Despite union opposition, Flight Options moved forward...

[ksu_aviator]

There is an inherent problem with this type of thinking and the reason plain and simple is Unionization 101.

It is NEVER in the best interests of the pilot group as a whole to allow individuals to benefit or degrade, individually, from an extra (i.e. non negotiated, whether preferential or detrimental) contract issue.

You either understand you are a part of a rising tide that lifts all boats or you are an IGM (I got mine). Can't explain it any simple than that, right there.

The problem, generally, is too many union supporters still would sell their brother out for an extra dime. The problem specifically at One Sky is so many have proven that truth with the transfers and Red Label.

I just don't know how our leadership thinks they're going to inspire people to rise above human nature when they themselves refuse to lead on it.

In most areas, that is absolutely correct. But, this is a situation where there will be separations. Some people are willing to leave and not come back while others would like to keep their jobs. If the company is willing to offer a bonus to get as many people as possible what they want, why stand in the way of that? Everyone that partakes, wins and everyone that doesn't partake wins. Some pilots will upgrade because of the VSP. Some will keep their job. Some will be furloughed, but come back sooner. Some will retire with more money than they had expected. But not one person looses in this scenario. Outside of this general/blanket concept of solidarity, I can't find a potential loser in this.

Now don't get me wrong, FO needs a strong union. They really really need a strong union. But being strong doesn't mean being pig headed. Sometimes strength comes from compromise.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Those guys helped vote out the previous leadership in a landslide. But that doesn't mean they trust KR & co enough to go back to non-union. Most have gotten used to luxuries like uninterrupted rest, being able to write up a plane when it breaks, and calling sick or fatigue without fear of a CGF-1, and remember the days before those things were available.

Why the hell would you go non-union? That would be utterly stupid. But, you may end up there if the pilots see the union as more harmful than the company.

 

[ksu_aviator]

This topic has been discussed ad naseum, both here on FI and on the VUH, so apparently you haven't been paying attention. Perhaps you should read the only other active thread here in the fractionals section lately, titled "IBT Lawsuit"

I don't know what a VUH is, I'm not with FO. My point is, and always has been, that it isn't the best strategy to put the union in a position to be perceived as against the membership. I'm not saying get rid of the union or be anti-union. I'm saying this was a bad move.

 

[BlueNose]

In most areas, that is absolutely correct. But, this is a situation where there will be separations. Some people are willing to leave and not come back while others would like to keep their jobs. If the company is willing to offer a bonus to get as many people as possible what they want, why stand in the way of that? Everyone that partakes, wins and everyone that doesn't partake wins. Some pilots will upgrade because of the VSP. Some will keep their job. Some will be furloughed, but come back sooner. Some will retire with more money than they had expected. But not one person looses in this scenario. Outside of this general/blanket concept of solidarity, I can't find a potential loser in this.

Now don't get me wrong, FO needs a strong union. They really really need a strong union. But being strong doesn't mean being pig headed. Sometimes strength comes from compromise.

But as proposed, there could have been losers. Not everyone who put in for the VSP would necessarily get it, and the company would choose who gets it or not in a completely arbitrary and non-transparent way. So, for example, a senior guy might put in for the VSP and be denied, while a more junior guy in the same fleet (who happens to be a known union supporter) would be approved. That costs the company money, but changes the demographic in their favor. They could have played any number of games with the selection process, at their whim, and not been answerable to anyone. I don't think that the IBT could let this go as proposed without violating their DFR, so they had only one right course to take - demand that it be seniority based and transparent.

That they also attached typically unreasonable opening demands when they did try to negotiate, and didn't communicate very well, was unfortunate and allowed the company to easily put an anti-union spin on this.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

I don't know what a VUH is, I'm not with FO. My point is, and always has been, that it isn't the best strategy to put the union in a position to be perceived as against the membership. I'm not saying get rid of the union or be anti-union. I'm saying this was a bad move.

Like you said, you are not with FO. You obviously don't understand the ramification( or chose to ignore them). This is a short term Band-Aid for a long term problem. It would set a precedent that would undermine the long term well being of ALL of the FO pilots, and therefore affecting the long term well being of ALL the Flex pilots. While the short-sighted carrot might look tempting, it is a bad move in the long term.

 

[doh]

On a side note, are there any hotels we stay at that aren't complete s***holes??? Because I'm on a 100% streak (pun intended)...

 

[shanes123]

Nope hotels went down the ********************ter about 12 years ago and have never been back. Welcome to your new QOL.

 

[993_Pilot]

I don't know what a VUH is, I'm not with FO. My point is, and always has been, that it isn't the best strategy to put the union in a position to be perceived as against the membership. I'm not saying get rid of the union or be anti-union. I'm saying this was a bad move.

BlueNose & GlorifiedCabbie addressed this well. No disrespect intended, but maybe you should seek to understand the how this VSP was to be implemented and the ramifications of it, before you make your comments, because it is obvious that you don't have a full grasp of either.

 

[Bjtdrvr]

I actually feel that ksu is not a fo or a flex pilot. He or she was saying that no matter if the Union did work in the best interest of the collective but not in the best of the individual that it was not good form to divide the membership. That is not the way to bring about unity even if there are those who dislike the IBT but still realise that there needs to be a Union.

 

[shanes123]

Nobody is dividing anything. IT IS ALL READY DIVIDED. The greed, selfishness, stupidity, arrogance, is astounding.