FlexJet / Flight Options / SkyJet

[Praetorian]

If your "uncle" is the devil ya"ll (that's you all for you union goobers) say he is and attempts to violate our agreement, he will have a union. And I'm betting that won't happen.
Cheers, WL

Back in 01 when Travel Air merged with Flight Options a lot of us had similar thoughts about how we would handle things. Here is how it played out for us.

2001- merger, union drive, pilots fail to elect union.
2004- new union organizing campaign began.
2006- union voted in.
2010- First CBA ratified.

At the end of the day we wasted nine years, because we were to naive to understand that we would be taken advantage of.

 

[FR8DOG777]

No man, no. This time its gonna be different. We trust uncle to take care of us because he has since grown a conscience and is sympathetic to the sacrifices made by the worker bees. phsyche!

 

[warlord19]

993 Pilot, Ludicrous, etc
Thanks for the update onShane123. He is not, however, the only union goober who paints KR + management as devils, etc. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with 3 Flops crew members over the past month, and not one of them had much good to say about your union…just saying. I worked at Flex for a long time as an “at will” employee and have no problem with that status. We now have a legal contract with the new "Flex” which I didn’t expect, but it was offered to us as a jester of good will and, I suspect, an inducement not to vote in an union(it covers most all aspects a good union contract would cover). To me, that’s just a smart business move on KR’s part. I’m not anti-union per se, but anyone can see what happens to companies(usually deserving a union because of poor management) that become unionized. Work ethic, attitudes, competitiveness, etc start going down when the ink dries. I don’t want this Faustian arrangement unless it’s forced on us by Flops management. We work hard most of the time at Flex, and I expect to do the same at New Flex. KR doesn’t strike me as being stupid from what I’ve seen so far, so I will stick to my bet. You guys haven’t made your case to me for a union. And your cute remark about a 5th stripe or whatever, I’ll donate it to you and yours. My preferred costume is a classy branded knit shirt and dockers.
Cheers,
WL19

 

[slowtation capt]

We now have a legal contract with the new "Flex? which I didn?t expect, but it was offered to us as a jester of good will and, I suspect, an inducement not to vote in an union(it covers most all aspects a good union contract would cover).

Exactly who is going to in-force this legal contract, if and when they change something or do something against it?

 

[shanes123]

There's a lot of flops management on here and don't think KR doesn't read this board if a union was so bad for the pilot group and they can't negotiate good pay and bennies. Why is KR so against it?

 

[squawk]

There's a lot of flops management on here and don't think KR doesn't read this board if a union was so bad for the pilot group and they can't negotiate good pay and bennies. Why is KR so against it?

shanes123,
Let me pose this question. If you owned your own business, would you want your employees to unionize? Would you welcome that? ....and you may not answer with some BS like if I owned a company they would not need a union cause I am such a great human being.

Let's pretend: your employees are beating the drums for a union for whatever reason. Would you standby and welcome that?

I'll tell you why you wouldn't and why Mr. Ricci doesn't. With a union, you lose control of your company.

 

[Fresh Air]

We now have a legal contract with the new "Flex? which I didn?t expect, but it was offered to us as a jester of good will

"Jester" of good will, that's actually pretty funny, since it's more accurate than the word you intended to use (gesture). Kenn's the jester, and the joke's on you guys.

No scope. No representation. You can be terminated at any time with or without cause. Yikes. At least it does protect your pay.

Your "contract" was written by Kenn's lawyers, without any input or negotiation by you, and forced upon you with a gun to your head. (Sign this, or lose your seniority number, which is everything in the aviation industry).

I can't blame you for signing it, I would have done the same thing in your shoes under the same threat.

However this ends up working out, my hope is that we the combined pilot group can achieve a CBA with both good pay AND some meaningful protections. At this point I don't see any way to get that unless we are a union shop.

 

[shanes123]

Squawk you do not lose control of a company with a union. Lol. That's comical. And yes I would be fine with my employees unionizing if that's what they felt was the best fit for them and I would work side by side with there represention for the best deal for them and my company. Fairly, honestly, and in good faith. Something ricci has no clue about. But read his book. He will tell a different story. All lies

 

[Seahawk]

Ahh! "Management by Trust", ironically something Flexjet has right now. Where did it go wrong ?

 

[shanes123]

The correct title should be management by fear. You are a very trusting soul. I got some nice swamp land for sale maybe I could interest you in. I will sell it to you for a good price PM me I tell you where to mail the cash.

