For Those About to Vote/Not Vote ALPA At SkyWest...
 

This information was compiled circa 2003/2004. Is Sapa more/less or the same in effectiveness now as they were then? Has anything changed for the better or worst since the issues being discussed here?

These are excerpts from official Sapa Meeting minutes over the past nineteen months. Please review the outcome of each issue and see if you notice any sort of pattern in the way that Sapa negotiates. How often do you see them come away with any real victories? How often do they come away with anything of added value when giving something up? What do they do when management disagrees with their position or if it’s an issue that the company “is not willing to consider at this time”?

We all realize that many of these issue will not be accomplished overnight and that good policy and contract negotiations take time. But what happens when many of the same issues never seem to get any closer to being resolved? What happens when victories continually appear one sided? Is overturning a policy such as proficiency flying considered a victory? Is it still a victory if a similar policy with a different name is put into place not long after? Take a close look at the issues that have been voted on or that pilots bring up repeatedly, like that of a commuter policy or Appendix D or chronically poor schedules. What has been done about any of these? How was your schedule last month? Six months ago? Next month? Is it good enough to have a scheduling symposium and say we are working on it when a year later we are still surrounded by the same poor schedules?

What does it say when Sapa votes amongst themselves to dissolve an issue that the pilots have indicated is very important to them and that the majority seem to support? How well does Sapa communicate? How well do they do what they say they are going to do with respect to communications? Why does Dave Cain and some of the other Sapa reps come out of hiding to dance all over this board and then distance Sapa from the relevance of the board that shares its same name? Why do some Sapa reps only come out of their caves and start communicating when there is an active Union drive? These are some of the issues at hand when we talk about the relevance of Sapa. In most cases I use Sapa’s own words in answering what the outcome of each issue below was. Periodically I have added a few of my own thought (Blue Italics) to clarify where most pilots stand on a particular issue (sighting polls, discussions etc.) While reading, please ask yourself if this organization and leadership are acting in accordance with what its constituents have asked it to do? Is it getting that job done? Is it representing your quality of life and compensation issues as a pilot or does it seem to quickly sway another direction? Why do reps so quickly go on attack mode when you ask for accountability? Why no transparency as to what reps (names) are voting for? Why does there seem to be a trend of so many Sapa reps defending company interpretations against the line pilot instead of the other way around, once elected? What is causing so much frustration and apathy to seep into the ranks of pilots at Skywest. Read and decide for yourself:

Issue: Reserve Long Call-Out.
Outcome: “It was reported to the group that long call out was not an issue that the Company is willing to consider at this time”.

Issue: The Commuter Policy issue was previously voted upon and accepted as an issue.
Outcome: “Management at this time does not want to entertain the concept of a Commuter Policy”.

A general member posted this poll to determine pilot interest in a commuter Policy(over 70% wanted one): http://www.skywestforums.com/cgi-bin...=7;t=001141;p=
Also, a “general member” started a thread regarding a commuter policy with these responses: http://www.skywestforums.com/cgi-bin...=7;t=001136;p= Take careful notice of what the general members are saying and the responses they get from Sapa.They all want a commuter policy!

Issue: Elimination of New Hire Pay – “A tentative verbal proposal from Management was received on the morning of January 9th from Jim Breeze to Chris Abell which stated the following: Elimination of the hourly wage and per diem for new hire pilots. Provisions for hotel accommodations for new hire pilots might also be discontinued or at best move to double occupancy.”
Outcome: “Based on SAPA Bylaws paragraph 6, Membership Requirements, it was determined that SAPA has no jurisdiction in the setting of new hire pay.” ???

Issue: OJI Away from Domicile Procedures.
Outcome: “Not voted upon due to Management’s previous disapproval.”

Issue: Commuter Parking Policy – “Discussion ensued. A motion was made to accept this as an issue. It was seconded and voted upon. The motion carried.”
Outcome Intermediate: “Months ago, Michael Macias was commissioned to write up a proposal to allow for one parking pass to be issued to a crewmember at his/her airport of choice. After much discussion over the course of many meetings, many variables and differences of opinions arose. The group never came to a consensus. This lack of consensus coupled with many other pressing issues on the table led to the deferral of this issue to a later time.” Final Outcome: “This issue was placed on hold due to information received from the Company with respect to a possible Company policy change that will require employees to be responsible for airport parking fees.”

Issue: Vacation and Training line. “Tom Coyle reported that he had spoken with Management in regard to the Vacation and Training line issue.”
Outcome: “It looks as if these lines will soon be discontinued due to operational needs.”

Issue: Withholding E120 Vacation Bids. “A motion was made to submit a formal objection to Management based on numerous PIC’s. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried.”
Outcome: Management continued with its decree and Vacation was denied to E120 crewmembers for the first quarter of 2002. This was a hard pill to swallow for crewmembers that had already seen staffing too thin for over a year and been denied vacation, golden days and comp days due to known staffing problems. This, in addition to the poor schedules still prevalent today continues to leave a bad taste and poor moral among the pilots.

Issue: Bylaws Elections Rewrite Proposal – “Different opinions within the group were heard…. it was agreed that prior to changing the Bylaws, that we first find out if in fact the majority of the General Membership would be in favor of the change. We will poll the General Membership via SkyWestOnline with respect to this issue.”
Outcome: Sapa did not conduct a poll. However, a general member posted one and it indicated that a majority of the pilots support direct elections. Ultimately, Sapa with no further input from the pilot group decided the following as recorded in the August 2003 meeting minutes: Bylaws Rewrite - Protocol for the Election of SAPA – “Heavy discussion regarding this issue ensued once again. At the end, each rep was asked to individually express how he/she felt about this issue. After hearing from each individual rep, a motion was made to drop this issue. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried.” What kind of message is being sent when elected representatives are derelict in carrying out the desires or even attempting to find out the desires of those they are shouldered with representing?

Issue: Ready Reserve being assigned at the end of a trip.
Outcome: “SAPA recognizes the ability of the company to assign Ready Reserve after a trip.” For those who are new, ready reserve was brought in with Sapa’s blessing (no snapback, no written temporary agreement, no expiration date) during the 2002 SLC winter Olympics as a temporary way to “Help the company out” with the need for quicker response time during the few months the games were going on. What was a temporary policy to “help the company out” became permanent. It went from periodic use to abusive. From schedulers only being able to assign one person for a given position to RR sometimes to schedulers assigning it to almost all that were finishing a trip on a reserve day just because they wanted to. When Sapa says these words: “We are going to help the company out with a temporary protocol” you better listen up because that new protocol will become policy that follows you for the rest of your career at Skywest.

Issue: Pilots desire for a defendant for review board.
Outcome: “Management will not be able to accommodate due to legal constraints.”

Issue: “Management feels that overtime will not be paid on those first 3 days off of the new month since the crewmember showed a scheduled reserve day during transition and therefore existed a conflict as per SP 317 7. SAPA argued that there is no conflict because the crewmember did in fact bid legally.”
Outcome: “It was indicated to the group during the SAPA meeting that this argument went nowhere with Management and that for the time being we agreed to disagree and would take this issue back to our respective groups for discussion and consensus….. overtime will not apply. Although we did not agree to this, we did agree to take back to our groups for discussion.” No further discussion was recorded on this issue.


