SkyWest takes Delta for Everything It's Got

[Uppercrust]

Dave,

Even though you like to call me an A hole often, you seem like you really want to debate this. Ok then. You were the first airline to agree to the "any plane for X amount of pay" scheme. That in itself has changed the regional industry. Out of nowhere management types jumped up for joy, high fiving eachother. You didn't even get a $5 difference an hour in pay for your larger aircraft. That is bad. As I said before, we brought our 757 pay UP TO the 767 pay. Big difference. Now jetblue management sets a rate for the 100 seater, and everyone has to take notice. They are profitable and are expanding, and the rest of us are NOT. IF we want to compete, we have to negotiate to fly at something close. You guys really just gave up the farm. You went all the way to 99 seats---not just 70. We aren't agreeing to one pay rate fits all, just a 100 seat rate close to the Jetblue rate. (although USAir/AWA just negotiated a rate a bit higher--$98 an hour for 12 year captain---even though Jetblue goes 1 1/2 pay after 70 hours).

Again---you didn't have to go up to 99 seats for one pay rate. You could have had a $5 difference an hour for the larger plane (CR7), but did not. I am not ignorant---I can see what happened. Sure, you were faced with possible expulsion from UAL had you not taken pay cuts or pay limits---but you went overboard with the "anything up to 99 seats for the same pay."

Neither hypocritical nor ignorant.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Have to agree here. Selling out the whole industry.

 

[Heavy Set]

General
Why should a pilot receive higher pay for bigger equipment?

In order for your airline to become more profitable, and consequently improve your long-term job security, I believe a one fits all pay scale would be better. Is it not the network's overall pax yield, what ultimately determines the amount an airline can afford to pay its employees?
Delta plans on using 100 seater to feed your future 787 in ATL, why should you be entitled to more pay then the guy who flies the 190, bring the connecting pax to ATL?
Let's say you head over to Europe with the 787 and 250 pax, some of which connected within the network, in 7 hrs and a 2 hrs turn. In this case, the airplane's revenue opportunity equals 250 seats in 9 hrs. On the other hand, the 190 flies 2.5 hrs legs with 30 minutes turns. In theory the revenue opportunities between the two is about equal, give or take a few. Of course, I do understand that the set-up cost and operational cost for a short haul operation are higher ----- this here is strictly a conceptional comparison. Also, when pax travel on Delta their decision to do so is most likely a function of network size and convenience. They may consider frequency, destination options, and the cost value they attach to they personal time. At the end, it is the value package of time, convenience, and price that make pax buy tickets on Delta as opposed to United etc.
I believe, all airplanes, regardless of sizes, within the network are interdependent and contribute jointly to the value package which pax want and will pay for. Furthermore, the network size and scope, according to experts, are the most visible differentiation in the airline industry.
Let's assume all Pilots are paid the same regardless of equipment. Pilots would not need to train and jump between equipments just to make more money. Consequently the huge costs and productivity inefficiencies of training would disappear. Making the cost structure more competitive and may allow for more investments in network growth. Just a thought. As a side note, it may also improve unity within the pilot group as a whole. No more selling the young or the small. Or in other words, wouldn't that be fair.
No flame bait and no insults --- I really would like to hear your educated opinion.
Thanks

You would be advocating lower pay for ALL PILOTS. Let's start with the RJ. If you pay pilots a rate higher than the "average" rate on an RJ you would make RJ flights less profitable for the airline on a per flight basis - especially with so many low cost carriers and their low fares. FlyI could not justify high regional wages on its CRJs because its fare were so low that it was losing money on most flights (primarily due to high fuel costs).

For the 100 seater, the wage bar has already been set by JetBlue and USAirways/AWA. Not surprisingly, it is much lower than what a Delta 777 or 767 pilot would make - so, it is unrealistic that any of those pilots would ever accept a reduction in wages to that level. This is a case where theory and realism do not agree. If airline managers had there way of course, your idea would become reality to the detriment of all pilots who strive to earn more over the course of their careers...

 

[General Lee]

General
Why should a pilot receive higher pay for bigger equipment?

