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 TA??? Pay??
- Thread starter General Lee
- Start date
- Watchers 28
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
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Well, I NEVER agree with General Lee, I don't agree with Heavy Set, and I rarely agree with FlyDeltasJets. They probably all believe that's because they are Delta Pilots, but it's not. It's because they are usually wrong and, naturally, I am usually right (pun intended).
This time the General is right and so are his buddies Heavy Set and FlyDeltasJets. This "tentative" agreement is not beneficial to Skywest pilots, it is not beneficial to any regional pilot and it could be detrimental to mainline pilots because of the aircraft sizes involved. It benefits management and management alone!
Yes, SKYW pilots, if you approve this you will be lowering the bar. No, you can't blame it on Mesa. Mesa hasn't lowered the bar ... they have always been too far below it to matter. Yes, you will not be the "only" one's. AWAC has already done it, ACA is on the way with a TA of its own and SKYW has now joined the down hill club. None of you have seen any benefit from these unnecessay concessions and I predict that none of you will. Meanwhile, the rest of us are being increasingly pressured to follow you off the cliff. It's absurd.
So ... you haven't lowered your 50-seat rates (or so you say). Not quite true. You have changed other things that effectively reduce the 50-seat compensation package. Not by much, but still a little.
Note: The fact that your company is willing to keep the "50-seat rate" so close to what it is, is a clear indication that there is NO real need for concessions on your part. So why are you making them?
Why is it necessary for SKYW pilots to "agree" on a compensation package for aircraft that Skywest does NOT operate and for which Skywest has NO FIRM ORDERS.?
Do you actually believe that your Company's decision to purchase or not purchase a different aircraft type is contingent on your agreement to this TA? Do you think you can "buy" new larger equipment with concessions? If you do, then sorry to say it but, they have duped you completely.
If your are not going to make more money in larger equipment, then what is the purpose of having it? Do you perhaps think the Company will not make more with bigger aircraft? If they will not, why would they buy them? Do you think their profits will be limited to the amounts that you concede in lower pay rates?
If your Company's business requires the operation of larger aircraft at some time in the future, your Company will buy those aircraft regardless of any compensation package that you do or do not agree to at this time. There is nothing in the SAPA accords with SKYW management that would allow you to refuse (like the old Delta contract) to operate those aircraft while you negotiate. Nothing. They can place them in operation and pay you whatever they choose, while you negotiate the rates which can take as long as they choose. They have the power to do that NOW, without this TA.
Your advance agreement (TA) to operate 50 - 99 seat jets for the same pay scales that you currently have for the 50-seat jets gives the Company two things 1) they know what they have to pay in advance and don't have to bother with bargaining after they are already committed, and 2) they establish the precedent in the regional industry of a single pay rate for a wide range of productivity.
What does it give Skywest pilots? Nothing that they do not already have. What does it take from Skywest pilots? All of the leverage that you may have had.
The idea that you would not be "setting a precedent" (as expressed by some of you) is inaccurate. References to the UPS system are not relevant to your situation. It is true that UPS has the same rate for 727 and 747 but, and this is KEY, UPS did NOT do that by lowering the 747 rate to match the 727 etc. rate (as you are proposing). Their 727 etc. rates are much higher that they would otherwise be because of their system. Yes, the 74 is lower than it might be, but they have many more aircraft of other types, all enjoying higher rates due to the lower 747 scale.
Similarly, comparing 737/A319/A320/MD88 common scales in airlines that operate many other larger types is NOT the same as a common scale between CRJ50/70/90 in an airline with nothing else. It's an apples/oranges analogy.
Some of you argue that if you don't do this you will "have to lower your 50-seat rates". Why? For what purpose? To match Mesa ..... how come you didn't have to "match Mesa" before? What has changed .... UAL's bankruptcy? Stuff and nonsense. Do you and AWAC and ACA all believe that UAL is going to cancel all your contracts and give all that flying to Mesa? How long would it take a company like Mesa (or any other) to spool that up from scratch? Five years? More? Gentlemen you are all crossing a bridge that you haven't even reached yet? Why? Because some consulting firm told UAL that you have to do so? I can't believe that you are all truly that naive. If UAL cancels all of its feed it will be in Chapter 7 long before the Ornestein group can say "what's up" let alone do anything about it.
In short, what you are doing is letting yourselves become part of an organized effort by management (don't forget the RAA is the "management union") that amounts to collusion. They see an opportunity to lower the bar and they are playin it to the hilt. Regretably, regional pilots and their "labor unions" are taking the bait hook line and sinker. This reminds me of the old Ford & Harrison scam of "segment times" that it took years to eliminate or the B-Scale scam that did likewise. The gullible fish swallow the hook and the rest of us get dragged in, like it or not.
Let's assume as an example that your new low-ball scale for 70 & 90+ seat RJs takes effect. Do you think that would allow Skywest to uderbid Comair or ASA for the 70-seat flying? That is what they would like you to believe, but it will not happen. Comair/ASA or whomever it might be will simply lower their rates to undercut you in turn and keep the flying. This is the bidding war that I've been predicting for a long time. The "race to the bottom" as coined by FDJ (I believe). Gross stupidity on the part of airline pilots wherver they may happen to work.
