SkyWest Vote

[Nevets]

Nevets, SkyWest Management is a give and take management. They give you something, you give them something. You're saying the employees should take, take, take. When you borrow 10 bucks from somebody and never pay them back, and then go to borrow another 10 bucks....what's the usual response? Employee payroll directly affects the company's profit margin. By giving a little, the group actually gains more. When SkyWest can offer what you consider small raises, but the profit margin increases, its a double win for both groups. Its a fine line. Its the reason you are a pilot, I'm a dispatcher, and they actually run the financials of the company. As long as every employee is doing the job they were hired to do, they will be justly compensated, and there will be no ceiling for how high SkyWest can go.

Of course its a give and take relationship. But your management just takes. The pilots actually lose buying power every year they get a 1% COLA. What does management get paid? What are their raises every year? Do they get more than 1%? Skywest has $750 MILLION just sitting in a bank and making almost $150 MILLION a year! Yeah, the profit margin increases for the company without an adequate COLA! Skywest has THEE best ballance sheet probably of ANY US airline and they probably make more money year after year than any regional. Where is the give? They will "give" you the least amount possible. And there is nothing wrong with that. After all, that is part of their job. Without any leverage, employees have nothing to even the playing field.

The employees should not just "take take take." But they should be able to stop giving to management considering the financial success of the company. I'm not saying that employees should brake the bank. I'm just saying that Skywest should just share a little bit more with the employees.

 

[XPOO]

Just some rational thinking, and totally hypothetical, but let's ASSUME....

There are 11,000 employees. If Uncle Jerry gave each one of his employees an AVERAGE of $2,000 extra annually (which really isn't much of a raise, right?), that would cost the company $22,000,000 extra. $22M is 14% of the annual $150M currently coming in. These numbers DO add up.

 

[sweptback]

Just some rational thinking, and totally hypothetical, but let's ASSUME....

There are 11,000 employees. If Uncle Jerry gave each one of his employees an AVERAGE of $2,000 extra annually (which really isn't much of a raise, right?), that would cost the company $22,000,000 extra. $22M is 14% of the annual $150M currently coming in. These numbers DO add up.

Why don't you take a paycut so the company can make even more money? How is that any different?

 

[XPOO]

Brilliant...you first though.

 

[Nevets]

Just some rational thinking, and totally hypothetical, but let's ASSUME....

There are 11,000 employees. If Uncle Jerry gave each one of his employees an AVERAGE of $2,000 extra annually (which really isn't much of a raise, right?), that would cost the company $22,000,000 extra. $22M is 14% of the annual $150M currently coming in. These numbers DO add up.

"The cost per ASM of salaries, wages and employee benefits decreased to 3.3¢ for the year ended December 31, 2006, compared to 3.4¢ for the year ended December 31, 2005. The average number of full-time equivalent employees increased 8.6% to 14,450 for the year ended December 31, 2006 from 13,304 for the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in number of employees was primarily due to the addition

37 ​

of personnel required for the new regional jet flying and due to the addition of personnel required for new cities added to our ground handling service contracts."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793733/000110465907015112/a07-5838_110k.htm


Like I said, in essence, you are taking a pay cut. Anyways, I was speaking mainly about pilots. There are only 3,000 of them.

 

[Nightrain_080]

Just some rational thinking, and totally hypothetical, but let's ASSUME....

There are 11,000 employees. If Uncle Jerry gave each one of his employees an AVERAGE of $2,000 extra annually (which really isn't much of a raise, right?), that would cost the company $22,000,000 extra. $22M is 14% of the annual $150M currently coming in. These numbers DO add up.

How many days off a week does a dispatcher have per week? 2 or 3?

say you have 3 days off a week....would you be willing give up an extra day per week for the rest of your career as a dispatcher to 2 days off a week for nothing in return?

I am assuming no.

:nuts:
No bonass check is worth giving up hundreds of days off per year and drowning the pilot morale even lower than it already is. Yes we know Jerry wants a new housboat.

 

[Missed Approach]

Of course Jerry has fiduciary duties to make the shareholders as much money as possible, however he understands he will make more money if he treats his employees equitably.

Operators like Mesa, who are clearly only concerned for their share holders, will continue to treat their employees with disdain, run short staffed, and pay as little as possible to keep classes filled. Because employees have no vested interest in the success of the company, and no reason to be loyal, they will understandably punish the company for treating them this way with by "flying safe", participating in cell phone bans, and using high amounts of fuel. This leads to dissatisfied customers and code-share partners, and in turn poor company financial performance.

Companies like Southwest make their employees' QOL a priority. This ensures that the customer is taken care of, and in turn results increases the value of shareholder wealth.

Skywest certainly not Southwest, but having flown for both Mesa and Skywest, I can say that Skywest is much closer to Southwest's model (1. employees 2. customers 3. shareholders) then the Mesa's (1. shareholders 2. customers 3. employees).

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']...and yes, the Kool-aide tastes great. [/FONT]

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

In essence a pay cut because cost per ASM went down? Good inference. That cost could go down due to (1) decreasing salary and benefits + steady ASM, (2) steady salary and benefits + rising ASM, or (3) rising salary and beneift but rising slower than ASM. You need to learn how to read that particular financial statement...

 

[JoeMerchant]

In essence a pay cut because cost per ASM went down? Good inference. That cost could go down due to (1) decreasing salary and benefits + steady ASM, (2) steady salary and benefits + rising ASM, or (3) rising salary and beneift but rising slower than ASM. You need to learn how to read that particular financial statement...

Exactly.....CHQ has a lower cost per ASM than CMR......but pays more......Longevity has a lot to do with it......

 

[Nevets]

Of course Jerry has fiduciary duties to make the shareholders as much money as possible, however he understands he will make more money if he treats his employees equitably.

Operators like Mesa, who are clearly only concerned for their share holders, will continue to treat their employees with disdain, run short staffed, and pay as little as possible to keep classes filled. Because employees have no vested interest in the success of the company, and no reason to be loyal, they will understandably punish the company for treating them this way with by "flying safe", participating in cell phone bans, and using high amounts of fuel. This leads to dissatisfied customers and code-share partners, and in turn poor company financial performance.

Companies like Southwest make their employees' QOL a priority. This ensures that the customer is taken care of, and in turn results increases the value of shareholder wealth.

Skywest certainly not Southwest, but having flown for both Mesa and Skywest, I can say that Skywest is much closer to Southwest's model (1. employees 2. customers 3. shareholders) then the Mesa's (1. shareholders 2. customers 3. employees).

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']...and yes, the Kool-aide tastes great. [/font]

Yet SWA pilots are unionized. Do you think that they would be paid as much if they weren't and if they were not as successful as Skywest?

 

[Nevets]

In essence a pay cut because cost per ASM went down? Good inference. That cost could go down due to (1) decreasing salary and benefits + steady ASM, (2) steady salary and benefits + rising ASM, or (3) rising salary and beneift but rising slower than ASM. You need to learn how to read that particular financial statement...

"Our total ASMs generated during the year ended December 31, 2006 increased 58.9% from the year ended December 31, 2005"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793733/000110465907015112/a07-5838_110k.htm

(3)ASM increased 58.9%, salaries, wages and employee benefits increased 55.2%.

 

[joe_pilot]

Thanks to everyone who voted.

I respect that. At least you voted.

I just wish more than 706 of you had voted "No".

(here come the flamers...)

 

[ArcticFlier]

To answer the question posed originally:
Voted no.
Voted for DB.

 

[SSDD]

Voted NO

Voted for DB

 

[Dubya]

Voted for Fruit Punch

Wrote in JA