Skywest may finally have a reasonable chance of voting a union in...

[PCL_128]

It appears that this could be tied up in the legal process for years.

Unlikely. The RLA is quite clear, and the Supreme Court has verified, that the NMB has the ultimate authority to determine voting rules. In fact, the RLA even allows representational disputes to be resolved without a secret ballot. Again, this has been reiterated by the Supreme Court. There is no legal basis whatsoever to block the NMB from changing the election rules, and I doubt any court would even agree to hear a suit for injunction.

 

[pilotyip]

How come ex-union members are less likely to vote for a union?

 

[PCL_128]

How come ex-union members are less likely to vote for a union?

Back up your asinine assertion with a source.

 

[pilotyip]

experience

Back up your asinine assertion with a source.

Of course I can not produce results. But my experience in two union drives that failed one as a voting crewmember and the other on the management side. Management consultants are very good at this, guessing within a couple of votes and who will vote what way to predict election outcome before the vote. Conversations over beer and lunch with and their thoughts about the whole process with my ex-Zipper buddies. Many felt they had been screwed out of 10-15 years of employment when IBT came inot Zantop. The first drive was the IBT474, ALPA got more write ins than IBT got votes; the second drive was UAW. ALPA would not talk to our pilots because we were too small and it was not economically viable to under take an organizing drive at a company that had rejected organizing. You know after all it is a business.

 

[SkyNation]

Back up your asinine assertion with a source.

the last ALPA drive at SkyWest.

(this is where you regurgitate how those pilots don't really count because they were at Mesa, or Mesaba, or whatever, or they were just FOs, blah blah blah)

 

[PCL_128]

the last ALPA drive at SkyWest.

(this is where you regurgitate how those pilots don't really count because they were at Mesa, or Mesaba, or whatever, or they were just FOs, blah blah blah)

No, I think the vote failed at SkyWest merely because SkyWest treats you relatively well, and it's difficult for a lot of pilots to understand the value of a union in those circumstances, even though there really is a big benefit. The sad thing is that things will have to turn ugly before a lot of pilots realize the benefit, and by then it's too late.

 

[BHopper88]

I think at least a few of "us" at skywest feel that we can still be PRO SKYWEST and be PRO union at the same time. I would like a contract that can be outlined what is approved and what is not instead of plenty of "GREY" area.

 

[Regul8r]

ALPA is an association which has helped make our profession safer through the decades.

And yet that wasn't the main purpose of ALPA. When will the kool-aid drinkers get this through their heads?

They have influenced this profession in a positive manner and continue to do so regardless of those who take it for granted.

And last time I checked, it's a choice as to whether or not a pilot group wants ALPA representation. The kool-aid drinkers are going to have a tough time dealing with reality until they can get this simple fact through their heads.

 

[Regul8r]

The sad thing is that things will have to turn ugly before a lot of pilots realize the benefit, and by then it's too late.

Nice scare tactics. Is that how they teach you to coerce pilots up at Herndon?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I think at least a few of "us" at skywest feel that we can still be PRO SKYWEST and be PRO union at the same time.

That is the paradox of it all...... we are conditioned in our culture to pick sides... one or the other..... When in fact it is two seemingly conflicting realities.

I would like a contract that can be outlined what is approved and what is not instead of plenty of "GREY" area.

Never going to happen. Any written document.. the Bible, the Constitution, the CFR.. all will be interpreted by each group with its own interests in mind... The question is... who is enforcing the interpretation. (interpretation meaning of law or policy)

The point about union representation is access to govt (the enforcer). For most pilots, especially at Skywest and other regionals (even majors?), its about local issues. But those "local" issues are enforced, controlled and governed by federal law, and at times international law.

If you are a Skywest pilot you have to wonder why your managment belongs to its own "association" (or union)... the Regional Airline Association.

Regional Airline Association (RAA) represents U.S. regional airlines and suppliers of products and services before the U.S. Congress, Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Transportation regarding issues of safety, efficiency, and growth of the regional airlines. RAA was founded in 1975 and is based in Washington, DC.
​

Think about it.... while Skywest pilots are not represented, their management is representing them. As citizens in a democracy, I'd think that standing up for ones right was fundamental.....

