Union vs non-Union question...

PGT

PGT

Well-Known Member
I'm just curious what the right answer is, if there is one. I don't want to step on anyones toes and lately the union threads are creating as big of a heated discussion as some religion and global warming threads :)

Anyway, let's say that airline A is non-union but has better pay, treats it's employees better, and is generally a better environment than the union airlines B, C, and D.

Would is still be wrong to fly for airline A since they are non-union even though they are much better than airlines B, C, and D?
 
95% percent of airlines are unionized. Why do you think 95% are? Answer that and that will answer your question.

Airlines change management, more than I change underwear. If you are at airline A what was yesterday might not be tomorrow. You need a locked down set of rules that you as a pilot group negotiated to secure that tomorrow for your job protection and QOL.
 
What non-union non-theoretical airline is consistently better than three union airlines?
 
Seggy said:
95% percent of airlines are unionized. Why do you think 95% are? Answer that and that will answer your question.

Airlines change management, more than I change underwear. If you are at airline A what was yesterday might not be tomorrow. You need a locked down set of rules that you as a pilot group negotiated to secure that tomorrow for your job protection and QOL.
Click to expand...

ok makes sense. Thanks for the quick reply. Next time I have any questions regarding unions I'll just call ya up :)
 
PGT said:
I'm just curious what the right answer is, if there is one. I don't want to step on anyones toes and lately the union threads are creating as big of a heated discussion as some religion and global warming threads :)

Anyway, let's say that airline A is non-union but has better pay, treats it's employees better, and is generally a better environment than the union airlines B, C, and D.

Would is still be wrong to fly for airline A since they are non-union even though they are much better than airlines B, C, and D?
Click to expand...


I believe it depends on the airline.


The test is whether the airline got there by stabbing pilots in the back somewhere. Like Gojets, founded to get by a bargaining agreement. That's one that you don't even want to think about watching someone else touch with a 10 foot pole...
 
I was really just putting out there that this question may be a bit too hypothetical. I think this is a topic better covered by more real world questions like, "Would it hurt my career to work for a non-union airline like Skywest?"
 
"Would is still be wrong to fly for airline A since they are non-union even though they are much better than airlines B, C, and D?"

I'm a pro-union guy. But to answer your question to the letter, I'd say no. I'm not sure such an airline exists and if you are thinking of Skywest, that's open for debate. Another way to look at it would be if a good Corp job had the union regionals beat (which I'm sure many do), would it still be okay to take the Corp job? I doubt anyone would say no. But, what non-union regional airline is better, overall, than a non-union regional airline?
 
"Would it hurt my career to work for a non-union airline like Skywest?"

No, certainly not. But don't expect them to stay non-union for long...
 
DE727UPS said:
"Would it hurt my career to work for a non-union airline like Skywest?"

No, certainly not. But don't expect them to stay non-union for long...
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there's no way that in the next few years ALPA gets voted in at SKW. Too many CFIs who don't realize why they need it, and too many former Mesa guys who think ALPA doesn't do squat. And frankly, at the regional level, they're partially right. ALPA is really starting to realize this and turn things around (or at least attempt to) at the "small lift providers"... Though the age 65 charlie fox didn't make many friends throughout the ranks...
 
Baradium said:
The test is whether the airline got there by stabbing pilots in the back somewhere. Like Gojets, founded to get by a bargaining agreement. That's one that you don't even want to think about watching someone else touch with a 10 foot pole...
Click to expand...

FYI... GoJets wasn't actually started to get around a pilot agreement, but rather a management agreement. American (which TSA does lift for) wasn't allowing them to fly anything over 50 seats. United wanted them to fly 70 seats. The only way they could do it was to start up another certificate. Once they had the certificate they certainly did screw over the pilots of the TSA certificate, but it was not the original intent of the start up.

That is the same reason why, despite many rumors to the contrary, TSA probably won't go away any time soon. TSH (the parent company) needs them to fly the American lift as to not conflict with the 70 seat UAL lift.
 
Chris_Ford said:
I disagree. I think there's no way that in the next few years ALPA gets voted in at SKW. Too many CFIs who don't realize why they need it, and too many former Mesa guys who think ALPA doesn't do squat. And frankly, at the regional level, they're partially right. ALPA is really starting to realize this and turn things around (or at least attempt to) at the "small lift providers"... Though the age 65 charlie fox didn't make many friends throughout the ranks...
Click to expand...

It's coming. I think that got solidified after the ASA acquisition.

FWIW, the national union is a good deal for regionals because if my 1.95% is significantly larger than your 1.95% but I'll bet you we get an equal amount of benefit.
 