Issue: “Management feels that… If the crewmember were required to show early the next day he/she would have to do so, but this goes against policy that indicates that a day off is a “calendar” day off of 24 hours.”
Outcome: “There were no solutions offered by the group at the SAPA meeting. Chris challenged the group to give the issue some thought prior to the next meeting. No further discussion was recorded on this issue.”

ISSUE: Reserves being denied to swap with other reserves:
OUTCOME: Even with the following: “General consensus was that this is in violation of the Crewmember Policy Manual. This topic to be discussed at the next Flight Ops. meeting.” Ultimately it went nowhere. To be clear sapa actually agreed that this was “in violation of the crewmember policy manual” it never got fixed. Anybody see a trend here? Honestly I don’t think we could do worse if we had no one “representing” us and I use the term
”representing” very loosely with Sapa.


Issue: “An overview and discussion of how we can operate more efficiently as an employee group while increasing our opportunity to make our schedules better, make more money and have more time off. Reserve buckets and how we operate our reserve system was discussed. This was all a preliminary discussion of a larger task that SAPA will focus on for the next 6 months. More detailed information will be forthcoming as the infrastructure of a task force takes shape.”
Outcome: No change in schedules, a pay cut or freeze depending on how you interpret flying a 70/90 seater for 50 seat pay. The creation of the bucket system. Final details were never released until this policy was sprung on us later after having been “the number one project for six months”! Also, it went from temporary to permanent. No pilot input whatsoever. No Long call reserve either as was supposedly going to happen for giving the bucket system to management. This is what was netted from a six month “focus… to make schedules better, make more money and have more time off” by Sapa. Wow, somebody got their monies worth…unfortunately it wasn’t skywest pilots!



Issue: SAPA Hotline is available at extension #4721. Updates are planned for every Friday.
Outcome: I called this number and none other than Todd Smidke’s voice directs me to call Mike Eisenstat if I have any problems. Called and left a message with Eisenstat, never heard back. As of September first there has not been an update made for seven months.


Issue: SAPA Hotsheets. Update sheets are produced and distributed by pilots, without management assistance.
Outcome: (First month delivery was late, but distribution should improve as we adjust to the process.) Hotsheet distribution has discontinued indefinitely with no further explanation!



Issue: Proficiency flying “It is the unanimous consensus of the SAPA group that the company is practicing call-out methods that are not in accordance with the Crewmember Policy Manual. At the next Flight Ops. Meeting we will address reserve “proficiency” flying” and at the next meeting: Reserves being called out of seniority for “proficiency” reasons: General consensus was that this is in violation of the Crewmember Policy Manual. This topic to be discussed at the next Flight Ops. meeting….

Outcome: “Flight Ops management has agreed to cease the practice of assigning reserve trips upon any bases other than those defined in the Crewmember Policy manual. For those of you who might be confused, “The Bucket System” we have now IS proficiency flying, only with a different name. Sapa on the one hand unanimously agreed that proficiency flying is a violation of the so called policy manual yet later would go on to co-write this same basic protocol renaming it “the bucket system”. Its objective is to limit all reservists to below 75 hours. This could also be interpreted as a work rule change that decreases senior reservist ability to control their quality of life and a pay cut for those who historically tried to maximize their pay on reserve. There has been no direct benefit to the pilots for having this forced upon them. Not even a long call reserve that was originally touted by the Sapa Communications director as a possible gimme for allowing management this huge concession.”

Issue: Procedures for Crewmembers Stranded Out of Domicile.
Outcome: “Disapproved – this is common sense and we felt that it did not necessarily need to be made policy. No further details or explanation is listed.”


Issue: Scheduling Workshop Review – A brief review of the Scheduling Workshop was accomplished.
Outcome: “Some immediate results of the conference have been manifest by temporary policy changes that are now in effect. It was agreed that if nothing else came out of the conference other than the exploration of the feasibility of preferential bidding, then it was all worth it. Not only does preferential bidding give direct control of monthly line bidding to the crewmember, it also takes care of transition problems, displacement.” It has been noted by several astute crewmembers that pref. bidding does nothing to improve the trips/pairing/sit time and this is the real issue regarding poor schedules. Furthermore, there is much concern from the members that there is no “snap back” provisions to pull the eject on this if management uses it too much in their favor. When repeatedly questioned on this Sapa reps, including Kathy Archibald get defensive suggesting the company will treat us fairly as they always do and such “snapback” language is not necessary. Time will tell.

Issue: Addendum to the Pay Agreement. Much discussion and a recent poll showed an overwhelming number of pilots (90%) supported a separation of pay between 50 and 70 seat jets right away. Many pilots have pointed out that this would be the place to start with regards to dividing the equipment/pay rather than between 70/90 (although, this should also be pursued down the road) as the chances of 90 seaters arriving on the property anytime soon are remote.
Outcome: “The consensus of the group was to give the Executive Board the go-ahead to discuss with Management the possibility of amending the TA that was recently passed with a wedge between the 50-70 and the 71-99 seat aircraft. If successful in separating the two categories, pay rates within these categories will remain as agreed upon during this last TA vote for the next 18 months starting on July 1, 2003.” The general members voted and 90% want a completely separate pay rate for the 50 and 70 right now, this in large part seems to be getting ignored by Sapa. Once again, the target seems to be getting missed by those we look to for leadership and execution of our desires. It is clear however that management seems to get what they want almost every time, in the end.

Issue: Request for 96 hour time to move being denied. “Management has requested that the crewmember place the desired 96-hours free from duty prior to the adjusted bid period so that crew planning has ample time to provide coverage.
Outcome: “The Representative Board felt that this was a reasonable request and would in fact be a benefit for the crewmember in that less requests for the 96 hours would be turned down.” Interesting logic!

Issue: Reserve Availability List – Management would like to know that if this list is generated for viewing, if there would be a problem with having the pilots name on the list along side his/her order of call out. The groups consensus was that there would not be a problem with this. The report will be given back to Management.
Outcome: The names of the respective pilots on reserve are still not listed for a given reserve day. Why is this? The pilots have overwhelmingly wanted and asked for it and here it appears even Sapa and management agree on it. Did somebody change their mind? What is the holdup? The reason for the names not being made available to reservists is unknown at this time.

Issue: Appendix D
Outcome: “There is no new progress on Appendix D solutions and at present, we are not discussing it with Management. As was reported in previous SAPA meeting minutes, SAPA and Management have yet to agree on a viable solution.” The above is from the May Sapa meeting minutes and appears to be the last time it was formally addressed.
This one simple policy change attempt has consumed many, many hours and yet all we have gained to this point is that F.A.’s are no longer required to sign. Why can this issue never seem to be resolved? Why, when we have given so many concessions in the past couple years haven’t we received a serious resolution to this procedure? Here are a few excerpts from Sapa meeting minutes regarding this issue. Many more occurred before these and probably many more will be seen in the months to come. Other meetings regarding appendix D are listed below. Many other meetings make no mention of Appendix D at all. If we are using this as an example of Sapa’s effectiveness, how would you rate them? What are they doing at all these meetings?! (Any later change had nothing to do with Sapa).

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
February 27, 2002

Appendix D “There are many variables and factors that play into this issue and only some were discussed at this meeting. Further discussion will ensue at the next SAPA meeting.”

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
March 27, 2002

Appendix D “Discussion with Management on this issue has ensued but with no resolution. The Executive Board will meet with Management for resolution.”

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
July 23, 2002

Appendix D – “Start discussion on possible solutions: deferred.”