After you've given these "concessions" what will you do if Mesa gets the flying anyway? Will you then bid even lower to get it back? At what point will the bidding stop? When you start paying the Company for the privelege of working there?
The mega airlines, with the possible exception of Delta & NWA are in dire straights financially. Even Delta cannot continue to borrow its way out of trouple, they are already at obout 96% debt to equity. While this was NOT caused by labor compensation, labor IS a high cost item in those carriers and some concessions may well be justified.
In the regional jet airlines this is NOT the case. No regional jet operator is in dire financial straights. Not one of them is unprofitable. The service they provide is NOT optional, but necessary to the survival of the respective mega carriers. A major airline with a "fee for departure" protocol that forces its regional feed to operate at a loss because it itself is operating at a loss has a management team that is simply proving twice around that it is incompetent. First by creating a failed business plan at the major and second, by forcing the same failure on its partners unnecessarily. Why unnecessarily .... because the failure of the "regional" will NOT result in the improvement of bad conditions at the major. It will actually do the exact opposite.
As pilots it is not our function to manage airlines. It is also not our function to allow airline management to immerse us in a barrel of excrement just because they feel like it. What we do has a value. In the regional airlines, we are already very close to the minimum value that makes any of this worthwhile at all. To voluntarily go below that value, is just plain stupid.
If your Company, Skywest, wants a single pay scale for 3 different aircraft types, then what you need to do is NOT keep your 50-seat rates where they are, BUT RAISE THEM, in exchange for a uniform with, but lower rate in the larger aircraft.
Until such time as your Company has a firm commitment for a given number of these imagined larger aircraft, there is no way for you to determine how the equation might be solved. You are missing more that two of the variables. By doing that you can screw everyone that already has this equipment and still never get it yourself. Surely you can see that????????
The only sensible thing to do at this point is go back to the drawing board. This TA warrants and needs a resounding NO. You are not helping yourselves and you are hurting everyone else. I don't expect you to fight our battles or anyone's. I expect you to take care of Skywest pilots first. I just don't see how you're doing that by underbidding other folk and that includes the 20% less than SWA farce.
This time the General is right and so are his buddies Heavy Set and FlyDeltasJets. This "tentative" agreement is not beneficial to Skywest pilots, it is not beneficial to any regional pilot and it could be detrimental to mainline pilots because of the aircraft sizes involved. It benefits management and management alone!
Yes, SKYW pilots, if you approve this you will be lowering the bar. No, you can't blame it on Mesa. Mesa hasn't lowered the bar ... they have always been too far below it to matter. Yes, you will not be the "only" one's. AWAC has already done it, ACA is on the way with a TA of its own and SKYW has now joined the down hill club. None of you have seen any benefit from these unnecessay concessions and I predict that none of you will. Meanwhile, the rest of us are being increasingly pressured to follow you off the cliff. It's absurd.
So ... you haven't lowered your 50-seat rates (or so you say). Not quite true. You have changed other things that effectively reduce the 50-seat compensation package. Not by much, but still a little.
Note: The fact that your company is willing to keep the "50-seat rate" so close to what it is, is a clear indication that there is NO real need for concessions on your part. So why are you making them?
Why is it necessary for SKYW pilots to "agree" on a compensation package for aircraft that Skywest does NOT operate and for which Skywest has NO FIRM ORDERS.?
Do you actually believe that your Company's decision to purchase or not purchase a different aircraft type is contingent on your agreement to this TA? Do you think you can "buy" new larger equipment with concessions? If you do, then sorry to say it but, they have duped you completely.
If your are not going to make more money in larger equipment, then what is the purpose of having it? Do you perhaps think the Company will not make more with bigger aircraft? If they will not, why would they buy them? Do you think their profits will be limited to the amounts that you concede in lower pay rates?
If your Company's business requires the operation of larger aircraft at some time in the future, your Company will buy those aircraft regardless of any compensation package that you do or do not agree to at this time. There is nothing in the SAPA accords with SKYW management that would allow you to refuse (like the old Delta contract) to operate those aircraft while you negotiate. Nothing. They can place them in operation and pay you whatever they choose, while you negotiate the rates which can take as long as they choose. They have the power to do that NOW, without this TA.
Your advance agreement (TA) to operate 50 - 99 seat jets for the same pay scales that you currently have for the 50-seat jets gives the Company two things 1) they know what they have to pay in advance and don't have to bother with bargaining after they are already committed, and 2) they establish the precedent in the regional industry of a single pay rate for a wide range of productivity.
What does it give Skywest pilots? Nothing that they do not already have. What does it take from Skywest pilots? All of the leverage that you may have had.
The idea that you would not be "setting a precedent" (as expressed by some of you) is inaccurate. References to the UPS system are not relevant to your situation. It is true that UPS has the same rate for 727 and 747 but, and this is KEY, UPS did NOT do that by lowering the 747 rate to match the 727 etc. rate (as you are proposing). Their 727 etc. rates are much higher that they would otherwise be because of their system. Yes, the 74 is lower than it might be, but they have many more aircraft of other types, all enjoying higher rates due to the lower 747 scale.
