Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The future for ASA

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Ineedabrew

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
126
What kind of changes can ASA aspect. My concerns are medical, travel benefits and general quality of life. If anyone here has a crystal ball I would like to here your thoughts.There is always some truth in rumors and yesterday proved it. Does anyone here see growth in the future for ASA.
 
I'm guessing the travel bennies will be worse than they are now... Being that we have some of the best in the industry.


Insurance and 401K will most likely stay the same or be too close to notice. Hey you might even see the profit sharing.

The growth and pay is going to be tricky. Skywest will be bidding against us for every new airplane and pay package. My guess is that the Union at ASA will not fold to concessions. Which means skywest will most likely win those bids. The ASA pilot group is going to have to ask what is important. Three or four dollars an hour or more aircraft, better schedules, and possibly job security.

The thing about Chitaqua, Mesa, and the "bottom feeders" is they seem to have more job security. This of course will happen over a couple of years time blah blah blah.

In the end I don't know how feesible the airlines are if oil keeps making a run. Sure people need to travel but it still seems capacity heavy. Just a thought.
 
If they allow asa pilots to fly through the united system, you will get united benefits as well.
 
Crash Pad said:
The thing about Chitaqua, Mesa, and the "bottom feeders" is they seem to have more job security. This of course will happen over a couple of years time blah blah blah.

Wait...excluding *************************s, there's a bottom feeder lower than Mesa???????

(Sorry, I took the shot, I saw it was safe and only went below the hard deck for a moment)
 
The future is grim

Skywest's management plan is brilliant for the shareholders, but blows for pilots. It is the ultimate in the Walmarticization of the airline industry.

In a word: Whipsaw. But new-and-improved TURBOwhipsaw. Now, Skywest controls 2 large pilot groups and can play one off the other and STILL win any bid for flying. They are in a win-win position in any market they decide; they can keep the bid war "in-house", so they know they will ultimately have the flying at low labor cost.

ASA and Skywest pilots will be begging for their jobs on an annual basis. NO job security and NO peace-of-mind. ALPA just had its 'nads removed for good.
 
Last edited:
It is possible that they will come in and finish up the contract negotiations in a hurry to show us a little "good faith", but ultimatly there will probably be very little job security for either the SKW or ASA pilots. My hope is that the SKW pilots will vote ALPA in the next go around and at least management will have to deal with ALPA on both sides of the fence..That would probably mitigate it at least somewhat.
 
:cool: As I recall, one of our chief pilots told me that the only DCI carrier that was cheaper than us was MESA! We are the cheap ones right now and YES, we NEED to get ALPA on property for both carriers job security! This would give Skyw mngmnt no where to go for the whipsaw factor!!

I think that it would be for the best of both carriers!
Later!
 
Maybe they'll transfer some Brasilias to ATL! Gidyup;)
 
I think that most SkyWest people (like myself) are pissed off enough about being jerked around with the 70 seater that we are not about to give concessions to steal work from ASA. The whole reason we signed off on the same pay for the 50 was because it was an 18 month agreement. Short term agreement implies the pay problem will be fixed soon - otherwise, why would management propose such a short term agreement? We bought it hook, line, and sinker, and we're kicking ourselves for it.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top