What is interesting is.. the RAA has a flight training committee
http://www.raa.org/AirlineMembers/FlightTraining/tabid/112/Default.aspx

A direct example of pilots interests not being addressed.

Flight Training Committee
Who We Are: The Flight Training Committee is a standing committee chartered by RAA's Board of Directors and organized and managed by the Regional Airline Association for the benefit of the member regional airlines. The Committee provides a forum for collaboration, sharing of safety information and obtaining up to date regulatory information. The Committee meets twice yearly. All members are encourage to participate.

MISSION STATEMENT

Of the​

REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION​

FLIGHT TRAINING COMMITTEE​

​

________________________​

​

DRAFT v1 ​

​

Flight Training Committee Mission Statement

I PURPOSE

[1]Regional Airline Association (RAA) member airlines recognize the benefit of working collaboratively to present a united position on issues of safety and regulation to achieve mutual objectives. It is from that common understanding that the committee of member airline flight training management, as empowered by the Regional Airline Association Bylaws, will work together on issues of safety and efficiency. As a means, a meeting or series of meetings will be convened, thereby creating a forum for collaborative work of mutual interest, and to establish action plans to address specific issues and promote the interests of the members.

II FORMATION AND PARTICIPATION

The RAA Flight Training Committee is a standing committee of member airline management personnel with responsibility for flight crew training and qualification.

III MEETINGS

The Flight Training Committee shall meeting semi-annually unless otherwise directed by the Board of Directors. Special meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the members.

IV OBJECTIVES

q Develop recommendations on RAA policies and positions pertaining to flight crew training, qualifications and safety to increase the safety and efficiency of the regional airlines.
q Evaluate existing and proposed rules and guidance material.
q Promote government action while seeking to prevent legislative and regulatory intervention that would penalize regional airlines and their customers.
q Prepare descriptive materials for use in the briefing of government staff members on the capabilities and the needs of regional airlines.
q Establish a forum for members to provide and obtain valuable information from other members, subject matter experts and regulators.

IV ROLES

Chairpersons
q Develop and execute meeting schedules and agendas with staff assistance.

Committee Members
q Work collaboratively with other committee members.
q Advocate the interests of their company and the regional airline industry.

Association Staff
q Ensure the interests of all member airlines are represented.
q Periodically report to the RAA Board of Directors the committee’s resolutions and recommendations.



[1] Regional Airline Association Bylaws, Article XI, as amended August 1995.




​

The RED font is of particular interests to Skywest pilots (and Jetblue via the ATA). Your management has an organized and formatted effort (and this is the public information!!) to be convincing the govt to enforce legislation or policy in its own favor, not necessarily yours.


The RAA was formed in 1975.
The ATA (major airlines) was formed in 1936.
ALPA was formed in 1931.

 

[Lear70]

Nice scare tactics. Is that how they teach you to coerce pilots up at Herndon?

Actually, historically speaking, he's 100% accurate.

Pilots tend not to do anything if they feel they don't need it. By the time management decides to take away enough Quality of Life issues to coerce the pilots into action, it's then months for a union drive, then years to negotiate BACK what you already had.

Take a look back at history of airlines that weren't unionized and then later became unionized and see what happened. I'm not saying that SkyWest *NEEDS* a union, not my fight to pick, simply that what PCL stated about how and why unions come to exist is correct.

Hope you never have to personally find out the hard way...

 

[Regul8r]

Actually, historically speaking, he's 100% accurate.

Pilots tend not to do anything if they feel they don't need it. By the time management decides to take away enough Quality of Life issues to coerce the pilots into action, it's then months for a union drive, then years to negotiate BACK what you already had.

Take a look back at history of airlines that weren't unionized and then later became unionized and see what happened. I'm not saying that SkyWest *NEEDS* a union, not my fight to pick, simply that what PCL stated about how and why unions come to exist is correct.

And what you're forgetting to mention is that, historically speaking, management has had few problems dismembering ALPA contracts time and time again.

Hope you never have to personally find out the hard way...

Like the Delta Pilots? Like the UAL Pilots? Like the Comair Pilots?

