 70.36 / 66.27
11 - 78.64 / 77.86 / 75.98 / 72.47 / 68.27
12 - 81.07 / 80.27 / 78.33 / 74.64 / 70.32
13 - 83.59 / 82.75 / 80.76 / 76.89 / 72.44
14 - 86.16 / 85.31 / 83.25 / 79.20 / 74.65
15 - 88.83 / 87.95 / 85.83 / 81.57 / 76.43
16 - 91.49 / 90.59 / 88.40 / 81.57 / 76.43
17 - 92.24 / 93.31 / 91.05 / 81.57 / 76.43
18 - 97.06 / 96.10 / 92.87 / 81.57 / 76.43


Comair / ACA / SkyWest / ASA / CHQ
75 hrs/ 75 hrs / 75 hrs / 75 hrs / 75 hrs - min guarantee
150% / 150% / 150% / 150% / 100% - overtime pay
100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 0% - cancelation pay
100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 50% - deadhead pay

CMR / ACA / SkW / ASA / CHQ
YES / ??? / YES / YES / NNN - junior man
12.0 /11.0 /11.0/ 10.0/ 11.0 - days off reserve
12.0 /11.0 /11.0 /10.0 /12.0 - days off lineholder
4.20 / 4.00 / 3.75 / 0.0 / 0.0 - min daily pay
YES / YES / NNN / NNN / NNN - trip/duty rig
YES / NNN / NNN / NNN / NNN - def. contribution
NNN / NNN / 10% / NNN / NNN - performance bonus
1.65 / 1.65 / 1.20 / 1.50 / 1.35 - perdiem

 

[surplus1]

First I congratulate you for voting NO. I know I'm not a SkyWest pilot, but there is simply no logic in your TA, none in the ARW agreement and none in the ACA TA. In the face of that threat I can't just hope for the best and do nothing.

Surplus 1,

Yes, I think management expect to get the United flying. What "details" are you talking about?

Jets for Jobs. Sorry, I thought you'd pick that up from the rest of my post.

The agreement says if an express carrier is to fly anything larger than 50 seats employment opportunities must be made available for United furloughees. If we wouldn't go for J4J back then, do you really think management would ask us to do it again. I think the deal probably wouldn't involve half of all upgrades to go to United furloughees. Time will tell.

Yes, I do think management will ask you to do it again. It is different to turn down a deal with USAirways that you've never had, than it is to gamble with the UAL deal that you do have. I also think management is asking you to accept this TA, in an effort to secure the UAL new deal, whatever it ultimately turns out to be. I am fully aware of what the UAL contract says and that is precisely why I am concerned.

Time will tell indeed, but I don't have the luxury of waiting to find out what time might tell. If we do not act collectively to stop the slide now, before it happens, it will be too late. The idea that you can recover and negotiate up after 18 months is highly improbable. Why? Because by that time, everyone will be just as low as you are going if not lower. The road back up is ten times as hard as the road downhill. It won't happen in 18 months and it may not happen in 10 years. This is crazy.

When the time comes to determine what "employment opportunities must be made available for United furloughees", those terms will be negotiated by ALPA and United. You can bet your life that ALPA will not include SkyWest pilots in those negotiations. They will do to you exactly what they did to their own ALPA members, i.e., everything in their power to coerce you into a wrotten deal for SkyWest pilots. ALPA alone may not have the power to do that, but if they get United management to agree, which is highly probable since they have nothing to lose, UAL does have that power, assuming it is still around. ALPA and UAL together most certainly do. How will you stop them? Think about that and be realistic.

No, it doesn't make sense. I think our pilot group is not retarded. Do you?

Of course I do NOT think your pilot group is retarded. If I did think that, I would never have written anything. I think your rejection of the USAirways BS was excellent. I think you have one of the best regional pilot groups going, one of the top 4 PWA's going (with or without a union) and I respect you greatly. I don't want to see you get screwed, and I think that is happening with this TA.

I also admit readily that I have a self interest in the protection of my own pilot group. If you make this agreement, it will undercut my groups wages in the 70-seat jet by as much as $15 per hour. That will put extreme pressure on us and on Horizon to do the same. I can see no benefit for you in making this agreement and I see a grave detriment to us. Additionally it will undermine the current negotiations at ASA and at COEX and neuter the efforts of Chautauqua pilots to improve their lot.

