I voted 'Decline' on the SKYW pay proposal this morning.

First of all, it is a net pay decrease for me, a 2nd year FO. A 0.32% [11 cent] increase in my base rate coupled with a decrease of 1% in BHO (from 6% to 5%)

I want first year FOs to get the 2.50/hr raise. I think it's a necessity to attract talent currently choosing other regional airlines with higher first year pay. I think the company will do this anyway. I don't want to pay for it, though. Management has negotiated a SAPA-certified way to pay for it -- via 2nd year FO pay.

If they want this passed, porking the 2nd year FO is pretty stupid since 2006 hires comprise a rather large hunk of the CRJ pilot group.

That's only my first reason.

I love SkyWest and encourage anyone to get on board, but a 1% COLA????? That's just blatently retarded. That's retarded to me and I haven't been here through the 'DEAL-ME-AN-ACE' and other pay freezes.

Why hasn't anyone considered doubling the OPS/PER awards percentage? That way if the company makes more money, we get more money. A fair way to get our share when times are good, and not screw ourselves when times are lean.

 

Brother, you're going to get hosed here! Most of your co-workers on this site give the impression that "they're lucky to get a raise" and they'll take it gratefully.

Best of luck to you guys.

 

All I can say is Ha Ha Ha... rob Peter to pay Paul

 

Absolutely completely totally unbelieveable how many people voted down a union and now they complain about this.

 

Not a complaint per se, more like a rationale for my vote. I sure as hell don't want a pay decrease.

FYI, I'm a 35%'er, thank you.

 

I am not going to make some anti-Skywest comment like others are doing...


I will just say THANK YOU for voting the way you did on this pay proposal. I figure most of the ALPA YES people will vote NO for this pay package, and hopefully enough of the others will vote NO to get at least 51% to vote NO!

 

I voted NO. The whole pay decrease part of the deal is what lead me to that tough decision. lol

What do you expect without a union though....

 

I hope you did not include my post as anti-Skywest.

It was not -- however I question the thought process of the 66% who voted no to a union and are now surprised at the offer the company has made the pilot group: a paycut.

Good on ya for voting no to this. I know I sure would.

 

you guys should make a "35%" sticker and put it on your flight cases. i believe this was done back in the day at a legacy carrier to distinguish who voted yes and no on some concessions. anyway im just kidding about the stickers, come together as one and vote this thing down!

 

Why does a vote "YES" for a union automatically mean a vote "NO" or a vote "ANTI" for your company?


A lot of folks don't understand what a union is for; only a small percent of union activity has to do with anti-company rhetoric, and that only occurs at companies that are blatantly anti-labor like MAG.

A union's function has a lot to do with smoothing out the interface between the ops side of the company and the crew force. One big role of an elected representative is to hear day-to-day issues brought up by pilots and clarify those issues based on contractual language. When a discrepancy is found, the elected rep acts as a go-between to resolve the matter on behalf of the effected crew-member. In what is supposed to be a rare event that resolution is not forthcoming, the matter is sent through the grievance process and mediated formally. The problem at crummy carriers with bad contracts is that there is so much grey-area in the language that the company can interpret the rules any way they want (flavor of the week).

Next, the union also functions as a contract negotiator on behalf of the crew force. Negotiators are selected by the elected body and take direction from the elected body as to how they will negotiate and for what they will negotiate. The elected body in turn takes direction from the crew force. When the negotiating committee feels that a reasonable agreement has been framed, it returns to the elected body who approves or disapproves it. If it is disapproved (as it sounds like the current proposal would have been), the language NEVER sees the light of day and the process starts over. If the proposal is thought to hold merit, it is then put over to the pilot group for a general vote. Sounds to me like this "elected-middle-man" step is lacking in your process.


Just my two cents...