 

[FR8DOG777]

shanes123,
Let me pose this question. If you owned your own business, would you want your employees to unionize? Would you welcome that? ....and you may not answer with some BS like if I owned a company they would not need a union cause I am such a great human being.

Let's pretend: your employees are beating the drums for a union for whatever reason. Would you standby and welcome that?

I'll tell you why you wouldn't and why Mr. Ricci doesn't. With a union, you lose control of your company.

You hit the nail on the head, except for one small caveat. HE LOST CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYEES, NOT THE COMPANY! There is a huge difference there. It has always been about a power struggle and PAY! For those fence sitters criticizing the union ask yourself two questions. Did you think we would actually negotiate an industry leading contract on the first go around? Because if we had that would have been an industry first. The second is, if our work rules suck so bad then why is uncle expending every ounce of energy to see its demise?

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

Warlord19 - "We now have a legal contract with the new "Flex???"" & "...it covers most all aspects a good union contract would cover..."

No sir! It is not a legal, binding contract. It does not cover "most" all aspects a good union contract covers. It is not even remotely similar in breadth, content, or scope to FO's or NJ's contracts.

Squawk - Unions exist because the employees perceive something is wrong. Maybe the pay is too low. Maybe safety equipment is in disrepair. Maybe they feel vulnerable about their future. There are hundreds of reasons. Would I want my employees to unionize? No, of course not. It would be more a comment on me and my leadership abilities (or lack thereof) if my employees organized. (See warlord19's comment: "...deserving a union because of poor management...") Would I hinder their attempts to unionize? Play the games, write the "contracts", p--- away hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees? Absolutely not. I wouldn't even have to ensure they fully "organized"! The law & the negotiating process sees to that. If they were serious and got themselves organized, as the Options' pilots did, I'd negotiate with them in good faith - efficiently, & expeditiously.

Let's be clear: Management does not lose control of their company when a contract is negotiated. They do lose control about deciding when and where they can bend or break the rules. It does inhibit their abilities to circumvent the contract - that they participated in negotiating! What's more, if management does want something changed, there's a process for that! A contract lays out the terms & the processes for both parties, plain and simple.

 

[squawk]

They do lose control about deciding when and where they can bend or break the rules. It does inhibit their abilities to circumvent the contract - that they participated in negotiating! What's more, if management does want something changed, there's a process for that! A contract lays out the terms & the processes for both parties, plain and simple.

This is exactly the type of command and control loss that corporate leaders want to prevent.

A union on the property brings in a third party and a binding contract that interferes with the freedom of leaders to execute their business strategies. Scope is an example. It clearly restricts how the investors can structure the company, and before you howl about how it was "negotiated", I guarantee you that it was included in the agreement reluctantly because of this loss of control issue.

I am not advocating for or against a union, just answering shane's inquiry as to why KR fights unionization.

Our travel business can be boom or bust. Company leaders want flexibility to maneuver the company to quickly respond to the vagaries of our business environment. That word, flexible, is the keystone at Flexjet. Your new sister company has been very flexible and adaptive during these dramatic fluctuations in the economy, throughout the evolution of the business model, and to the behavior changes of our very business-savvy customers. This flexibility is top-down management in pure form. Without any outsider intervention, like the Teamsters, every single employee was involved in these rapid transformations. It is why Flexjet is profitable and why employees share in the success. There is a culture of engagement and ownership that no union can replicate.

Unions create an "us versus them" antipathy. They will work mindlessly and without interest to the company welfare to protect employee miscreants. They are slavish to a seniority system that can create mediocre, unproductive workers. Yes, Teamsters get some predictable terms in a contract and some firewall protection from arbitrary actions. But it is loss of control and flexibility that corporate leaders find unsavory.

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

Squawk - Understand your join date to flightinfo was 2/17/14. And you've written 5 posts. And there's no other info available on you. And you're not advocating for or against a union.

"Unions create an "us versus them" antipathy. They will work mindlessly and without interest to the company welfare to protect employee miscreants. They are slavish to a seniority system that can create mediocre, unproductive workers."

Like you said, you're not advocating for or against a union.

Every business can be boom or bust. Creating GoJet was NOT "a company leader wanting flexibility to maneuver the company to quickly respond to the vagaries of our business environment." It was a blatant attempt to circumvent Trans States' (and American's) contracts.

