Skywest Questions

JordanD said:
It's quite honestly pretty insulting you think so low of at least 37% of the pilot group.
Click to expand...
This is why I posted clarification. I absolutely didn't mean it like that.
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely; see above.

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry it came off like that. I hope you understand, by now, that that's not how I meant it.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
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
Click to expand...

So you basically evaluated the situation yourself, came to a certain conclusion and acted on it.
I've no dog in Skywest, but in my book that's how voting and other important choices should work.

Having a meaningful conversation about factors that swayed the opinion towards either yes or no would be the grown up thing to do.
 
Acrofox said:
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
Click to expand...

You are way too smart to be a regional lifer by choice.
 
Last dumb question...

Don't we get block or better what we fly? I thought that they went back and always corrected it with the pink being the changes. I see that argument the most on FB and don't really understand?

I understand that the "credit" isn't average it's some predicated number SGU made up. Is the argument we want that credit number to be gone with and changed to something realistic like average flight time on that route? Or do we really not get the block or better. Lot of people complain about it then I ask and get a mixed bag of answers beating around the bush.
 
tcco94 said:
Last dumb question...

Don't we get block or better what we fly? I thought that they went back and always corrected it with the pink being the changes. I see that argument the most on FB and don't really understand?

I understand that the "credit" isn't average it's some predicated number SGU made up. Is the argument we want that credit number to be gone with and changed to something realistic like average flight time on that route? Or do we really not get the block or better. Lot of people complain about it then I ask and get a mixed bag of answers beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

PPM, SP 3008, Paragraph 1, Compensation.

We are paid the "individual historical block-to-block time or the actual block-to-block time, whichever is greater." When you look at your trip sheet in SkedPlus+ [isn't that plus sign redundant? It's like saying "the Der Wafflehaus"] you see BLOCK and CREDIT. Block is what we tell passengers the fight will take. It's the times we base D0, A+14, etc from. Credit is what the company will pay you. If you fly more than CREDIT, you will get paid for it and that's when it turns pink.

The argument is that it's possible to fly more than the historical credit but less than the marketing block time. Other airlines get paid the marketing block time or better, where as we get historical credit or better. Sometimes the historical will actually be more than the marketing block, but usually not. And sometimes it can be by a lot. It's not uncommon to have days where credit is 20 minutes or more less than block. Funny thing is, historical credit is usually a pretty good indicator of how long the flight will take if you fly the profile. Do that enough times and those 20 minutes can add up pretty quickly.
 
Yea that. And the argument for block or better is based on the difference in block vs credit. A vast majority of the flights have the block higher than credit.

So on a 4 leg local. BLOCK for all 4 legs is 1:45. CREDIT for all 4 legs is 1:30. Total block is 7 hours. Credit is 6 hours. We get 6 hours if things go fast. Just about everyone else would get 7 hours of pay, based on block.

If you do that local 15 times a month we're missing out on 15 hours of pay. Or just over 2 additional days of work (15 days at 6 hour vs 13 at 7 hours of pay - which would actually pay 91 ;) ).
 
tcco94 said:
Last dumb question...

Don't we get block or better what we fly? I thought that they went back and always corrected it with the pink being the changes. I see that argument the most on FB and don't really understand?
Click to expand...

Here's my take on your question:
On the schedule, "Marketing block," aka "Block," is a padded number designed to achieve on-time performance, and get people to their connecting flights. It's simply the scheduled arrival time minus the scheduled departure time.

"Historical Credit," aka "Credit," meanwhile, is how long it's expected to take to actually operate that flight, from out to in, based on historical performance of that leg.

"Actual block" is how long it takes us, on a given day, to operate the flight, from block out to block in.

The DOT is extremely concerned with on-time performance. Everything in the airline world comes down to that, even for seedy 135-scheduled operators. So "Marketing block" is, effectively, a made-up number that tries to ensure flights will operate within the D:0 / A:14 window.

Now, in the end, we're paid the higher of what it actually takes us to fly that leg ("Actual block"), what it's supposed to take us to fly that leg ("Credit" above), or MDG, if all the legs in a given day fall below 4:12.

What we don't get paid is the better of "Actual block," "Credit," "MDG," or "Block."

Here's an example:

XNA - SFO
(as scheduled)
Departs: 07:35 (CT)
Arrives: 09:44 (PT)
Marketing block: 4:09
Credit: 4:00

XNA - SFO
(as flown)
Departed: 07:25
Arrived: 09:27
Actual block: 4:02
Paid: 4:02

And that was rocking home fast on day 4, with go-fast gas, a 50kt headwind, and no delays.

When people say they want "block or better," what they actually mean is that they want "marketing block or better." You're always paid "actual block or better."

Lot of people complain about it then I ask and get a mixed bag of answers beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

I've seen lots of people talking about this in a way that makes me suspect that they don't understand some fundamental concept of how this works.

As far as I can tell, you will always be paid for what you fly, or better. If I'm wrong, I invite correction. (I ALWAYS invite correction.)

-Fox
 
My favorite part of the TA is the fact the company will review first year pay every year. In the event that they have trouble staffing, they only need SAPAs approval to increase first year pay. Oh, and that's the ONLY PAY THEY CAN DO THAT WITH!

So when you say they will come back to the table for more talks of pay when they run into staffing issues, sorry, they don't need to. They can just tell SAPA what they are doing, SAPA says yes like they do, and first year pay is raised and/or bonuses are added.

