Despite union opposition, Flight Options moved forward...

[slowtation capt]

I'm not sure what the build up had to do with the conclusion...but no, businesses don't do anything out of kindness. They do things to make money. Now, ask yourself this, how does the company make money by giving people money to retire early? Primarily, they can replace high longevity employees with low longevity and that 1 year salary they gave up saves them exponentially more over the coming years. Of course, the union could have supported this as a way to help their less fortunate pilots maintain positions they finally got back and help others retire early and won the debate. But they didn't. They fought it, they "won" and now they'll lose support.




I don't know about the union preventing pay raises, but wasn't there an issue with Citation X pilots being displaced to the Phenom and losing their pay after there was an offer to keep them at their former pay? How many of those guys voted to reject the union?

Either way, I'm glad I'm not a Flex of FO pilot

That's what the union wanted to do have the vsp as a seniority based vsp not a company discretion on who how and when.

 

[993_Pilot]

...Of course, the union could have supported this as a way to help their less fortunate pilots maintain positions they finally got back and help others retire early and won the debate. But they didn't. They fought it, they "won" and now they'll lose support....

For the umpteenth time, get the facts straight. The union was never against the VSP. In fact, A VSP could still easily be negotiated if the company was willing to come to the table and actually negotiate. Like it or not, the IBT 1108 is the elected bargaining agent for the combined pilot group, and a VSP falls squarely within their duties. Sure they asked for better conditions, but negotiations have to start somewhere, and that is part of the back and forth / give and take of a negotiation. What the union was against, was the company unilaterally dictating the terms and conditions, like being able to pick and choose who got it without any regard to seniority. The union was legally bound by a Duty of Fair Representation to attempt to protect the pilots from having the company ignore or circumvent their collective bargaining rights. The company well knows this and they probably knew they would lose, but they are attempting to spin their defeat in federal court as the union taking the VSP away, and apparently some of you are falling for it.

 

[ksu_aviator]

For the umpteenth time, get the facts straight. The union was never against the VSP. In fact, A VSP could still easily be negotiated if the company was willing to come to the table and actually negotiate. Like it or not, the IBT 1108 is the elected bargaining agent for the combined pilot group, and a VSP falls squarely within their duties. Sure they asked for better conditions, but negotiations have to start somewhere, and that is part of the back and forth / give and take of a negotiation. What the union was against, was the company unilaterally dictating the terms and conditions, like being able to pick and choose who got it without any regard to seniority. The union was legally bound by a Duty of Fair Representation to attempt to protect the pilots from having the company ignore or circumvent their collective bargaining rights. The company well knows this and they probably knew they would lose, but they are attempting to spin their defeat in federal court as the union taking the VSP away, and apparently some of you are falling for it.

It isn't the umpteenth time since I've only posted in this thread twice. That being said, my first post asked why and I'm responding using the information that was given to me, presumably by people within the union membership. So, if I don't have the fact straights, look at your group, not me.

The net result of the union's actions is the loss of the VSP (for now). That did not benefit their membership, in my opinion. Or do you think it was a direct benefit to deny members an extra-contract option?

 

[Bjtdrvr]

Why didn't the company just negotiate for a vsp like they have done twice before?

 

[Imissmypilot]

The net result of the union's actions is the loss of the VSP (for now). That did not benefit their membership, in my opinion. Or do you think it was a direct benefit to deny members an extra-contract option?

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.

 

[el raton]

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.

I disagree with what's in bold. I suggest that every pilot at Flexjet, (especially the bottom half on the sl) to take as much as they can regardless of where they are on the seniority list. Get it before there's a jcba. As long as that seat exist then it's protected. I would rather see a Flex pilot in these seats than anyone else.

 

[BlueNose]

I don't know about the union preventing pay raises, but wasn't there an issue with Citation X pilots being displaced to the Phenom and losing their pay after there was an offer to keep them at their former pay? How many of those guys voted to reject the union?

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.

 

[993_Pilot]

It isn't the umpteenth time since I've only posted in this thread twice. That being said, my first post asked why and I'm responding using the information that was given to me, presumably by people within the union membership. So, if I don't have the fact straights, look at your group, not me....

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 disagree with what's in bold. I suggest that every pilot at Flexjet, (especially the bottom half on the sl) to take as much as they can regardless of where they are on the seniority list. Get it before there's a jcba. As long as that seat exist then it's protected. I would rather see a Flex pilot in these seats than anyone else.

Wow. So I guess the rest of us that stand up for what we believe in are somehow less worthy of better pay or new airplanes? You and that attitude are exactly what is wrong with way too many pilots at Onesky/Flexjet/Flight Options. That attitude is exactly what management hopes will happen. It is divisive and will hurt the effort for a JCBA, but maybe that's your goal.

 

[Imissmypilot]

I disagree with what's in bold. I suggest that every pilot at Flexjet, (especially the bottom half on the sl) to take as much as they can regardless of where they are on the seniority list. Get it before there's a jcba. As long as that seat exist then it's protected. I would rather see a Flex pilot in these seats than anyone else.

El, generally speaking all any human being wants is the success of their brothers/friends and the defeat of their enemies. Based on your statement, I'm not sure you know who either is in your career life.

I can't believe you are advocating pilots to participate in the farce of Red Label.

Would a friend steal money from you? Would your brother? Would your enemy? What do you consider it when you are the one doing the work while someone else in your position profits for absolutely no reason other than favoritism? That is Red Label in a nut shell.

You are one of the smarter pilots on those board. You have also shown yourself to be principled and pragmatic. I'm really quite puzzled you are falling for the us against them mentality management is trying so hard to foster against Options pilots. Red Label is just one of the carrots he's using to do it.

I guess it's working.

 

[doh]

Check your emails. There is a negotiations update. Cautious optimism?