"Purchasing" Citation Air's aircraft was NOT "a company leader wanting flexibility to maneuver the company to quickly respond to the vagaries of our business environment.' I don't even know why people believe this "agreement" got any further than a couple phone conversations and texts. It was a ruse, meant to divide the Flight Options pilots. Nothing more. And then, Uncle writes a letter saying, "I gots me a law degree!" Criminy!

Lorenzo's blatant confrontational approach to labor was NOT "a company leader wanting flexibility to maneuver the company to quickly respond to the vagaries of our business environment." As a junk-bond dealer with so much debt, he bullied his employees to make concessions for his mistakes!

How many examples throughout aviation history do you need?

There is nothing from preventing company leaders from maneuvering the company. And quickly. However, any decision, arbitrary or otherwise that sc---- over the employees for a fast buck is unacceptable. More than a company stockholder, I've invested my life in a company. I'm not gonna lay down for it; I'm gonna defend myself and a union is the only legal, civil way to do it.

 

[squawk]

It was a reply as to why management fights unions, for whatever their motives.

Why unions are needed from a labor perspective is another topic.

 

[DirtyBeech]

It's like the most recent RIF at Flex never happened. You know, the one that dropped out of the blue while mysteriously requiring our bonuses, and laying off crewmembers, some just recently recalled, because our last president couldn't account for all of the money. Granted, that little fiasco helped usher in DW, but she's not the ultimate shot caller anymore. So let's put to bed this nonsense that Flex would never cut you loose without cause. Except in the case of accounting errors. Or not recall you if they didn't care for you.

 

[Rupert.]

Squawk you do not lose control of a company with a union. Lol. That's comical. And yes I would be fine with my employees unionizing if that's what they felt was the best fit for them and I would work side by side with there represention for the best deal for them and my company. Fairly, honestly, and in good faith. Something ricci has no clue about. But read his book. He will tell a different story. All lies

This is why you dont own a business

 

[shanes123]

LOL. Are you serious Rupert???? Theres no fairness and honesty in anyone that owns a business. Are you KR BJ boy??? Is this montie or kalic???

 

[Frac Cap]

It's PD, the guy that is trying to get rid of the union.

 

[BlueNose]

You hit the nail on the head, except for one small caveat. HE LOST CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYEES, NOT THE COMPANY! There is a huge difference there. It has always been about a power struggle and PAY! For those fence sitters criticizing the union ask yourself two questions. Did you think we would actually negotiate an industry leading contract on the first go around? Because if we had that would have been an industry first. The second is, if our work rules suck so bad then why is uncle expending every ounce of energy to see its demise?

It's nice to see some decent debate on here for a change, both sides making some good points. I see one glaring flaw in your thread, though. You speak of the Options contract as though it actually has scope protection. It does not. As they say on the airline side, scope is everything when it comes to a contract. The Options pilots are living proof that this is true, and it's only going to get worse.

So Kenn says he's combining the lists? Cui bono, to whose benefit? How would a gamble that might cost him a combined, unionized pilot force possibly pay for him? Any combination would have to be negotiated with 1108, and no decert vote involving the Flex pilots could take place until after such merger is complete, with no guarantee that it goes his way. Kenn may see a combined list in the future, just as he's long seen a large cabin G-fleet at Options, and has said so at numerous employee meetings. How many are still holding their breath for that bid?

The current contract with 1108 allows Flex pilots to fly Options trips, as well as their own card trips, on the FO certificate as brand partners. They just need to be trained to the FO 135 program. Management functions can be shared behind the scenes, but the companies can still be separate in name to allow two pilot lists. The 1108 contract, with 4.0 staffing per sold airplane, allows him to dwindle the current FO seniority list down a lot more, to well below 200 pilots. These can't cover all the Options trips, but Flex pilots can take care of those. That minor 'brand partner' thingy that 1108 let into scope, again. Meanwhile, the crappy pay for the remaining FO pilots stays in place, not until the contract expires, but thanks to RLA 'status quo,' until a new contract is ratified, which could take years.

Once the FO group is smaller, with maybe 90 disgruntled union supporters left, and the Flex group has grown through their own business and picking up FO lift, then Kenn can merge the groups. If he hasn't already driven a successful decert vote on the FO side by then (just look at the happy Flex pilots and what you could have with no union), he then simply tells the Flex group the sad news that their pay and work rules will, by law, be set to the FO contract upon the merger - until they can drive a decert vote, at which time he can give them back what they lose. Of course, once the decert is complete, he's free to set pay and rules to where he really believes they should be. Both groups are being played, and aren't in much of a position to stop it.