My issue is a 5 year contract in this environment. The company just locked a low rate for 5 years. Why would they come back early just to give us a raise? That's like getting a low rate on your home loan and 3 years later when the rates are higher, refinancing because you feel the bank has a bad deal.

This was a bad vote all around.
 
WaterRooster said:
My favorite part of the TA is the fact the company will review first year pay every year. In the event that they have trouble staffing, they only need SAPAs approval to increase first year pay. Oh, and that's the ONLY PAY THEY CAN DO THAT WITH!

So when you say they will come back to the table for more talks of pay when they run into staffing issues, sorry, they don't need to. They can just tell SAPA what they are doing, SAPA says yes like they do, and first year pay is raised and/or bonuses are added.

My issue is a 5 year contract in this environment. The company just locked a low rate for 5 years. Why would they come back early just to give us a raise? That's like getting a low rate on your home loan and 3 years later when the rates are higher, refinancing because you feel the bank has a bad deal.

This was a bad vote all around.
Click to expand...

Yep. We've locked ourselves in and we will not get much better in these five years. Recent regional history has shown that the regionals that did raise compensation almost burned before they did so, and QOL changes still have massive hurdles to jump before they come about. I don't think we will see those conditions occur at SKYW within those five years. I'm very impressed though with how management built the TA to take advantage of the pilot group's divisions--it certainly made a difference. Anyway I am not expecting anything further from SKYW in terms of QOL or compensation aside from a couple hundred of dollars here and there, and without it keeping up with inflation, it's not worth much anyhow. I'm just going to focus on improving my resume to get out to a good carrier ASAP. That's my pay raise.
 
Last edited:
WaterRooster said:
the fact the company will review first year pay every year. In the event that they have trouble staffing, they only need SAPAs approval to increase first year pay. Oh, and that's the ONLY PAY THEY CAN DO THAT WITH!
Click to expand...

So, this ^ pretty much negates this:

Acrofox said:
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.
Click to expand...

because if they want to keep attracting new hires, they can just keep chucking money at them and you can't say nuttin bout it
the superior logic and math skills are escaping me, rn
 
Well, to be fair the TA simply removed the previous cap on how much the company can raise first year FO pay without asking SAPA. The ability for the company and SAPA to agree to changes to first year First Officer pay without changing other parts of the PPM was already in the PPM.

From the TA, the change made to the current policy is in blue.

SAPA and the Company have agreed to review the First Officer Year 1 pay scales on a yearly basis. Upon mutual agreement between SAPA and the Company, the First Officer Year 1 pay scales may be adjusted with or without modifying the remainder of the Pilot Policy Manual. In addition, the Company retains the right to increase the First Officer Year 1 pay scale up to and including $36.50 at any time prior to June 30, 2018.
 
Surprisingly, a few of the yes voters had the defeatist attitudes that no matter what, the company was going to push through some deal that would be advantageous to them and not so kind to us. In other words, had the NO vote won, the company simply would have redivided the pie (or shrunk it altogether) and reworked the numbers to make whatever secondary offer more appealing without actually giving us anything more than the first offer. Also, if some of the details leaking about why it's so bloody important we get these jets (hint: Bombardier wants to wash their hands completely of the CRJ series) were a little more open, I might have been more receptive to this TA than I actually was...
 
Acrofox said:
Here's my take on your question:
On the schedule, "Marketing block," aka "Block," is a padded number designed to achieve on-time performance, and get people to their connecting flights. It's simply the scheduled arrival time minus the scheduled departure time.

"Historical Credit," aka "Credit," meanwhile, is how long it's expected to take to actually operate that flight, from out to in, based on historical performance of that leg.

"Actual block" is how long it takes us, on a given day, to operate the flight, from block out to block in.

The DOT is extremely concerned with on-time performance. Everything in the airline world comes down to that, even for seedy 135-scheduled operators. So "Marketing block" is, effectively, a made-up number that tries to ensure flights will operate within the D:0 / A:14 window.

Now, in the end, we're paid the higher of what it actually takes us to fly that leg ("Actual block"), what it's supposed to take us to fly that leg ("Credit" above), or MDG, if all the legs in a given day fall below 4:12.

What we don't get paid is the better of "Actual block," "Credit," "MDG," or "Block."

Here's an example:

XNA - SFO
(as scheduled)
Departs: 07:35 (CT)
Arrives: 09:44 (PT)
Marketing block: 4:09
Credit: 4:00

XNA - SFO
(as flown)
Departed: 07:25
Arrived: 09:27
Actual block: 4:02
Paid: 4:02

And that was rocking home fast on day 4, with go-fast gas, a 50kt headwind, and no delays.

When people say they want "block or better," what they actually mean is that they want "marketing block or better." You're always paid "actual block or better."



I've seen lots of people talking about this in a way that makes me suspect that they don't understand some fundamental concept of how this works.

As far as I can tell, you will always be paid for what you fly, or better. If I'm wrong, I invite correction. (I ALWAYS invite correction.)

-Fox
Click to expand...
The problem is company loves to compare our pay rates to our peers who are all paid scheduled block or better. If you run the numbers, scheduled block or better gets the average pilot 3-5% more pay per year. So our rates start out 3-5% less than our peers. More importantly, PBS awards schedules based on "credit". If we were awarded based on marketing block we would average at least 1 more day off per month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adk
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top