B767
Well-Known Member
No. I'm a CA. Sorry, it was addressed to CA.
Skywest Questions
- Thread starter flyingbum
- Start date
skatergeek
Beet Farmer
ORD CRJ CAs got it.
skatergeek
Beet Farmer
No. It is not like that anywhere. That position is super overstaffed. I have not seen positive reserves in well over a year.
Cloud Surfer
All Roads lead to Trantor
I'm severely disappointed in the vote as well as many are. Oh well...I'm just going to use this as additional motivation to exit the regionals as fast as possible.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I'm 6 months in and I sent in a solid no. The promise of a quick upgrade pissed me off. Show me a contract that says when I'll upgrade and I'll sign it. But don't say I get a 79% increase in 2 years. That's not how this works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Karnage
I-am-a-pirate. I do not need credentials!
PHX CRJ FO reserve Min Level is 6. Doesn't seem so bad, except we only had 5 RSV lines in the bid. Now, we do have 5 reserves on the 4th, but since we are still below the minimum I doubt they were letting anyone get the day off.
Glancing through the reserve pools on the FO side the CRJs are pretty much negatives system wide. SLC FO CRJ is -20 and more all month long. The ER7 gets better, with ORD being something of an oddity in that while the other bases are a mix of negatives and single digit reserves, ORD ER7 FO is the only place with good reserve availability all month long.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
As long as you get a guaranteed quick upgrade, you'll vote YES on anything......got it!
Why we let peeps on probation vote for anything is beyond me...
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
I forgot to ask if the CP offered a Starbucks card to go with it from him if you picked up flying like he did last week (I guess now to the FOs)?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
That is absolutely not what I said. But it seems like you have fun making stuff up. Solid work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you are talking about but I'll break it down for you:
OO attempt to sell the TA to junior FOs by comparing 2nd year FO pay to 3rd year CA pay had nothing to do with the TA. Upgrades are entirely dependent on market forces outside of the TA. It's apples and oranges. It's also preying on the misinformed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
I'm a yes vote.
I'm not on probation, nor was I swayed by the (rather awful) presentations by the RJ or the company trying to sell it—if anything, they made me less inclined to vote for it.
However, let's get a few things clear: it's not "concessionary" (do you realize how insane that sounds?), nor is it a "pay cut."
Not everyone is at a regional just as a stepping stone to a major, despite the commonly-repeated statements to the contrary. I'm happy here—I fly with great people, on a plane I enjoy, and I experience -excellent- QOL. Am I paid fairly? No, of course not. Does the pay package fix that? No. However, the economic situation of the regional industry is quite complex, and my evaluation of the situation led me to believe that the pay package was relatively fair, all things considered; should the company have any trouble attracting or retaining pilots—that is, should we have any actual leverage—I have no doubt they'll be the first party wanting to come back to the table... at which point we can re-examine the situation.
For the record, 90% of what I've heard people advise—and repeat as though it were absolute truth—has been completely wrong. Listening to all the rabble-rabble about this pay package (and paying attention to what people actually said) has convinced me of a few things: first, many pilots are really, REALLY bad at math. Second, many are REALLY bad at logic. Third, and most eye-opening, is that the most vociferous respondents are mostly loudmouths who perceive simplicity in complex situations. Most people would be well-served to learn to close their mouths and carefully listen.
It's an art, I suppose.
All that said, I don't think of the company as "my buddy." That's not how companies work. Companies comprise individuals governed by policy and culture, and, ultimately, the whole is an entity bent on the heartless pursuit of profit. But a healthy company takes care of its own, and SkyWest is a relatively healthy company with a long history. And, to be frank, I trust a company's self-interest more than I trust a crop of people whose only interest is building time to get to a major, and generally don't care whose heads they step on to get there.
Just a counter-perspective, since everyone seems to be on the teeth-gnashing bandwagon.
-Fox
I'm not on probation, nor was I swayed by the (rather awful) presentations by the RJ or the company trying to sell it—if anything, they made me less inclined to vote for it.
However, let's get a few things clear: it's not "concessionary" (do you realize how insane that sounds?), nor is it a "pay cut."
Not everyone is at a regional just as a stepping stone to a major, despite the commonly-repeated statements to the contrary. I'm happy here—I fly with great people, on a plane I enjoy, and I experience -excellent- QOL. Am I paid fairly? No, of course not. Does the pay package fix that? No. However, the economic situation of the regional industry is quite complex, and my evaluation of the situation led me to believe that the pay package was relatively fair, all things considered; should the company have any trouble attracting or retaining pilots—that is, should we have any actual leverage—I have no doubt they'll be the first party wanting to come back to the table... at which point we can re-examine the situation.
For the record, 90% of what I've heard people advise—and repeat as though it were absolute truth—has been completely wrong. Listening to all the rabble-rabble about this pay package (and paying attention to what people actually said) has convinced me of a few things: first, many pilots are really, REALLY bad at math. Second, many are REALLY bad at logic. Third, and most eye-opening, is that the most vociferous respondents are mostly loudmouths who perceive simplicity in complex situations. Most people would be well-served to learn to close their mouths and carefully listen.
