Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SkyWest IAH Base, What If ?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
DontFeedTheBear said:
You can write SAPA, your cp, and your upper management. You can state your position and strongly urge that this is not a good position for you, the Skywest pilot, to be in. If enough of you help on your side, it may make a difference. But, you are not willing to do that, so all I can say is Karma is a funny thing! Respect is earned! We are surely battling it from our side...

Yogi
Click to expand...

How do you know that??

Funny that "karma" only works in your favor. Where is the karma for me when I am wrongly blacklisted just because I work for SKW?

This is what worries me. You guys are willing to blacklist all SKW pilots, even though the vast majority of us are AGAINST this flying!!
 
I guess I can see that. I should have mentioned that earlier. I assumed that it went without saying since my position about this flying is pretty clear. I've been very active in sharing my concerns with other, unaware, pilots here at SKW as well as voicing my concerns to SAPA. Obviously our concerns have been heard by management, since they put out that piss poor memo about the flying being "perfectly legal, etc...".

This is what I mean by "working together". Like I've been saying, CAL pilots can't expect much support as long as they are threatening our careers. You guys have my full support, but if I find myself on any kind of "list" in a negative way, just because of my employer, I won't be as inclined to support YOUR cause.
 
Last edited:
BTW, the jumpseat coordinator from Skywest is at CALALPA in IAH right now, requesting that we come to a resolution. If the jumpseat is shut down, it would be the entire UAL and CAL system, as it is one company now. The real fear is that it doesn't happen with ALL ALPA carriers!

Yogi
 
I'd assume that since ALPA doen't support the use of the jumpseat as a political tool, that is not likely to happen.
 
I hope it doesn't happen. I'm no longer a commuter (as long as I don't get displaced), but I can sure sympathize with any commuters this might effect.
 
I can't believe people think we are actually excited about doing this flying (aside from the occasional few guys that live in the Houston/surrounding areas)..
 
kj6991 said:
I can't believe people think we are actually excited about doing this flying (aside from the occasional few guys that live in the Houston/surrounding areas)..
Click to expand...

The bid is out. Nobody has been displaced at Skywest. All of the positions in IAH were bid. Bad times ahead....

Yogi
 
Flopgut said:
If the arbitrator says it's not legal and CAL [UAL] goes through with it, are you guys going to fly it? We'll take it to whatever level we can. The question is what are you guys flying for these companies going to do when you're at a point of decision?
Click to expand...


No. We won't. I don't see how we can We already don't want to fly it. To play devils advocate, what will you guys do if the arbitrator says it is legal?

Hope you prevail. Most of us think this sucks but I am getting a little sick of the focus on IAH with not much talk about EWR. Is REP above this?
 
Last edited:
DontFeedTheBear said:
Just spoke with my rep. He stated that the bylaw is for union carrier to union carrier. FWIW

Yogi
Click to expand...

So, according to your rep, the ALPA code of ethics only applies to other Union carriers? So ALPA members only have to be what ALPA defines as professional part of the time?

Seems a bit fishy to me...
 
I commute out of IAH and I am definately not excited about this flying being as contested as it is. I haven't decided whether to accept/decline a houston transfer but part of me thinks that I'm screwed either way. If I decline the bid and continue to commute out of IAH how would I know I won't end up on a blacklist since I'll be in uniform in terminal C going to/from work.
 
I am just putting info out, so don't shoot the messenger. In some comm at CAL, some very important info has come to light. Skywest pilots refused to fly Comair work during the strike, refused the USAir Jets for Jobs program and refused Republic flying. Not a single pilot was fired or disciplined. The 'fly it or get fired' excuse is certainly losing ground with the CAL pilots. According to one source, this was communicated to your jumpseat coordinator today in IAH...

Yogi
 
Are CAL pilots on strike? Comair pilots were on strike.

What does USAir Jets for Jobs have to do with Skywest flying for the new UAL?

What does "refused Republic flying" mean?

Why is this "very important information?"
 
vtech said:
Are CAL pilots on strike? Comair pilots were on strike.

What does USAir Jets for Jobs have to do with Skywest flying for the new UAL?

What does "refused Republic flying" mean?

Why is this "very important information?"
Click to expand...

Very simply, in the past you have stood up to management and said NO! Now, you are saying, "If we say NO, we will get fired." Many pilots at CAL and UAL are putting up the BS flag on that excuse...

This is important, as it shows your stance in the past, but now...

Yogi
 
Yogi,

The US Air flying was put up for a vote, BY MANAGEMENT, to the pilot group. The group voted it down. This was not put up for a vote. Also, Comair was ON STRIKE. If Continental strikes, I am sure a different senario will be put into play.

And What is the "refused republic flying"?
 
homerjdispatch said:
Yogi,


And What is the "refused republic flying"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I pulled the info off of an internal web board. I will try to follow up. If it is nothing, I apologize for copying and posting the info! Perhaps a Skywest guy in the know could chime in...

Yogi

For the record, I am against a j/s war, but I will have to follow the will of the CAL/UAL pilots!
 
ehaecker said:
So, according to your rep, the ALPA code of ethics only applies to other Union carriers? So ALPA members only have to be what ALPA defines as professional part of the time?

Seems a bit fishy to me...
Click to expand...


No, what it means is Skywest pilots don't get the benefit without the responsibility.....

Why do you want something for nothing?

That is what a union is all about. WE are ALL in this together.
 
DontFeedTheBear said:
Very simply, in the past you have stood up to management and said NO! Now, you are saying, "If we say NO, we will get fired." Many pilots at CAL and UAL are putting up the BS flag on that excuse...

This is important, as it shows your stance in the past, but now...

Yogi
Click to expand...

Well, sure. Skywest pilots said "NO" when the Comair pilots were on strike. The CAL pilots aren't on strike. Seems like a pretty substantially different situation between the Comaiar strike and the CAL pilots wish/hope/desire. Do you see any difference between the two situations?

You didn't even attempt to address what USAir jets for jobs and Skywest flying for the new UAL have to do with each other and you admit you don't know what "refused Republic flying" means. So were left with Skyest pilots not flying "struck work" when Comair was on strike and comparing it to CAL pilots contract violation claim. CAL pilots are not on strike but want other pilots to treat it as struck work.

Seems to me the two situations are very dissimilar.
 
Rez O. Lewshun said:
No, what it means is Skywest pilots don't get the benefit without the responsibility.....

Why do you want something for nothing?

That is what a union is all about. WE are ALL in this together.
Click to expand...

So, as I understand it, it's OK for the union brothers and sisters over at Republic to fly the routes but not the non-union brothers and sisters over at Skywest to fly the routes? Is that what you're saying? Really?
 
vtech said:
So, as I understand it, it's OK for the union brothers and sisters over at Republic to fly the routes but not the non-union brothers and sisters over at Skywest to fly the routes? Is that what you're saying? Really?
Click to expand...

Don't mind Rez...He was dropped on his head one too many times as a child....
 
vtech said:
So, as I understand it, it's OK for the union brothers and sisters over at Republic to fly the routes but not the non-union brothers and sisters over at Skywest to fly the routes? Is that what you're saying? Really?
Click to expand...


The question is whether or not it is in violation of scope. There is a grievance on the matter and picketing in process.

So what are the Skywest pilots trying to accomplish?
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom