Comair "big" announcement

jtrain609 said:
He won't need to worry about a thing. Our union just sent out an e-mail with overtones of selling out in oder to make this transaction happen. Scope and successorship sections? Jerry wants it gone, and the MEC wants the transaction to happen.

Where's that rat, it's going to end up on the front lawn of our MEC headquarters here real soon.
Click to expand...

Make what transaction happen? Jerry wants what gone, and what is this transaction?
 
jtrain609 said:
He won't need to worry about a thing. Our union just sent out an e-mail with overtones of selling out in oder to make this transaction happen. Scope and successorship sections? Jerry wants it gone, and the MEC wants the transaction to happen.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling that was going to happen. Before you start stringing anybody up, make sure you talk to your reps and see what they have to say. You never know what information they have that might have swayed their opinions towards a certain course of action that rank-and-file pilots aren't aware of.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I had a feeling that was going to happen. Before you start stringing anybody up, make sure you talk to your reps and see what they have to say. You never know what information they have that might have swayed their opinions towards a certain course of action that rank-and-file pilots aren't aware of.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to string anybody up over a newsletter like this.

BUT, if the MEC proposes that we sell out our scope provisions I think the pilot group is going to burn this place to the ground. I just don't know what they could offer as reasoning to justify something like this ya know? Our scope is the only thing that allows our contract to function.

Even if we got the next best thing, something like a provision that states there will be equal growth at Skywest and XJT/ASA, requiring that for every 1 airplane added to the Skywest side, there will be 1 airplane added to the other side, and for every 1 pilot added to the Skywest side, there will be 1 pilot added to the other side, and vise versa all around, it will be used against us in future contracts. The mothership will come back and say, "You can keep that provision, if you take a wage concession."

No thanks. We've got all the job security we need in our scope and successorship language.
 
Burn it down Jtrain. Burn it down!

:)

Many of us on the Acey side of the fence want you guys to fight this one to the death, for the sake of NOT allowing this acquisition to go through . . . but we also don't want to watch some of our friends end up without jobs . . . that is, if XJTs financial stability will be in jeopardy should this not end up the way SkyWest Inc. wants it to.

Then again, I haven't seen the newsletter. ;) I take it this newsletter came out after CC sat down with BH and JA in Vegas?
 
surreal1221 said:
Burn it down Jtrain. Burn it down!

:)

Many of us on the Acey side of the fence want you guys to fight this one to the death, for the sake of NOT allowing this acquisition to go through . . . but we also don't want to watch some of our friends end up without jobs . . . that is, if XJTs financial stability will be in jeopardy should this not end up the way SkyWest Inc. wants it to.

Then again, I haven't seen the newsletter. ;) I take it this newsletter came out after CC sat down with BH and JA in Vegas?
Click to expand...

That's correct.

I'll be frank, after reading Acey's "protections," it's a bunch of crap. We need a real scope provision, or at the absolute least, parity with hiring/furloughing and acquisition/disillusion of aircraft with Skywest. If they want to offer that, then fine, great, grand, wonderful, maybe something can work.

But if there isn't one list, and Skywest won't agree to parity, then it's obvious that their only intent is whipsaw. If that's what they want, then they can pry our airline from our cold, dead hands.
 
jtrain609 said:
That's correct.

I'll be frank, after reading Acey's "protections," it's a bunch of crap. We need a real scope provision, or at the absolute least, parity with hiring/furloughing and acquisition/disillusion of aircraft with Skywest. If they want to offer that, then fine, great, grand, wonderful, maybe something can work.

But if there isn't one list, and Skywest won't agree to parity, then it's obvious that their only intent is whipsaw. If that's what they want, then they can pry our airline from our cold, dead hands.
Click to expand...

I can only pray the rest of XJT's pilot group feels the same way and acts accordingly....
 
If the tyrannical anti-labor overlords (did I say overlords? I meant protectors) at Pinnacle can agree to one list, one contract for three airlines, you'd think the "pilot friendly" peace lovers over at Skywest would be cool with it. That would mean that Skywest would be union, which is likely why management is against it.
 
kellwolf said:
That would mean that Skywest would be union, which is likely why management is against it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if I tell you that say, bowling is going to destroy humanity as we know it, then I go out and join not one but TWO bowling leagues, you might start to wonder. ;)
 
We are being sold to SKYW in a shrunken form and only a certain number of pilots and f/as will follow. There will be tons of furloughs as Comair will only have about 50 a/c on property.
 
jtrain609 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to string anybody up over a newsletter like this.

BUT, if the MEC proposes that we sell out our scope provisions I think the pilot group is going to burn this place to the ground. I just don't know what they could offer as reasoning to justify something like this ya know? Our scope is the only thing that allows our contract to function.

Even if we got the next best thing, something like a provision that states there will be equal growth at Skywest and XJT/ASA, requiring that for every 1 airplane added to the Skywest side, there will be 1 airplane added to the other side, and for every 1 pilot added to the Skywest side, there will be 1 pilot added to the other side, and vise versa all around, it will be used against us in future contracts. The mothership will come back and say, "You can keep that provision, if you take a wage concession."

No thanks. We've got all the job security we need in our scope and successorship language.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but that'll never happen.
 
mxflyer said:
I hate to say it but that'll never happen.
Click to expand...

It will never happen if we believe it will never happen.

That's not hope and change, it's a damned negotiating strategy. WE are a party to this transaction also, and it's not just the shareholders, and if WE stand up and say "One list or STFD," then it's one list or STFD!

EDIT: We, as union members, don't understand our legal rights in regard to this transaction. Management is using our ignorance against us. I can assure you that they're reading this right now, and they're hoping there are more people like you than there are people like me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top