The Silent Majority at ASA

[outtahere]

All I can say is after listening to you turn coats I am glad that the MEC has to ratify an agreement before sending it to us. With almost five years invested you guys are ready to throw in the towel. Lets think, if we make say $5.00 more per hour than a skywest pilot on average at the end of this contract at an average of 79 hrs. per month that is $395 per pilot per month. With 1800 pilots that is $711000.00 per month in a company that does more than $160 mil. in revenue per month. Not a whole lot in the big scheme of things. So do you really believ that Jerry, just to spite us, would cost Skywest inc a ton of money in xfering a/c just to save a couple bucks that some pilots got in a new contract?

 

[John Pennekamp]

All I can say is after listening to you turn coats I am glad that the MEC has to ratify an agreement before sending it to us. With almost five years invested you guys are ready to throw in the towel. Lets think, if we make say $5.00 more per hour than a skywest pilot on average at the end of this contract at an average of 79 hrs. per month that is $395 per pilot per month. With 1800 pilots that is $711000.00 per month in a company that does more than $160 mil. in revenue per month. Not a whole lot in the big scheme of things. So do you really believ that Jerry, just to spite us, would cost Skywest inc a ton of money in xfering a/c just to save a couple bucks that some pilots got in a new contract?

*Sigh* I guss sometimes wisdom just falls on deaf ears. Carry on good friend, see you in the unemployment line.

 

[GeekMaster]

ASARJMAN-

Here are some thoughts and very legitimate questions that I'd like to hear your opinions on.

Assume for a moment we got released. Then, during that release we got EVERYTHING WE currently have on the table in a new contract; including our current scope demands. (no furlough, transfer of asset percentages, etc)

Question: Do you think this new contract would withstand the brutal scrutiny by SKW,inc. in getting our assets moved to a more favorable/profitable location?

Consider this: RLA case history hasn't been very kind at all to employees of companies that find creative ways to move their assets. Frank R (whether you like him or not) is an excellent source of very accurate information on this subject. Chat with him regarding some of the stuff I'm about to present.
Take special notice of the Comair A/C trade from last week and think about how SKW could use this new concept to bypass ANY scope we currently have on the table. If ASA "retired" older CR2's to a third party and DCI "awarded" new CR7's to SKW air.......THAT'S NOT A TRANSFER!!!! Case history has been very favorable to the companies when it comes to putting assets where they believe them to be most profitable at the expense of their employees.

I fully realize there is a tight limit on the number CR9 A/C allowed by DCI, but the CR7 criteria is WAY looser.......and easily adjustable at that. When it comes to a one for one swap of CR2's for CR7's, don't expect DALPA to stand in their way.

Another point to consider: When using the "retire and award" method of transferring A/C from ASA to SKW, Bombardier helps foot the bill for the transfer cost. They offer the training at their cost -OR- a training credit off the price if you do your own training. In addition, new aircraft don't require that $100K C-check. (if that's not the exact cost, it doesn't invalidate the principle) Now all of a sudden, it's not that expensive to transfer A/C.

No furlough clause: Won't do a thing for us. Natural attrition in the current market is EXTREMELY heavy. No contract is going to stop that. Those that intend to go to bigger carriers are going anyway, for as long as those carriers are hiring them. Also, we have our fair share of upper 50somethings. We're already short of pilots now. The company would probably "welcome" the relief to their staffing problems brought by retiring aircraft. No furloughs will be necassary.

We don't have to be cheaper than SKW, just in the ballpark competitive.

Next question: same as the first really. If you've looked at case history and considered the information above, Do you still think that this contract can withstand the scrutiny that it WILL receive? If you do, convince me with good solid logic using real concepts and business prinicples as to how it will stand and succeed.

Again, we don't have to be the cheapest. But, short of a single list, being cost competitive with SKW is our best scope. I would LOVE to be brought to this "industry standard" of CHQ to which you refer. I just don't think our owner would think it was in the best interest of his company.

 

[sweptback]

*Sigh* I guss sometimes wisdom just falls on deaf ears. Carry on good friend, see you in the unemployment line.

No, he makes a valid point -- every bit as valid as what you are saying. Instead of debating or responding, you question his intelligence.

SkyWest has stated that the cost to transfer airplanes is in the neighborhood of $750,000 per aircraft. You claim that Jerry is a honest businessman who just cares about the bottom line. If that is the case, than we would have to cost more than that amount, per airplane, for it to be cost-effective to transfer. There is no chance of that happening with what is on the table.

