Skybus...

[flyboyike]

While I don't agree with the tone of some of the posts in this thread, the bigger question here, I think, is why it is that we, as pilots, seem willing to fly larger and larger equipment for less and less money? Especially in a time when even if the demand for pilots isn't growing (and I believe it is), the supply is certainly dwindling. Why are most of us, for the lack of better way of putting it, financially dumb?

[White Owl]

why it is that we, as pilots, seem willing to fly larger and larger equipment for less and less money? Especially in a time when even if the demand for pilots isn't growing (and I believe it is), the supply is certainly dwindling. Why are most of us, for the lack of better way of putting it, financially dumb?

Its called SJS or "Shiny Jet Syndrome". It usually infects underqualified pilots who want to get ahead at any cost. Therefore, they'll sign up to fly an A320 for half of what the average A320 Captain is making.

Unfortunately, there are some (here even) who believe that flying for low wages doesn't effect other airlines unless they have overlapping route structures.

This could not be farther from the truth. As an example let's look at what I call the "jetBlue phenomenon". When jetBlue opened their doors, they were paying approximately 60% of the wages for narrowbody Captains at U.S. legacy carriers. They paid no pension. Their benefits were substandard by Union Contract standards at the time.

They were, however, the hometown airline in the biggest media market in America. We were bombarded with praise on an almost daily basis about how jetBlue was going to revolutionize the industry. They cut fares in the heavily travelled East Coast market and instituted Transcon service (even though their airplanes frequently could not make the trip non-stop in the winter).

The response from the legacy carriers? They either forced the pilots to take pay cuts by threat of furlough or used the Bankruptcy court to drop pensions and narrowbody wages to jetBlue levels...route system overlap notwithstanding.

Now along comes Virgin at 30% less and Skybus at 50% less than jetBlue. The downward spiral continues and its all due to the individual greed of pilots who accept employment there. They cannot quaify for jobs at the legacy carriers, so they go to work for non-Union airlines who are actively undercutting Union contracts.

Pilots. We're our own worst enemy. And until we band together and treat these "outlaws" like the disease they perpetrate on our profession, they will continue to drive our wages and standard of living down.

A small beginning would be to deny them the Union negotiated privilege of the jumpseat. If they can't get to work, they can't cut our throats.

[flyboyike]

Originally Posted by WhiteOwl

Now along comes Virgin at 30% less and Skybus at 50% less than jetBlue. The downward spiral continues and its all due to the individual greed of pilots who accept employment there. They cannot quaify for jobs at the legacy carriers, so they go to work for non-Union airlines who are actively undercutting Union contracts.

That's another thing I don't get. Virgin America's minimums are something like 7000TT, TR preferred etc. Why someone with that kind of credentials accept those wages is beyond me.

[Two_Kids]

That's another thing I don't get. Virgin America's minimums are something like 7000TT, TR preferred etc. Why someone with that kind of credentials accept those wages is beyond me.

That's just the problem with judging other people. You don't know why they would work somewhere - and you could never know. All you can do is judge them based on the way you perceive reality. For example, I have a friend whose career path was commuter pilot, moved on to major, major merged with another and then another airline and became US Airways where he spent almost 15 years. Furloughed twice and while on furlough this second time pilot group merged yet again. Merger arbitration placed all furloughed pilots (even those with 18 years at US Air) at the bottom of the new combined seniority list where he will never make Captain again - infact he was telling me yesterday he will retire before even reaching a comparable position on the seniority list to what he had prior to this last furlough. Meaning he will retire a junior FO on a 737 commuting to the east coast from the west coast and never seeing his kids, only to gamble that this won't all happen again... so what did he do - went to Virgin America. Now he's home with the kids, making more than he was before anyway. Does VA hurt you? Maybe? Does he give a damn... I doubt it.
In my experience the kind of people who make retarded comments about denying people the jumpseat are those who were lucky enough to not commute because the company they work for has a domicile where they live, or they were able to move to live in domicile, and they haven't experienced the kinds of backwards career progression that can happen to the best of us in this crazy business.

Just my two cents.

[MIIVJ]

Two Kids.....I have five 22,17,8,2.5 and 6 months.

