Skywest Questions

trafficinsight said:
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
Click to expand...
I'll believe it when I see it. We locked our frog down for 4 more years.
 
Acrofox said:
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..

-Fox
Click to expand...
I never said voting no unless block or better, I was saying getting block or better with the current rates would have been a larger raise than the 1%. Instead of asking for higher pay rates this time, work on that and locking down the rigs a lil more....specifically adding “or actual” to the 2:1 SCHEDULED....
 
word302 said:
Acrofox said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
My question is what do they want this time?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My buddy told me he had a performance review with his chief the other day, saw “recruitment conference call” on his chiefs computer pop up; he then proceeded to ramble on and on about why he was going to leave skywest for an ULCC and a lot of our FO friends already have.

The chief proceeded to defend all of the reasons our pay is low, we’re the best, on time performance is necessary and neglect why 9e and compass have somehow unimaginably obtained contracts we thought we were going to etc,,, hopefully that FOs info made it’s way into the conference call[emoji41]
 
Anyone mind sharing their two cents about pros and cons of choosing the E-Jet or CRJ as a new hire?
 
Cris said:
Anyone mind sharing their two cents about pros and cons of choosing the E-Jet or CRJ as a new hire?
Click to expand...

CRJ - less Pilots per plane and you will be flying a lot. This can be a con or a pro, depending if you want to fly more or not. Reserve times generally less. Pro, more bases. Con, generally speaking shorter legs, more legs per day.

E175 - reserve is longer but getting 40+ planes for the rest of 2018. Right now, line holders have more scheduling flexibility than CRJ. Not as much stuff to pick up if you need extra money. For line holders, trips usually have higher credit. Upgrade is a bit more senior on the E175z
 
Street captain/as soon as you hit the total time to upgrade on the CRJ vs. back up to 4.5ish years for the ERJ on the last bid (thanks SLC)
 
JordanD said:
Street captain/as soon as you hit the total time to upgrade on the CRJ vs. back up to 4.5ish years for the ERJ on the last bid (thanks SLC)
Click to expand...
To be fair, this month was mostly SAN and SLC awards. The junior CA awarded is right at 4 years in SAN. Who'd of ever thought you could hold a SAN captain slot here at 4 years seniority? Not really indicative of where the ERJ upgrade is. You'll see it drop well below 3 years as the new planes start arriving.
 
Zondaracer said:
CRJ - less Pilots per plane and you will be flying a lot. This can be a con or a pro, depending if you want to fly more or not. Reserve times generally less. Pro, more bases. Con, generally speaking shorter legs, more legs per day.

E175 - reserve is longer but getting 40+ planes for the rest of 2018. Right now, line holders have more scheduling flexibility than CRJ. Not as much stuff to pick up if you need extra money. For line holders, trips usually have higher credit. Upgrade is a bit more senior on the E175z
Click to expand...

Interesting, PSA will soon open up their PHL base and be flying their 900's from PHL-DEN. Why are you guys flying your 900's on shorter legs? I guess depending on how you view it, its a blessing or a curse.
 
PHL-DEN on an RJ? American really doesn't like their passengers do they?

It really depends on which side you are flying, but on the 700/900 we have quite a lot of 2-3 hour legs. There's plenty of long-ish legs for the RJ, but it's just that we have a lot more 20-40 minute legs in the schedule especially in the junior bases on the 200 so chances are anyone hired onto the RJ will spend time doing plenty of 5-6 leg days for barely more than min credit. It really just varies by base as even in bases with mostly 700 trips there are still plenty of 5 leg days with sub 1 hr flights. The Embraers do a lot of mid-con routes especially on the Alaska side which tends to increase their average leg length.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Interesting, PSA will soon open up their PHL base and be flying their 900's from PHL-DEN. Why are you guys flying your 900's on shorter legs? I guess depending on how you view it, its a blessing or a curse.
Click to expand...
All depends on base too and really it's hard to say. We've got lots of 1000-1300 mile legs in the 7 and 900, but it doesn't mean it's consistently like that. Sometimes I'm flying a 900 on a 1250 mile leg MSP to YVR and the next week I'm doing LAX to SAN 4x a day. I've even flown a 200 just shy of 3 1/2 hours before from KSAV to KORD. Not sure what our straight line NM would have been but pretty close to KSAV to KDEN.

Same could be said for mainline carriers too. None of that should be worried about by an applicant. It changes so fast in this industry and could easily go away before you know it.
 
tcco94 said:
All depends on base too and really it's hard to say. We've got lots of 1000-1300 mile legs in the 7 and 900, but it doesn't mean it's consistently like that. Sometimes I'm flying a 900 on a 1250 mile leg MSP to YVR and the next week I'm doing LAX to SAN 4x a day. I've even flown a 200 just shy of 3 1/2 hours before from KSAV to KORD. Not sure what our straight line NM would have been but pretty close to KSAV to KDEN.

Same could be said for mainline carriers too. None of that should be worried about by an applicant. It changes so fast in this industry and could easily go away before you know it.
Click to expand...

Yes, hopefully, the 200's go away!
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
tcco94 said:
All depends on base too and really it's hard to say. We've got lots of 1000-1300 mile legs in the 7 and 900, but it doesn't mean it's consistently like that. Sometimes I'm flying a 900 on a 1250 mile leg MSP to YVR and the next week I'm doing LAX to SAN 4x a day. I've even flown a 200 just shy of 3 1/2 hours before from KSAV to KORD. Not sure what our straight line NM would have been but pretty close to KSAV to KDEN.

Same could be said for mainline carriers too. None of that should be worried about by an applicant. It changes so fast in this industry and could easily go away before you know it.
Click to expand...

Yes, hopefully, the 200's go away!
Click to expand...
Yeah then we can take 5 people to Alpena in a 76 seater [emoji14]

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Yes, hopefully, the 200's go away!
Click to expand...

Sadly I have a slightly paranoid feeling that the 700/900s will all be replaced with mainline/EJets and the 200s will be the last CRJs we have. Because after all, it's slightly less silly flying 5 people to Alpena on a 200 than it is on a 900.
 
n156499000 said:
Sadly I have a slightly paranoid feeling that the 700/900s will all be replaced with mainline/EJets and the 200s will be the last CRJs we have. Because after all, it's slightly less silly flying 5 people to Alpena on a 200 than it is on a 900.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between, five people on a 717 or a 175, vs a 700/900
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top