Skywest to charge for PC's?

[QOL_is_great:)]

For those effected and have a union, isn't there something to prevent split treatment?

When a background check is required by all employed as a pilot and only a select few are required to pay then doesn't that warrant a fight by the union?

 

[Pull To Guns]

As an American employed by a foreign airline in a faraway land, I "go along to get along" with my hosts. I have to jump through many more hoops than the natives here. No problem as long as there is a net positive benefit for me.

Aliens allowed to work in the USA should not expect any different. If they are subject to more stringent requirements than US citizens, then so be it. If these requirements are too much of a financial burden for a non-citizen to satisfy, then I am sure there are daily flights back to the Motherland.

Why would an airline hire an alien over an equally qualified US citizen if they had to reimburse the non-citizen's extra fees? That makes for a more expensive employee.

The US seems quite generous in allowing foreign citizens to work there, in contrast, try getting a job in the EU as an American. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I can't believe the amazing contradiction right there in your response. You agree that the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil. So legally speaking, when our military picked up Mr. Rugchest in Pakistan, they could not legally charge him with a "crime". But they could detain him as an enemy combatant who has declared war on this country. If you somehow don't think that Al Quaeda has declared war on the U.S., with 9/11 being a major victory in their eyes, then you should STOP smoking dope. They have proven that they don't need an official "state" to declare war, and somehow you therefore don't want to address this as a real war? Also, I fully understand and appreciate Miranda Rights, however defense attorneys arguing that Miranda Rights weren't read on the battlefield WOULD CERTAINLY constitute arguing a meaningless technicality.

No contradiction, the US has no authority outside the US territories to try anyone for any "crime". The US has been agreed to the Geneva Conventions for a few decades. Your logic is disconnected and flawed at its root level. If Al Queada is in fact a legitimate state and has the ability to declare war, why are their soldiers being tried for fighting that said war? Enemy soldiers are not tried for fighting for their country, the middle east is a patchwork of tribes and territories that have artificial borders created after WWI, which hav nothing to do with traditional ethnic/cultural boundaries. Step away from the "Fox News" channel, watch the BBC or something else, Bill O'Rilley is an entertainer, muxh like Rush Limberger is.
PBR

 

[Pull To Guns]

No contradiction, the US has no authority outside the US territories to try anyone for any "crime". The US has been agreed to the Geneva Conventions for a few decades. Your logic is disconnected and flawed at its root level. If Al Queada is in fact a legitimate state and has the ability to declare war, why are their soldiers being tried for fighting that said war? Enemy soldiers are not tried for fighting for their country, the middle east is a patchwork of tribes and territories that have artificial borders created after WWI, which hav nothing to do with traditional ethnic/cultural boundaries. Step away from the "Fox News" channel, watch the BBC or something else, Bill O'Rilley is an entertainer, muxh like Rush Limberger is.
PBR

Please keep in mind this is the Regional, not International Law forum.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Please keep in mind this is the Regional, not International Law forum.

Yeah, you are right, logic and accuracy should not be tolerated, I will toss out:
Mesa sucks!
There, we are back on track!
PBR

 

[Pull To Guns]

PBRSG, I understand...didn't mean to pick on you but a lot of (not only yours) comments were getting far afield. Hell, I wanted to join in! Seeya!

 

[Kenny]

I'm one of those that now have to fork out over $200 a year at AWAC for this, that's why I'm annoyed. I get charged $70 every time I set foot in a sim or go to recurrent. If it was a once a year charge I'd be more inclined to accept it but we're talking about going through a background check, 3 times a year!

The irony is that when I was an instructor, I could walk into the sim whenever I wanted and didn't have to do any backgroud checks as I wasn't the one being trained.

Didn't realise Australians were that much of a terrorist risk!

 

[Cambereffect]

"TSA has imposed a fee for processing non-US Citizen pilots who take recurrent training. The fee is $70 for each recurrent simulator training request. This will be twice a year for our Captains and once a year for our First Officers until SkyWest is operating under AQP. At that time all pilots will be scheduled each 12 months. SkyWest will payroll deduct that amount 30 days prior to the simulator training."

I'm interested in the "Until Skywest is operating under AQP".... does that mean it will go away when the AQP program is in place? I find that hard to believe...

 

[727gm]

..SkyWest will payroll deduct that amount....

This is what happens when your company doesn't have a union.

It would be interesting to know whether the most of the non-citizens voted "no" (or abstained - same thing) on union representation.

 

[Cambereffect]

This is what happens when your company doesn't have a union.

It would be interesting to know whether the most of the non-citizens voted "no" (or abstained - same thing) on union representation.

Yeah ok, read some of the above posts regarding union airlines having to do the same thing.