Vote underway at Skywest

[jayme]

You should be paid more because you are responsible for more lives, more equipment, and are generating more revenue. If everything was based on how "hard" it was to fly, you'd be paid a million dollars a year to fly hard IFR in a balloon.

 

[No Delay]

Synchoff,


There is a lot of truth in what you just said! And I somewhat agree with the senior guys...they are more experienced and have paid their dues and a payscale based on seniority addresses that very issue. I even mentioned maybe we should see a bigger increase on the top side of the longevity scale...

Would that not make more sense than a/c difference pay?

 

[jehtplane]

I posted this on another thread but I thought it would fit here also. I am posting this not to fight but because I really don't understand...



I am having a hard time understanding what the big deal is in having a different pay scale for different size airplanes. I know some of you are passionate about it...and that's definately your right. I just don't get it. To me, it is the same amount of work to fly a 40 and a 50 seat...I can't see the 70 or 90 being that much more work????

Do mechanics have a different pay scale for the airplanes they work on? F/A? What about the rampers (it definately more work for them)???

I think pay should be based on experience...maybe an increase in the upper ranges in longevity scale. I think there is more value in an experienced pilot versus a pilot who can fly a 50 or a 90 seat airplane. (Any I am way at the bottom of the experience ladder, so I am not trying to give myself a raise).

Scheduling issues and QOL issues just seems like it would be so much more important to fight about. I would like to see major improvement in QOL, a slight pay raise across the board, and maybe a bigger spread (increase) in the longevity payscale.
Usually the senior guys get the bigger airplane...so essentially, they are being paid more on the bigger airplane. But in reality, they are getting paid more because they are more experienced...that just makes sense to me.

So, if Skywest had 767's, it should be the same pay as an RJ because it is the same workload? And actually I would say an RJ is higher workload, no auto-throttles, auto-land etc........

 

[No Delay]

Jetplane,


That is definately a valid point. Where do you draw the line? I don't know. There is definately a difference between an RJ and 777. But is there that much difference in a CRJ and a CR7 or between a 767 and 777?

Of course, you don't see many companies that would have that big of a spread in equipment without anything in between. A bigger spread along the longevity pay would address this. The senior guys are generally going to get the bigger airplane (and higher pay).

If we were arguing the same scale for a 757 and a RJ...I could understand that but a 20-25 seat difference doesn't seem like that big of a deal (but that's just me).

 

[Halo_RJdriver]

If we were arguing the same scale for a 757 and a RJ...I could understand that but a 20-25 seat difference doesn't seem like that big of a deal (but that's just me).

uh yeah 20-25 seats do make a difference. Do you think 20 million vs 19millon a quarter makes a difference?

NO delay you should consider HO jets

 

[No Delay]

Dang Halo, I just agreed with you on another post...then you call me a Ho? I agree with you...the entire payscale needs to be raised! I am only arguing equipment differences.

Actually, I address this issue on another thread. Are we talking airplanes or money?

Wouldn't a REAL and FAIR profit sharing plan or performance bonuses better address sharing in the extra revenue?

Let's say I am flying the 50 seater and you are on the 70 seater. We fly the same # of hours and similar schedules. Is it fair for you to make more money just because the airplane you fly made a little extra money? What if you fly your 70 to a city that is also served by Airtran and your route is not that profitable because of competition...I on the other hand, fly my 50 seater to a city / or route that is much more profitable. Shouldn't I then (based on the your logic) get paid more because my flight generated more revenue? Then, what about passenger loads? What if your 70 has only 5 people on board? Have you generated more revenue? What if my passengers are only connecting to go to Asia? That ticket has got to be making more $$.

Again, what about the ramper? If the airplane he loads generates more rev...should he get paid more? Fueler? etc. Difference pay makes more sense for rampers, gate agents, and F/A more so than for the pilots. Don't get me wrong...pilots should make more money...I am only talking "difference pay".

It's just not a fair system. Wouldn't it make more sense that you got paid more because you are more experienced. If we are the same experience (seniority) then shouldn't we get paid the same regardless of the profitability of our plane / route? (I realize senority does not always equal experience - but it is really the only system we have). Then, as the company it makes money, we all share in it equally.

By the way...your mama is a ho

 

[jayme]

I thought I already explained this to you...

 

[Plug]

I'm in the "CMR camp" and I'm going to call you what you are: a liar. I don't believe you have "heard" anything for there is nothing to hear. Your allegation is false. The information you are putting out about the RJDC opposing any airline joining ALPA is blatantly false. I don't really care whether you like the RJDC or you don't but there is no need for you to lie about it.

The RJDC does not interfere and has never interfered in the political process, not at CMR itself and not anywhere else. The RJDC does NOT oppose anyone joining ALPA. The RJDC has never asked CMR pilots or ASA pilots to consider leaving ALPA. In fact the RJDC is against the idea of leaving ALPA.

If SKYW pilots would like to join ALPA that would be a great idea. They would be welcome.

The RJDC litigation is an effort to get ALPA to honor its Duty of Fair Representation to the CMR and ASA pilots. It has nothing to do with leaving ALPA and all of the RJDC leaders and members at Comair are also ALPA members in good standing.

There's nothing worse than running your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about or to deliberately spread false information. SKYW pilots will never see anyone from the RJDC asking them not to join ALPA. That just isn't true!

Stop spreading false propaganda! Now go back into your hole and STFU.

Once again you must not be in touch with your loyal supporters. You may want to hold a secret under ground meeting to figure out what it is those who support RJDC really want and are really out there talking about. Hell, RJDC supporters have even crapped on ALPA on this board and it was geared towards the Skywest pilots. Just like RJDC isn't a seniority grab, so says the senior RJDC leadership, but if you talk with the supporters of the lawsuit they talk about bigger airplanes and/or DOH at mainline.

But go ahead and try and hurl some more "insults" like the one above, your nothing but a malcontent has-been who put all your eggs in one basket thinking a mainline seniority number was your right and now your pissed at ALPA because they didn't grant you that right.

 

[homerjdispatch]

uh yeah 20-25 seats do make a difference. Do you think 20 million vs 19millon a quarter makes a difference?

NO delay you should consider HO jets

If SkyWest were to get a 70 seat rate and a 90 seat rate, how would you be paid for flying CRJ705's (CRJ900 in a 70 seat config.)? Do you want the rates for the number of seats, or size of the aircraft?

All of SKYW current CRJ7's are configured with only 66 seats. So "TECHNICALLY" no SKYW pilot flys a 70 seat aircraft. correct?

 

[difete]

Good point, but they have 66 seats with a first class cabin whose passengers are paying more per ticket. I do not know the economics, but 66 seats with a first class may be giving more revenue than a 70 seat single class cabin.