Good point....the majors need to focus more on service, rather than nickel and diming the passenger for extra baggage.

 

They will in the future. The problem is they allowed people to purchase tickets so far in advance that many of them are already paid for. The airlines can't adjust the prices because of fuel increases. AMR is in deep doo doo over this. They had to add the bag fee because, rumor has it, 90% of the summer flights were purchased before the additional 20% increase in fuel cost. Once these filter out I doubt they'll make the same mistake again.

 

Ok, let me break it down for you. Sorry, some of this is going to be long winded and tedious, but necessary to make my point.

Scope language is negotiated by unionized pilots and written into legally binding documents called CBA's. It's primary purpose is to preserve the jobs of pilots falling under said CBA, and usually to pilots of other CBA's in the event of merger, acquisition/buyout, or successorship. CBA's are legally binding documents that can't simply be changed at managements whim. That it helps guys who have yet to be employed there is incidental. Scope also exists at the regional level. Remember this, it will come back later. I have yet to see where a document authored by management contains scope, or anything that protects the jobs of pilots. If you know of one, please let me know.

1) Does that "handbook" at SKY contain scope language?
2) Is that "handbook" a legally binding document?

I'm going to guess no. If so, please enlighten me. But I don't think so. I don't remember the SKW pilot group putting up too much of a fight as it related to an 18 month pay freeze (how long did that last anyway?) and flying 70/90 seat equipment for 50 seat pay rates. As well as management finding new ways to interpret the handbook as they see fit. Usually not in the pilot group's favor.

If you have been keeping up, the proposed buyout by SKW of a unionized carrier has been stopped (for now) by scope language. The loss of jobs (if any) and displacements (if any) at XJT has been stopped for now, and will more than likely be minimized, again, if there are any due to scope language that was negotiated by a unionized pilot group. If it would have gone through, you do know that about 700 XJT pilots would be on the street, right? I asked you that before in another post and you didn't answer. If you (or anybody else) thinks that XJT would have been operated status quo after the buyout, sorry, you are mistaken. If you need evidence of what I mean, take a look the next time you see a CRJ with an ASA end number on it but has the SkyWest logo on the nose, using the SkyWest callsign, being flown by SkyWest pilots.

Now, to wrap this long winded post up. I can't help but find ironic humor in an RJ FO telling a mainline CA that he better do everything he can to protect the RJ FO's job. Bear in mind, that statement is coming from a pilot at a non union carrier that has voted down union representation multiple times. Also, I'll bet that mainline CA has paid more in ALPA dues than you have made as an as RJ FO up to this point. Who knows? Maybe he was all for scope relaxation, maybe he wasn't. But like I said, YOU telling him that is just too funny.

Go head, write some emotionally laden post that is devoid of any FACTS what so ever. Tell me again what a joke I am. Tell me what a stupid post this is. Cry foul because I hurt your feelings.

 

Apparently you do, you voted yes, didn't you? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Or, if it's true, please tell me how nobody, to include you, cares that SKW is non-union.

I've told you before Rick, you seem to be a pretty level headed guy. But your above post is a little off for you. Besides, I think there are more guys than you think. What did ASA, COMAIR, PSA, PCL, etc have as a standard to shoot for as it related to setting pay rates for 70/90 seat equipment? I don't think SKW's rates do much to help their bargaining power, do you?

 

I voted yes, but it was a hard call to make. I found it unlikely that alpa would do anything for SKW, but I was willing to roll the dice and see if that large of a pilot group might lend some weight to the national picture. Alpa has issues and I'm not afraid to call them out...especially after my experiences at alpa's regional "poster child".

No, SKW does not raise the bar on payscales, they shoot for better-than-average. Of course the pilots have no say in this, they just conduct those votes to keep people from whining about "imposed" pay rates. But the company does offer some other tangible and intangible benefits...the whole package taken together is not bad, relative to this industry.

 

If I had been in your left seat, I would have felt exceedingly uncomforatable.

I understand that you may have been trying to be cute, but that's a strange comment.

After today's announcement, he's doing everything he can to keep his job or some form of what it used to be.

 

Yep, they sure do.

By that statement "poster chhild", who do you mean? It changes pretty quick. For a while it was ACA, then COMAIR, then AWAC, then XJT.

To be clear Rick, is it the pilots that "shoot for better than-than-average"? Or does management get to set them, and the pilots have little or no say? If the pilots have a say I think the the 70/90 seat rate would be better.

Don't forget, SKW pilots have never had to really negotiate anything. They have been able to ride the coattails of the unionized pilot groups to get their "average".

 

The poster-child was mesa...I guess you missed the sarcasm.

Management shoots for better-than-average but not better-than-everybody-else, the pilots have no say. After you include bonuses, it is better than average. Believe me, I researched it quite carefully before I switched regionals...I don't make the same mistake twice.

Yes, any non-union operation in a union industry rides the coattails so-to-speak.

 

The problem is that it is hard to see the light when you've seen your pay slashed, pension lost, or been put on the street all while watching people with less experiance and time in the industry replace what you used to do. There are many facets that have lead to this situation (ie scope/poor management), but how would your morale erode if you were in the same situation? It's hard to find a bright spot when it has been so dark. On the other hand, many have enjoyed increased seniority and better QOL so they are not faced with same pressures.

 

Oops, I'm embarrassed. Sorry. Being a sarcasm aficionado myself I should have picked up on it.

[/QUOTE]