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

 

[Skull-One]

Adjusted per comments above. What do I put for ACA in the Daily Guarantee column?

______

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 / NNN / 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 / NNN / NNN / NNN / NNN - trip/duty rig
YES / NNN / NNN / NNN / NNN - def. contribution
NNN / NNN / 10% / NNN / NNN - performance bonus
1.65 / 1.65 / 1.60 / 1.50 / 1.35 - perdiem

 

[JBcrjca]

A question for Surplus1 or General Lee:

I know we all agree that this SkyWest TA stinks, but besides voting no, what's your opinion of what SkyWest pilots can do to stop the 'downhill slide'? Here's why I ask:

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.

Ok, here is a major difference between SkyWest and the carriers you just mentioned. SkyWest is independent. Horizon Air is owned by the Alaska Group...they're guaranteed a contract to feed Alaska. ASA and CMR are owned by Delta...they're guaranteed a contract to feed Delta. XJet is at least partially owned by CAL. They're guaranteed a contract to feed CAL. None of these regionals have to submit bids for their flying. Their sole reason for existence is to feed the major that owns them. Obviously the management at each of those regionals will point to other regional pay scales and say they have to remain competitive and must cut pay to match. Those crews are certainly worried about keeping their pay scales up, but they really don't have to worry about whether or not their airline has a major partner to feed.

Now let's look at the other side of the fence. SkyWest, AWAC, ACA, Mesa, CHQ, etc. are all independent. They have to bid for their contracts that allow them to operate. Right now, it looks like Mesa has the lowest costs (for obvious reasons), and they have a competitive bid in for more UAX flying. I've read that CHQ also has a bid in for a large portion of UAX as well. So where does that leave SKYW, AWAC, and ACA? I guess you could say that those guys ARE somewhat afraid of Mesa. UAL just wants to save money, and Mesa allows them to do that. If UAL awards contracts to new partners, the current feeders take a serious hit. AWAC has the small AirTran operation, ACA and SKYW both still have Delta ops... but then again, even those fallbacks still have to be bid for.

Seriously, what should the pilots at the independent regionals do? We all want to keep the payscales up, but we don't want to go out of business in the process. Surplus1, General Lee, anyone, anyone??? I'd love to see some ideas.

At least this will all be over tomorrow night...voting on the TA ends at midnight, and then we'll see how smart or stupid the SKYW pilots are. The 99 seat thing should be enough to kill it... I think a lot of us would have voted yes for up to 70 seats, but including 99 was just plain lunacy. Glad I voted no.

 

[Heavy Set]

Chill out!

Skull-One,

Chill out! You are a bit tightly wound up... No offense meant - I was simply repeating what other guys on the forum had written - anyway, I can't even spell Chataqua and Chitaqua..... Cut me a little slack - it is a tough word to spell late at night!

 

[General Lee]

JBCRJCA,

I am also glad that you voted no. I believe the company was testing your resolve. They wanted to know whether or not you would take the bait. All the airlines do that, they throw out a little bait and see what you prefer as a group---money or fast new airplanes. You are right that your airline is in a corner companred to ASA or Comair. But, the way your company worded the TA was troublesome to me. If they would have worded it like--"after the 18 months we WILL give you a raise of x% or the equivalent in stock etc." then it might have been more acceptable. But, there was nothing in there besides the promise of new growth that looked good. Mesa has enjoyed tremendous growth, but the pay and lifestyle suck. In other words, you can upgrade to Captain quick on a nice jet, but have to live near the airport in a camper. The thing that I would have liked to have seen was better wording and a more concrete statement of future pay raises. Even a $10 an hour raise initially would have been nice--especially for a larger plane. Sure, we all need to be competitive---but a gesture from the leaders is needed. Look at our leaders at Delta---having million $$$$ pensions while they ask us for cuts. Your leaders need to reverse that trend. And, I know your relationship with your management has been good overall, but that TA is not good for anyone but management. Just get the wording straight with written promises and concrete dates, and then accept it. Good luck.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[maddog805]

But, if this passes, we are all screwed. It will be Skywest who we will all blame.

NO, NO, NO god NO!!!!!!!

Please, spare me oh delta god.

I voted NO on the TA but after reading some of these posts it makes me hope this TA will pass just to piss off you sanctimonious a$$holes.

Not


For General Lee:

Sanctimonious- affecting piousness : hypocritically devout; also : indicative of affected piousness

Piousness - marked by sham or hypocrisy b : marked by self-conscious virtue

Give me a break....

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

A question for Surplus1 or General Lee:

I know we all agree that this SkyWest TA stinks, but besides voting no, what's your opinion of what SkyWest pilots can do to stop the 'downhill slide'? Here's why I ask:

OK, I'll give it a shot. Before I begin, please understand that I'm just like you and opinions like the one you are asking for are subject to error. The possibility exists that I could be wrong in what I'm going to say. I do not see myself as a guru or an expert. However, I do have a strong background in airline labor relations, considerable training in negotiating techniques, and enough hands-on experience with airline pilot contracts to be more than a novice. Nevertheless, Caveat Emptor. Of one thing you may be certain; in trying to respond I will not say to you anything that I would not say to my own pilot group.

This whole situation is extremely complex. I agree that there are differences between regional carriers that are wholly owned subsidiaries of a major airline holding company and those that are so-called independent sub-contractors to one or more major airlines. However, I do not think that those differences are the key variables in this equation.

In my considered opinion, the "key" elements are the unity and resolve of the pilot groups, their education and experience in the industry, the knowledge of their leaders and the courage of their convictions. Courage is not the absence of fear; it is the ability to act prudently and decisively in the face of fear.

There is one element that you did not mention which I think is a major factor and the real operative in the differences that you outlined, but it is still not the key. That element is the "fee for departure" system. It is in place already and we must deal with it, but I believe that acceptance of this concept by the management(s) of the so-called independent regionals was a mistake. While it did provide what they apparently presumed was a guarantee of profitability and the elimination of risk, it also removed completely their so-called independence. Today they are realizing that the security they perceived it would guarantee was fools gold and the system little more than a noose with which they could readily be manipulated and even bankrupted. Much like they are asking pilot groups to make concessions today, they themselves made a concession that has come back to haunt them. They conceded their independence and relinquished control of their own destiny. To put it bluntly their peers at the major airlines duped them. I trust that we pilots will not follow in their footsteps and permit ourselves to be duped in turn by them.

United or Delta may not own SkyWest (and the other independents you mentioned), but they are totally controlled by both. This is far worse than being a wholly owned subsidiary. Both the wholly owned subsidiary and
the fee-for-departure carrier exist for the same purpose and are equally dependent on the Parent/Contractor. However, the Contractor makes no capital investment and may easily dispense with the services of the fee-for-departure airline. When the controlling carrier is bankrupt and therefore unable pay the subcontractor the agreed rates, it may default or cancel the contract, leaving the subcontractor up the proverbial creek with no paddle . Bankruptcy of the subcontractor may follow shortly if it is unable to carry on in its own right or find other sources of revenue. This is the case with SkyWest, ACA, ARW and, by the way, Mesa..

In the case of the wholly owned subsidiary, a bankruptcy of the Parent Company will almost certainly result in a simultaneous bankruptcy of the subsidiary regardless of its own profitability, especially if the financials of the subsidiary are "consolidated" with those of the Parent, as is the case of Comair, and ASA.

If you take a second look at all of that it may appear that the wholly owned subsidiary is "better off", but actually it is not. The subsidiary has zero options in the event of bankruptcy of the Parent. The subcontractor will undoubtedly suffer a great loss if it loses the contract, but it does have the option to continue in operation if it can find a different source of revenue or operate in its own right without the contract. The option is there; not so for the subsidiary.

For these reasons I see little difference in the dilemma of a SkyWest and that of say Piedmont. While it is true that a PDT or a Comair does not have to "bid" for its flying directly, both Delta and USAirways also have multiple subcontractors, in the case of DAL SkyWest and ACA among them. USAir Group has its three regional subsidiaries (now four) and a veritable menagerie of subcontractors. If you don't think that Comair has to be "competitive" with SkyWest or the other subcontractors, think again. Just note that Chautauqua recently took over a Comair domicile in Florida and joined the Delta Connection brand. I can pretty much assure you that CHQ became a component of DCI for one reason only. They bid to do the Florida based flying and they bid less than Comair. While the internal "bids" of the subsidiaries may not be public knowledge, don't kid yourself into believing that they do not exist.

In the case of a subcontractor, the "fee-for-departure" system eliminates many of the variables that affect the cost structure of the carrier. A majority of the costs are "fixed" and the one predominant variable that remains outstanding is labor costs. This is what increases the pressure on the subcontractor vs. the subsidiary, rather than the actual ownership of the airline.

A Comair, Horizon or ASA can juggle a variety of expenses in an effort to change its overall cost structure. A SkyWest is pretty much limited to changing its labor costs.

Seriously, what should the pilots at the independent regionals do? We all want to keep the payscales up, but we don't want to go out of business in the process. Surplus1, General Lee, anyone, anyone??? I'd love to see some ideas.

The current situation has provided the management of the major airline and that of its affiliates to raise the flag of fear and threaten the subcontractors with loss of business if they are not the "lowest bidder". In turn the subcontractor demands concessions from its employees (in these cases apparently only the pilots). The pilots caught up in the fear of losing their jobs, rush to give management all or even more than it wants.

The very same strategy is employed by the Parent against the wholly owned subsidiary. It threatens to shutdown the subsidiary, sell it off, move the flying to another subsidiary, give it to a subcontractor or all of the above, if the pilot group does not do as it wishes.

The pilot groups have to weigh their options carefully and choose a response. Will the "Parent" Company/Major airline really cancel the contract? If it does, what are we talking about? Will UAL simply give up their feed? If they do, UAL will be in Chapter 7 in a heartbeat. If what they really wanted to do was liquidate they would have done so already. They are not likely to create a situation that would take that out of their control and force Chapter 7. Probability = very low. Can they "move the flying to Mesa"? Over a period of time they can, but that time frame is both lengthy, costly and very risky. Can they afford the training costs; can Mesa itself afford those costs? How long would it really take to accomplish this? Does Mesa have a working plan in place to accomplish such a transition? Can United really afford, risk wise, to place all of the flying now done by three stable an successful carriers like ARW, ACA and SKYW into the single basket of a Mesa, whose past performance (for them) was somewhat less than satisfactory? The 3 carriers mentioned are not little Great Lakes operations. They are large, well managed, reliable and operate hundreds of jets. Mesa is, sorry to say it, none of those things.

Are the differences between the potential Mesa bid and the respective bids of SKYW, ARW and ACA so great as to be make-or-break for United Air Lines? What happens to United if Mesa bids so low, to "get the contract", that it can't operate and subsequently goes bankrupt? Is Mesa management so much better than the management(s) of the other three as to make Mesa immune to failure? If Mesa becomes unreliable during the process can United, already in dire straits, withstand the negative impact on its schedules? How much risk is UAL willing to take to save what amounts to (for them) a few dollars? We as pilots do not really known the answers to these questions, but in the interest of our own survival we too must make some logical presumptions and take certain calculated risks.

I can only offer an opinion, but I do not believe that United will cancel any of the 3 contracts to place all or a major part of its already fragile eggs in the Mesa basket. Mesa may well get some "new" flying, but that will not place the big 3 UAL feeders in jeopardy.

Mesa's labor costs have always been at the bottom of the industry barrel. That did NOT happen with the signing of this new contract. What is the total combined value in $ of all the pilot concessions proposed? Do you know? Do your leaders know? If not, shouldn't they have known before agreeing to anything? Can Mesa reasonably be expected to under bid the 3 of you combined and provide greater savings to UAL? Will they survive if they do?

Continued in Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

I would argue that if United can't or will not pay the relatively small differences that will result from these concessions, then United itself is not viable. If United fails, your contracts will cease to exist. That is not different for your Company than what will happen if UAL cancels your contracts voluntarily. For those reasons I believe that you should all hold the line and reject concessions at this time. They are premature at best, based on insufficient information and will not, in my opinion, materially change the equation.

One of the problems you face is that ARW has unfortunately rushed into concessions apparently based only on fear. As FDR said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." In my opinion, ARW made a huge mistake and will live to regret it. Granted, it puts more pressure on you and management is counting on the progression of the fear syndrome. It's like a virus; harmful if allowed to take root, but susceptible to control and eradication by your anti-virus program. They are doing an excellent job of selling doom and gloom and you must remember to scan for viruses.

Even if, in a worst case scenario, management is right, the bottom line remains the same. Are the concession that you make individually or collectively, really big enough to make a significant difference to UAL's bottom line? Will they actually change what happens at United? Will they materially change what happens at SkyWest? I think the answer is an unqualified NO. If I am right, you have no reason to make concessions at this time.

I do not expect to change your vote as a result of what I write here, but I do believe that your rush to concessions is ill-conceived, detrimental to your pilot group, detrimental to all other similar pilot groups, detrimental to the major airline groups and serving only to satisfy the fear syndrome inculcated by management. In my opinion, it will not save SkyWest and it certainly will not save United.

At SkyWest specifically, you have tentatively agreed to hold the wages you have in your current equipment while simultaneously decimating the wage structure of every regional that already operates larger equipment. Flying aircraft with up to 100 seats, aircraft that you do not have now, that your Company has no orders to buy in the future, some of which are already operated at major airlines (small DC-9s at NWA for example), some of which may be purchased in the near term by major airlines (Delta for example), does nothing at all for your pilot group and injures all the other pilot groups that operate this equipment already. Even the 70-seaters operated by Horizon, Comair, ASA Eagle and Mesaba are gravely endangered. Further, your fictional rates for 737's, the operation of which by your airline, is prohibited by every major airline in the industry, are absurd. If in the future, SkyWest makes the decision to "go it alone" and operate 737s in its own right, I assure you that decision will NOT be made as a result of concessions that you make today. There is more than ample time for you to negotiate appropriate compensation after your Company has firm orders for such aircraft. I believe this is nothing more than a "carrot" that has been dangled before you to obscure the real issues. Given your experience in the industry I am truly dumbfounded that you appear to have grasped at this ruse.