 

[MONKEY]

No, he makes a valid point -- every bit as valid as what you are saying. Instead of debating or responding, you question his intelligence.

SkyWest has stated that the cost to transfer airplanes is in the neighborhood of $750,000 per aircraft. You claim that Jerry is a honest businessman who just cares about the bottom line. If that is the case, than we would have to cost more than that amount, per airplane, for it to be cost-effective to transfer. There is no chance of that happening with what is on the table.

Do you have a cost breakdown of were the $750,000 comes from? I know it was a pretty high price for them to pay. The reason I ask is that I beleive that they could still transfer assets and avoid most of the costs.

I know that the C-check was a hefty part of the cost, but if INC waits until the C-check is due anyway, then they are not spending additional money. I know that training was the other big part of the expence, but since both ASA and SkyWest are hiring as fast as they can, this really isn't an issue.

I believe that there is other mx required apart from the C-check, but I am not sure what that involves or what it costs.

 

[John Pennekamp]

No, he makes a valid point -- every bit as valid as what you are saying. Instead of debating or responding, you question his intelligence.

SkyWest has stated that the cost to transfer airplanes is in the neighborhood of $750,000 per aircraft. You claim that Jerry is a honest businessman who just cares about the bottom line. If that is the case, than we would have to cost more than that amount, per airplane, for it to be cost-effective to transfer. There is no chance of that happening with what is on the table.

See GeekMaster's post and feel free to comment. All they need to do is trade in the -200s for -700s and put them at Skywest.

As for the pay difference, it's true that it won't cost Jerry "much" but it misses the point. He doesn't want to pay us MORE. He has said he WILL transfer if our costs rise above Skywest by ANY amount. Why would he want to give up ANY profits if he doesn't HAVE to?

My quoted comment was referring to him apparrently not reading something I had written on the other post about the future of ASA. He and some others seem to have a one track mind as they have NOT been responding well to logic. Fail that, I guess y'all can't be convinced. His post was loaded with rhetoric (turncoats"?), and hardly worthy of a response.

 

[VeeOne]

Very Well written GeekMaster- it wouldn't be hard to bypass a scope agreement, and I'm not hearing anything from the LEC/MEC regarding a single list.

Perhaps these views are where the online polling should come into play. Get the pilot group involved so we all have an equal oportunity to voice our opinions and get some valid polling data that only reaffirms our current status or enlightens our MEC/LEC as to, what I truly believe, to be the silent majority.

M.P.- I like how your posts include "junior"...........that's pretty whitty there- and quite demoralizing. In fact, I shiver at querrying your posts as I fear being referred to as the previous. Actually, you are not that old yourself, are you? Your credibility is sinking rapidly and, as I stated before, am amazed that people are allowing yourself to bash our pilot group as you do then stand beside the LEC/MEC. That's great PR!

 

[John Pennekamp]

Very Well written GeekMaster- it wouldn't be hard to bypass a scope agreement, and I'm not hearing anything from the LEC/MEC regarding a single list.

Perhaps these views are where the online polling should come into play. Get the pilot group involved so we all have an equal oportunity to voice our opinions and get some valid polling data that only reaffirms our current status or enlightens our MEC/LEC as to, what I truly believe, to be the silent majority.

The LEC meeting is June 21. Make sure you're there. Let's get together a petition or resolution forcing the MEC to file a single carrier petition. A resolution urging the MEC toget real and wrap up the contract wouldn't hurt either.

We need to pack that meeting with as many members of the "silent majority" as we can.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Do you have a cost breakdown of were the $750,000 comes from?

During the investor's conference calls I've been hearing a nice, round, million. Maintenance expenses are getting most of the credit. They did not elaborate on the break down, but there may also be some cross collaterizing on engines and other components.

For example - When mechanics work on airplanes they pull the engines and inlets, cowling, jetpipes and associate hardware together and swap these parts around from one ship to the next. However, the engines are usually leased separately from the airplane and when ownership changes you have to run down all the parts that belong with that jet. Then you either have to get the "airplane" back together, or negotiate adjustments with the lessor. You know the Delta Connection Dornier jets on the ramp in MYR? This is the same problem that has made these airplanes difficult to re-sell. A buyer has the airplane for three months, then someone from Germany calls and says "give back my cowling," followed by a lawyer from Dubai saying "that right engine is ours." It is a mess.

Then there is the requirement to meet the requirements of the new lessor who will become "owner" of the jet. Then there are the requirements to modify the jet for SkyWest's Certificate and standards.

In the future it appears Delta will remain the lessor, at least on paper, to better facilitate these transfers. I have heard Jerry Atkin already has the insurance arranged so that aircraft can flow from one carrier to another.

