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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :ugh:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Think it over.

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."

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.

:ugh: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.

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).


It is very clear where ALPA stands on this.

"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.

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.

True. If you deny the jumpseat to the pilots of a carrier, you have no business asking them for a ride. However, some issues are bigger than your personal convenience. And, where do you draw the line? If you allow the Skybus "pilots" access, you're helping them cut your own throat.

The "captain's authority" you keep spouting off, has absolutely nothing to do with who is allowed in the jumpseat other than to permit or deny people who the company has already allowed this privilege. If the privilege is gone, it is gone. Your "captain's authority" won't do you any good then. You have forgotten the big picture - the company or the investors own the airplane. Your job is to be a professional and get the passengers safely from point a to point b.

Sorry, Kids, but you are completely wrong. Access to the jumpseat is a privilege negotiated in my Union contract. Therefore, it belongs to ME in MY jet. Our pilots sacrificed something contractually got acquire that access. The only thing the reciprocal list effects is what offline pilots I can offer the privilege to AT MY SOLE DISCRETION.

You're not a pilot are you?

and that right there is what is wrong with your attitude.

and yes I'm a captain at United and was probably flying planes before you were born but you can call me a kid if it makes you feel better. The point I am trying to get across to you is that if the company decides to deny all offline jumpseating then it is your fellow pilots who commute to work who are going to suffer when they start losing their offline jumpseating benefits on other carriers.

:mad::mad::mad:

White Owl,
Do you really think that denying js to startup pilots will affect whether or not they 1) bring their T/Cs up to industry standard 2) enhance their desire to get into ALPA 3) have any real affect other than make you feel like "da man"? Seriously, it WILL have an immediate effect on your peers trying to js on a starup.

Yeah, you can and do have they authority to deny, but what will it accomplish? Perhaps if you had the time during cruise, you could educate/persuade your "guest" on how good you have it, what the rigs are like and in the end he/she might say, I've had enough of Skybus.

Your ulitmate goal is to see either Skybus fail or have their T/Cs close to what industry standards are today. Can't fault you there. But I seriously belive you are doing MORE damage by denying js than allowing it. Plus as I said earlier, you are immediately hurting your own company's commuters. So if you really are set on denying the js to these guys, why not name the company you work for so the Skybus guys can go ahead and start their own campaign of denying the js to your company.

Look, the Delta pilots when they finally got the js and it was offered industry wide had every reason to deny the js to AirTran. Most did not, if any did. Take a look at where AirTran's pay is, compared to Delta's and also ask how many Delta guys use the AirTran js.

So feel that four stripe power running through your veins, but remember, it does no one any good other than your ego. You are not helping the industry or any ALPA drive at Skybus.

Here's one, how about denying the js for pilots continuing to fly past 60. Are they not hurting your career progression? Are they not "taking money out of your pocket"?

MIIVJ,

There is speculation that Skybus has a brand new A319 parked
at CMH because they refused the monthly lessee costs?
Is this reflective of their current environment, cost conscience
in lieu of the posted quarterly loss? All payment costs should
be known well in advance, the lessor will not just show up and
say, oh by the way, the cost is now %25 higher for this aircraft.
In light of the negative publicity garnered by the recent mechanicals
that caused numerous flights to be cancelled over Christmas, is
there a cash crisis at Skybus??

This is an interesting passage from USA Today:

While a previous post of mine showed my "back of the envelope" calcs as:


The $0.05/mile calc assumed essentialy full loads! By comparison Southwest RASM is around $0.09 while their CASM is in the $0.065 range. I seriously doubt that the Columbus lads can get their CASM lower than that, irregardless of the amount of smoke and mirrors they use.

With these kind of yields, they are essentialy screwed!:rolleyes:

:D Two Kids excellent point of view I agree with you 100 %.

On another note "White Owl" writes the same way as some green face clown from APC forum better known as velocitard.

Sleeping Fr. Dog,

We purchased 6 A/C but only wanted 4 (aircanada). They made a deal with us that we would take all 6 and sell the other 2. Those are the ones on the ramp. The are OLD and they do not make parts for that engine type any more. The other 2 of the 4 will go into service by Feb 08.

Rumor is that they were sold before we purchased them and backed out after our purchase....we kept the down payment and now have new buyers.

Anyone know how I can get my hands on a USA 3000 IBT contract...the new one?

Are they still in business?

MIIVJ, I tried to PM you about the contract but your PMs are turned off.

Yes we are still in business, staying small and doing rather well that way.

Not sure that I know him. I do know that we have a few here.

IBT Vote soon to Change Skybus Airlines...make it or break it!!
 

Just received the word.

Skybus Airlines has been notified that the IBT (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) will be representing the Pilots in a vote to become unionized!!!!! Our CEO has been notified!!!!

Skybus CEO resigns to resume book-writing career
 

Skybus CEO resigns to resume book-writing career
Skybus CEO Bill Diffenderffer resigned today, according to The Columbus Dispatch. The paper says he "is stepping aside to return to writing books, a career he left in 2005 when he joined Skybus." Diffenderffer had been at Skybus' helm through the carrier's start-up process and since its first flight on May 22, according to The Associated Press. Speaking in a statement, the chairman of Skybus' board of directors -- C. Robert Kidder -- noted Diffenderffer's work in "creating of Skybus' unique business model, raising the capital that funded the startup, and the planning leading to Skybus' first flights in May 2007 and its first year of operation," the Dispatch writes.

But with the airline now off the ground, Diffenderffer "feels that now is the time for others in the organization to take the lead in moving Skybus forward," Kidder goes on to say in his statement. AP notes Skybus "has endured some bumps since it began flying on May 22," including a Christmastime schedule disruption and a shakeup of routes and destinations. Skybus says the latter is in response to soaring fuel costs. Diffenderffer will be replaced by current Skybus CFO Mike Hodge. Prior to joining Skybus in March 2007, the Dispatch says Hodge "had been a managing director and airline-industry analyst at Tiger Management, a hedge fund that helped provide startup funding for Skybus."

Skybus press conference tomorrow at Portsmouth?
 

It looks like tomorrow there will be a press conference or at least a press release held at Portsmouth Pease International Tradeport (PSM). Not sure about the content though. Maybe new routes will be announced?

Probably will be annunced a new base at Portsmouth...

Not sure, I think they may just announce a co-financing of the terminal expansion.

You were right:

http://www.theairdb.com/news/2008-04-01-skybus.html