In order for your airline to become more profitable, and consequently improve your long-term job security, I believe a one fits all pay scale would be better. Is it not the network's overall pax yield, what ultimately determines the amount an airline can afford to pay its employees?
Delta plans on using 100 seater to feed your future 787 in ATL, why should you be entitled to more pay then the guy who flies the 190, bring the connecting pax to ATL?
Let's say you head over to Europe with the 787 and 250 pax, some of which connected within the network, in 7 hrs and a 2 hrs turn. In this case, the airplane's revenue opportunity equals 250 seats in 9 hrs. On the other hand, the 190 flies 2.5 hrs legs with 30 minutes turns. In theory the revenue opportunities between the two is about equal, give or take a few. Of course, I do understand that the set-up cost and operational cost for a short haul operation are higher ----- this here is strictly a conceptional comparison. Also, when pax travel on Delta their decision to do so is most likely a function of network size and convenience. They may consider frequency, destination options, and the cost value they attach to they personal time. At the end, it is the value package of time, convenience, and price that make pax buy tickets on Delta as opposed to United etc.
I believe, all airplanes, regardless of sizes, within the network are interdependent and contribute jointly to the value package which pax want and will pay for. Furthermore, the network size and scope, according to experts, are the most visible differentiation in the airline industry.
Let's assume all Pilots are paid the same regardless of equipment. Pilots would not need to train and jump between equipments just to make more money. Consequently the huge costs and productivity inefficiencies of training would disappear. Making the cost structure more competitive and may allow for more investments in network growth. Just a thought. As a side note, it may also improve unity within the pilot group as a whole. No more selling the young or the small. Or in other words, wouldn't that be fair.
No flame bait and no insults --- I really would like to hear your educated opinion.
Thanks

Lufthansa and UPS do that. The most senior Lufthansa pilots are the 737 pilots that fly around Europe and are home more often or less tired. That is ok to offer that, but you would have to be paid very well on all types. That's not really how we in the States do it (except UPS--but they pay well). If we did that though---we would have to pay the same high rate for the 100 seater as we do for the 777, and that would not be competitive to Jetblue's E190. I am sure that if the money was right, some senior guy would rather not get jetlag once a week and look even older than he is, and fly domestically if the trips were nice. But, managment looks at the competition and they are the ones who saw the new Jetblue 100 seat rate and offered it to us. No senior pilot (making 777 Captain pay) would bid down to fly that plane making half the money. As I said before, at UPS the 727 is very senior. Could that happen at Delta with an E190 at the same rate as a 777? (for longevity--12 year Captain makes the same on any plane) I don't think so. I personally think you should be paid by the amount of revenue you bring in. The bigger the payload, the more pay you should make. I know you can say a regional jet could do 6 legs and bring in the same amount of pax, but so can a 764 in ATL doing 4 FLA legs (2 turns). That could be close to 1000 pax.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ReverseSensing]

That's not really how we in the States do it (except UPS...).

And, except for the U.S. Military.

I personally think you should be paid by the amount of revenue you bring in. The bigger the payload, the more pay you should make.

But it's the airline's revenue, not the aircraft's. I know it's virtually sacrilege, but in some ways, I wonder if it would be better to pay solely based on longevity/seniority (like the military), and let people bid QOL, even if it is in a smaller aircraft. Think of the training costs that could be saved.

 

[goahead]

Jen lea,

You really are an idiot....... just give up on good ole DAL and go to UPS if that is what your wife want's. Of course you probably have less 121 PIC time then I do .

Good luck. C-YA at the interview....

Dream on hooker.........................that's you the "hooker"

ASA CR2 CA

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Dave,

Even though you like to call me an A hole often, you seem like you really want to debate this. Ok then. You were the first airline to agree to the "any plane for X amount of pay" scheme. That in itself has changed the regional industry. Out of nowhere management types jumped up for joy, high fiving eachother. You didn't even get a $5 difference an hour in pay for your larger aircraft. That is bad. As I said before, we brought our 757 pay UP TO the 767 pay. Big difference. Now jetblue management sets a rate for the 100 seater, and everyone has to take notice. They are profitable and are expanding, and the rest of us are NOT. IF we want to compete, we have to negotiate to fly at something close. You guys really just gave up the farm. You went all the way to 99 seats---not just 70. We aren't agreeing to one pay rate fits all, just a 100 seat rate close to the Jetblue rate. (although USAir/AWA just negotiated a rate a bit higher--$98 an hour for 12 year captain---even though Jetblue goes 1 1/2 pay after 70 hours).