SAPA General Meeting Minutes
September 5-6, 2002

Appendix D - SP 317.7.6.A vs. SP318.6 – “A company representative suggests that a conflict may exist between the two policies. SAPA agrees unanimously not to address this issue: 12 In Favor, 3 Absent.”

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
March 20-21, 2003

Appendix D – “Discussion took place as to the feasibility of going to an electronic submission. It is obvious that the Flight Attendant should not have to sign the Appendix D since it is the pilots that have sole control over flight times. Either the CA or the FO should be signing the Appendix D.”
SAPA MEETING AGENDA
April 8, 2003

Appendix D – “More discussion on Appendix D resolutions took place. In short, the general consensus of the group is that we continue to press for the implementation of a program that allows for pilots to enter the 000I times into the computer and then send the times to SGU”
SAPA MEETING MINUTES
May 14 & 15, 2003
Palm Springs, California
Appendix D – “There is no new progress on Appendix D solutions and at present, we are not discussing it with Management. As was reported in previous SAPA meeting minutes, SAPA and Management have yet to agree on a viable solution.”

Issue: It is SAPA’s desire to have a Crewmember Policy Manual that supercedes the Company Policy Manual.
Outcome: “SAPA reps Tony Fizer, Jeff Soper and John Wangensteen met to commence work on separating the Crewmember Policy Manual from the Company Policy Manual. Tony reported that in two days they were able to get through the entire manual and found that they were not comfortable with giving up practically any of the policies in our manual to the Company Policy Manual. Discussion in the next flight ops. meeting will reveal the next step that needs to be taken, if any, regarding this project.” Why are we talking about giving anything up? Help me understand???! Is there a planned deadline to have this finished or is it now officially a dead issue? Minutes regarding this subject over the last year are listed below. You tell me how effective Tony Fizer, a guy who flies the line maybe once a month, is doing at getting this done?

SAPA General Meeting Minutes
September 5-6, 2002
Creation of pilot only policy manual - SAPA supports adherence to the Pilot Policy Manual for pilot-specific issues. SAPA proposes an agreement with Flight Ops management regarding separation of the two manuals, and a statement to that effect including a timeline by 10/01/02.

SAPA MEETING AGENDA
October 17, 2002
Creation of pilot only policy manual - SAPA is adamant that the Crewmember Policy Manual be recognized as the manual that supercedes all other Company manuals with respect to pilots. SAPA has also indicated to Management our desires to split off from InFlight and creating two separate and distinct manuals.

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
January 9-10, 2003
Creation of pilot only policy manual - Work will commence shortly on the identification and subsequent segregation of flight attendant policy from the Crewmember Policy Manual.

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
February 13, 2003
Creation of pilot only policy manual – Progress on these projects has been slow due to time constraints. These items are considered to be high priority and SAPA will continue to make as much progress as possible in the coming months.

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
March 20-21, 2003
Los Angeles, California

Creation of pilot only policy manual - Due to time constraints over the past months, a new time line was established for completion of these SP rewrites.

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
May 14 & 15, 2003
Palm Springs, California
Creation of pilot only policy manual - Time constraints have hampered our efforts to initiate work and progress on this issue.

SAPA MEETING MINUTES
June 25 & 26, 2003
Creation of Pilot Only Policy Manual - Management, SAPA and SIA will commence work on the splitting of the Crewmember Policy Manual and the Company Policy Manual.
SAPA MEETING MINUTES
August 6th & 7th, 2003
Creation of Pilot Only Policy Manual - SAPA reps Tony Fizer, Jeff Soper and John Wangensteen met to commence work on separating the Crewmember Policy Manual from the Company Policy Manual. Tony reported that in two days they were able to get through the entire manual and found that they were not comfortable with giving up practically any of the policies in our manual to the Company Policy Manual. Discussion in the next flight ops. meeting will reveal the next step that needs to be taken, if any, regarding this project. Where is this going? Will this ever be completed?

Other unresolved issues or questionable behavior from Sapa including more Sapa meeting minutes:


Executive Board Elections – Mike Eisenstat, SAPA Secretary, conducted the vote for SAPA Executive Board position of President as per SAPA Bylaws paragraph 5 C. By majority vote, incumbent Chris Abell was elected to serve as SAPA President for another term.

Oh good, the “board members” had their vote and decided on a president for the unsophisticated line pilots again. Thank goodness we have these guys and the bylaws they wrote to take care of these challenging elections.



“50-90 and 91-130 Seat Pay Scales – Expected counter proposals from Management were not ready. This discussion was deferred.”

Wow, this is the first time we have seen any reference to the new pay plan. You would think something this important would deserve more headline news and input from the whole pilot group, yet here it is summarized in a two sentence paragraph.

Pay Negotiation Progress: Discussions continued at length with respect to the latest counter proposal from Management. The group formulated a SAPA counter proposal that the Executive Board will present to Management at the next flight ops meeting.
Details, Details, Details????!!!! Why are the line pilots always kept in the dark during pay discussions only later to get the “hard sell” on why we must take the proposal at hand otherwise if we vote no we may lose ground? What kind of negotiating is that???!!! Its almost as if they are lowballed by management on what will be given and some of these guys get afraid that if they question any of the proposal they may screw up that future management job….so like good little yes men that they are, go and sell the H out of whatever they given to the pilots? Just doesn’t sound right.

Discussion ensued with regard to the current organizing efforts. The group’s final consensus is that SAPA will continue to remain neutral during the current pilot efforts to attain collective bargaining. Discussion ensued with regard to the letter and petition to the NMB sent by the organizing committee members stating their names as the current SAPA officers. A motion was made to send a letter to the NMB stating the fact that the executive board that now exists are the only true officers of the current organization that is known as SAPA (as recognized by the pilot group and Management). It was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried.

If this wasn’t one of the most ridiculous and childish things this group (the “real” Sapa) has done I don’t know what is. Sapa somehow turned into patent law attorneys overnight and right along side McDonalds and other major corporations had to lay down the law regarding the use of their copy protected name. Of course it had nothing to do with trying to disable the SkyWest pilots that were looking for certification. Of course not, because after all Sapa has always maintained that they continue to be neutral on this subject. Puuuuleeeeese! I think it is more fair to say Sapa sent a statement written by Skywest management’s attorneys to block the certification of a legal Sapa that might actually be able to bargain/strike.

Reps. will make a diligent and reasonable effort to maintain a board in their respective hubs/domiciles, which contains printed copies of SAPA emails/postings

How well have these been maintained outside of union drives?

The following report was produced by Tom Coyle: For March, the testing of the bucket system was inconsistent from the start. This is due to the Crew Support policy of assigning trips to reserves weeks in advance during transition, as well as throughout the month assigning trips weeks in advance. The bucket system will work best when all trips are assigned systematically at a set time prior to the trip. This is due to parameters in reports used to determine the status of reserves in the buckets and trips available. Because of this I don't believe the bucket system worked in favor of the pilots or the Company for the month of March.
We know it didn’t and hasn’t worked in favor of the pilots. What did we get in trade for having this forced upon us? Sapa???

The Secretary will make available the general meeting agenda no later than the day prior to any meeting, and will make available minutes no later than one week after the day of any meeting.

Hmmm, how’s that working?