You are the only one on this board with some common sense! We all do take jobs for different reasons (see me other posts). Some are just too "green" in this industry to know anything else so they ridicule others; those dicisions go so far over their heads that is's pointless trying to reason with them.

To some that like to say they will deny jump seats......go ahead if that what you wish. Jumpseating is a professional curtosy....thats it; there is nothing more to it. If you like to let your opinion run your professional life you have something comming.....LOL. Enough time in this industry and you will be humbled....I was.

My job is great, my pay sucks.....it wont be that way forever.

P.S. I'm home every night with my family and to me that is priceless.

Respectfully written.

[White Owl]

so what did he do - went to Virgin America. Now he's home with the kids, making more than he was before anyway. Does VA hurt you? Maybe? Does he give a damn... I doubt it.

Of course he doesn't. That's because all he cares about is himself. He could have gotten a job out of aviation...probably paying more. Yet he didn't. Why? Too lazy.
So, instead, he took a job with a non-Union outfit knowing full well that he was undercutting every other U.S. narrowbody pilot.
Justification? "I had to feed the family." (edited by the Mod)
As far as jumpseating goes...its true, its a professional courtesy. Its also a professional courtesy not to stab your professional peers in the back.
Hey, you took the job at Virgin/Skybus/jetBlue/Allegiant knowing what they were. Don't expect the industry to support your poor decision by helping you get to work/home.

[Two_Kids]

White Owl...

The TSA pilots tried to start a jumpseat war against gojet pilots last year. You know what happened... the company (who incidentally owns the jumpseat) banned everybody from using the jumpseat.
There are black lists out there... those are of people who crossed a picket line which has absolutely nothing to do with going to work for the competition. They are not the same thing. These companies are competing against mine also but there is nothing "professional" about your reaction.

[White Owl]

You should read Section 115 of the ALPA Admin manual sometime.

[Two_Kids]

Read it? I work with the guys who wrote it, they are my professional colleagues and none of them condone the kind of behavior you advocate.

Originally Posted by ALPA Admin manual section 115

Denial of jumpseat privileges as a means of punishing, coercing or retaliating against other pilot groups or individuals is not supported by ALPA. The Jumpseat and/or Professional Standards Representative appointed by the respective Master Executive Council or governing body should resolve disputes that arise between pilots, airlines or other unions.

[White Owl]

You do understand that "not supported" does not mean prohibited or banned don't you? That's pretty weak language. Let me give you a couple examples of more concrete language from Section 115:

The Captain is, and shall always be, the final authority as to admission to the flight deck.

Accordingly, ALPA supports the Captain's authority to exclude any person other than required crew from the flight deck if, in his opinion, that person's presence will compromise safety.

The presence of a non-Union pilot who is actively undercutting my contract is a distraction that compromises safety.

Host Captains should recognize that a union membership card is another means of identity verification, although not all pilots of represented airlines are union members.

So Section 115 says I CAN use a Union Card as additional identification.

Under the Captain's authority, entry to the flight deck will not be permitted for individuals with whom the Captain or his flight deck crew is not entirely comfortable.

A non-Union pilot who is actively undercutting my contract isn't the kind of person I'm comfortable with.

So, it looks like your "buddies" who "wrote" Section 115 gave me plenty of leeway to accept or deny anyone I want for jumpseat privileges, while reserving the weakest language ["not supported"] for those of you who seem to think the jumpseat is a right conferred upon you by your pilot's license.

[Two_Kids]

You are still missing the point. The jumpseat is not owned by the union nor by you. You can deny anybody the jumpseat same as I can, but that doesn't mean you should. You can make up whatever justification you want for your childish, unprofessional behavior.
But it will be other pilots at your company whose commute is affected when you lose a reciprocal jumpseat agreement, or when the company decides to ban everyone except management pilots and government personelle from the flightdeck. Like I said before, there is nothing professional about your behavior, it is just the kind of nonsense that makes us all look like fools, and keeps upper management very happy because so long as we are fighting other pilots we are not focusing on what they are doing to us.

[White Owl]

Wrong again, Kids. Perhaps you should just drop the subject. I reiterate:

The Captain is, and shall always be, the final authority as to admission to the flight deck.

Not only is that Union policy, but my Company's policy as well. Consider this:

[West Coast]

Two Kids

Well written. In complete agreement about voiding politics from the JS. I hope Skybus doesn't catch on, but it's pilots are welcome to a free ride.

