SkyWest Why Voting NO isn't enough

[Bluto]

SkyWest people, please be sure to include in the comments section, the reasons you are voting no and the changes that would need to be made to the proposal in order to vote yes. Without some kind of constructive criticism, I have a feeling those in charge will consider a no-vote the arbitrary act of a greedy bunch of pilots.

My reasons for voting no include:
*CL-65 pay classification ie. possibility of flying 90-seat aircraft for current 50-seat rates
*Open-ended (No expiration date or amendable date!!)
*Extended reserve call-out in only 3 cities
*Pay rate insufficient for blended (50/70/90) rate

Changes required to even consider voting yes:
*Change aircraft to reflect only those currently on property
*Add an amendable or expiration date

Desired changes:
*Extend (2-hour) reserve call-out in all domiciles
*long-call reserve
*Split or blended rates (adjustable based on company-wide fleet mix) for 70/90 or larger seaters

I firmly believe that only a strong no-vote will convince management that their offer is unreasonable. Let's send a strong, unified message. The voting site is open. VOTE NO!!

 

[viper548]

That 23 cent raise was mighty tempting but my reasons for voting no are the same as yours. They seem like reasonable no cost changes

 

[labbats]

You'll vote no. Good for you. Now watch as your boss laughs and gives it to you anyway. What are you going to do, strike? Welcome to the world of the airlines circa 2005, union or not.

 

[Bluto]

It'll only cost them if they're already planning on 90-seaters, in which case, they better be willing to pay more. If not, I hope they have to staff every flight with a junior-man or reserve. I wish it were that way with the 70 now...Flying any 90-seater for our current rates is completely unacceptable.

 

[Bluto]

You'll vote no. Good for you. Now watch as your boss laughs and gives it to you anyway. What are you going to do, strike? Welcome to the world of the airlines circa 2005, union or not.

Thanks for your support. Have anything useful to contribute? No? Bye bye, then.

 

[labbats]

Apologies for coming off rudely. I'm just fed up with contracts lately. Make them as iron-clad as you want, pay union dues or not, it makes no difference when carriers must declare bankruptcy to compete. When labor is your highest cost and tickets are $39 one way, we lose.

 

[Gr82Aviate]

Apologies for coming off rudely. I'm just fed up with contracts lately. Make them as iron-clad as you want, pay union dues or not, it makes no difference when carriers must declare bankruptcy to compete. When labor is your highest cost and tickets are $39 one way, we lose.

Actually, labor is no longer the highest cost...if you check your facts, you'll find that fuel has claimed the #1 spot!!

 

[viper548]

How much is SKW paying for fuel again, I forgot?

 

[Bluto]

labatts, I understand your frustration, I share it myself. Unfortunately, this vote is basically the only avenue open to us to elicit change. If we got a 100% no-vote, and nothing changed, at least we'd know there's nothing we can do under our current representative structure. Maybe it'll motivate people to seek a legally recognized representative body. I'm not terribly inspired by our pilot group's level of interest in making things better. I think we'll be lucky to have 70% participation, much less a unified vote. I hope I'm surprised. Vote no.

 

[Gr82Aviate]

How much is SKW paying for fuel again, I forgot?

I don't recall you saying SKW in your previous statement, I believe you said "carriers"!

 

[viper548]

I don't recall you saying SKW in your previous statement, I believe you said "carriers"!

It wasn't my statement, but you're right, "carriers" was used. However, since SKW doesn't pay for fuel they can't use fuel costs as a negotiating point

 

[ASAFOE120]

When does the voting end?

 

[av8tor02]

10/4/05

 

[auspac]

I agree with all the reasons Bluto listed for voting no and I just voted no. I'm wondering what a reasonable percentage increase should be. Like most, I want as much money for as little work as possible. However I also want job security and being in the top 25% of the seniority list, I'm not overly concerned about my own job but I don't want to see any of the junior guys affected. What would it take for most of us to vote yes? 10%,5%,3%,2%? What's reasonable given that we are flying for a profitable airline that contracts to two bankrupt majors and competes directly with the likes of Mesa, Trans States and Chataqua?
I agree that a bonus is a bonus but I like the idea behind it. Hopefully it makes all employees care a little more about the job they do and for the most part we see a vast difference in Skywest operated stations and those of other airlines. The first two bonus checks have grossed me a tad under $3000 combined, although I'm well aware that past performance is no guarantee of future results. How many of us would prefer to give up the bonus for an increase in hourly rates? I can see the company offering us to opt out of the bonus program in return for maybe 3 or 4% hourly increase. If it did come down to that I guess I would prefer the 1.2% and take my chances on the 5 or 6% bonus which would hopefully be higher but could also quite possibly be lower or even non-existent if we become unprofitable. What are your thoughts? What percentage increase would it take for you to vote yes?

 

[Texx]

10/4/05

Interesting.. I would expect some type of announcement right before the polls close. Just to give a last chance sway towards the "yes" vote.