But consider if your typical house closing costs $5,500 on a $300,000 mortgage - then the costs of moving a $21,000,000 jet with the specialized knowledge and skill set of intermediaries in the aviation market place have to be expensive.

When everything is considered, $1,000,000 sounds about right, 5% of the deal. Then there are $30,000 training costs times 11 pilots. But SkyWest has two year Captains. Killing longevity for 11 people probably pays for the $150,000 a year attorneys and managers to do their thing.

 

[MELIT]

The LEC meeting is June 21. Make sure you're there. Let's get together a petition or resolution forcing the MEC to file a single carrier petition. A resolution urging the MEC toget real and wrap up the contract wouldn't hurt either.

We need to pack that meeting with as many members of the "silent majority" as we can.

What if Skywest pilots don't want a single list? Will you still push for one?

 

[John Pennekamp]

What if Skywest pilots don't want a single list? Will you still push for one?

MELIT, I made an exception to my ignore list to answer your question.

The answer is YES.

Btw, you DO NOT represent the opinions mainstream Skywest pilot, so you ought to stop acting like you do. You have ZERO credibility here.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The LEC meeting is June 21. Make sure you're there. Let's get together a petition or resolution forcing the MEC to file a single carrier petition. A resolution urging the MEC toget real and wrap up the contract wouldn't hurt either.

We need to pack that meeting with as many members of the "silent majority" as we can.

I will be out flying a four day. But a Single Carrier resolution would be an excellent idea and get the fact that the "Silent Majority" wants a single list on the official record.

You need to call your Rep and get this on the agenda. Then you need to make this available in the crew lounge for people like me to sign a proxy so another member can attend and register our votes.

There was a good resolution floated around which was very well worded up and until the point where it started making threats to decertify if we did not get what we needed. I would want to get the author's permission before I posted, or modified his work.

I think we need the resolution, but the threats would only hurt our cause. We need all the help we can get, particularly from within ALPA. Threatening ALPA does not seem to get anyone what they want.

 

[John Pennekamp]

I will be out flying a four day. But a Single Carrier resolution would be an excellent idea and get the fact that the "Silent Majority" wants a single list on the official record.

You need to call your Rep and get this on the agenda. Then you need to make this available in the crew lounge for people like me to sign a proxy so another member can attend and register our votes.

There was a good resolution floated around which was very well worded up and until the point where it started making threats to decertify if we did not get what we needed. I would want to get the author's permission before I posted, or modified his work.

I think we need the resolution, but the threats would only hurt our cause. We need all the help we can get, particularly from within ALPA. Threatening ALPA does not seem to get anyone what they want.

You can proxy your vote to another member, in writing.

Calling the reps to add it to the agenda is useless. Since they don't want what we're trying to force them to do, they will act to kill it. They will say the agenda is closed. It will have to be brought on the floor of the meeting as New Business and voted into the agenda by a simple majority. Then the resolution will be hijacked and re-written by parliamentary rules to be a shadow of its former self if we don't get the supporters there to vote no to the ammendments. We must get as many people to come as possible, if you truly care about the issues and about saving ASA.

Regarding the existing petition, I agree that the decertification languange renders it useless. Our pilots can't stomach a decertification, and that language reduces its credibility because it makes it look like the author has a hidden agenda.

The best way is for someone to write a resolution and just have about a hundred pilot show up and vote for it. Even 50 might do the trick, since the typical LEC meeting has 20-50 people, half of whom are ALPA committee members and reps.

 

[MELIT]

MELIT, I made an exception to my ignore list to answer your question.

The answer is YES.

Btw, you DO NOT represent the opinions mainstream Skywest pilot, so you ought to stop acting like you do. You have ZERO credibility here.

I could careless. Just wanted to make a point. Why didn't Comair and ASA have one list? Why did you fly struck work?

 

[John Pennekamp]

I could careless. Just wanted to make a point. Why didn't Comair and ASA have one list? Why did you fly struck work?

Which is why you remain on my and most other members ignore lists.

 

[~~~^~~~]

MELIT: No one flew any struck work. Your continued posting of a allegation everyone knows is not true reduces your already low credibility to below Hello Newman levels.

ASA and Comair were not merged because ALPA thought management could be whipsawed and the Delta MEC did not want a large, powerful, force owned by the same employer making waves for them.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I'm encouraged by the current dialogue, and now that ASARJMan is in the penalty box, there can be some meaningful exchanges of ideas.

