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

 

[Ralgha]

Even if SkyWest had a 99 seat aircraft, a captain on that aircraft would be making more money per seat than the Delta 767-300 captain.

 

[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.


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?

Dave,

Calm down a bit. If this were a highschool debate match, you already would be back home popping the zits on your face and back. Try not to get personal.

You are right, SkyWest does have a pay increase if you go from the E120 to the CRJ. But, any jet over 50 seats is where your future growth could be, and even a large turboprop like the Q400 would fall into the "up to 99 seat" range. It was a bad thing to agree to. Every other large regional out there pays more for larger RJs. Even Mesa pays more to their Captains for the CR9 and CR7. Look at Horizon, ASA(your new friends), Comair, CHQ (REP/SHUT), Mesaba, etc. Your company told you of an possible scenario, and then used $400 million to buy ASA---and will now whipsaw them against you. I think they could have used some of that money to keep the CR2 rates the same, and given something (anything) more on the CR7. Instead, you now have senior guys NOT flying the CR7 (due to the pay), and new upgrades flying them (thanks to extra training in upgrade)---which is what the company wanted all along. They have newer (cheaper--due to longevity) Captains flying larger planes. It would cost them more if they had more senior captians flying that CR7---due to higher year pay scale. It is a win-win for Ron Reber.

As far as our pay cuts, yes, they were deep. It stings, no doubt. But, if you take away our large raise from C2K that we gave back (33% pay cut) in DEC of 04---we went back to about our pre C2K contract. Now, we are in bankruptcy, and we all expect another pay cut. We got 14%, and now we are finalizing the deal with some other cost savings. It is about what we expected, even though it stings. But, another thing happened too----2300 captains left. We all have moved up, regaining some pay and many furloughs have returned. If we get another small round of retirements (end of March)--hopefully more furloughed pilots will return too.

Southwest has a great payscale. And, they deserve it. Their company is doing well, and it behooves us to have higher pay above us, so we can ask for it again someday. Yes, they fly smaller planes, but they are profitable. You guys at SkyWest are profitable too, but for some reason gave up the farm and now will get CR2 pay for anything up to 99 seats. Our pay cut is understandable. Why didn't they use a fraction of that $400 million to buy ASA to give you a $5 an hour raise on that CR7? Are you worth it? Not according to Brad Holt and Ron Reber. Our 777 rates are in line with AA, NW, CAL, UAL, etc----and we can eventually go higher if we ever become profitable. Can you ask for the same? You turned down your TA. Now what? What is next for you guys?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Even if SkyWest had a 99 seat aircraft, a captain on that aircraft would be making more money per seat than the Delta 767-300 captain.

That would be the same with my chartered C182---I can make $500 an hour flying someone from Atlanta Fulton County to Daytona Beach. What is your point? The Delta 767-300 Captain will ALWAYS make more than a SkyWest Captain. Maybe that 767-300 Captain is also being paid more for the cargo we carry too. You should see what we haul to Europe and S. America.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Rogue5]

That would be the same with my chartered C182---I can make $500 an hour flying someone from Atlanta Fulton County to Daytona Beach. What is your point? The Delta 767-300 Captain will ALWAYS make more than a SkyWest Captain. Maybe that 767-300 Captain is also being paid more for the cargo we carry too. You should see what we haul to Europe and S. America.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

For the life of me I still can't see why you insist on comparing apples to oranges by pointing out the fact that (GASP!) a major airline pilot makes more money and generally has a better quality of life than a regional airline pilot.

Yes, we all know that.

This is why civilian pilots generally start out in G.A., go to a cargo or 135 operator, then to a regional 121 outfit, then if the aviation gods have smiled on them they make it to the majors. Its called career progression.

Thanks for your input...

 

[Dave Benjamin]

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!

I know some of the guys involved with "negotiations", discussions, or whatever you want to call it. There is a lot of back and forth and although there is no union involved there is some form of negotiation happening. More than anything it comes down to how to divvy up whatever is being offered.

Management can do whatever they want at a non-union carrier. Unfortunately management seems to be doing whatever it wants at union carriers like yours as well. It doesn't look like much progress in your negotiations and from what I've read on these boards it looks like some fairly serious concessions you're facing. A lot of people talk tough on the board but I have to wonder how it will play out in reality. A lot of ASA pilots have expressed a desire for a package comparable to SkyWest.

Given the lack of paycuts or serious concessions at SkyWest one could argue that SkyWest pilots have fared far better than their counterparts elesewhere. Although the 18 month TA is long expired pilots with more than 2 years of service have been getting a bonus in the 6-7.5% range. So anyone who was on the property when the TA was voted on has enjoyed a raise of sorts, but nothing that can be relied upon indefinitely since it's tied to profit margin. Due to the strong stock performance almost all employees are seeing a 73.8% return on a figure as high as 15% of their gross earnings over the last 6 months. So for an RJ Captain that's about 5 or 6 bucks an hour more before taxes and that's on top of profit sharing. It's not all bad. I'd be willing to bet a C-note that if you compared 1040's between 2 CR7 qualified captains with the same hire date the guy at SKYW would have more to show especially if he did the stock plan.

Although many would like to see the pilot groups merged it's not going to happen. The guys in SGU are far smarter than Ornstein. They have insured a single carrier petition will fail. The recent TSA-G0-Jets debacle illustrates that point. So unless SGU decides to merge the 2 groups it won't happen.