Skywest

Seggy said:
Time out.

You work for a nonunion carrier, which, in negotiations, is used as an example of some where flying will be shifted to if cuts aren't made at unionized carriers.

So @juxtapilot, even though I may not agree with his expectations, can bitch and moan all he wants about the situation he's in 'thanks' to ALPA. You really can't critique what ALPA is or isn't doing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can.

1902329.jpg
 
Seggy said:
You did leave on your own accord and weren't furloughed from there correct?
Click to expand...
That is correct. I would do the same thing again - it was the right thing for me to do at the time considering the totality of the circumstances. Please note also that I'm very much a believer in organized labor and generally in favor of union representation.

My point, as unclear as it might be, is that the carrots that regional ALPA has been handed are fairly lousy by comparison to the concessions (the stick) they've extracted from those pilot groups. In the words of the Eagle MEC chairman, I am "profoundly disappointed" at what has happened at a few other regional carriers. Hooray, new airplanes and a flow deal.

I don't like it. I don't think such arrangements are good for anyone's careers, and to me, the protection of folks' careers is what ALPA (and SAPA) is all about.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
That is correct. I would do the same thing again - it was the right thing for me to do at the time considering the totality of the circumstances. Please note also that I'm very much a believer in organized labor and generally in favor of union representation.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you for your decision either and I do know where you stand on union representation.

My point, as unclear as it might be, is that the carrots that regional ALPA has been handed are fairly lousy by comparison to the concessions (the stick) they've extracted from those pilot groups. In the words of the Eagle MEC chairman, I am "profoundly disappointed" at what has happened at a few other regional carriers. Hooray, new airplanes and a flow deal.

I don't like it. I don't think such arrangements are good for anyone's careers, and to me, the protection of folks' careers is what ALPA (and SAPA) is all about.
Click to expand...

Once again as one who has been briefed on negotiations where ALPA carriers have been told, 'you need to take cuts or the flying will be sourced over to Skywest', how do you think your post would be handled? Granted, it is disgusting on what has happened, ALPA has dropped the ball, but non-union/under represented airlines hasn't made the job easier.
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
Once again as one who has been briefed on negotiations where ALPA carriers have been told, 'you need to take cuts or the flying will be sourced over to Skywest', how do you think your post would be handled?
Click to expand...
"Jabba the Magnificent hopes you will die...honorably."

:D
 
Seggy said:
I don't blame you for your decision either and I do know where you stand on union representation.



Once again as one who has been briefed on negotiations where ALPA carriers have been told, 'you need to take cuts or the flying will be sourced over to Skywest', how do you think your post would be handled? Granted, it is disgusting on what has happened, ALPA has dropped the ball, but non-union/under represented airlines hasn't made the job easier.
Click to expand...

I already wrote this earlier...

In the last two negotiations, we were "threatened" that if we voted no more flying would be sourced to RAH or Expressjet. Second go we were threatened with PSA and Mesa. All of those are union airlines. Unfortunately, I think you're wrong right now Seggy. Because of what PSA voted in a few months ago, that will affect Skywest's negotiating power whenever they renegotiate. It is currently not how you describe it, but rather the other way around.
 
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html

I didn't see anything in there that says "It isn't a contract under the RLA without a certified union on property."

However, I am no lawyer. If you can find it in that link, let me know. I did see this though - which mentions nothing of a union.

Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
Sixth. The term "representative" means any person or persons, labor union, organization, or corporation designated either by a carrier or group of carriers or by its or their employees, to act for it or them.
 
B767 said:
I already wrote this earlier...

In the last two negotiations, we were "threatened" that if we voted no more flying would be sourced to RAH or Expressjet. Second go we were threatened with PSA and Mesa. All of those are union airlines. Unfortunately, I think you're wrong right now Seggy. Because of what PSA voted in a few months ago, that will affect Skywest's negotiating power whenever they renegotiate. It is currently not how you describe it, but rather the other way around.
Click to expand...

As you don't believe what I (and @BobDDuck) am saying and going off what SAPA is saying (remember no one is sure where SAPA's interpretation is coming from), what type of 'negotiations' are you in? Section Two? Section Six?

Also, your company is using other companies against you like ExpressJet, PSA, or Mesa use Skywest to make a point in the begging SAPA is doing to Skywest. If we were under one umbrella it would be a lot harder for the companies to use each other as threats. A few years ago, Mesa brought in negotiators from every other ALPA USExpress Carrier. It made the management go nuts. It would be nice if Skywest/RAH was there to help that point.