ALPA wasn't even a speed bump in management's pursuit to screw those pilot groups over.

then years to negotiate BACK what you already had.

are you sure you're not talking about the pilot groups represented by ALPA?

 

[Lear70]

And what you're forgetting to mention is that, historically speaking, management has had few problems dismembering ALPA contracts time and time again.

Only in bankruptcy, or when the senior pilots sold out Scope. Other than that, there's been no dismembering.

Like the Delta Pilots? Like the UAL Pilots? Like the Comair Pilots?

ALPA wasn't even a speed bump in management's pursuit to screw those pilot groups over.

See above. Non-valid argument as it doesn't reflect SkyWest's reality. Try again.

are you sure you're not talking about the pilot groups represented by ALPA?

ALPA, Teamsters, APA, whoever. ANY airline. ANY union. By the time you need a union, it'll take years to recover what management has already taken. It's the RLA that's the problem, not any one union, ALPA included.

Sorry you don't understand history well enough to argue validly. Go read a few books and research airline history, then come back and we'll talk.

 

[Regul8r]

Only in bankruptcy, or when the senior pilots sold out Scope.

Bankruptcy was the litmus test. ALPA failed. The other Unions failed. What's the benefit of ALPA again?

See above. Non-valid argument as it doesn't reflect SkyWest's reality. Try again.

Perfectly valid point. Skywest's reality is that they have a decent relationship between labor and management. Some ALPA chest thumpers on here are trying to convince skywest pilots how bad it will get in the future because they don't have a Union. Where your argument falls apart is that DAL, UAL, and COM all had ALPA representation, they were all attacked by management, and they still haven't recovered what was taken away from them. What's the benefit of ALPA again?

ALPA, Teamsters, APA, whoever. ANY airline. ANY union. By the time you need a union, it'll take years to recover what management has already taken.

The Unions still haven't recovered the losses from 10 years ago. Your arguments are based on theory. Go get some real world experience and we'll have a chat then.

 

[pilotyip]

Perfectly valid point. Skywest's reality is that they have a decent relationship between labor and management. Some ALPA chest thumpers on here are trying to convince skywest pilots how bad it will get in the future because they don't have a Union. Where your argument falls apart is that DAL, UAL, and COM all had ALPA representation, they were all attacked by management, and they still haven't recovered what was taken away from them. What's the benefit of ALPA again?

The Unions still haven't recovered the losses from 10 years ago. Your arguments are based on theory. Go get some real world experience and we'll have a chat then.

You sound like a union realist, understanding what unions can and can not do. How refreshing. Stand by to be blasted, if you say anything besides "Unions Rule", you must be a management stooge

 

[Lear70]

Bankruptcy was the litmus test. ALPA failed. The other Unions failed. What's the benefit of ALPA again?

You should know better. In bankruptcy, the union has no leverage against a court ruling. They are, in essence, like any other creditor.

PCL was arguing from the PROVEN, TIME-TESTED FACT, that by the time an airline NEEDS a union, it's too late to stop erosion of Quality of Life and/or pay issues. The Chapter 11 filings post 9/11 have absolutely NOTHING to do with Skywest's situation, unless we endure another 9/11 OR Skywest has to file Chapter 11, which brings us to...

Perfectly valid point. Skywest's reality is that they have a decent relationship between labor and management. Some ALPA chest thumpers on here are trying to convince skywest pilots how bad it will get in the future because they don't have a Union. Where your argument falls apart is that DAL, UAL, and COM all had ALPA representation, they were all attacked by management, and they still haven't recovered what was taken away from them. What's the benefit of ALPA again?

You really need a debate class.

You're trying to make an argument based on Skywest's need of a union based on a "test" wherein the creditor (ALPA) had absolutely no say in the matter over any other creditor.

I personally don't care if Skywest gets a union or not, but I *DO* care for the Skywest pilots reading this who don't understand that you're throwing out "support" for your case in the form of claims that have NOTHING to do with Skywest's current situation, i.e., again, Skywest isn't in bankruptcy and we haven't had a 9/11.

The Unions still haven't recovered the losses from 10 years ago. Your arguments are based on theory. Go get some real world experience and we'll have a chat then.