Again---you didn't have to go up to 99 seats for one pay rate. You could have had a $5 difference an hour for the larger plane (CR7), but did not. I am not ignorant---I can see what happened. Sure, you were faced with possible expulsion from UAL had you not taken pay cuts or pay limits---but you went overboard with the "anything up to 99 seats for the same pay."

Neither hypocritical nor ignorant.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Generally Dull,

I don't like to call you an a-hole often, only once in a while. I don't even see that adjective used to describe you in the post quoted.

SKYW never agreed to fly "any plane for X amount of pay." If I'm not mistaken the scale referred to turbojet aircraft with 50-99 seats. Furthermore I think there was another payscale covering airframes with 100-1xx seats.

I don't think the 18 month SKYW TA did anywhere near the damage that PFT did. I'm not defending the TA, just stating my perception as someone who had to get out of the industry when all the regionals with few exceptions went to PFT. SKYW did without PFT.

You claim SKYW pilots could have had an extra $5 / hour to fly the CR7. Were you involved with the negotiations? Quite frankly I'm amazed because I doubt you'd have the time for it. Between flying for DAL and penning 6000+ posts you're a busy guy. Isn't it a bit more likely that SKYW pilots were told that the only way they'd see more pay on the CR7 would be a paycut on the CR2? Weren't most of the other UAX carriers taking paycuts on the CR2 at the time? I know Air Whisky did. Seems like ACA did for a while before they went independent.

Your final observation is intriguing.

Sure, you were faced with possible expulsion from UAL had you not taken pay cuts or pay limits---but you went overboard with the "anything up to 99 seats for the same pay."

Now I can't decide whether you're ignorant, hypocritical, or both.
You've accepted huge paycuts and will likely sacrifice your pension. You might be getting a new airframe (E-190) and you're rabidly defending the POS rates on it by telling us that's what you have to do to get the aircraft on the property. Yet you give SKYW guys a huge ration of $hit for taking what they were told was an 18 month deal on airframes that weren't even on the property. There were no paycuts. No reduction in other compensation.

You always like to bring up that combined 757/767 rate. How's that compare to what a Southwest guy makes flying a smaller airplane? Are those 777 rates lower than Southwest too? I think you went overboard with those paycuts General. What were you thinking? Maybe the same thoughts that the SKYW guys were thinking - that they might not have a job because of a bankrupt legacy carrier taking it away from them?

 

[goodto50meters]

Generally Dull,Were you involved with the negotiations?

Dave,

While I agree with some of the things that you post, lets be honest, there is no such thing as "negotiations" at SkyWest between the pilots and management. There is no official NMB recognized bargaining entity there, therefore any "negotiations" are just a favor by management or worse a kangaroo political stunt.

While you may get a semblance of "say" in the process, management retains the power to do whatever they want, with no recourse by the pilots.

Not trying to slam you or anything, just sayin. Kinda like "Truth In Posting".

Looking forward to our groups becoming one!

 

[ReverseSensing]

Dave,

While I agree with some of the things that you post, lets be honest, there is no such thing as "negotiations" at SkyWest between the pilots and management. There is no official NMB recognized bargaining entity there, therefore any "negotiations" are just a favor by management or worse a kangaroo political stunt.

While you may get a semblance of "say" in the process, management retains the power to do whatever they want, with no recourse by the pilots.

Not trying to slam you or anything, just sayin. Kinda like "Truth In Posting".

Looking forward to our groups becoming one!

You forgot to add, "I'm a lesbian."

 

[Doug Parker]

.


Dayum Dave B.,

Are you still mad at the General for leaving that Mushroom Print on your forehead?


.

 

[General Lee]

Jen lea,

You really are an idiot....... just give up on good ole DAL and go to UPS if that is what your wife want's. Of course you probably have less 121 PIC time then I do .

Good luck. C-YA at the interview....

Dream on hooker.........................that's you the "hooker"

ASA CR2 CA

Wow, that was wonderful. Amazing. Tremendous. You're cool. And, I never said I wanted to go to UPS---I just said UPS pays well on every aircraft. If you present yourself like you did here at the UPS interview there is no doubt you will be hired to clean the lavs there. Go for it.


Bye Bye--General Lee