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.

 

[Bluto]

Auspac, I explained above that my reasons for voting no have nothing to do with the proposed rate. If they had offered 3% raise on the 70-seater, nothing on the 50 and the bro, I would have been fine with the rates. The problem, aside from the single 50/70 rate (which is already out of the bag) is the lack of specific rates for only aircraft on property and the lack of an amendable or expiration date.

 

[auspac]

"If they had offered 3% raise on the 70-seater, nothing on the 50 and the bro, I would have been fine with the rates."

Really? If you're concerned about reserve call out times then chances are you wouldn't be senior enough to fly the 70 if they increased the rate for that alone. I think we agree on more than we disagree on but I certainly wouldn't support a raise for the 70 at expense of the 50 and the Bro (ie the majority of the pilots.) The 70 is an easier plane to fly and if things were really fair the Bro would get paid the most because you work your butt off in that plane. Do I think we should get paid more for the 70 -YES, but would I support a raise for the 70 (which I am flying this month) and nothing for the 50 - absolutely not! I completey agree with you on the lack of expiration date - that's unacceptable, although really what good did the last TA expiration date do? Has there been any talk of back pay?

 

[Bluto]

Our 50-seat rates are near the top of the industry while our 70's are nearly at the bottom.

The fact that you're not concerned abour reserve call-out times suggests that you are self-centered. I prefer to look at the impact of this agreement to our pilot group as a whole, not just to me. I'm a line-holder, not that it matters, it's a matter of principle. I don't fly the 70, but I was still outraged when the company force-bid 70-qualified pilots to fly lines they didn't bid.

I could have flown the 70 many times but chose not to because I believe the pay scale is unfair as you seem to. I, however, would consider myself a hypocrite if I didn't agree with the pay scale, yet bid to fly the aircraft. Apparently, you have no problem with that. I hear the 777's pretty easy to fly, it doesn't mean its pilots should be paid less. That is a tired, old, baseless argument and I'm tired of hearing it.

You make a valid point on the expiration date issue. Though, by your reasoning, we shouldn't even vote at all, since SGU can easily institute any pay system they want, regardless of the vote. Any control we have is an illusion SGU allows us to maintain. We have no leverage and therefore no control.

 

[Just_Defer_It]

Okay bus drivers...2005 is the year and your driving a bus full of people, not cargo. You bus drivers all think your God's gift to the aviation world, especially you XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYou have worked for Skywest for what, 2-3 years and are trying to rock the boat with this ALPA drive. If you want to drive a union, you should try not to leave your ALPA calling cards in a plane that only you have flown. As for the rest of you bus drivers that think you know everything, get a clue. You people have not one inkling of a clue of how the economics of running an airline work. All you can think of is yourselves and how you can bite the hand that feeds you. I wish they did personality screening when you get your intro to aviation flight at the local flight school. That way we would be able to determine early on who is out to screw over every other work group at an airline.

And that's why I don't keep the beer keg within 10 hours of the computer...

We don't post people's names or employee numbers here without their permission. I'll bet when you cool off, you'll think better of this post. Either way, how about a week in the Penalty Box- all expenses paid? Be our guest! Remember, it's OK to disagree but not be disagreeable. If you don't like this, just look with I'm about to do to your downstairs neighbor!

UAL78

 

[RoyalAviation2]

Well, Your Highness, for one of the coarsest posts I've seen in awhile, you're getting the boot. If you want to talk like that in public, I'll put you on to a web designer and you can have your own little blah-blah blog.

Igor, the trap door if you please....


SPLAT!!!

Buh-bye!