What Do You Want The ASA CNC To Do

[JoeMerchant]

I agree with ASAFO--keep pay same on 70 as it is now, small raises for the 50 and atr...fly both aircraft which will help the company...I KNOW..I KNOW grow some balls, if you go anywhere else you will fly 200-300-500-700-800 series aircraft.
11 or 12 days off a month
and scope
401k match monthly not yearly
8% match in 401k

That is reasonable and doable IMO.... let your reps. know.

 

[kikejavy]

Look. These are tough times to be negotiating. Why can't we just get something to get us through for the next 4 years and let Mesa and Chq go through this in the next round and see what they get.

I could live with a freeze on the 70.
Small increases on the 50 and ATR.
Absolutely NO paycuts. (Espcially for FO's)
If we take a freeze on the 70, we should get profit sharing
No new retirement plan is fine. How about a better match on the 401k!
Definitely a signing bonus of some sort or retro.

just my $.02

I think I have to agree with you if my research serves me right only Horizon makes more money than we do on the 70. I think what you propose along with profit sharing from the time we were bought and some sort of signing bonus should be a good starting point. I don't believe in the pay cut simply because we have been profitable never even close to being near the red. I do believe we have to keep growing but I despise the way management has gone about it.Our Skywest brothers and sisters need to be onboard in my opinion if we are to make of our company even better in the future. I think we should all operate under a similar contract with similar rates and show some unity to show Mr. Atkin that we mean bussiness.

 

[~~~^~~~]

1) Scope - no contract without scope that binds Skywest
2) Pay, at least industry average for the equipment, plus 1%
3) No involuntary junior manning

Other than that, I would agree with what we have.

 

[Tomct]

Fins, we NEED retro, otherwise they will think that they can do this to anyone! Otherwise not a bad idea. We need the skywst group onboard, they have got to see that they are next....otherwise they are not watching what's going on! Without the UNION, JA will just CHANGE their agreement and they will not be able to do ONE THING ABOUT IT!!!

 

[CFIT]

tomclit your rants are getting as tiresome as the General's, change your napkin and get over it.

 

[HoserASA]

That is reasonable and doable IMO.... let your reps. know.

He just did 'Joe'! Aren't you Sect/Treas? Can't you just pass it on to the other reps?

Hoser

 

[Sinca3]

Ok I'll bite:
1) Scope to keep from shrinking.
2) Leave the 70 rates as is and have side letter to include 705's not to be operated over 76 seats at that rate.
3) Increase of $3 hr on ATR and CR2 capt's and keep FO's at 60%
4) Dual rate pilots to fly any a/c in a given month (not including the ATR)...albeit with the seperate pay rates
5) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA
6) Include trip and duty rigs...I like what was proposed by ALPA
7) Leave the IP section status quo...no changes to current
8) 100% retro....sucks for the 70 peps but they get to keep their rates
I could go on and on but I think this is fair and doable.....
The company gets:
Ready resv
Dual qualified pilots
No increase in cost of 70 cost or IP cost
Added 705 pay rates at 70 rates
Pilots gets:
Increases in 50/ATR rates
Better scheduling
Better retirement options
More effiecient schedules
Job security

 

[Bizjet]

He just did 'Joe'! Aren't you Sect/Treas? Can't you just pass it on to the other reps?

Hoser

He doesn't talk with the loyal volunteers and reps. He is too agnry that he wasn't allowed to call all the shots from the LEC Sec/Treas. position.

 

[49W]

Ok I'll bite:
1) Scope to keep from shrinking.
2) Leave the 70 rates as is and have side letter to include 705's not to be operated over 76 seats at that rate.
3) Increase of $3 hr on ATR and CR2 capt's and keep FO's at 60%
4) Dual rate pilots to fly any a/c in a given month (not including the ATR)...albeit with the seperate pay rates
5) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA
6) Include trip and duty rigs...I like what was proposed by ALPA
7) Leave the IP section status quo...no changes to current
8) 100% retro....sucks for the 70 peps but they get to keep their rates
I could go on and on but I think this is fair and doable.....
The company gets:
Ready resv
Dual qualified pilots
No increase in cost of 70 cost or IP cost
Added 705 pay rates at 70 rates
Pilots gets:
Increases in 50/ATR rates
Better scheduling
Better retirement options
More effiecient schedules
Job security

That sounds pretty good to me.

