• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Skywest Questions

Personally, I think "block or better" is a crappy hill to die on. I think "more money" is the only thing I really care about.

Just rename 'credit' to 'block' on your schedule, and 'block' to 'DOT padding.' ... problem solved. ;p

-Fox
 

Cory Trevor

Well-Known Member
I think block or better should be the way it is anyway. On the SAPA forums I’m seeing people say the credit thing is in place more so because it’s an incentive to fly slow and try to fill the lock. I think that’s BS though. The people at Skywest that try to over credit are the same ones that will try to overblock and the people that don’t care and fly fast anyway will still fly fast
 

purpel

Well-Known Member
We should be aiming high in negotiations and not low. The people that voted yes last time
need to pay attention or take a seat on the sideline.

It was easy to see the last contract was a clear loser and would not progress us or the industry.
Seems like a lot of the yes voters are the ones who are adding ignorant items to a contract that is only in talks and doesn't even exist only to fix the wrongs they did on the last contract. OO doesnt owe us anything for at least 5 years. Plus we don't even have a union so technically they don't even have to give us a contract.
 
Personally, I think "block or better" is a crappy hill to die on. I think "more money" is the only thing I really care about.

Just rename 'credit' to 'block' on your schedule, and 'block' to 'DOT padding.' ... problem solved. ;p

-Fox
SkyWest controls the credit figure with very little transparency. What’s to say they don’t continue to decrease credit values on trips thus negating your pay raise? Block or better is industry standard, that’s what you should strive for.
 
I can't figure out if something is being lost in translation, or if people are just looking for reasons to be angry and direct it at individuals.

Here are my thoughts:

Original term: The 'pay agreement' prior to the previous vote originally spanned through the start of this year. The company was under no obligation to 'come to the table' before now. They did, and we netted a nominal increase in scale and profit sharing, with a few other terms favorable to the pilot group, with no 'gives.'

Contract: The 'pay agreement' isn't a traditional 'contract,' in the union sense of the word. However, it's in the company's best interest to treat us like a union—or better—in that department, because the threat of organization is always in the air.

Items of contention: If you think 'Block or Better' would have happened as a result of rejecting the previous pay agreement, OR that previous pay agreement left us in any worse of a bargaining environment today than voting 'no' would have, then we simply disagree, and those are the points we disagree on.

Recruitment: The company is playing the long game. Whether they're doing a good job of it is an open question, as they're extremely opaque in operation. We're filling classes, yes, but some of the people coming in are going more or less straight into the left seat of a CRJ. The company has launched several new initiatives designed to widen the pilot pipeline. Lots of Aussie accents on frequency, a new RTP, and so on. This is the point where we actually have some leverage for negotiations, I feel.

Summary: I believe that we are in relatively the same position that we would have been if we hadn't voted over the summer to accept the pay package, with the exception of the mood of the pilot group, and a slight bump in scale from last year. In my opinion that, combined with current market forces, stands to give us leverage to actually make progress in the pay and QOL departments. The carrot in negotiations is recruitment; the stick is the specter of a union drive that might, at this time in history, stand a reasonable chance of succeeding.

In summary, it's perfectly fine to disagree with me on these issues, or longer-term strategy ... but the "yes voter" witch hunt is a surprisingly nasty thing.

-Fox
 

tcco94

Professional GTA V Pilot
I haven't been in the 121 industry as long as some of you guys have. That being said I thought our last negotiation process we still had the leverage. I don't know how any company right now (or last year) didn't have leverage when going to the table. Then we get presented this TA that was almost comical. The pay increases don't even keep up with inflation over the next 5 years.

Commonly I hear from guys who voted yes is:

"They would have shuffled the money around in different places if we voted no"
"They came to the table early, so we need to respect that. If we voted no they could have waited another year"
"The only reason Endeavor can afford those pay scales is because Delta helps to foot the bill" *Republic debunked this theory
"SAPA voted on this and only 1 person voted it down. It was the best they could do"

I just don't really get it. I would have happily taken no raise, then see that thing go Yes for 5 years. I ended with a 75 cent pay increase after it was said and done. The company seems to be thriving financially, we continue to buy more aircraft and add 200's to the fleet. Why do pilots care so much about that? We constantly get denied vacation, denied drops, called on our days off to work, but yet the company keeps talking about ADDING more aircraft to the fleet like I'm supposed to be excited about it? Surely SGU is excited.

I'm not saying you're wrong for voting yes, Fox. I completely understand and I'm in a senior base where a lot of folks voted yes for their own reasons (some told me they always vote yes, most say for the 401k). That's fine. I just think we could have gotten a lot more. All I seem to hear are excuses for everything. We can't have block or better because company will change pairings, we can't have a commuter clause because then you're fired if you miss a commute, you can't have hotels/parking paid for if you're a commuter because we don't tailor this airline to commuters (but they'll send out emails saying I'm within seniority to upgrade to ATL multiple times), we are doing fine hiring people but you'll be called and emailed to pick up open time or sit reserve on your days off.

