Another Skywest ALPA Drive

ATN_Pilot said:
Any sort of conversation on this that is even remotely intelligent would require an in-depth study of the two seniority lists. SLIs are very complicated, so knee-jerk judgments don't really work all that well.
Click to expand...
This is not a "knee jerk reaction" ...this is me trying to understand basic concepts...
My question may be a comlplicated one, but some of these folks, who already have such strong opinions on how a merge should work, should be able to give me a reasonable synopsis, you know, guys who have been involved with unions and are always on here sharing their opinions.

Are you saying that there aren't any basic philosophies on the different ways of blending seniority lists?

I have already stated I am not trying to solve the problem, merely trying to understand the differences in how lists get blended.
 
Bumblebee said:
Are you saying that there aren't any basic philosophies on the different ways of blending seniority lists?
Click to expand...

There are several different methods are that are common (DOH, staple, stove-pipe, ratio'd, etc...), but they are always applied differently, and conditions and restrictions are almost always involved also. Even if everyone agreed that a ratio was the way to go, how exactly that ratio is determined and applied would take months of negotiations (or arbitration) to determine.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
There are several different methods are that are common (DOH, staple, stove-pipe, ratio'd, etc...), but they are always applied differently, and conditions and restrictions are almost always involved also. Even if everyone agreed that a ratio was the way to go, how exactly that ratio is determined and applied would take months of negotiations (or arbitration) to determine.
Click to expand...
Thanks! What is stove pipe? I think I understand the others (at least in theory).
 
Bumblebee said:
Thanks! What is stove pipe?
Click to expand...

Stove-pipe integration is one of the more complicated methods. DALPA pushed a variant of this as their main proposal in the NWA/DAL SLI, and much of it ended up being applied in arbitrator Bloch's awarded seniority list.

Basically, you divide everybody up into categories using straight seniority. For example: create categories for the WB, LNB, and SNB. Then, you take the seniority list and assign everybody to a category using straight seniority on both seniority lists. What this does is determine exactly how big of equipment every pilot can hold at each property if nobody bid anything except size of equipment, disregarding QOL considerations. Then, you figure out the proper ratio for each equipment, which has to be done on both seniority lists, since one carrier will obviously have more of certain planes than the other. Then you assign seniority slots on the combined list based on that ratio and equipment formula.

What this does is make sure that if one pilot group has tons of WB equipment and the other has very little, then that is taken into account when the ratio is done. Without this, a ratio can cause a windfall for the group with few WB planes.

Complicated system, but it can be very useful.
 
I see what you mean about how complicated and specific this can be. I appreciate the time it took to type that up for me.
 
Bumblebee said:
Wouldn't blending the list based on the percentage of seniority mean that you average out airplanes and crews then everyone basically stays the same?
Click to expand...

yes, especially since we fly the same equipment. I don't understand why everyone else wants to spend years making things more complicated.
 
gtpilot said:
Now, if Skywest becomes unionized, unless the lists are merged or really good scope/growth language is agreed to, you will see the groups played against each other instead of Inc just picking on one side.
Click to expand...


If there were more serious RFPs out there (or I guess, RFPs our management was serious about), I'd expect to see this with us and Colgan. It's the main reason I want to see the lists merged. However, I think there should be some temporary fences set up to keep movement going at both places once it starts again.
 
kellwolf said:
If there were more serious RFPs out there (or I guess, RFPs our management was serious about), I'd expect to see this with us and Colgan. It's the main reason I want to see the lists merged. However, I think there should be some temporary fences set up to keep movement going at both places once it starts again.
Click to expand...
that's a perspective I hadn't had previously...thanks
 
Bumblebee said:
287 aircraft@ SkW vs. 160@ ASA. They quit hiring before we did, so to be fair and maintain QOL consistancy, the list should be blended.
Click to expand...


They and we? Who's who? I know ASA's last class was May '08 and I thought SkyWest continued to hire until July '08. I'm sure the numbers are close but I'm wondering how many pilots were hired at SkyWest after ASA stopped hiring. Or How many pilots ASA hired after SkyWest stopped hiring, if that was the case.
 
