Skywest TA??? Pay??

[maddog805]

Plus maybe we will be at the bottom, but we have never furloughed.

Dude, shut up

Just voted NO!

 

[Russ]

I just joined you in a no vote

 

[Rogue5]

Close, but no cigar.

SkyWest: Great company.

Management and Pilots: Great relationship.

New TA: Not so great.

Just voted NO.

 

[Jeepman]

After reading Ron Reber & Brad Holt's post about how "We need to lower our costs because MESA & Chataqua have both submitted bids to take over our entire UEX flying" I almost voted yes. Then I thought, if I vote yes to this am I continuing the downward slope to poverty?

VOTED N.O. (a.k.a. No Ornstein)

P.S. Pee nus, change your name to Pee on. It's more appropriate.

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Me too

Also voted no for a variety of reasons--namely there should be more to this TA than simply a "per hour" wage concession.

 

[Skyward]

When does the vote close??

 

[Skull-One]

Re: Lower Pay Hurts Everyone!

The regional airline industry appears to be going down the tubes with regard to pay.... Mesa, Chit-Talk, and NOW SKYWEST will be lowering the bar for all regional pilots in the future.
...
Don't give away the farm and lower the bar for the rest of the industry like Mesa and Chit-Talk have....

I don't know what the heck you are smoking, dude. Chautauqua isn't lowering any bar. It would be stupid to threaten a strike to take a pay cut. DUH....

Then you claim that CHQ has *already* lowered the bar? CHQ? You're nuts. We have some very good items in our long-expired contract that most Regionals don't, and when it expired it was above-average in many areas. Get a grip man and use extreme caution when casting aspersions.

 

[DougCorp-9]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

Why does everyone seem to accept that mesa and other regional carriers who agree to fly for less than industry standard put undue pressure on the profession and the contracts of their competition, but when I point out the same effect at aai, luv, or jetblue, my comments are dismissed as the rantings of an "arrogant a-hole Delta pilot."

I fail to see the difference.

And yes, the race to the bottom is most certainly underway.

FDJ,

The difference is the cost structure that AAI, Jetblue, and Luv are based on. The salaries at these airlines are lower in all job catagories from pilots to ramper to the CEOs. We simply do things for less money. This is one reason that we are turning profit and the "Majors" are not. We don't sell any 2000 dollar busines class tickets, ours cost 400-500. It is a simple matter of revenue. We are not the reason that salaries are coming down at the "Majors". The reason for that is the fact that the consumer is no longer willing to pay the ticket prices that support your high salaries. Don't blame us, blame the economy. We don't have fancy crown rooms. Are corporate headquarters is a litlle old building at MCO not a sprawling complex on Virginia Ave. We don't have fancy flat screen TVs at our gates that tell nonrevs when they have a seat. Little stuff like this adds up and adds to the overall cost of an operation. Ad the last time I checked a 12 year B-717 pilot making 152 bucks an hour is not exactly poverty level. You express captains were paid less that that up until your last contract. A CAL 737 captain is making 158 and an America West Captain on any aircraft make 124 so I don't think that we are the "killers" of the industry. Well thought out rebuttals accepted.

 

[Vorleron]

And please let us not forget Mr. "First to Worst" himself: Old Gordon at CAL.

1999 - $400,000
2000 - $700,000
2001 - $4,000,000
2002 - $11,000,000

That's his salary history, which clearly seems to include serious bonuses tied to number of people he has furloughed....

 

[surplus1]

While your messages are certainly well written and prophetic, I must say that I sense an enormous amount of paranoia in what you write, especially with respect to your opinions about Herndon.

Perhaps what you call my paranoia is unjustified; we shall see. I hope you will still be able to feel that way when the time comes to settle your own negotiations.

Yes sir, I do know what ALPA is doing and with all due respect, it is NOT what you seem to think. No personal offense, but the idea that ALPA National deals with "national issues" and supplies each individual MEC with "resources and tools", is nothing more than a regurgitation of ALPA's own propaganda. They sold your group (assuming you are with COEX) that BS when they wanted your vote to get CAL back into the union and you took the bait. Mark my words, it won't be too long before you discover what ALPA National really does with respect to regional carriers. We all get our "trun in the barrel" sooner or later.

Who do you think recommended the infamous 16-year disaster of a contract that burdens the Eagle pilots and rigged the ratification method to ensure its acceptance? Answer: ALPA.

What is ALPA doing today to help the Eagle pilots repel the attack on their jobs perpetrated by AMR and the APA? Perhaps you've seen a lot of protests from the Eagle MEC ... what public position have you seen from ALPA in defense of the Eagle pilots?

Who do you think recommended over and over, including telegrams to every Comair pilot, bypassing the Comair MEC, that we should accept a substandard contract after 3 years of negotiations and in the middle of a strike? Answer: ALPA.

Who do you think invented "Jets for Jobs", a program that abrogates the contracts and seniority of regional pilots in order to get work for furloughed mainline pilots, and then coerced PSA, ALG, PDT and others, into accepting it? Answer: ALPA

Who do you think established, promoted and maintained a policy that resulted in the creation of Freedom and then complained about it and then recommended that Mesa pilots accept an agreement that is nothing less than a tragedy to get rid of it and, of course, accept J4J in the process? Answer: ALPA.