B767 said:
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html

I didn't see anything in there that says "It isn't a contract under the RLA without a certified union on property."

However, I am no lawyer. If you can find it in that link, let me know. I did see this though - which mentions nothing of a union.

Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
Sixth. The term "representative" means any person or persons, labor union, organization, or corporation designated either by a carrier or group of carriers or by its or their employees, to act for it or them.
Click to expand...

First, as @BobDDuck, the head of ALPA Representation is saying what I am saying. You and @ComplexHiAv8r need to remember that as airline pilots you work under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). You are claiming that SAPA is representing you, but under the law, they aren't. Under the RLA you CAN'T have a contract unless the following is met....

http://www.nmb.gov/helpdesk/helpdesk_union-representation.html

Certification and Decertification

When a union or an individual seeks to represent a specific group of employees (craft-or-class) for the purpose of negotiating as a group on wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions (collective bargaining), the NMB investigates the case. The NMB examines the jurisdiction of the carrier under the Railway Labor Act ( RLA); the appropriate carrier and craft-or-class designation; the eligibility of voters; and whether an election is justified. If an election is authorized, the NMB conducts the election and certifies the winning union or individual to represent the group. Additionally, the NMB ensures that the representation process occurs without interference, influence or coercion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GypsyPilot said:
If you are trying to win us over to the Union way of doing things, you sure do a crappy job of it. You are very disrespectful and demeaning. Seriously, how many times do you have to spout out "Student Council"? Your poor delivery just pisses me off and makes me want nothing to do with a union at SkyWest. If you're trying to win us over I recommend you read this book or something:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650
Click to expand...

Another question for you. Why would you want nothing to do with a union at Skywest, but would have no problem signing up for a union on day one of the airline you want to retire from?
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
How about something better then wiki? I expected you would of directed me to the exact language that says that. I'm not near a computer this weekend to do proper searches. Thanks I can't wait for the ALPA party this week. I hope they bring TACOS! 8)
Click to expand...
It has to do with the RLA being seperate from the NLRB. The NMB who oversees mediation of the RLA and it's associated contracts does not/has not accepted good faith in negotiations. There must be two recognized and approved parties to have a contract. I can go into more detail if you want but I'm not going to do it tonight.
 
@Seggy I never said I work for Skywest. I worked for another 121 regional who is represented by ALPA. Pretty easy to figure out in my last few responses, and I've never hid the fact either.

The negotiations I spoke of, where we were threatened of more sourced flying going to RAH, ExpressJet, PSA, and Mesa, happened when I worked for said ALPA represented regional. Therefore you're argument is losing ground. I worked for an ALPA airline. We were "threatened" that if we don't vote yes then these other ALPA (and RAH-I forget who their union is) regionals would get the additional flying. Again, Skywest was not mentioned. Just the previous mentioned union regionals.

As for the "under one umbrella" comment. I sure hope you're not referring to all regionals being represented by ALPA? That would make it harder for airlines to use each other as threats? Really?? I'm pretty sure I JUST described two different instances where my ALPA airline was threatened with flying being sourced to another ALPA airline. Yea, that REALLY wasn't hard for management to do. And I'm pretty sure my ALPA airline decided enough is enough in terms of concessions. What did management do? Went to ANOTHER ALPA airline and threatened them. They approved the TA.

So one ALPA airline boned other ALPA airlines by agreeing to capping CAs at 12 years and capping FOs at 4 years. Man, management really went out of their way to make that happen. They asked two companies for concessions. The second one took the deal. So again, how would being under one umbrella be beneficial? I don't see it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry @Seggy, I just looked over the RLA again. I'm not finding ANYWHERE that says you CAN'T have a contract without union representation.
 
B767 said:
I'm sorry @Seggy, I just looked over the RLA again. I'm not finding ANYWHERE that says you CAN'T have a contract without union representation.
Click to expand...
Did you look in the NMB charter? I remember vaguely during section 2 negotiations that the NMB would only allow two parties that were approved. Whatever that may be.
 
Seggy said:
Another question for you. Why would you want nothing to do with a union at Skywest, but would have no problem signing up for a union on day one of the airline you want to retire from?
Click to expand...

Because I have not seen one single Regional airline that is effective. In fact, several seem far worse than what we have going with SAPA and SkyWest management. That is not the case at a major airline. My mentor/instructor is my Uncle, a captain at AA. He was very involved in the union for many years, and the difference I've seen with APA vs. Regional airline representation is night and day. He has absolutely no problem with where I work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top