Seggy
Well-Known Member
Oh boy.
H.R. 182, the Safe Skies Act (end cargo carve-out)
- Thread starter Autothrust Blue
- Start date
Oh boy.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
A union doesn't just "fix" things.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
First off, you are correct. Many non union airlines didn't furlough after 9-11. They just shut down.
Secondly, dumping the new guys has very little to do with a union. If a company wants to get expenses off their books, the easiest way to do it is remove pay roll. I suppose at a non union airline they could just arbitrarily slash pay (been done before) as a cost savings instead of removing junior guys, but that's not really much better. In fact, I'd contend that's worse.
Finally, while YOUR quality of life might have eroded under 117, many other people's has improved or remained the same. So, that leads to the question of why has your quality of life eroded. Dig a bit.
Look fellas, I'm not anti-union. But there are two sides to this story. I fully understand that what keeps SKW in line is (among other things) the threat of unionization. They are in fact a necessary evil. But you would be hard-pressed to convince me that bringing a union on-property would be good for me. The only way I could ever envision a union making life better here is if there were a nationwide all-inclusive regional-pilot union. Then we as an industry could actually get somewhere. I hate the fact that SKW has taken union work (think horizon, eagle), and can not comprehend how this has hurt my fellow pilots. But again, only an industry-wide union will stop these and many other problems.
But a SKW alpa? Not helpful. Regional alpa? Now we're talking.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Before I go in depth further, what is your ultimate career goal? Bluntly put, do you plan on staying at Skywest?
Apophis
Resident Iconoclast
What's your point?
Yes, the onus is still on a flight crew member to reject such treatment. I never said it wasn't.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I guess my point is that this only happens at 135 operators because pilots let it happen. (It's like a lot of things in this industry, really)
24-hour call is, as I understand it, not permitted under Part 135; if outfits are doing that, then the pilots need to say "no".
Apophis
Resident Iconoclast
You're correct, it is not permitted. I think a lot of guys allow it to happen because they're afraid of getting fired. Personally, I'd rather be unemployed than work at a place that blatantly disregards the rules.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Not even worth the effort. You just can't fix stupid.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
You lose your support base when you resort to personal insults to those who disagree with you.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I rather like both @ATN_Pilot and @Seggy (and this isn't really directed at @Seggy, but more at @ATN_Pilot )—but hear this and heed it: condescending to SkyWest pilots is not a winning strategy for organizing them.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I'd imagine the discussion would go something like this with me:
"We're going to put you on 24-hour short call when regulations do not permit it, do this, or you're fired."
"Up yours, guess I'll need to find a new job if you want to do that, then."
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
White Doug, I gave up on that idea a long time ago. The millions of dollars in wasted dues dollars left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Seggy
Well-Known Member
After what I told you what happened last week, my patience is thin.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Oooh, story time!
Mind if I give you a call tonight to explain?
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
What happened?