“Bob Donohoe suggested that we select a SAPA Representative Board member to act as a liaison between SAPA and UPA in order to correlate on common issues and dispel the competition pretense that exists with some in the General Membership. A discussion ensued with respect to the pretense that SAPA is in competition with UPA. This is a false pretense. SAPA is not in competition with anybody. SAPA is not a union. As a result we do not do all things that unions do. The argument was made that the selection of a liaison would be a breach of trust between SAPA and those of the General Membership that do not support UPA, in that it would give the appearance that SAPA has endorsed UPA. It would also be a breach of trust between Management and SAPA; a trust that has taken a very long time to develop. It must be made very clear that SAPA is neither for nor against UPA or any other formal organizational efforts. Each pilot must decide what is best for him/herself with respect to collective bargaining. SAPA will continue to represent to the best of its ability each and every pilot at SkyWest Airlines.”
Ha Ha, could this be the most ridiculous item of the day. Probably not, but funny none the less.


Tom and Trisha Warmsley, EMB Crew Planner, spent time in DEN in response to a letter that was signed by a majority of the DEN crewmembers and sent to Management regarding the poor DEN schedules. Tom and Trisha brought the scheduling program and computers and made some effective changes which seemed to be acceptable to the majority of the crewmembers that were present at this meeting in DEN.

How long did this last? Is this still true today? Unless it is a permanent change what’s the point?

Management suggested we consider the following: If a reserve is going to a line and after the adjusted bid period closes, a trip series is assigned on a scheduled reserve day(s) that happen to be in transition and that assignment continues into the new month’s scheduled days off, then overtime will be paid. If, however, a shift is assigned during the adjusted bid period with the same parameters as above, overtime will not apply. Although we did not agree to this, we did agree to take back to our groups for discussion.
What ever became of these discussions? Did we get these things resolved? Also, does everybody still think management has our best interests in mind when you read these sorts of interpretations? Page 9 of the latest (2002) annual report states this by the company: “The Company has never experienced any work stoppages and considers its relationships with its employees to be good.” I have also listened to SkyWest Managers at some recent aviation conferences educating the audience on what makes SkyWest number one and Union free. “It’s because we have an amazing level of communication with our employees and we strive to keep them happy, because a happy work group is a productive work group.” Maybe this speech was prepared back in the late nineties but I see very little of this communication and good will today.

Scheduling Workshop Review – A brief review of the Scheduling Workshop was accomplished. Some immediate results of the conference have been manifest by temporary policy changes that are now in effect. It was agreed that if nothing else came out of the conference other than the exploration of the feasibility of preferential bidding, then it was all worth it. Not only does preferential bidding give direct control of monthly line bidding to the crewmember, it also takes care of transition problems, displacement. SAPA will diligently pursue preferential bidding possibilities.

We all know that preferential bidding does nothing to affect better pairing/trips. Chalk another one up for the company!

Pay Negotiations Progress - At the time of this meeting, a counter-proposal from Management was not available. However, a pay proposal structure was submitted to the group by Tony Fizer. Tony was unable to attend this meeting so the merits of the proposal were discussed only briefly. Tony will address his proposal at the next SAPA meeting when he can be in attendance

Pay Negotiations Progress - The SAPA Representative Board and SkyWest Airlines Management have reached a tentative agreement (TA) on pilot hourly pay rates which, if approved by vote from the SAPA General Membership, will go into effect on July 1, 2003 with an expiration date of December 31, 2004.

Bylaws Rewrite - Protocol for the Election of SAPA President - Bob Donohoe presented the first draft of a proposal to enable the SAPA General Membership to vote for the members of the SAPA Executive Board. The discussion then steered toward the reason for which we are even considering an amendment to this Bylaw. Some reps felt that the process should stay the way it is; that our present system works and has worked in the past very well.

Don’t know if Sapa was aware of this but a majority of SkyWest pilots polled on this subject have indicated that they want to be able to elect directly anybody in the pilot group. Better to just ignore these polls though….they are usually the “polar extremes” (unless supporting what Sapa is saying) and should not be taken seriously.

Schedules – Brad Holt indicated that he is very aware of the quality of the schedules. He challenged everyone to start thinking “outside of the box” when it comes to writing schedules and feels that improvements can be made. Expressed to Brad was the low moral of the pilots due to a serious lack of quality of life and that nothing is getting better, that something needs to be done now about this issue.
This has been going on for how long? This is something that can be fixed. It might require a little more money than SkyWest management wants to spend and it might require some Sapa reps to actually step up but enough is enough is enough is enough! Fix the Damn schedules already!

Management Reserve Policy Proposal – A reserve policy proposal was introduced to us at the last Flight Ops. meeting. The proposal was too lengthy to discuss in detail at this meeting due to time constraints. We briefly discussed the proposal and will make plans for some of the SAPA reps to convene in the near future to review the proposal.
It’s pretty safe to say that this reserve policy that could not be discussed in detail due to time constraints is what we now know as the bucket system.

Future Action - The next TA
1. Conduct a formal pilot pay survey -- as we did for the last agreement -- prior to formal pay discussions. While we were facing a difficult economic climate during these recent discussions, we should be able to be more proactive vs. reactive next year.
2. Pursue reasonable pay increases in every seat in every current aircraft.
3. Ensure reasonable flexibility to encourage fleet diversification and expansion.
4. Ensure full inclusion in any bonus plan, including margin-based incentives as a percentage of annual pay.

1. I don’t remember getting a pay survey just prior to Sapa composing the last TA?
2. Define “reasonable”. Did Mr. Atkins state a couple years ago that SkyWest pilots would be paid above or equal to industry leading rates?
3. What does this mean?
4. Now this sounds like a winning idea….let the employees share in the success. Where have I heard that before?
PS- According to the Pilot Survey a large majority of pilots said DO NOT INCLUDE US in margin based incentives plan if it is at the expense of a solid hourly pay increase.


SP 303, SP 325, and Creation of Pilot Only Policy Manual Letter of Agreement – A motion was made to accept this Letter of Agreement dated November 21, 2002, and present it to Management at the abbreviated Flight Ops. Meeting on November 21. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried. After presenting the LOA at the Flight Ops. Meeting (evening of the 20th) Management asked to change the word achieve to pursue. This was agreed upon by both sides and the Letter of Agreement was signed by Brad Holt and Chris Abell. The Letter of Agreement is posted on this thread immediately following this post.

Now why do you suppose they wanted the word “achieve” changed to “pursue”? Could it be so that we could talk about it a few more years, pursuing it but not worry about ever really having to achieve it? Just stands as a reminder that Management has attorneys going through these things even to the point of carefully selecting words that they can interpret to their favor later. We have management wannabes who nod and say yes sir to whatever their true boss wants them to do. Sad really and frustrating as a line guy watching dozens of these things happen, mostly behind the scenes only later to be told by Sapa to send in a PIC that basically goes nowhere or if you do hear back “it is clear the company had every right to do this based upon the word “pursue” for example. Then you might ask when was this policy implemented, “I don’t remember it being like that? “Oh it’s been like that for many, many years.”


In the Flight Ops. meeting held on Wednesday evening and continuing on Thursday morning, much focus was placed on the poor quality of schedules system wide and the necessity to find a solution as quickly as possible. Both SAPA and Management agreed on this point and concluded that this should receive top priority. The result of the discussions led to a commitment from Management to support a multi-day Scheduling Symposium which would include at least two non-SAPA/SIA representatives selected from each of the larger domiciles and one from each of the smaller domiciles, to brainstorm and come up with ideas and solutions that could possibly improve the schedules. In attendance from Management would be Anita Spencer and the crew planners. This symposium is designed not only for educational purposes but also for an actual “hands on” approach to finding solutions to this problem.