I'll put my "real world" experience up against yours any day of the week. The only thing I have *NOT* done in this career is military. I have flown every, single, other type of civilian flying there IS to fly. Your attack is baseless, and doesn't contribute to the validity of your argument, which is likely why you attacked. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Classic sophomoric debate tactic.

YOUR arguments are based on some perceived threat of a future where ALPA wouldn't help Skywest IF Skywest filed bankruptcy or we had another 9/11, the ONLY time that ALPA losses were that excessive (as were many other union's that took VOLUNTARY cuts during that time period).

I was debating the FACT that most airlines have only unionized once under attack, and it took years to reclaim lost quality of life and/or pay issues. Debate THAT, not an "imaginary future" like 9/11 for Skywest, and maybe we can have this discussion again...

 

[Regul8r]

You should know better. In bankruptcy, the union has no leverage against a court ruling. They are, in essence, like any other creditor.

PCL was arguing from the PROVEN, TIME-TESTED FACT, that by the time an airline NEEDS a union, it's too late to stop erosion of Quality of Life and/or pay issues.

The Chapter 11 filings post 9/11 have absolutely NOTHING to do with Skywest's situation, unless we endure another 9/11 OR Skywest has to file Chapter 11, which brings us to...

You're trying to make an argument based on Skywest's need of a union based on a "test" wherein the creditor (ALPA) had absolutely no say in the matter over any other creditor.

I personally don't care if Skywest gets a union or not, but I *DO* care for the Skywest pilots reading this who don't understand that you're throwing out "support" for your case in the form of claims that have NOTHING to do with Skywest's current situation, i.e., again, Skywest isn't in bankruptcy and we haven't had a 9/11.

...

YOUR arguments are based on some perceived threat of a future where ALPA wouldn't help Skywest IF Skywest filed bankruptcy or we had another 9/11, the ONLY time that ALPA losses were that excessive (as were many other union's that took VOLUNTARY cuts during that time period).

Look, you're arguing in circles with yourself. The fact of the matter is if the company wants to over ride the contract, all they have to do is file chapter 11. Ch 11 filings are not a one off aberration. They happened well after 9/11 and will continue to happen into the future. You may call it an "imaginary future" but if that's the case, why is ALPA fighting so hard to have the bankruptcy rules changed? Seems like ALPA is treating it as a very real possibility in the future.

I'll put my "real world" experience up against yours any day of the week. The only thing I have *NOT* done in this career is military. I have flown every, single, other type of civilian flying there IS to fly.

So you're no different than most of the other pilots out there? Good for you.

Your attack is baseless, and doesn't contribute to the validity of your argument, which is likely why you attacked. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Classic sophomoric debate tactic.

as baseless as my lack of understanding of history?

I was debating the FACT that most airlines have only unionized once under attack, and it took years to reclaim lost quality of life and/or pay issues. Debate THAT

And I am debating from the FACT that those airlines which were unionized and attacked....have taken years to reclaim lost QOL and Pay issues. Maybe those attacks didn't count to you because they were done under Ch11, but I can tell you they mattered to the pilots who were affected.

 

[Lear70]

Look, you're arguing in circles with yourself. The fact of the matter is if the company wants to over ride the contract, all they have to do is file chapter 11. Ch 11 filings are not a one off aberration. They happened well after 9/11 and will continue to happen into the future. You may call it an "imaginary future" but if that's the case, why is ALPA fighting so hard to have the bankruptcy rules changed? Seems like ALPA is treating it as a very real possibility in the future.

No, they did NOT happen well after 9/11. All of the majors who filed Ch. 11 did so within 18 months of 9/11.

You can't just "file bankruptcy" for the fun of it or just to void union contracts. You have to PROVE your financial need in court and, in addition, the bankruptcy laws were tightened considerably considering DiP financing after that last round, so it increases the risks that come with a Ch. 11 filing.

It's not just as simple as "we want to get rid of our contract, let's file bankruptcy". Again, you should know better.

So you're no different than most of the other pilots out there? Good for you.