Could it be that the mentality of not wanting to merge groups is because as things are now, Skywest Airlines would be the more likely beneficiary of future growth?

Of course merged, the group as a whole would benefit.
 
bike21 said:
Not sure why some of my fellow OO peeps are against a potential merger, the 'tooth & nail' comment came from just one poster I believe. If both groups want to merge, then so be it. I am honestly indifferent at this time, as that is a looong way away. While we can't discount the fact, we have more important things to worry about right now.

So again, if the times comes and we want to merge then right on. Otherwise, lets not put the cart before the horse here.
Click to expand...

Your opinion comes from your seniority position, respectively. We have 2800 pilots with 2800 different views on a potential merger.
 
mrivc211 said:
Your opinion comes from your seniority position, respectively. We have 2800 pilots with 2800 different views on a potential merger.
Click to expand...

Somewhat, I am actually fairly junior only hired in 2005. I certainly respect other folks views, but I don't see a need to get excited about this particular issue anytime soon. Before I take a side either way, I would have to be a LOT more educated on the facts first.
 
BobDDuck said:
I'm finding it VERY interesting that the OO guys on here asking for everybody's support and to limit the bashing have also VERY clearly said that they would fight "tooth and nail" to prevent merging lists with ASA. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. You're either in or you're out. Skywest Inc owns both of you and if you both belong to the same Union then you damn well should be the same pilot group. Even the *evil* Republic got that right.

So, again, I am all for supporting another drive at Skywest and seeing my dues dollars buy more pizza for you, but ya'll can't be just dipping your toes in the water.
Click to expand...

Gotta respectfully disagree with you on this one Bob. If expressjet was merging with Colgan I'd withold making that statement simply because I don't walk your shoes and I wouldn't be affected by that merger.

An example would be AA guys don't really give a hoot about the cactus merger.
 
mrivc211 said:
Gotta respectfully disagree with you on this one Bob. If expressjet was merging with Colgan I'd withold making that statement simply because I don't walk your shoes and I wouldn't be affected by that merger.

An example would be AA guys don't really give a hoot about the cactus merger.
Click to expand...

Umm... I think you have me confused with the other Bob. I don't work for Xjet or CJC. That said, whether I'm on a merging property or not (and it just so happens that while my company hasn't been through a merger, we do have a joint seniority list with another property) that has no bearing on the issue. If you join the common union and your company owns two different certificates, the pilot groups NEED to be one and the same. Otherwise the whole point of unionization is circumvented and instead you are just getting the benefits of ALPA and not providing anything in return.
 
BobDDuck said:
If you join the common union and your company owns two different certificates, the pilot groups NEED to be one and the same. Otherwise the whole point of unionization is circumvented and instead you are just getting the benefits of ALPA and not providing anything in return.
Click to expand...

I would even go so far as to say if one or more companies are owned by a holding company, then they should have a common list and contract.

And, of course, scope to cover the holding company.
 
Polar742 said:
I would even go so far as to say if one or more companies are owned by a holding company, then they should have a common list and contract.

And, of course, scope to cover the holding company.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree. The scope on our TA was essentially the two groups would merger if they wanted to (no forced merger) if Corp did a, b or c. It basically left things as they are now. The GOOD part of the scope was the parent letter that help Corp to the scope. Now, if we could just close the other loopholes in a mutually beneficial way.
 
kellwolf said:
Can't disagree. The scope on our TA was essentially the two groups would merger if they wanted to (no forced merger) if Corp did a, b or c. It basically left things as they are now. The GOOD part of the scope was the parent letter that help Corp to the scope. Now, if we could just close the other loopholes in a mutually beneficial way.
Click to expand...

Can you PM me the parent letter?

Thanks
 
I understand your point. While I do agree, my standpoint is, up to this point, they have not whipsawed our two groups. And keep in mind, we've been together now for about 3 years. I know you're thinking that it doesn't mean they won't do it in the future, and I agree.

Two points I'll make,

One being when ASA negotiated their new contract, there were a few issues that they won that brought them up to SKYW level, which goes contrary to the whipsaw theory.

Also, why couldn't the two groups negotiate as one, without merging?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top