 

[SuperKooter]

Ok I'll bite:
1) Scope to keep from shrinking.
2) Leave the 70 rates as is and have side letter to include 705's not to be operated over 76 seats at that rate.
3) Increase of $3 hr on ATR and CR2 capt's and keep FO's at 60%
4) Dual rate pilots to fly any a/c in a given month (not including the ATR)...albeit with the seperate pay rates
5) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA
6) Include trip and duty rigs...I like what was proposed by ALPA
7) Leave the IP section status quo...no changes to current
8) 100% retro....sucks for the 70 peps but they get to keep their rates
I could go on and on but I think this is fair and doable.....
The company gets:
Ready resv
Dual qualified pilots
No increase in cost of 70 cost or IP cost
Added 705 pay rates at 70 rates
Pilots gets:
Increases in 50/ATR rates
Better scheduling
Better retirement options
More effiecient schedules
Job security

Keep Dreaming.

 

[14RF SUX]

I have a question for you. What about "all we are asking for is QOL improvements, and not money". That was the big buzz phrase before section 13 was settled. I can't tell you how many people said "it's not like we are asking for much money - we just want some improvements in scheduling". Now that 13 is done, everyone wants 70 seat rates that are way out of the industry and even higher than mainline rates.

I was never one of the "All we want is QOL" group. I want all that AND a reasonable pay increase to offset the CPI dilution. All future growth is going to be in the 70 plus seat aircraft, they don't even make the 50 anymore and although we may pick up a few extras from other places, the future is in the 70+ range. THAT's why they are trying to get 70 cuts and leave the 50's alone, becasue sooner or later we won't have anything smaller than a 70. A short sighted "dropping of the pants" is going to lock us into a sub-standard contract for many, many years, and we'll be stuck with it for as many years as they want after the ammendable date by stalling as they have demonstrated with the current contract. I'm not willing to panic and settle for less than I am worth for the next 10 years. Don't be the first to blink, you're worth more than you know.

RF14 SUX

 

[ASAFOE120]

Ok I'll bite:
1) Scope to keep from shrinking.
2) Leave the 70 rates as is and have side letter to include 705's not to be operated over 76 seats at that rate.
3) Increase of $3 hr on ATR and CR2 capt's and keep FO's at 60%
4) Dual rate pilots to fly any a/c in a given month (not including the ATR)...albeit with the seperate pay rates
5) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA
6) Include trip and duty rigs...I like what was proposed by ALPA
7) Leave the IP section status quo...no changes to current
8) 100% retro....sucks for the 70 peps but they get to keep their rates
I could go on and on but I think this is fair and doable.....
The company gets:
Ready resv
Dual qualified pilots
No increase in cost of 70 cost or IP cost
Added 705 pay rates at 70 rates
Pilots gets:
Increases in 50/ATR rates
Better scheduling
Better retirement options
More effiecient schedules
Job security

I like it Sinca. I would add the profit sharing though so that the guys on the 70 would get a little extra. And with the profit margins ASA has, we definitely want in on that action!

 

[atlcrashpad]

Quality of Life = Rigs
I don't want scheduling to control my life.
Sinca3, nice proposal.

 

[shamrock]

45) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA

Minor point, but just for clarification, you are talking about a Roth 401(k) right?

 

["GO AROUND"]

I would like to see our CNC put the pilots last,final, what the pilots have indicated on the wilson polls on the table and see if the company says the same thing.

I believe that would be about what has been posted on here, from what I know from talking to CNC/MEC people anyway. If the company hadn't thrown their tantrum and walked away from the table and actually kept negotiating I believe they would have gotten to that point eventaully.

It's hard to get there when the companies first is their last and only proposal. Oh, sorry they readjusted the cuts on the 70 in their second pass.

Leave the payrates the same and in 5 yrs if we are not the average cost among the DCI carriers then we readjust then. If we are not the 2nd to lowest in 8 years then we readjust then. Anybody else realize that if we sign today that the 5 yr contract will be up by the time the first constraint in the DCA comes up? So we would be negotiating then anyway! Futhermore, all the other DCI carriers pilot costs will be going up over the next 5 yrs as well. The DCA doesn't say we have to be in the middle or next to lowest when we sign the contract so they can reevaluate when it comes up.

Just a thought.