It's an art, I suppose.
All that said, I don't think of the company as "my buddy." That's not how companies work. Companies comprise individuals governed by policy and culture, and, ultimately, the whole is an entity bent on the heartless pursuit of profit. But a healthy company takes care of its own, and SkyWest is a relatively healthy company with a long history. And, to be frank, I trust a company's self-interest more than I trust a crop of people whose only interest is building time to get to a major, and generally don't care whose heads they step on to get there.
Just a counter-perspective, since everyone seems to be on the teeth-gnashing bandwagon.
-Fox
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Wow, you're destined to be based in the SE of the USA with SJI someday.
ian
Well-Known Member
Grats on the 1% raise......
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
Please be joking...
You don't say
It's quite honestly pretty insulting you think so low of at least 37% of the pilot group. There's a lot of really good people that want the company to do well, that came to this company because of it's stability and history, that thought there could have been a better agreement. It's not being greedy, it's stopping to think "hey, maybe we could work out something a little more favorable." You can support the deal all you want, have your reasons for doing so, and disagree with people on it. That's fine. But if you're going to paint with a broad brush like that, I don't know what to tell you other than enjoy the extra pennies.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Re-reading my post, I feel that I was unclear. I totally understand and respect "no" votes—I wasn't an emphatic "yes," myself, and I agree that we should be paid significantly more.
What I don't respect is bad logic, no matter which side it's on. I'm certainly not "better at math" than "the average line pilot," nor do I consider myself smarter than anyone.
People are reacting as though the "yes" vote is a horrible thing, when in fact it improves the "status quo" between now and when the next pay negotiation was to have taken place. I posit that there weren't any real gains to be eked out yet—we're +60 pilots from last month, and SkyWest is a very conservative company—and that if we have difficulty staffing, the company will come back to the table preemptively.
Our pay is commensurate with our profitability, and I mostly believe it when people say that there's a maximum figure that the company is willing to allocate—at all–to pay. Companies throwing bonuses at new hires and first-year FOs aren't doing so to raise the bar—if they wanted to raise the bar, the "bonuses" would be rolled into pay rates. They're doing it to stop the hemorrhaging, plain and simple. No company wants to be the first to start raising the bids for regional flying, but eventually, given time, that will happen. I'm not saying that their cash outlay shouldn't be referenced for negotiating purposes, but we must be honest with ourselves about the state of the industry.
Anyway, in short, I totally understand the "no" votes, and completely respect them. Many of the arguments over the pay package, for and against, are simply illogical, or use dubious—or flat wrong—math to make their points, and that's what I'm referencing. I think the real issue is the position of the company, the industry, and the pilot group as a whole, and "yes" or "no" is based on what you foresee happening in the future. While I hope to see pay rise significantly, I'm extremely conservative about my outlook on the future, and am willing to take things in small steps to ensure stable growth. I don't feel we have the leverage, at this point, to get more.
Others have different views or strategies, and that's fine. That's why we vote, and hope that people have done their research, and that the majority has the right idea.
-Fox
What I don't respect is bad logic, no matter which side it's on. I'm certainly not "better at math" than "the average line pilot," nor do I consider myself smarter than anyone.
People are reacting as though the "yes" vote is a horrible thing, when in fact it improves the "status quo" between now and when the next pay negotiation was to have taken place. I posit that there weren't any real gains to be eked out yet—we're +60 pilots from last month, and SkyWest is a very conservative company—and that if we have difficulty staffing, the company will come back to the table preemptively.
Our pay is commensurate with our profitability, and I mostly believe it when people say that there's a maximum figure that the company is willing to allocate—at all–to pay. Companies throwing bonuses at new hires and first-year FOs aren't doing so to raise the bar—if they wanted to raise the bar, the "bonuses" would be rolled into pay rates. They're doing it to stop the hemorrhaging, plain and simple. No company wants to be the first to start raising the bids for regional flying, but eventually, given time, that will happen. I'm not saying that their cash outlay shouldn't be referenced for negotiating purposes, but we must be honest with ourselves about the state of the industry.
Anyway, in short, I totally understand the "no" votes, and completely respect them. Many of the arguments over the pay package, for and against, are simply illogical, or use dubious—or flat wrong—math to make their points, and that's what I'm referencing. I think the real issue is the position of the company, the industry, and the pilot group as a whole, and "yes" or "no" is based on what you foresee happening in the future. While I hope to see pay rise significantly, I'm extremely conservative about my outlook on the future, and am willing to take things in small steps to ensure stable growth. I don't feel we have the leverage, at this point, to get more.
Others have different views or strategies, and that's fine. That's why we vote, and hope that people have done their research, and that the majority has the right idea.
-Fox