Within reason, and your current wages are NOT unreasonable, I believe that all of you and all of the rest of us do NOT have to respond to the Mesa threat any differently than we did before. I feel that this threat has been intentionally blown way out of proportion by management. We can all hold on to what we have and the sky will not fall. On the other hand, if you launch these concessions by following the ARW lead, you will undoubtedly trigger a domino effect; plunge in regional pilot compensation from which we will not recover for well over a decade. Beyond the shadow of a doubt that is what will happen if these TA's are ratified. When it is all over, you will have the same business with United and others that you would have had without the concessions.

Is there risk in that? Of course there is. Everything worth while in life involves a certain amount of risk-taking to achieve. We should not risk our futures on the roll of the dice, but we should also not give away our futures on the same roll of the same dice. All that we can really do is control our fears and exercise prudent judgement based on a true assessment of the overall circumstances. I don't think you've done that. I don't think the others have done that either.

It is well known that I have a few axes to grind with the Delta pilot group. Nevertheless, I both admire and applaud them for the approach they are taking to their Company's request for concessions. While their problems are not the same as yours, their company is losing a great deal of money (yours is not) and is not profitable at present, other majors with whom they compete directly have gutted their contracts (not just one like Mesa but ALL) in or near bankruptcy, and the pressure is intense. Nevertheless, they are NOT rushing pell-mell into concessions that they or the company cannot justify. They are carefully considering the situation and analyzing all of their options, in depth, before acting. To answer your question directly, that is how I think the regionals should respond to these requests for concessions. That is what I think SkyWest pilots should do.

In contrast you have all rushed to decision with, in my opinion, inadequate supporting evidence, to jump from the penthouse because Mesa is smoking in the lobby and the Bain Group is shouting "Fire". With all due respect, that is absurd. We regional pilots can never expect to be reasonably compensated for our work if we are willing to make hasty and speculative decisions, undercut each other and cower in fear of the slightest threat from management.

A great many of us aspire to eventual employment with the major airlines. If we join in the contest of who will become the largest bottom feeder, we will also contribute to tearing down the very structure of the major airlines that we hope to join in the future. There will be NO future and nothing worth joining tomorrow for we will have succeeded in reducing the major airline job to the same level of mediocrity from which most regionals have suffered for years. This gentlemen, is total folly.

Delta Air Lines is not going to shut its doors if Delta pilots do not rush to major concessions tomorrow. SKYW, ARW, ACA, et al, will not shut their doors tomorrow if regional pilots decline to "match" Mesa pilot compensation. They didn't before and they won't now. The Delta pilots are right. Hold on to your contracts and do not race each other to the bottom.

The "gold" is in the regional jets that you fly today and those that you will fly tomorrow regardless of how you vote, not in matching the Mesa contract. The difference lies only in the reality that if you vote YES, you and unfortunately the rest of us regional pilots, will not share in that gold. Management will put it in their pockets, joke about our ineptitude, and order another round of drinks, while approving larger stock options, bigger bonuses and better retirement packages for themselves on the fruits of our too cheap labor.

My apologies for the length of the message; I just didn't know how to respond with fewer words. Best wishes.

 

[General Lee]

Maddog805,

Love your funny quote:

"NO, NO, NO god NO!!!!!!!

Please, spare me oh delta god.

I voted NO on the TA but after reading some of these posts it makes me hope this TA will pass just to piss off you sanctimonious a$$holes.

Not "


That was great. I laughed until I cried. Anyways,what?
That is nuts. So are you. I brought this out to expose a problem with your airline, and hoped it wouldn't pass. If you pass the TA, well--- "sucks for you." It probably won't affect me much, but it might affect our new pay rates on the 100 seater if we get one. It will also affect everyone at the regional level, and they will probably look for a reason to be mad. The reason probably will be Skywest passing a TA that allowed them to fly larger planes for the same pay---and the others will follow. And there you go with the "Delta God" thing. We don't feel that way, and neither should you. Quit bagging on yourself, it makes you look weak.
I have only supported you guys from the start, hoping you get good pay and lifestyles.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Skyward]

Surplus please shorten the replies, I have way to short of an attention span for your post.

 

[maddog805]

If you pass the TA, well--- "sucks for you." It probably won't affect me much, but it might affect our new pay rates on the 100 seater if we get one. It will also affect everyone at the regional level, and they will probably look for a reason to be mad.

You are right, if it passes it will 'suck for me'. I really won't care if you or anyone else is mad. I'll be pissed because it'll suck for ME.

But, if this passes, we are all screwed. It will be Skywest who we will all blame.

Blame whoever you want, you won't hurt my feelings.

I agree that this TA blows but if you think your idle threats will change anything you are sadly mistaken. Get off your high horse, you don't scare anybody.