Similarly, comparing 737/A319/A320/MD88 common scales in airlines that operate many other larger types is NOT the same as a common scale between CRJ50/70/90 in an airline with nothing else. It's an apples/oranges analogy.
Some of you argue that if you don't do this you will "have to lower your 50-seat rates". Why? For what purpose? To match Mesa ..... how come you didn't have to "match Mesa" before? What has changed .... UAL's bankruptcy? Stuff and nonsense. Do you and AWAC and ACA all believe that UAL is going to cancel all your contracts and give all that flying to Mesa? How long would it take a company like Mesa (or any other) to spool that up from scratch? Five years? More? Gentlemen you are all crossing a bridge that you haven't even reached yet? Why? Because some consulting firm told UAL that you have to do so? I can't believe that you are all truly that naive. If UAL cancels all of its feed it will be in Chapter 7 long before the Ornestein group can say "what's up" let alone do anything about it.
In short, what you are doing is letting yourselves become part of an organized effort by management (don't forget the RAA is the "management union") that amounts to collusion. They see an opportunity to lower the bar and they are playin it to the hilt. Regretably, regional pilots and their "labor unions" are taking the bait hook line and sinker. This reminds me of the old Ford & Harrison scam of "segment times" that it took years to eliminate or the B-Scale scam that did likewise. The gullible fish swallow the hook and the rest of us get dragged in, like it or not.
Let's assume as an example that your new low-ball scale for 70 & 90+ seat RJs takes effect. Do you think that would allow Skywest to uderbid Comair or ASA for the 70-seat flying? That is what they would like you to believe, but it will not happen. Comair/ASA or whomever it might be will simply lower their rates to undercut you in turn and keep the flying. This is the bidding war that I've been predicting for a long time. The "race to the bottom" as coined by FDJ (I believe). Gross stupidity on the part of airline pilots wherver they may happen to work.
After you've given these "concessions" what will you do if Mesa gets the flying anyway? Will you then bid even lower to get it back? At what point will the bidding stop? When you start paying the Company for the privelege of working there?
The mega airlines, with the possible exception of Delta & NWA are in dire straights financially. Even Delta cannot continue to borrow its way out of trouple, they are already at obout 96% debt to equity. While this was NOT caused by labor compensation, labor IS a high cost item in those carriers and some concessions may well be justified.
In the regional jet airlines this is NOT the case. No regional jet operator is in dire financial straights. Not one of them is unprofitable. The service they provide is NOT optional, but necessary to the survival of the respective mega carriers. A major airline with a "fee for departure" protocol that forces its regional feed to operate at a loss because it itself is operating at a loss has a management team that is simply proving twice around that it is incompetent. First by creating a failed business plan at the major and second, by forcing the same failure on its partners unnecessarily. Why unnecessarily .... because the failure of the "regional" will NOT result in the improvement of bad conditions at the major. It will actually do the exact opposite.
As pilots it is not our function to manage airlines. It is also not our function to allow airline management to immerse us in a barrel of excrement just because they feel like it. What we do has a value. In the regional airlines, we are already very close to the minimum value that makes any of this worthwhile at all. To voluntarily go below that value, is just plain stupid.
If your Company, Skywest, wants a single pay scale for 3 different aircraft types, then what you need to do is NOT keep your 50-seat rates where they are, BUT RAISE THEM, in exchange for a uniform with, but lower rate in the larger aircraft.
Until such time as your Company has a firm commitment for a given number of these imagined larger aircraft, there is no way for you to determine how the equation might be solved. You are missing more that two of the variables. By doing that you can screw everyone that already has this equipment and still never get it yourself. Surely you can see that????????
The only sensible thing to do at this point is go back to the drawing board. This TA warrants and needs a resounding NO. You are not helping yourselves and you are hurting everyone else. I don't expect you to fight our battles or anyone's. I expect you to take care of Skywest pilots first. I just don't see how you're doing that by underbidding other folk and that includes the 20% less than SWA farce.
Is it my understanding that if Skywest brings anything with more than 70 seats on the property, Delta cancels the current contract?? If so, it seems to me if the pilots approve this TA then all of the flying they do for Delta comes to an end. That would indicate to me alot of planes sitting on the ground and pilots at home with no flying.
Correct me if that is not the case.
Correct me if that is not the case.
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
I can't believe it!! Surplus1 actually agrees with me!! Maybe I was right the whole time and he just didn't see it? Maybe I actually do understand the inner workings of this industry and can see through the smoke and mirrors? Or maybe this is an obvious problem that anyone could see? I think the latter. This TA could really cause problems in the regional industry. Don't go for the carrot of the 100-159 seat aircraft---it's a trap!!! You wouldn't be able to compete with Delta on any of their routes with those larger aircraft. If you did, you would probably lose your Delta contract. I don't think SGU would do that. I don't know about Skywest not being able to fly 70 or 90 seat RJ's for United----I know they can't for Delta. Don't do it.
Bye Bye--General Lee
Bye Bye--General Lee
embdrvr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 430
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
