Vote underway at Skywest

[Bluto]

Katanabob, I'm finished arguing with you. You clearly don't want to hear reasoned, thought-out arguments. Why discuss it with you if you have no capacity for change?

 

[ArcticFlier]

Katanabob, I'm finished arguing with you. You clearly don't want to hear reasoned, thought-out arguments. Why discuss it with you if you have no capacity for change?

It's kinda fun, though. Sorta like watching a train wreck.


AF

 

[Bluto]

It could be entertaining, if people didn't actually latch onto this flawed, anti-labor rhetoric and spread it like the clap.

 

[redbook]

It could be entertaining, if people didn't actually latch onto this flawed, anti-labor rhetoric and spread it like the clap.

I have to agree with Bluto; after the results of your vote come out and if you guys vote it down overwhelmingly,(I hope) only then will it be entertaining to see that these posts stating that aircraft size should not play into pilot compensation were the work of management types and a few immature children.

 

[viper548]

Hey Bluto, you should add "No retro pay?" to your signature


PS Vote #16 was NO

 

[Bluto]

Good idea.

 

[katanabob]

Katanabob, I'm finished arguing with you. You clearly don't want to hear reasoned, thought-out arguments. Why discuss it with you if you have no capacity for change?

You put forth a single argument in a single post. I posted a rebuttal. You're giving up because I didn't immediately accept your position? I suppose your cohorts and their well thought-out ("your a fag") arguments should have convinced me.

It kills me that anyone who disagrees must be a degenerate and not anyone with a valid-yet-opposing point. I have to ask, though, whether pilots flying the CRJ-200 with 40 seats (ASA has a few) or the -700 with 66 seats (Skywest) should be paid a lesser rate, since they aren't 50/70 seaters. If human lives, liability, or revenue are truly that important, maybe we should be paid based on how many passengers are actually on the aircraft.

FWIW- I'm straight, I didn't go to any aviation school, I wasn't an intern, and I didn't buy my ratings or PFT.

 

[Furloughed80]

Vote

When are the results supposed to come out?

 

[redbook]

You put forth a single argument in a single post. I posted a rebuttal. You're giving up because I didn't immediately accept your position? I suppose your cohorts and their well thought-out ("your a fag") arguments should have convinced me.

It kills me that anyone who disagrees must be a degenerate and not anyone with a valid-yet-opposing point. I have to ask, though, whether pilots flying the CRJ-200 with 40 seats (ASA has a few) or the -700 with 66 seats (Skywest) should be paid a lesser rate, since they aren't 50/70 seaters. If human lives, liability, or revenue are truly that important, maybe we should be paid based on how many passengers are actually on the aircraft.

FWIW- I'm straight, I didn't go to any aviation school, I wasn't an intern, and I didn't buy my ratings or PFT.

stop the detached, philisophical arguments for starters...this is a board for pilots, who are seeing their salaries, benefits, retirement and futures dragged lower and lower while the economy is doing well. Pilots want to get paid a fair wage and not make philosophical arguments about taking less pay for 45 seats vs 50 seats. Pay and benefits are going down across the board, and everyone in the industry wants to stop that trend, and reverse it. Stop with your bullshoot mumbo jumbo. 90 seat rates should be higher. Go take a philosophy course if you are interested, but this is about pilots trying to make a fair living. everyone one of your arguments ends with pilots making less, not more. Sure you are a pilot?

 

[Bluto]

Exactly, you can't make your philosophical arguments in a vacuum.

There are many valid arguments against the seniority system, the interview process, unions, U.S. labor law, the list goes on and on. However, understanding that we live in a world where airlines tend to universally pay higher for larger aircraft, or use pay rates based on the larger aircraft, regardless of theoretical concepts, how can you suggest that this form of pay is fair?

Regardless of the fact that the current system (higher pay for larger aircaft) is financially feasible for our company, and we are being offered substancially lower than industry-standard wages, you seem to recommend that we accept whatever is offered.

You're right, not all the arguments on this thread have been level-headed. I'm not surprised that people respond emotionally when you essentially attack the very basis of our career progression.

We don't live in a vacuum. I'm done with pretending we do.

If you want to continue this discussion, first explain to me how you can justify that pilots get paid substancially more to fly larger aircraft (737, etc.), yet we shouldn't.