It is understood that you have to look after your own interests before the interest of others. I just don't see how you will do that by effectively helping to lower the industry standard. Especially when you DON"T KNOW what you will get out of it, if anything at all.

Candidly, negotiating pay rates for aircraft that your Company does not operate and has not even placed any firm orders to acquire, is not on record as being among the better negotiating strategies. On the contrary, the exact opposite is true.

We aren't. You're making stuff up.

I'm not making stuff up. Please read what I wrote again. I know that you did not give XJT what they wanted and am very pleased that you didn't. What you did give them is appropriate and I have no problem with it. The fact remains that they tried to get super seniority for their furloughed pilots at your airline. ALPA's attempt to expand its J4J program into P4J. I thank you for being wise enough to reject that.

That's right, the terms aren't finalized. So what the hell are you talking about? Super seniority? All captain positions?!? If we didn't go for that kind of crap with USAirways, why would we now?

I am talking about what I know ALPA will try to make you accept. The United contract you already have is far more important to your company than the potential of a new deal with USAirways ever was, therefore the leverage available to the UAL pilots is much greater. If that were not the case, you would not be proposing these concessions. Your Company is among the best and is NOT in any kind of financial trouble. So why concessions ... because you want more from UAL and you are afraid of Mesa.

Jets for Jobs in any of its known formats does create super seniority for another pilot group. UAL pilots could easily demand all Captain positions in the 70-seater, just like the American pilots have done to Eagle. I would willingly bet you a dollar to a donut that ALPA/UAL will NOT ASK FOR LESS than they got at USAirways. Once you have already agreed to fly so far below the "real" industry standard for the CRJ-700 (which is NOT Mesa), it will be much easier to pressure you into accepting the same J4J BS that others have accepted. Your competition for the UAL deal is seen (by your Company and apparently by you) as MESA and it is their wages you are trying to match. Mesa has already accepted J4J and they will do it again. If you don't, they will still have that advantage. It's coming, so expect it. That is why you might do that kind of crap now, even though you rejected it with USAirways.

If by any chance SkyWest, ARW and ACA all accept these low wages AND Jets for Jobs, Delta/ALPA will be demanding the same thing from CMR and ASA the very next day. I know you want the UAL flying, are you trying to get Comair and ASA's 70-seat flying as well? Once could reasonably assume that. As I said before I have two motives. 1) is the preservation of my own pilot group's contract, and 2) is the improvement of all regional contracts. I'm definitely not interested in joining a race to the bottom. Therefore, I cannot remain silent in the face of all this.

Sorry, but I can't settle down until this crap goes away. The only way that it will go away is if you and ACA both vote it down. As for not understanding, you missed the boat. I understand all to well and that is exactly why I am worried. I'm not an amatuer at this by any means, I know what ALPA is capable of doing and the people that run it don't give a dam* about what happens to you or to me.

You are right, the sky won't fall if it passes, but all the decent or half-way decent pilot agreements at the regionals will do exactly that. They will fall like dominoes if this isn't stopped NOW If that doesn't bother you and your fellow pilots, it should.

Thank you for your reply and especially for your NO vote. I can only hope that the majority of SKYW pilots will also vote NO.

 

[General Lee]

I agree with Surplus1. If that TA passes it will also affect us at Delta mainline. We eventually will have to negotiate for future 100 seaters, and your ability to fly planes up to 99 seats for 50 seat wages won't help us. We will eventually get rid of the older 737-200's when the leases are up and get something else---word is possibly A318's (Fred Reid said that was a good bet) or a similar Boeing product. But, if this passes, we are all screwed. It will be Skywest who we will all blame. Yes, Mesa and Chitaqua have the lowest rates right now, but not one pay rate for planes up to 99 seats. That is crazy.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Jeepman]

SkyWest pays $1.60 perdiem, not $1.21

 

[sideshow]

Just for the record at ACA.

We do not have junior manning
We do not have a 4.0 hour dailiy guarantee (as compared to ARW daily guarantee)
No trip/duty rig