As everyone knows, I am a huge proponent of single lists for all pilots within a holding company. I advocated it with ASA/CMR/DAL, and now I am advocating it with Skywest Inc. That being said, ALPA has been "fiddling while Rome burns". At this point, there are only two ways to get a single list.

1. A release and threat of a strike, or an actual strike. This is highly unlikely given the current environment. The only possible chance of this is to clear everything else off the table, leaving only single list on the table. Even then, I only give that about a 25% chance of success.

2. Negotiate a single list. This is possible, however it will cost us quite a bit of negotiating capitol and are we willing to trade what it takes to achieve the single list. This was done at Mesa, EGL, and CHQ. CHQ still did pretty well, and EGL had to sign a 16 year deal to get it. Would the pilots accept a 16 year deal with COLA every year in exchange for a single list? (every 4 years each side gets to open a fixed amount of issues for renegotiaton that are subject to arbitration)

Single list is necessary for the long term, but it will require some short term pain to achieve. If history repeats itself, short term gain will win out.....

 

[John Pennekamp]

I'm encouraged by the current dialogue, and now that ASARJMan is in the penalty box, there can be some meaningful exchanges of ideas.

As everyone knows, I am a huge proponent of single lists for all pilots within a holding company. I advocated it with ASA/CMR/DAL, and now I am advocating it with Skywest Inc. That being said, ALPA has been fiddling while Rome burns. At this point, there are only two ways to get a single list.

1. A release and threat of a strike, or an actual strike. This is highly unlikely given the current environment. The only possible chance of this is to clear everything else off the table, leaving only single list on the table. Even then, I only give that about a 25% chance of success.

2. Negotiate a single list. This is possible, however it will cost us quite a bit of negotiating capitol and are we willing to trade what it takes to achieve the single list. This was done at Mesa, EGL, and CHQ. CHQ still did pretty well, and EGL had to sign a 16 year deal to get it. Would the pilots accept a 16 year deal with COLA every year in exchange for a single list? (every 4 years each side gets to open a fixed amount of issues for renegotiaton that are subject to arbitration)

Single list is necessary for the long term, but it will require some short term pain to achieve. If history repeats itself, short term gain will win out.....

Since (as you mentioned elsewhere) JR can't explain it, can you explain why a single carrier petition wouldn't work? I notice you didn't put that as a choice.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Since (as you mentioned elsewhere) JR can't explain it, can you explain why a single carrier petition wouldn't work? I notice you didn't put that as a choice.

Actually JP, your right. That is a third option. ALPA doesn't want this one because it would trigger a representational election and ALPA is afraid of losing the ASA pilots with the Skywest pilots.

This however would be done outside of section 6, and is not a guarantee either. The track record isn't good for single carrier petitions. However I am willing to give it a shot.

I would like to pursue it BOTH ways... Both in section 6 and thru a single carrier petition. However JP you explained it well in a previous post what will likely happen to any LEC petition.... Politics is a nasty game....

 

[GeekMaster]

Pennekamp and all-

Be careful on the single carrier petition. It doesn't necassarily force a single pilot list. If successful, it would simply force Skywest Inc. to recognize ALPA as the bargaining agent for Skywest Air. If the Skywest pilots wanted, they could simply negotiate their own CBA between Skywest and ALPA at their own rates and work rules; not so different than the way ASA and Comair operated when we were both Delta owned.

If a single carrier petition was successful, the Skywest Air pilots would have to collectively "want" a single list too. It's not so different than the PID we did before with ASA, Comair, and Delta. When it came down to it, it was the Delta "pilots" who didn't want a single list and therein secured the votes from the rest of the Master Counsel to "kill it". (yes I was here for that)

Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, Joemerchant is right about a single list. (no matter how bad you hate him) Outside of section 6 negotiations, NO ONE has been successful in forcing anybody into a single list.

Since I personally don't think me, ALPA, this pilot group or the skywest pilot group wants to pay the cost of a single list in Section 6, we're going to need to seriously consider other methods of job protection.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SETTLE FOR SUBSTANDARD PAY THOUGH. If we don't acheive CHQ scale on the CR2, that doesn't mean we've taken a concession. SKW CR2 rate "IS" in the average range....and it's a pretty considerable raise for what the 50 seat guys are making. Tag on top of that, the current "slim pickins" in the pilot market, it's not bad job security either.

Here's one last thing to consider. This contract, whatever it ends up being is probably going to have a duration of about 3 years. The market forecast looks REALLY GOOD for pilots three years down the road. If we drag this out another year or two, that may change. Getting it done now will posture us for our next section 6 down the road.