 

["GO AROUND"]

What I really want is for Brian, Jerry and the other mangment folks to take the same cuts they are proposing for the pilots! 13.5% cut to their salaries and no increases to salaries and bonuses. See what they say.

 

[49W]

Ok I'll bite:
1) Scope to keep from shrinking.
2) Leave the 70 rates as is and have side letter to include 705's not to be operated over 76 seats at that rate.
3) Increase of $3 hr on ATR and CR2 capt's and keep FO's at 60%
4) Dual rate pilots to fly any a/c in a given month (not including the ATR)...albeit with the seperate pay rates
5) Increase 401 contributions and give more options....add a Roth IRA
6) Include trip and duty rigs...I like what was proposed by ALPA
7) Leave the IP section status quo...no changes to current
8) 100% retro....sucks for the 70 peps but they get to keep their rates
I could go on and on but I think this is fair and doable.....
The company gets:
Ready resv
Dual qualified pilots
No increase in cost of 70 cost or IP cost
Added 705 pay rates at 70 rates
Pilots gets:
Increases in 50/ATR rates
Better scheduling
Better retirement options
More effiecient schedules
Job security

I really think this is a reasonable and doable proposal in some form and I think that it would be favored by most pilots here. I really like the Roth IRA idea. You would get a good rate of return that's guaranteed unlike a pension that can go away. Some people may not like the idea of dual qualification, but If you fly the 50 or 70 on a month to month basis, not flying the 50 for one leg and switching to the 70 on the second leg, it would be a safe operation. This would also make the quality of life better for the middle and junior guys on the 70, as it gives them more options on monthly schedule bidding. They can decide if they want to fly the 70 for the money or the 50 for the schedule. Dual qualification is something the company has wanted since we got the 70 and I think they would go for something like this in order to get it. If you like this idea, let our negotiating members know somehow. Thanks Sinca3

 

[shamrock]

I really like the Roth IRA idea. You would get a good rate of return that's guaranteed unlike a pension that can go away.

OK, I'll ask again. You guys are talking about a Roth 401(k), right?

A Roth IRA can be opened at any one of many financial institutions. It doesn't have anything to do with who you work for.

 

[gcaflyer]

OK, I'll ask again. You guys are talking about a Roth 401(k), right?

A Roth IRA can be opened at any one of many financial institutions. It doesn't have anything to do with who you work for.

Not sure I have ever heard of a Roth 401(k).

 

[ASARJMan]

Not sure I have ever heard of a Roth 401(k).

There is a Roth 401K. Supposedly ASA is looking at offering it to the ASA employees.

 

[gcaflyer]

Can someone who really knows explain a Roth 401(k). I thought that by definition a Roth was funded with after tax dollars and grew tax deferred, while a 401(k) was funded with pre-tax dollars. Just a question not trying to stir anything up here.

 

[HoserASA]

Can someone who really knows explain a Roth 401(k). I thought that by definition a Roth was funded with after tax dollars and grew tax deferred, while a 401(k) was funded with pre-tax dollars. Just a question not trying to stir anything up here.

I asked "MyASA" a few months back and they respond by saying the company plans on offering it to ASA employees. It's basically works like the 401K. But, here's a little article they may help you more.

Proposed Roth 401K Rules

From Jenny McKinney & Patrick McKinney,
Your Guide to Retirement Planning.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
According to the IRS, it will implement the Roth 401K provision of EGTRRA. Under this new ruling, employees will be able to designate money in their 401K plan to be Roth contributions. This will allow employees to contribute money that has been taxed into a Roth where contributions and earnings will grow tax free until the participant retires.
Beginning in 2006, 401K plans will be permitted to allow employees to designate their contributions as Roth contributions. These Roth contributions will be subject to the same rules as Roth IRAs. This means the contributions must remain in the plan for 5 years to receive the tax free advantage. According to Martha Priddy Patterson of Deloitte Consulting, under the current law, the Roth provision will sunset at the end of 2010. This means plan participants can never enjoy the Roth benefits unless Congress extends the law. Ms. Patterson is a Contributing Editor to Thompson Publishing Group’s 401K Handbook.

The IRS provisions of the Economic Growth and Taxation Relief Reconciliation Act made the following changes affecting 401K plans:

Catch-up contributions were added to provide for additional elective contributions for participants age 50 and older.
The 401K regulations are to be changed to shorten the period of time that an employee is stopped from making elective contributions under the safe harbor rules for hardship distributions.
Distributions from 401K plans are permitted upon severance from employment rather than separation from service.
Faster vesting is required for matching contributions.