Now that we know the outcome of this meeting ten months later it brings to mind that quote, “talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.” How many times are we going to talk about so many of these issues like poor schedules without ever fixing them???! What’s going on at these meetings, month after month after month…..? I think most sophisticated people can figure that out and it has more to do with who Sapa answers to than not enough time in any meetings.


Withholding E120 Vacation Bids - Discussion. A motion was made to submit a formal objection to Management based on numerous PIC’s. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried.

Thanks for the motion, unfortunately many were still denied vacation for the first quarter of 2003. If this isn’t a moral buster I don’t know what is!


SAPA MEETING MINUTES
March 20-21, 2003
Los Angeles, California
PRESENTATION: Dave Benjamin presented his SAPA Legal Plan outline as follows:
Why Do We Need To Offer A Legal Plan?
 A typical enforcement action can cost upwards of $15K
 Overzealous FAA personnel pursue unwarranted cases
 TSA has ominous powers that exceed those of FAA
 Lawyer may be needed to deal with Aeromedical Branch
 SkyWest Pilots have expressed interest in legal protection
What Will A Legal Plan Cost SkyWest Pilots?
 $2.00/week, less than what we spend on a Starbucks coffee. Estimate based on 2/3 pilot participation
Why Should We Use Rusty Allman As Our Attorney?
 Rusty is one of the top aviation attorneys in the US
 Rusty has flown the line as a pilot for PSA and US Air
 15 years of legal experience
 5 years of experience chairing grievance committee
 Handled 100's of grievances and recovered $30M +
 NMB hired Rusty to design a Mediation Training Program
 Successful mediation experience at Airborne Express
 Recently assisted Southwest pilots with interim contract
What Will Rusty Allman Provide For SkyWest Pilots?
 Representation for FAA enforcement proceedings
 Representation for NTSB appeals and hearings
 Representation for Medical Certificate actions
 Representation company disciplinary measures
What About Accident Scene Access?
 We may be able to have Rusty considered a party to investigation
Could Some Funds Go Toward Neutral 3rd Party Arbitration?
 We are looking into supporting the proposed SP 325 in this manner. We can probably establish a similar retainer to fund 50% of third party arbitration to facilitate the new SP 325.
Is There Any Reason Not To Move Ahead With This Plan Now?

Got to give credit to Dave Benjamin for putting together a compelling presentation for this legal plan. Unfortunately, it seems most of the Sapa reps seem to want to sabotage it and muddy the waters with speculative conjecture. Why do they resist something like this that makes so much sense? I believe once again it comes down to a control and accountability issue.

At least one Board member will provide a bi-weekly update to all Reps. The information contained in these updates is at the discretion of the Board, but must include the dates and general topics of any formal meetings with Flight Operations or Executive Management.
At least one Board member will provide a monthly update to all Members. The information will be at the discretion of the Board, but must include the dates and general topics of any formal meetings with Flight Operations or Executive Management.
The Secretary will make available the general meeting agenda no later than the day prior to any meeting, and will make available minutes no later than one week after the day of any meeting.
Reps. will make a diligent and reasonable effort to maintain a board in their respective hubs/domiciles, which contains printed copies of SAPA emails/postings.

How often do these happen?

Just to recap, how effective is Sapa in getting ANYTHING of real significance done for this pilot group? Do they listen and execute or do they get hostile if questioned about accountability? Many observers have noted a heavy offensive put together by Sapa, especially when a group of their frustrated constituents, feeling unrepresented, start shopping for different representation (i.e. ALPA, Certify Sapa, UPA, etc). If Sapa had been doing good things and were effective, all they would have to do is simply list their accomplishments and point to their track record. Unfortunately for Sapa and us line pilots that cannot be done. Sapa has such a miserable track record when the facts and only the facts are reviewed during the past six years that anybody with any amount of intelligence must see something wrong here. Why do they preach doom and gloom to us and try to get us to buy off on really ridiculous and might I say industry damaging agreements when Skywest is more profitable (and I don’t want to hear the margin argument again) than they have ever been?!

I’m not sure if Sapa goes on the attack more to create a smoke screen away from their own lack of effectiveness or they just have such a disdain for the people who threaten their non flying lifestyle for example and other future benefits? It should be noted that across the years there most certainly has been a clear pattern of Sapa reps becoming management. I expect this trend will continue as long as Sapa is in existence. After all, who pays Sapa directly, who has the power to put them in future management positions and who ultimately do they seem to answer to. Please look at the record, thoughtfully consider every detail and what you hear coming out of Sapa reps mouths and decide for yourself how well you are being represented.

WOW JACK.. GREAT POST... EMB120 Pilots DENIED VACATION??? NO LEGAL REPRESANTATION??? 90% of the pilots told sapa to differentiate between the 200 and 700 and this request is being ignored by sapa? Man there is some stuff in here that even makes this pinnacle pilot squirm.. the thing is if pinnacle management tried to pull this stuff they would be stopped dead in their tracks, or if they still did it, they would pay a hefty penalty.. (i have seen awards for contract violations in the thousands..) i knew there was some funny business with sapa, but didn't know it was that bad..

Thanks for all the data on SAPA. But the issue at SKW has nothing whatsoever to do with SAPA...it is not ALPA vs. SAPA, they are not comparable.

SAPA is a managment communication device, nothing more. Expecting them to accomplish anything against the company's desires is silly. Their advocacy is limited to keeping a finger on the pulse of the pilot group...if the company gets signals via SAPA that a pilot issue REALLY needs to be addressed, management will likely fix it to avoid repurcussions which would not be in their own best interests. Like when they tried that 12-hour booze rule...the backlash was so great that we were back to 8 hours (where it belongs) in a matter of days.

The real issue is ALPA vs. SkyWest, and by SkyWest I mean the whole package...management, co-workers, culture, historical track record, and your personal faith in their ability remain one of the better regionals in the long term.

It is also worth considering whether 2800 unionized SKW pilots could help empower all pilots in the US...maybe, maybe not, and there's only one way to find out for sure! (If you think you actually know the answer to this question you are a complete moron).

I don't think alpa can significantly improve SKW, and the drawbacks may not be worth the benefits. But if one is reasonably certain that alpa won't completely screw up the company, it might be worth joining to see if we can help empower the national movement...that's the real question I have to answer.

Alpa is out for Alpa, in house union the best way to go ie: Southwest Airlines, Air Tran, UPS etc,

Jack,

I'm a big fan. You need an avatar befitting your kickass ways.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...er11/bauer.jpg



WWJBD? Vote for ALPA, of course.

Jack - Boiler is right - you need that new Avatar LoL

But Rickair is absolutely correct. SAPA can do good things for us - they are our Ambassadors...but to compare them to ALPA is nonsense.

They are not "Ambassadors," they are puppets!

Not so much...but maybe a little of both. Regardless - they have done some good for us!

Ambassadors???

n. 1. A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
2. A diplomatic official heading his or her country's permanent mission to certain international organizations, such as the United Nations.
3. An authorized messenger or representative.
4. An unofficial representative: ambassadors of goodwill.

yeah, i guess thats what they are.. defenition 1 doesn't fit, definition 2 doesn't fit, definition 3 doesn't fit because we have obviously seen they have no real power according to all the posts by jack.. 4 seems to be the only one that fits: unofficial representatives with no real power.