Actually, most pilots out there didn't work in EVERY type of civilian aviation employment. They did one or two things then got into a regional or just went straight from school into a regional. I started early and tried everything.

as baseless as my lack of understanding of history?

Yes, evidently.

And I am debating from the FACT that those airlines which were unionized and attacked....have taken years to reclaim lost QOL and Pay issues. Maybe those attacks didn't count to you because they were done under Ch11, but I can tell you they mattered to the pilots who were affected.

No one was arguing with you that those airlines were unionized, attacked under Ch. 11, and lost pay and benefits that have yet to be recaptured.

News flash, sport: NO ONE SAID THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

What you are doing is trying to apply that argument to Skywest as an argument against unionization. THAT is the argument that doesn't apply because Skywest isn't under impending threat of a Ch. 11 filing. If it were, sure, argue away. Otherwise, debate the actual issue that PCL raised, which is... again, since you evidently can't read or simply avoid it because you have no ability to debate it...

Airlines throughout history have only unionized AFTER their Quality of Life or pay or BOTH were taken from them, and it took years to get them back. When you are non-union, the company can change your benefits and/or pay at their whim, ANY TIME THEY WANT. This happened to us at Flexjet and started the first union drive back in 1999, and the drive failed because the majority of senior pilots (like me) quit for majors or other jobs rather than accept the cuts (lost jumpseat abilities on AA, forced to move to Dallas or be fired contrary to the conditions we were hired under, cut in premium pay, etc), and the junior pilots were so happy to upgrade sooner than they thought, the union drive died.

If Skywest pilots want a safety net against those kinds of actions, they can vote in a union. If they don't, and you want to roll the dice, knock yourself out. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm simply pointing out to your pilots who are lurking here and reading but not participating that your assertions have NO basis in fact as applied to SKYWEST'S situation. They applied to other airlines, but Skywest isn't under impending threat of Ch. 11 and, even if you were, and Skywest filed bankruptcy, the difference is that, with a union, the company would have to prove their need to the bankruptcy court for those cuts.

Without a union, your company wouldn't even HAVE to file Ch. 11 to cut your pay and benefits, they'd simply send you a memo this afternoon, effective tomorrow morning.

Sorry you don't like the reality check, but that's the way this industry works. Again, if you're not lying about your flight time on your profile, you should know better...

 

[Nevets]

And yet that wasn't the main purpose of ALPA. When will the kool-aid drinkers get this through their heads?

And last time I checked, it's a choice as to whether or not a pilot group wants ALPA representation. The kool-aid drinkers are going to have a tough time dealing with reality until they can get this simple fact through their heads.

Even though I may disagree with you about what one of the original intents to form ALPA, it is still fact that ALPA has helped make the entire act of flying safer.

Also, I never said that joining a union wasn't a pilot group's choice. I was merely trying to convey that with the rules for voting in a union changing in the future, that there is a better possibility of another union drive at SkW sooner rather than later.

Another thing to think about, do you honestly beleive that places like Mesa would be better of I'd JO didn't have to bargain with their MEC? Or even UAL, DAL, etc during BK? At least those pilot groups got to vote their concessions after their MECs saw their companies financials rather than letting a judge decide what part of the contract to abrogate. Or worse yet, if there was no union, let their management decide unilaterally wihout having to ask anyone, including the judge, gut their pay and work rules? Do you honestly believe these polit groups would have fared better in BK without a union?

By the way, couple of other points. Just becuase yuo unionize doesn't mean you will have a bad relationship with management. That would be especially true of Skywest seeing as how relatively good they treat their employees. XJT is a great example of a good working relationship the pilots have with management. We not always agree but that is ok. There is a mechanism to resolve disagreements. For example, when XJT wanted to launch branded and charter, there were many things that the MEC disagreed with what managment wanted to do in violation of the contract. They negotiated an LOA and other things that came up were grieved and either settled or went to arbitration - just business.

 

[Regul8r]

You sound like a union realist, understanding what unions can and can not do. How refreshing. Stand by to be blasted, if you say anything besides "Unions Rule", you must be a management stooge

Yes...and you'll put every ALPA desk-jockey up in arms. They read a book or two and suddenly they're experts