PGT said:
I'm just curious what the right answer is, if there is one. I don't want to step on anyones toes and lately the union threads are creating as big of a heated discussion as some religion and global warming threads :)

Anyway, let's say that airline A is non-union but has better pay, treats it's employees better, and is generally a better environment than the union airlines B, C, and D.

Would is still be wrong to fly for airline A since they are non-union even though they are much better than airlines B, C, and D?
Click to expand...

There is no right or wrong here. The only reason carriers such as GoJets, Freedom, and Skybus are "wrong" is because ALPA has been very successful in seizing the moral high ground and painting those three carriers as evil, union busting, scabbrous, or whatever term you care to use. A non-union carrier has a much right to exist and prosper as a union carrier. Likewise, as a pilot, you have the right to work for whomever you please, under whatever conditions you can set or agree to.

That said, it has been my experience that pilots, in general, view anything that threatens to alter their status quo, as "evil" or "wrong." Understand that if you accept an employment situation that they consider to be a threat to their way of life, then you will be labeled a scab, a backstabber, a pariah, and treated as such.

To me, the only "wrong" here is intelligent, educated adults turning into thugs and acting like playground bullies whenever someone comes along who happens to disagree with them.
 
Doug Taylor said:
It's coming. I think that got solidified after the ASA acquisition.

FWIW, the national union is a good deal for regionals because if my 1.95% is significantly larger than your 1.95% but I'll bet you we get an equal amount of benefit.
Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance, but perhaps my reading comprehension skills are on the decline. . .but good sir, if you would so entertain me for a second. . .

What is coming? ALPA @ SKW? Due to the ASA acquisition?

skydog said:
There is no right or wrong here. The only reason carriers such as GoJets, Freedom, and Skybus are "wrong" is because ALPA has been very successful in seizing the moral high ground and painting those three carriers as evil, union busting, scabbrous, or whatever term you care to use. A non-union carrier has a much right to exist and prosper as a union carrier. Likewise, as a pilot, you have the right to work for whomever you please, under whatever conditions you can set or agree to.

That said, it has been my experience that pilots, in general, view anything that threatens to alter their status quo, as "evil" or "wrong." Understand that if you accept an employment situation that they consider to be a threat to their way of life, then you will be labeled a scab, a backstabber, a pariah, and treated as such.

To me, the only "wrong" here is intelligent, educated adults turning into thugs and acting like playground bullies whenever someone comes along who happens to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever told you that you are WAY funny?
 
skydog said:
There is no right or wrong here. The only reason carriers such as GoJets, Freedom, and Skybus are "wrong" is because ALPA has been very successful in seizing the moral high ground and painting those three carriers as evil, union busting, scabbrous, or whatever term you care to use. A non-union carrier has a much right to exist and prosper as a union carrier. Likewise, as a pilot, you have the right to work for whomever you please, under whatever conditions you can set or agree to.

That said, it has been my experience that pilots, in general, view anything that threatens to alter their status quo, as "evil" or "wrong." Understand that if you accept an employment situation that they consider to be a threat to their way of life, then you will be labeled a scab, a backstabber, a pariah, and treated as such.

To me, the only "wrong" here is intelligent, educated adults turning into thugs and acting like playground bullies whenever someone comes along who happens to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Everything you say is 100% correct. However, it's one of those htings that's been long established in this industry, so it's "how you play the game"

Airline unions are highly schizophrenic. On one side of the fence, they want to be like the UAW or one of the "blue collar" unions. On the other hand, they want to be seen as pilots of yore. Basically, they want their cake and eat it too. That's the inherent flaw in the airline union that makes it, generally, too weak.
 
My suggestion is ditch the blue collar attempt at a union. Every attempt by the union to show us just as regular people undercuts the attempts to increase things that are important (pay).

And on a side note. . .what is the deal with this "cake and eat it too" statement.

I never understand it.

Who wants a cake, and NOT eat it? Cake, is suppose to be eaten. There is not cake and not eating it. It is always cake, and EATING it.

One is suppose to want to eat a cake.
 
surreal1221 said:
My suggestion is ditch the blue collar attempt at a union. Every attempt by the union to show us just as regular people undercuts the attempts to increase things that are important (pay).
Click to expand...

There you go. I always think its funny when people call themselves blue collar labor. I usually just ask them what color their uniform shirt is :)
 
Chris_Ford said:
There you go. I always think its funny when people call themselves blue collar labor. I usually just ask them what color their uniform shirt is :)
Click to expand...

AMEN C_F!11 The viking speakest the truthest. . .well, at least one person agrees with me.

Ditch the blue collar BS, we (uh oh) are not blue collar employees. . .the end.

White collar professionals have labor groups, albeit not called unions. . .;) Why should we be any different? We can have a labor group that defends the profession, fights for our benefits, without falling down to the lowest denominator that is the blue collar union. . . we are not the UAW, we don't run an assembly line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top