I understand the point you're trying to convey; but 10% good and 90% bad is still some good even though it's overwhelmingly bad.

BTW, the above numbers mean nothing more than to make a "good/bad" point. SAPA's nothing more than an extension of Mgmnt, not the pilot group. Why has SKW been and is a still a good place to work? Simple, it's because of everyone else's efforts. Mgmnt understand that they must meet or exceed (mainly meet) their competitors TA's in order to maintain, but over the past few years they've been slipping; A LOT!

ALPA is not for SkyWest. ALPA can barely help their own right now. Speaking of puppets ALPA is the ultimate in puppet masters. Pulling the strings of thousands of pilots who believe ALPA is actually doing something for them.

please expound.

How much retro pay did sapa get you on your last "contract". Alpa got asa 13.5 million, split evenly between the pilot group is aprox 7000 dollars per pilot.

WOW,, you have been at skywest for 5 months and you can come out and say ALPA ISN"T FOR SKYWEST??? not a personal attack but i have seen this same attitude in some of the new guys around here,, some of the brand new fo's almost peed their pants when they heard management wanted to just give fo's an immediate raise,, i have been here almost 2 years now, there are guys that have been here 20 years,, the only guys excited about the prospect of an fo only raise are the guys fresh off oe...so just tell me this, none of the following will help you attain the goals you desire in this career??

ALPA’s 110th Congress Agenda
June 2007

Airport Access

Airport access is our #1 priority. It’s been every pilot and every flight attendant’s nightmare before and especially since 9/11. ALPA drafted language, met with staff, and thanks to our friends on the Senate Commerce Committee, the recently passed Senate version (S. 4), of the legislation implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission contains a provision that requires TSA, after consultation with airlines, airports, and flight crew unions, to report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on the status of establishing a process that would give flight deck and cabin crew members expedited access through screening check points. The TSA is further directed to begin full implementation of the system no later than one year after submitting the report. The bill is now in conference with the House and we have had some very positive conversations with them about this provision being in the final product. However, keep in mind that the President has threatened to veto this bill if it contains a provision, which is in both bills, to grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. Hopefully, we will have further congressional action before the July 4 recess.

Akaka Amendment

If airport access is item #1, then this is item #1A. We came very close last year when Sen. Akaka’s (D-HI) bill to allow pilots whose defined benefit plan had been terminated, the ability to receive the PBGC maximum guarantee at age 60 rather than at 65, was added to the Senate pension reform by a vote of 58-41. A similar bill had been introduced in the House by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and the House of Representatives subsequently voted three times to instruct it’s conferees to accept the Senate language. Unfortunately, House Republican conferees chose to ignore the wishes of the body and opposed every attempt by the Senate to include it in the conference report and it was ultimately dropped. The results of the last election have improved our chances; for one think, Rep. Miller is now the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

On May 2, 2007, Rep. Miller and Sen. Akaka re-introduced their bills in the 110th Congress: H.R. 2103 and S. 1270, respectively; both titled the Pilots Equitable Treatment Act. ALPA President John Prater recently met with Sen. Akaka on this issue. The Senator pledged his full support for the measure and committed himself and his staff to working to see this legislation enacted into law as soon as possible. On May 3rd, Prater testified on behalf of ALPA before the House Education and Labor’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions on modifications to the Pension Protection Act. His comments, which focused on the Miller/Akaka language, were well-received by the Subcommittee members, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

ALPA has launched a nationwide grassroots Action Alert on the website where all ALPA members can help generate maximum congressional support for the Miller and Akaka bills by contacting their Senators and Representatives to urge them to co-sponsor these bills and work for their speedy passage. Sign onto the crewroom.alpa.org and look under the Advocacy tab or click on the Legislation and Politics link. Click on the Action Alert button and follow the directions to send e-mails to your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. Suggested messages are provided.

Security

There are several other security issues on ALPA’s agenda such as the FFDO program and possibly aircraft secondary barriers. On the FFDO program, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed such as carriage, time off for training and reimbursement of training costs. Captain Prater has written a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, asking him to hold a hearing on the program so that we can air our concerns and address some of the problems with an otherwise successful program.

FAA Reauthorization

Both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have begun in earnest the process of reauthorizing the FAA. In fact, Captain Terry McVenes, the Executive Air Safety Chairman, testified in March before the House Aviation Subcommittee outlining what safety items need to be addressed in this process.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported their bill, S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, on May 16. The bill contains dedicated funding of approximately $400 million annually for modernizing the air traffic control system through the establishment of the Air Traffic Modernization Fund. The Fund would be supported through a surcharge of $25.00 per flight on commercial and high-end general aviation (GA) jet flights. Approximately 90% of GA aircraft would be exempt from the surcharge. The funding generated by the $25 surcharge will be entirely dedicated to modernization costs. The House version of the bill has not yet been introduced; nevertheless, work on this important measure will progress throughout the summer.


Flight Crew Fatigue

Language requiring the FAA to arrange a study on pilot fatigue with the National Academy of Sciences was included in S. 1300. The study will include consideration of research on fatigue, sleep, and circadian rhythms; sleep and rest requirements recommended by the NTSB and international standards. Within 18 months a report will be submitted to the FAA Administrator including recommendations that should be incorporated into the FAA’s rulemaking proceeding on flight limitation and rest requirements. It’s anticipated that similar language will be included in the House FAA reauthorization bill.


Family and Medical Leave Act

On Friday, June 15, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and thirty of his colleagues introduced H.R. 2744, a bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to clarify that flight crews are covered under its provisions. As enacted in 1993, the law states that an employee must have worked 60 percent of a full-time schedule over the course of a year, or the equivalent of 1,250 hours. While this figure adequately reflects 60% of a full-time schedule for the vast majority of workers in this country, it does not adequately take into account additional time spent on the job that is unique to pilots and flight attendants.

H.R. 2744 clarifies that an airline crewmember will be eligible for FMLA benefits if he/she has been paid for or completed 60 percent of their company’s monthly hours or trip guarantee.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, but no action has been scheduled at this time.

Bankruptcy Reform

ALPA has worked very closely with the AFL-CIO and other affiliates to draft a bill to make needed changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Although the egg can’t be unscrambled; in particular, ALPA needs to re-establish the original intent of the 1113 process and allow unions to take self help when companies use the bankruptcy code to abrogate their contracts with the blessing of judges who have no clue about labor law.

In light of the recent decision against the AFA in the 2nd Circuit, the lawyers are re-drafting those provisions to reflect a fix to that ruling. ALPA has had several meetings with the House and Senate Judiciary Committee staffs and looks forward to introduction of a bill in the very near future with hearings to follow. Given the slight Democratic majority in the Senate, this bill will not move. Sixty votes will be needed, and they are not there. However, we can put the argument out there and hope to move it further in a different Administration.

Age 60

On May 24, 2007, the ALPA Executive Board voted by an overwhelming 80 percent margin to end the union’s longstanding support for the FAA Age 60 mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. In the faced of concerted efforts to change the rule in Congress and the FAA, the Executive Board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change.

ALPA President, John Prater, noted that “ALPA pilots will be fully engaged in shaping any rule change. Any legislative or regulatory change needs to address ALPA’s priorities in the areas of safety, medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactive application of change, liability protection, and appropriate rule implementation.”

ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:

· Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot (captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”
· Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”
· Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.
· Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.
· Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.
· Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60.
· Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all operations.
· Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.

The Board charged that ALPA continue to aggressively lobby for the adoption of the Akaka bill (which would provide full PBGC benefits to pilots who retire at age 60).

The ground began shifting on the Age 60 rule when FAA Administrator Marion Blakey announced in January 2007 that “the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65”, and that “(t)he rule we intend to propose will parallel the ICAO standard – either pilot or copilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60.”

In response to the FAA Administrator’s announcement, Prater established the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel “to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age.”

The Panel presented its findings in the areas of aviation safety; collective bargaining; the cost and structure of heath care, disability, and retirement benefits; pilot training; medical standards; and scheduling rules to the Executive Council at its April 2007 meeting.

Congress introduced S.65 and H.R.1125 – The Freedom to Fly Act. The Panel concluded that the provisions in these bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues with respect to a change in the mandatory retirement age.

In response to this conclusion, the Council recommended to the Executive Board that ALPA modify its policy to enable ALPA to influence legislation and regulatory efforts. This became more critical as legislative efforts to change the rule accelerated.

ALPA Hails Bankruptcy Reform Legislation Introduction

WASHINGTON—The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) president Capt. John Prater joined other AFL-CIO union leaders and key members of Congress today to announce new legislation that would remedy the unjust bankruptcy code that helped airline managements strip workers of their hard-earned pensions, salaries, and work rules following the events of 9/11.

“Managements and bankruptcy judges used the law to force America’s workers to give too much after terrorists attacked this nation on that dark day in September,” said Prater. “But now that the emergency is over, it’s time to fix the bankruptcy code, and this bill is a good first step.” (read Capt. Prater's statement)

The “Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2007” would close loopholes that enabled managements to gut workers’ contracts during tough economic times, and would put workers and retirees on equal footing with businesses and banks when companies go bankrupt.

“Since 2001, pilots have given more than $30 billion in concessions, sacrificing an enormous amount to save our airlines and our jobs,” said Prater. “This bill promotes economic fairness and requires shared sacrifice among all company stakeholders—that’s something we can all embrace.”

The legislation is being introduced by U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).

Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world’s largest pilot union representing more than 60,000 cockpit crewmembers at 41 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. Visit the ALPA website at www.alpa.org for more information

Skywest pilots who have been around more than four or five years have tried several other attempts to organize including the Unified Pilots Association "UPA", Certifying SAPA, and tried to get some other regional airlines to join in what would be the Regional Airline Pilots Association, RAPA. These attempts were all blown to pieces primarily due to not enough legitimate funding to get things started as well as apathy which is so prevalent among the group. ALPA, even with all its problems, weaknesses and conflicts is the only legitimate alternative to take some measure of control now.

Please reread the track record of Sapa and see what a strong hold they combined with management have had on the Skywest pilot group for so long. The funny thing is the less educated/experienced of the group, with little knowledge of how sapa pushes their bosses (skywest management) agenda through think they are being represented.

Ha Ha, I like that one. I will rotate the avatar periodically so we can get maximum JB exposure :cool:

dang,, i searched for like 10 minutes to find a picture of ole jack behind bars for drunk driving.... some one please remind me to find it in a couple months when he is done with his jail sentence... :cool:

by they way,,, i cant wait for the 7th season.:D

Give it up. I refuse to vote in ALPA simply because they are doing some good in the Industry (and they certainly are). You're saying we ought to just because SAPA isn't doing enough? Ya'll are drinking too much of YOUR own kool-aid!

sure would be a shame for you to carry that attitude to your next employer.

More Reason for ALPA....
 

Judge backs pilot who grounded self
By Paul Beebe
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/11/2007 11:52:02 PM MDT

An administrative law judge has ordered SkyWest Airlines to rehire a veteran pilot who said the company fired him illegally for declaring himself and his crew unfit to fly after a perilous trip to Jackson, Wyo., where a landing was aborted because of bad weather.
The airline said it fired Don Douglas five months after the 2005 incident because he wrote profane graffiti on company property on two occasions and then refused to take responsibility after being confronted. SkyWest said Douglas's declaration that he and two crew members were unable to fly had nothing to do with his termination.
"I'm ecstatic. I hope I've done something about safety. It was always about safety," said Douglas, who lives in Sandy.
A company spokesman said the St. George-based regional airline hasn't decided whether to appeal the judge's ruling.
"SkyWest maintains fair disciplinary procedures with our employees, and in the case of Mr. Douglas, a thorough investigation process was utilized before he was terminated," spokeswoman Marissa Snow said in an email.
"After two review boards in which his peers reviewed and upheld the decision, an investigation was conducted by the Department of Labor, which also found no merit in the case," Snow said Thursday.
The Oct. 3 ruling by Judge Russell Pulver overturns an earlier ruling by the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA ruled last year that the evidence supported SkyWest.
Douglas, a 16-year SkyWest veteran, reported to work at Salt Lake City International Airport on March 21, 2005, three days after a vasectomy. Cleared to work by his surgeon, Douglas was scheduled to fly a 30-seat Embraer Brasilia turboprop airplane from Salt Lake to Jackson that night and return the next morning. Douglas felt fit to fly, even though he and his crew were warned that they would be flying through rain and snow.
Before departing, the crew's first officer and flight attendant told Douglas they were not feeling well. Troy Brewer, the first officer, said he was tired from a lack of sleep. Flight attendant Brandee Black said her arthritis was bothering her.
The flight was difficult, according to the judge, who wrote that Douglas and Brewer "were under more stress than usual because they had to fly on instruments and the conditions were icy."
Because wind and runway conditions were unsafe in Jackson, aircraft controllers put the flight into a holding pattern that lasted about an hour, then ordered Douglas to fly back to Salt Lake through the poor weather.
After returning, Douglas learned that he and the crew were scheduled to attempt another flight to Jackson - about five hours later - at 4:40 a.m. the next day. According to the judge's 49-page ruling, Douglas found himself unexpectedly feeling too poorly to fly so soon because he was physically and mentally drained from the experience. Douglas also said a mild discomfort from his surgery had become intense during the flight.
After considering how he felt and determining that Brewer and Black were too fatigued to fly again so soon, Douglas told a SkyWest supervisor that he and his crew would not be able to safely fly to Jackson.
"As a pilot, [Douglas] was trained to declare himself unfit should he become unfit during the course of a shift. He believed that it would be a violation of federal air safety regulations if he were to fly unfit, or were to allow a crew member to fly that he had determined was unfit," Pulver wrote.
"He also believed that he as the captain had the final authority to make fitness determinations concerning himself and his crew," the judge wrote.
SkyWest disagreed. After an investigation, Tony Fizer, the airline's western region chief pilot, suspended Douglas for a week without pay and put a letter of reprimand in Douglas's personnel file. Fizer said Douglas was already unfit to fly when he arrived for work. Douglas also did not have the authority to keep his crew from flying, Fizer said.
Two months later, a review board reversed the suspension and downgraded the severity of the letter. Fizer was told to inform Douglas that in the future he should consult with a flight surgeon before declaring himself unfit and each crew member must tell the company if they believe they are unable to work. Only if a crew member was incapacitated could Douglas declare that person unfit for duty.
In July 2005, the words "f--- Fizer" appeared on a cork board in a SkyWest crew lounge. After the board was removed, "You can still f--- Fizer" was written on the wall.
Two handwriting experts hired by Fizer later concluded that Douglas had written the epithets. Douglas was told he could keep his job if he accepted responsibility. He refused and was fired on Aug. 31, 2005.
"I couldn't admit to something I didn't do," Douglas said.
Lawyers for Douglas argued that the graffiti was written in generic block letters, not in cursive script. A handwriting expert hired by Douglas said the writing wasn't his. And the SkyWest experts never looked at handwriting samples from other people before determining Douglas was responsible.
At a hearing in September, Fizer claimed the epithets didn't bother him, though he said they created a sexually hostile work environment and required an extensive investigation because senior SkyWest managers were alarmed.
In Pulver's ruling, the judge said Fizer showed "retaliatory animus" at one meeting with Douglas. The judge also said Fizer lacked credibility because of "baseless accusations" and other steps he took toward Douglas.
"I . . . find Fizer's antagonistic statements concerning the protected activity [when Douglas declared himself and his crew unfit to fly] provide circumstantial evidence of a retaliatory motive for terminating [Douglas's] employment," the judge wrote.
Pulver said Douglas is entitled to back pay and attorney fees.

Isn't your Chief Pilot suppose to stick up for his /her pilot's??

Well said!!

Is it wrong to vote for ALPA out of spite? I just really hate my schedule right now.

This is a tough one to swallow.. I hope the company realize that safety is # 1

Great post jack, hope people take a seat back and read your material.

ALPA got my Grandad's seniority number back after he was wrongfully fired and also saved my Dad's seat under similar circumstances.

is the vote over yet? you cant really change peoples opinions at this point, but im glad that there are enough people at skywest who realize how important unions are.

unions have been trashed and badmouthed for the last few years especially alpa but think about this analogy for a minute:

pick your favorite sport. unions and management are playing against each other and a contract has served as the rule book (and of course the RLA), and the NMB serve as the referees. Sometimes you get a few bad calls here and there but for the most part both sides play by the rules. Unfortunately since 9/11, everything has been called in favor of management against unions. but instead of everyone booing at the refs, theyre booing at the unions. so the problem is not unions, its getting the other side to play by the rules, and getting the refs to call the game fairly (i.e. give the employees a little power to push back). The only problem is theres really only one way to fire the refs and thats through our openly anti-labor government.

sorry for dumbing down this analogy but im really sick of unions getting blamed for "giving in" or screwing their own guys over, or being out to just make money for the unions. yes unions make money, but believe me unions make more money when the pilots that they represent also make more money.

I do agree with your post almost entirely, but even the biggest union supporter has to admit, that the unions have made ALOT of decisions that benefited only the most senior pilots, while narrow body and RJ drivers have found themselves largely forgotten. The state of the industry and the political environment have definetily hurt ALPA's ability to negotiate effectively, but ALPA has done very little to protect the bottom of the seniority list. I think this is a major reason many SkyWest pilots have a hard time trusting them.

Skywest's vote ends on the 6th.

reel you are right, often times junior guys get completely screwed during concessions or when negotiating a new contract. but is it really the unions fault? i contend that this is not inherent to unions whatsoever. once again i will use the skywest pay example and what happened to the EMB-120 pilots last year. as the "narrowbody" guys (loosely correlating of course) in the company, they got sold down the river. And this was not the doing of a union.

When a union supports a TA or LOA or CBA that hurts the junior guys, its most likely because of who is in place on the executive committee and representing the union. Theyre more likely to be senior and could possibly be biased to themselves. But when times were good, everyone had it relatively good (except probationary year which has been bad almost everywhere) when it came to wages and work rules. Dont forget that you still have the power to vote. United successfully voted down in almost unanimous fashion their first crack at a lousy TA this past spring/summer even when their MEC said it would be good. Plus look at a place like continental. They are going to be extremely junior and totally "bottom-heavy." You think the senior guys are going to be able to run that place? Theyd have to convince all the guys with horrible QOL on the 737 to give in and believe me thats not going to happen. Youre going to see a lot of great changes for the narrow body guys there in their next contract. With a union you have a lot of power in choosing who represents you, and you should vote accordingly, and always vote. And if you dont like something you can run for a rep position.

The important thing is to stay active, stay involved, and dont sit back and think oh the union will handle it. Sure they will do what they can, but its YOUR union (if you get one). only YOU and your fellow pilots can make it work. Its not easy for those guys to get everything you want, but its up to you to let them know whats really important to you, and if they arent working for you, you can change that. Pilots are extremely apathetic and love to b*tch about everything (I do it all the time but Im learning to channel that negativity toward something good haha). If we used that energy to strengthen our pilot group instead and come up with really great ideas to improve our industry think about how much farther we will be down the road.

If you guys dont get a union thats your choice, but I would like to see you guys come together anyway and be a strong group

I agree with you....to a point. The bottom line is who voted in the T/A's and agreements? The Pilots. Yes, Worthless signed off on them, but the pilots had the opportunity to say no. People were scared for their jobs, or maybe some people just sold out for growth and quick upgrades, whatever their reasons were, EVERY member had a vote.

Thats hilarious! :D

Try bidding a specific pairings up to about 8% in your first layer. I'm around 75% down the list in my base and my entire line comes from my first layer (commutable 4 day trips)

I don't want to hijack, so PM me if you have any questions

It is always about money....

http://www.unionfacts.com/unions/uni...ile.cfm?id=179

Top 10 International ALPA Leaders & Staff (by Salary)
NameTitle Total Compensation
Duane Woerth President $ 485,411
Jalmer Johnson General Manager $ 395,454
Jonathan Cohen Chief Counsel/dir Legal $ 382,641
Bruce York Director, Representation $ 379,586
Paul Hallisay Director, Gov't Affairs $ 330,648
Kevin Barnhurst Director, Finance $ 321,213
William Roberts Asst Dir, Representation $ 312,088
Don Skiados Director, Communications $ 310,454
Jim Johnson Sr Managing Attorney $ 298,908
Jeffrey Small Sr Contr Admin/mec Coord $ 282,860

15-Jun-07 CHILDS RUSSELL A
Officer 19,000 Direct Option Exercise at $19.18 per share. $364,420

15-Jun-07 CHILDS RUSSELL A
Officer 19,000 Direct Sale at $27.57 per share. $523,830

15-Jun-07 RICH BRADFORD R
Officer 59,000 Direct Option Exercise at $10.13 per share. $597,670

15-Jun-07 RICH BRADFORD R
Officer 41,000 Direct Sale at $27.25 per share. $1,117,250

1-Jun-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Automatic Sale at $27.46 per share. $274,600

1-May-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Automatic Sale at $27.31 per share. $273,100

2-Apr-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Sale at $26.78 per share. $267,800

8-Mar-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Automatic Sale at $26.10 per share. $261,000

2-Feb-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Automatic Sale at $27.12 per share. $271,200

3-Jan-07 ATKIN JERRY C
Officer 10,000 Direct Sale at $26.13 per share. $261,300

hahahaha,, yeah its to bad my bud only got a $.10 raise,,, looks like jerry made out pretty good though,, lets see.. 1,609,000.00 in 6 months.... not to shabby.. good thing he is thinking about his pilots right??? right..

um...seriously, this is silly. should we talk to guys at united or any other alpa carriers and see if they are happy with their executives' compensation?