To me, it seems like in the past history when airlines struggled we suffer...pay decreases, furloughs start etc. When the industry booms and the airlines start to hurt for us, pay increases and better QOL bullet points get negotiated. Obviously we all know what time we are in, and I feel like the culture here is severely missing a backbone to say "lets demand more pay" or "let's improve our QOL". Literally almost everyone around us is taking this opportunity to better their airline, while we sit back and say "well we have 18 domiciles!!" and soft landings 2.0.
 

JordanD

Honorary Member
I can't figure out if something is being lost in translation, or if people are just looking for reasons to be angry and direct it at individuals.

Here are my thoughts:

Original term: The 'pay agreement' prior to the previous vote originally spanned through the start of this year. The company was under no obligation to 'come to the table' before now. They did, and we netted a nominal increase in scale and profit sharing, with a few other terms favorable to the pilot group, with no 'gives.'

Contract: The 'pay agreement' isn't a traditional 'contract,' in the union sense of the word. However, it's in the company's best interest to treat us like a union—or better—in that department, because the threat of organization is always in the air.

Items of contention: If you think 'Block or Better' would have happened as a result of rejecting the previous pay agreement, OR that previous pay agreement left us in any worse of a bargaining environment today than voting 'no' would have, then we simply disagree, and those are the points we disagree on.

Recruitment: The company is playing the long game. Whether they're doing a good job of it is an open question, as they're extremely opaque in operation. We're filling classes, yes, but some of the people coming in are going more or less straight into the left seat of a CRJ. The company has launched several new initiatives designed to widen the pilot pipeline. Lots of Aussie accents on frequency, a new RTP, and so on. This is the point where we actually have some leverage for negotiations, I feel.

Summary: I believe that we are in relatively the same position that we would have been if we hadn't voted over the summer to accept the pay package, with the exception of the mood of the pilot group, and a slight bump in scale from last year. In my opinion that, combined with current market forces, stands to give us leverage to actually make progress in the pay and QOL departments. The carrot in negotiations is recruitment; the stick is the specter of a union drive that might, at this time in history, stand a reasonable chance of succeeding.

In summary, it's perfectly fine to disagree with me on these issues, or longer-term strategy ... but the "yes voter" witch hunt is a surprisingly nasty thing.

-Fox
I'm not sure how you can talk about leverage and support a 1% raise though. If leveraged had been used, the rest of the industry shows us we could have gotten more. Maybe not Endeavor rates, but more than what we got. Frankly, I thought the "TA" was an insult and voted thusly. I would rather the pilot group stand strong in the short term instead of being overly thankful for the table scraps we got. Not to complain about free money, but my last bonus was hardly a windfall.
 

word302

Well-Known Member
I can't figure out if something is being lost in translation, or if people are just looking for reasons to be angry and direct it at individuals.

Here are my thoughts:

Original term: The 'pay agreement' prior to the previous vote originally spanned through the start of this year. The company was under no obligation to 'come to the table' before now. They did, and we netted a nominal increase in scale and profit sharing, with a few other terms favorable to the pilot group, with no 'gives.'

Contract: The 'pay agreement' isn't a traditional 'contract,' in the union sense of the word. However, it's in the company's best interest to treat us like a union—or better—in that department, because the threat of organization is always in the air.

Items of contention: If you think 'Block or Better' would have happened as a result of rejecting the previous pay agreement, OR that previous pay agreement left us in any worse of a bargaining environment today than voting 'no' would have, then we simply disagree, and those are the points we disagree on.

Recruitment: The company is playing the long game. Whether they're doing a good job of it is an open question, as they're extremely opaque in operation. We're filling classes, yes, but some of the people coming in are going more or less straight into the left seat of a CRJ. The company has launched several new initiatives designed to widen the pilot pipeline. Lots of Aussie accents on frequency, a new RTP, and so on. This is the point where we actually have some leverage for negotiations, I feel.

Summary: I believe that we are in relatively the same position that we would have been if we hadn't voted over the summer to accept the pay package, with the exception of the mood of the pilot group, and a slight bump in scale from last year. In my opinion that, combined with current market forces, stands to give us leverage to actually make progress in the pay and QOL departments. The carrot in negotiations is recruitment; the stick is the specter of a union drive that might, at this time in history, stand a reasonable chance of succeeding.

In summary, it's perfectly fine to disagree with me on these issues, or longer-term strategy ... but the "yes voter" witch hunt is a surprisingly nasty thing.

-Fox
No witch hunt intended. We can go in circles about this all day long. The company didn't come to the table out of the goodness of their hearts. They needed something. In this case it was to raise first year pay. Had we said no, they would have come back with more as the new aircraft contracts were likely already inked. Anyone who thinks those deals teetered on that ridiculous TA isn't very smart. The company continues to play chess while our esteemed leader plays sorry.
 
The situation we're currently in didn't exist this time last year, I think people ought to remember that.

It's almost like it's a leapfrog game and it's our time to jump.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk