Who knows? Well, not you., yet

But, let me help. The ALPA vote was not conducted by the company, but by a US Government agency. The rules for that vote are governed by federal law.

Yes, that is "set in stone".

This pilot vote for an interim amendment to our current pay package is conducted by SAPA, and the rules are agreed to by the company and SAPA. Not very complicated by the way, 50% plus 1 wins.

So, if everyone of us votes (2800), and 1401 vote to decline the proposal, it fails. If only 3 people vote, and 2 vote in favor, it passes.

I hope this helps.

 

aw man. I already miss the grizzly adams avatar.

 

If that's what most pilots think, I'd be happy to push for that in 2010. I'm not a proponent of reinventing the wheel midterm. We were able to get this done in about 2 months. Who knows how long substantial changes would take? I think most want to get rid of BHO, and I think that should be part of our 2010 negotiating.

I know this has been sent out to the pilots, but just to reiterate. This vote is for pay only. Other things are being looked at, but will not be sent to the pilots for a vote.

We are working on a passport reimbursement, we already got a 2 hour across the board short callout on reserve (up from 1 1/2 at most stations), and are working on a 12 hour callout. Also, a per diem for international ops is also being worked on.

There are quite a few more things, but you get the idea. I think Klen and Chip are good to work with, and I think we'll make progress where we couldn't with Brad and Ron.


Your last sentence is ABSOLUTELY correct, but I don't understand your comments on "porking 3rd year next year". The proposal is through 2010, and would therefore include those of us who will be 3rd year FO/CA next year.

Also, if you look at the scales, you'll see that there's not a reduction for 2nd year FO on the 700/900 rate until 2010. That person hasn't been hired yet. Also, I'm remiss in not including the ACTUAL BHO of about 5.66% for those folks... it should have been in the notes that you received as a cover letter. Again, no cut, but no gain for 2008 and 2009. Small cut in 2010.

Oh, I hear ya on that one. But, I honestly don't see us making any further changes to the agreement until 2010 (should this pass), EXCEPT perhaps first year pay.

And that depends on how much we grow, how fast, and how many new bodies we need. But, any change would require SAPA concurrence, and most probably, that requires another pilot vote.

 

I voted NO for the pay proposal.

My understanding is that the company said they would negotiate with us. I want to see if they hold up to that.

It is also my understanding they began working on this pay proposal right after the ALPA vote failed, so it took two months? They could come up with something better in a short amount of time since they already have a base set.

Another one of these smoke and mirrors pay increases that people get suckered into. Some of pay "increase" is just shuffling money around. Our management plays our pilots like pawns and I always enjoy watching these guys vote yes!

I hope it doesn't pass, but I think it will. I have heard too many times with the guys I have just flown with, "they don't have to give us a raise" or "it is better than nothing". That is their reasoning for voting yes.

A union would not have worked here because of attitudes like that. Our pilot group was all fired up and unified for about two weeks after the union drive failed. Now, we are back to drinking the Kool Aid!!!

 

Well, I guess I agree in practice. Even with the "union contracts", labor took it in the shorts since 9/11/2001. George Bush, Inc. hasn't helped, either.

There's been two regional failures in just the past two months.... no contract saved them. So, I guess you could argue, "why bother?"


What is wrong? That there's no home runs? Ok. Or that we'd be getting a pay raise today if ALPA had been voted in?


Any money we can grab now is something to build on then. If I thought we could get 10% across the board NOW, I'd be all for it. That can only help us then, too.

Yes, I argue that if we are the LARGEST regional, and arguably one of the best regionals, with the HIGHEST minimums to get hired, then we should be compensated that way.

For first year guys, I argued for $30, for instance.

 

Unions took it in the shorts because of bankruptcy laws. Laws, by the way, that ALPA is currently working to change so this type of stuff is mitigated next time around.

If Skywest fails, as the two regionals did, not having a contract will not save them as well. But at least having a contract "locks" your pay rates unless your company files for bankruptcy. And even then it has to be proven to an independent judiciary that those cuts are necessary and that its in accordance with bankruptcy law. Without a union at those proceedings, you have no one other than management looking out for your wages.

No, of course there is no home runs. If it only took two months to get the raise you have now, it could have taken the same amount of time to get a larger raise (because of increased leverage). Nothing would have stopped management from negotiating at the same pace it does with SAPA. The difference is that once ratified, those wages are "locked."

 

I just voted no.

It's a kick in the scrotum, Tony, and you know it. "We could eventually get more a couple months down the road, but there would be no net gain" is not a valid rationale. I feel enough like a St. George lap dog after the ALPA vote.

If Skywest wants to continue to be one of the top regionals to work for (I think they do), we should do what we can to make them come up with something better than this.

 

Not necessarily. With ALPA, the MEC tells the negotiating committee what to negotiate and what not to negotiate. They bring the results to the MEC and the MEC decides whether to send the negotiating committee back to the bargaining table to improve the deal or to send it to the pilots for ratification. In other words, the MEC is decides whether a deal is good enough before sending out to the pilots with "attitudes like that." Hell, if the MEC's policy allows, they don't even have to have the TA ratified if they didn't want to or require it to have a super majority for it to be ratified.

 

You just need about 1401 folks to agree with you.

Hope your scrotum gets better

 

Just officially voted NO!!!!!

Here’s what I want to see:

1. Mgmnt told us we can negotiate so let’s see if they hold up to there end.
2. They have to raise first year in order to start filling classes, will they come back to the table quickly in order to get a new agreement passed or will they just raise first year and prove almost everyone on here right.
3. If they start negotiating do they come back with a cost neutral package or will they start taking us seriously.
4. If Mgmnt starts stalling and changes first year pay without a proposal passing then what do those pilots who have been drinking MASIVE amounts of Jerry’s Kool-Aid do? Will they wake up and realize that SKW Mgmnt doesn’t deserve all the respect we give them? Will they realize that Mgmnt truly doesn’t have our backs and therefore finally start pulling together in unity or do they just fall further under Jerry’s control?

It’s worth jeopardizing my raise to get these answers, I urge all SKW pilots to vote NO!!!!!!!

A CA I just flew with was going to vote YES, after 5 hours of flying and discussing I observed him willingly vote NO using his iPhone. I will continue to reach out to every SKW pilot I come across and hopefully we can show some unity in voting NO! We need these answers!