Whose "policy" and J4J protocols resulted in the creation of the Republic alter ego on the Chautauqua property, to undermine their negotiations and force them to accept the abrogation of their seniority in favor of USAirways pilots? Answer: ALPA

Who do you think recommended that Air Wisconsin pilots lower the bar by giving up their hard won contract, among the best at a regional, to give unnecessary concessions and undercut other ALPA carriers, especially in aircraft types that "they" don't want regional pilots to fly? Answer: ALPA

Who do you think is currently recommending that ACA pilots give up their contract and take unnecessary concessions to "match Mesa" in the race to the bottom? Answer: ALPA

Why is SKYW now faced with a concessionary TA, and who do they believe that they have to follow into a race to the bottom? Answer: ALPA

Who is providing your group (COEX/XJT) with "resources and tools" to get a better contract, while at the same time recommending concessions at other carriers that undermine your negotiations and will make you lucky if you can simply keep what you already have? Answer: ALPA

Who is recommending concessions that undermine the current negotiations of the ASA pilots? Answer: ALPA

Who is recommending concessions at other carriers that almost certainly will result in Comair pilots, who struck for 89 days to improve their contract, being asked to give up the gains that they made only 2 years ago? Answer: ALPA. What do you think ALPA will recommend when Delta eventually asks us to make concessions?

Am I truly paranoid or is it maybe that you are naive? Can you name even one instance where ALPA has recommended that any regional not participate in this race to lower their compensation? Has ALPA requested any regional carrier that it represents to stand its ground and not join the spiral to the bottom? Has ALPA requested or advised other regionals to resist the management fear strategy?

Why hasn't ALPA done that? Are the regional carriers in dire financial straits and losing money? Which one of the regional jet carriers is operating in the red and therfore needs to enter concessionary bargaining? What is the reason why ALPA does NOT encourage us all to hold the line? Tell me please.

ALPA National is not forcing concessions down ACA's throats. Give me a break. ACA is dealing with their predicament on their own. ALPA National didn't suggest concessions. If ACA votes no and they don't lower their costs, then they will watch their UAL flying go to Mesa, etc. Ask the Bain Group about it. It's a horrible situation...and I am glad I don't have to vote on their TA.

OK, I'll give you a break. You are right; ALPA is not forcing concessions down ACA's throat, they reserved that for PSA, ALG and PDT. Now what is ALPA doing to prevent concessions at ACA?ALPA is using its "resources" to recommend that ACA pilots accept the TA. ACA has no real "predicament" of its own. United has a predicament, and ACA has no reason to join in it. Neither do AWAC or SKYW.

I agree that ALPA did not suggest concessions; management did that. ALPA's role should be to resist concessions, expecially those that are not economically justified. Is ALPA doing that anywhere? The answer is NO. Is ALPA resisting concessions at ANY regional carrier that has been "asked" by management? Again the answer is NO. Why not?

Will ACA really loose its flying to Mesa if they don't make concessions? Who cares what the "Bain Group" says? Are you going to give conessions if the Bain Group tells you that you will lose all your flying to SKYW or Commutair or Gulfstream if you don't? How come you can't figure out who the Bain Group really is and why don't you understand that they are PAID to generate the fear strategy that everyone is rushing to accept?

Yes, there is a horrible situation at United, but there is no horrible situation at any of the so-called United Express carriers. The fact is that if every pilot at every UAX affiliate voted to FLY FOR FREE, it would not change United's horrible situation.

If you were to add up the entire pilot payroll at every United Express carrier, before any of these concessions, would it equal in dollars the concessions made by the UAL pilots alone? Why don't you do that and see for yourself?

Fortunately my airline is negotiating for increases (contrary to what you said above)...not being led down a path like lemmings, as you say. There is no harming of seniority as you say either...and our situation has nothing to do with ALPA. Both the FTA as well as the flying opportunities we've secured over at Commutair and Skywest for our furloughed pilots.

Yes, you're negotiating for increases. Let's see how many increases you get after every regional carrier represented by ALPA has taken concessions. Let me know please which of the "resources and tools" ALPA gives you to get the increases you want if the face of the resources and tools it is giving to the concessionary syndrome and its tacit approval of the Bain Group.

The harming of regional pilot seniority comes as a result of the ALPA's Jets for Jobs protocols. You have not harmed seniority at Commutair or Skywest, merely because they did not accept what you wanted. Many of your members were writing, in these forums, how they expected to take Captain slots at SKYW due to its code share agreement with CAL in IAH. Im glad you didn't get that, for it is wrong. You should not get and you are not entitled to any position at either airline, unless it is a vacancy that is unfilled by pilots on the seniority list of that airline who have first had the chance to bid for the vacancy.

When the vacancies are unfilled or new pilots have to be hired, then I am overjoyed that you achieved preferential hiring for your furloughed pilots at both of those airlines. Kudos to you for doing that, but shame (on at least some of you) for expecting or wanting "super seniority".

As for your FTA I'll reserve comment. It's a different subject and I'm certain you wouldn't want to know what I think of that.

If you think that's a long drawn out esoteric response, so be it. The uninitiated do need to be initiated and somebody has to try. I'm sorry if you find what I wirite difficult to understand and hope that others don't. It is my true intent to be exoteric rather that esoteric for I have grown weary of the "inner circle" at National. If you happen to be in that inner circle you should know that I have no regrets in exposing it for what it is. Regretably, I doubt I'll have much impact.

I won't lambaste you for supporting your MEC but I will remind you that it really isn't your MEC, it's CAL's MEC. Again, that's a different topic.

Like you, I too support the ACA pilots (not the Bain Group) which is precisely why I don't think they should make concessions. The same applies to the Skywest pilots. In my opinion, it is unnecessary and it will neither make or break their affiliation with United one way or the other..

The concessions proposed in the TAs at those two carriers will do two things only: 1) Ensure that ACA and SKYW pilots are paid less, and 2) Help to undermine the contracts and negotiations at other regional airlines. In my opinion that is foolish and I can only hope that both TA's will be rejected solidly. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic that will happen.

 

[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.