[White Owl]

Then your first sentiment is invalid because you are enabling their success.

Think it over.

[Two_Kids]

The Captain is, and shall always be, the final authority as to admission to the flight deck.

This does not mean that you can permit access to somebody who does not have your company's permission. You only get to deny people, but if the company decides that the jumpseat is off limits because people have been using it as a political tool, then you do NOT get to give permission over their objection.

This is exactly what has happened in the past when jumpseat wars have come to the notice of upper management. It is a privilege we all have and if you abuse it we might all lose it.

[flyboyike]

FWIW.

from usatoday.com.....

Skybus loses $16 million during first full quarter of flying Skybus lost $16 million on operating revenue of $22 million during the quarter ending Sept. 30, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reports. The quarter was the carrier's first full quarter of flying. "Company officials said they expected to lose money before becoming profitable sometime next year, while some analysts said this first look provided some troubling signs for the airline," the paper writes. Skybus spokesman Bob Tenenbaum tells the Dispatch that the results were "in line" with the company's expectations and notes the quarter covered a period in which Skybus was just beginning to fly and was in the middle of its big initial growth spurt.
But while nearly all start-up airlines are expected to lose money during their first several quarters of operation, some industry observers expressed concern. The Dispatch writes it talked to "two airline experts (who) expressed concern that Skybus' yields -- an industry benchmark that is calculated by dividing passenger revenue by passenger miles -- have been very weak." Those yields have already prompted Skybus to act. In October, the airline scrapped three of its five West Coast flights -– flights where the longer distances did not allow the carrier to generate enough additional revenue to offset the increased fuel and other costs associated with the cross-country routes.
The Dispatch says Skybus' passenger yield for the quarter came in at 5.08 cents. By comparison, the Dispatch says Southwest's passenger yield is 12.5 cents while the major carriers average 13 cents. "These are rock-bottom yields, especially in this age of skyrocketing fuel costs," Joseph Schwieterman, a DePaul University professor and former pricing analyst for United Airlines, tells the Dispatch. Aviation consultant Mike Boyd also echoed concerns to the Dispatch, saying "this is just not a very good plan, but that doesn't mean they can't turn it around by scrapping the model."

[White Owl]

2 Kids,

Name the Company and time when jumpseat privileges were removed because individual pilots were selective about who they extended the privileges to.

Specifics, please. If you can't, then you're just blowing smoke.

[Two_Kids]

Originally Posted by White Owl

2 Kids,

Name the Company and time when jumpseat privileges were removed because individual pilots were selective about who they extended the privileges to.

Specifics, please. If you can't, then you're just blowing smoke.

I got the impression that you were not actually reading my responses, now I'm sure of it.
Here is an excerpt from something I wrote in a previous post.

Originally Posted by me

TSA pilots tried to start a jumpseat war against gojet pilots last year. You know what happened... the company (who incidentally owns the jumpseat) banned everybody from using the jumpseat.

In fact what happened over there was pilots were getting fired for denying other pilots the jumpseat, and after a significant number of people called the FAA to complain that their captain's authority was being usurped the company amended their GOM to ban all non TSA pilots from the jumpseat. They also stated that this was done at the request of the FAA. The details are all over the internet if you really want them. This was only last year.

And here's another excerpt from that section which you keep quoting (also posted earlier by me but clearly missed or ignored by you).

Originally Posted by ALPA

Denial of jumpseat privileges as a means of punishing, coercing or retaliating against other pilot groups or individuals is not supported by ALPA.

It is very clear where ALPA stands on this.

[West Coast]

"The Captain is, and shall always be, the final authority as to admission to the flight deck"

If it was really just that easy. Denials come with a price, and it has nothing to do with FAR's.

I'm not enabling anyone's success by extending a professional courtesy. I'm limiting my ability in the long run to use jump seat privileges if I politicize the JS.

[White Owl]

It is very clear where ALPA stands on this.

What's clear is that you don't understand the difference in language between "not supported" and "prohibited".

"Not supported" is just about the weakest language ALPA could have put in there. Yet the "Captain's authority" language is concrete and absolute. You decide what ALPA was saying then they wrote the Section.

Oh, you already have.