 

[Sinca3]

OK, I'll ask again. You guys are talking about a Roth 401(k), right?

A Roth IRA can be opened at any one of many financial institutions. It doesn't have anything to do with who you work for.

Yes, sorry for the confusion........Hoser thanks for the info.......

 

[~~~^~~~]

I want our CNC to get realistic regarding the market wages for CRJ700/900 flying. We can "rah rah" all we want, but in the end, the Company has an alternative, we don't.

This is the direct result of ALPA's failed scope policy that I've been debating on this board for years. We need to focus on locking up Skywest in decent scope language and once we have the flying locked up, then we can go back to work on pay rates.

When our mainline brothers have underbid us for larger airplanes and we have 6 other DCI carriers in and out of ATL, our negotiating leverage is gone.

I hate Charlie Tutt's memo. None the less, it is the truth. If we hold out we are going to be a vanishing airlin..

 

[atlcrjdriver]

Sinca 3, your proposal is great except that the company is looking to reduce its monthly bottom line. To simply keep the CR7/IP rate as is would not achieve this. I would modify your proposal to create a single jet FO rate and reduce the CR7 cpts rate by 1.5% with an additional 1.5% after date of signing.

If CR2/CR7 drivers are to become dual qualified, then a single rate jet FO makes sense. Once everyone is dual qualified all FOs will be able to bid back and forth CR7/CR2 lines on a monthly basis as needed for QOL. There would be no reason to keep separate wages. If the upgrade tx remains 4-5 years, to 2/h cut the CR7 FO would take is minimal. With profit sharing the 3% total cut the cpts would take would not be felt and would give the company the concessions it requests.

With these additions to your proposal, ALPA would have a balanced plan to offer the company.

 

[FDJ2]

We need to focus on locking up Skywest in decent scope language and once we have the flying locked up, then we can go back to work on pay rates...

That sounds "predatory" don't you think? According to you and your RJDC cohorts, the flying doesn't belong to the pilots and the pilots don't have the right to lock other pilot groups from bidding on the flying. According to you and the RJDC it is illegal for you to negotiate a contract that would prevent Skywest from outsourcing it's flying to the lowest bidder.

 

[CRJ Skillz]

I dont want them to do anything! Everything will be fine ladies

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2:

Hope you are getting a good laugh at the $hit $torm your MEC created by denying us the opportunity to negotiate scope.

I'm not at all against the Skywest pilots joining us. That is the difference between your scope agenda and mine. I would like to see all Skywest flying done by Skywest pilots. Skywest management should not be able to whipsaw us.

But you love whipsaw don't you. Go back to your pillowfight with Delta's management and leave us to deal with the monster you and your "partners" in Delta management have unleashed.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

That sounds "predatory" don't you think? According to you and your RJDC cohorts, the flying doesn't belong to the pilots and the pilots don't have the right to lock other pilot groups from bidding on the flying. According to you and the RJDC it is illegal for you to negotiate a contract that would prevent Skywest from outsourcing it's flying to the lowest bidder.

Fins-

You must admit, FDJ2 has got you there. No shame in admitting you are wrong.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Are you nuts? How is pushing for a "merger" predatory? How is binding our employer to taking pilots with the airplanes as the airplanes predatory? Whipsaw can not be ended without contracting with the airline with operational control. Heck our deal should be with Delta, but ALPA already said no to that (now ALPA National's scope attorney is telling our CNC that we can not contract with Skywest because it is "too much" for an airline like ours)

Are you falling for the "RJDC is anti scope" crap when you can go right now to the RJDC web site and see all the work that has been done to try to stop the whipsaw between airline pilots?

Irishman - come on - you are smarter than that, aren't you?

The RJDC accurately predicted current events. However, we never focused on the end game if our reforms were ignored by ALPA and fought by the Delta MEC. My crystal ball is begining to indicate ASA will be the next ALG, or Piedmont. I'm not sure yet, a lot depends on what our CNC does next.

FDJ2 rejoices in seeing the power his MEC has had on ASA's pilots. Hey, if Skywest does our 70 seat flying for less money, then he might get a little bigger raise next time and enjoy a better return on his stock.