Virgin must make changes to retain U.S. citizenship

[Chief Pilot]

Yeah, hardly unbiased reporting considering that was from a Seattle paper.

If you read other reports on subject entirely different conclusions can be made. Just sayin'.

S

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/busrevletters/Virgin America Letter.html

and the Order dismissing (sorry if the format is off...), my emphasis added.

By the way, why would the Unions listed not attempt to organize the employee groups? Is organized labor doing that well that new membership is not needed?

TZ,

It is the Union's job to protect it's members, not try to "enlist" a bunch of new members from a group of employees that clearly does not care about union representation. This is evident by the fact that you and so many other Empire pilots traded one non-union carrier for another. I guess the jets were just too shiny to pass up. How about instead of passing the buck, you organize your employee group and form or join a Union.

CP

 

[tzskipper]

TZ,

It is the Union's job to protect it's members, not try to "enlist" a bunch of new members from a group of employees that clearly does not care about union representation. This is evident by the fact that you and so many other Empire pilots traded one non-union carrier for another. I guess the jets were just too shiny to pass up. How about instead of passing the buck, you organize your employee group and form or join a Union.

CP

With all due respect CP, I have no idea what you are referencing regarding "Empire" pilots, unless you are referring to the many ex-Piedmont/Usair pilots working for VA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Airlines_(1976–1985)). If it helps to clarify, the vast majority of pilots at VA have 10+ years as union members, with many having previously held different positions within. I don't believe that many came to VA to fly a shiny jet, in fact, many came to VA to get out from underneath management that was only interested in lining its' own pockets.

As an aside you may note from the DOT documents, at least at VA, the majority of the BOD, including the CEO, is putting their money on the line by investing in the airline. In addition, the BOD has also approved a 17% ownership position for the employees when a IPO type of event occurs. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction.

In closing, the pilots of VA are smart enough, mature enough, and have enough union experience to be able to make any decision regarding representation on their own terms. I don't know if (or when) it will occur, but I do know that the group will do what is best for them.

Regards,

S

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Here is a very comprehensive play by play from the DOT itself:

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/busrevletters/Virgin America Letter.html

CP: What many fail to see is the current makeup of the VA pilot group is heavily comprised of former union members from carriers that have either gone out of business or made a complete mess of themselves on the labor front. I don't think any of us would shy away from organizing if we felt the need. The main reason we haven't so far is two fold: (1) We don't feel the need. (2) We don't see a viable collective bargaining representative out there. It certainly won't be ALPA (for mutual reasons) and we aren't big enough to go it alone like many others have.

Time will tell on the union issue.

 

[Max Powers]

We pilots can't get away from our old nemesis George W. Bush. The Bush Family's right hand man Sam Skinner served as Chief of staff to GHB and Sec. of Transportation to GWB : He also developed the "open skies" policy of the United States that liberalized U.S. international policy and significantly increased the number of international carriers in the U.S. In addition, Mr. Skinner acted as the President's point person in numerous crisis situations, including the Eastern Air Lines strike, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the 1991 national rail strike.

When are pilots going to realize Republicans do not support us. Republicans are good at getting my conservative colleagues all worked up with their fear mongering but that's about it.

 

[twobits]

I'm not a democrat or republican - we have a political oligopoly that the justice department would break up, if it were not run by these two parties! However, didn't George Bush allow Comair to strike, and didn't Clinton actually prevent a major airline from striking? Ironic, considering everyone thinks the republicans are bad for labor (and generally they are).

 

[firstthird]

TZ,

thx for the link. Not to nitpick but that is the original release from the DOT. Nice source material but it isn't some other news organization doing a news report that is favorable. I read it like the Seattle paper read it. VA has some 'new' guys investing that should keep them out of trouble. No mention of the last 12 months between when the two hedge funds sold their 75% stake and the current ownership distribution.

It seems like everyone is talking about this vis a vis unionizing. But jetblue still isn't union. This is more about playing by the same rules as the rest of the industry, 75% US ownership. It sounds like the DOT has determined that VA is good for now, which is good. I hope they continue to maintain the appropriate ownership structure and if they don't, the proper authorities need to enforce the law. period.

 

[QCappy]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

 

[tzskipper]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

Not exactly "what is 'is'" ala Clinton, but what do you think "would remain" in the above paragraph means? Not change? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what difference does it even make at this point?

In closing, I am glad to see that Alaska is doing extremely well, and I hope to see your pilot group get back what you deserve.

S

 

[QCappy]

Not exactly "what is 'is'" ala Clinton, but what do you think "would remain" in the above paragraph means? Not change? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what difference does it even make at this point?

In closing, I am glad to see that Alaska is doing extremely well, and I hope to see your pilot group get back what you deserve.

S

I see what you are getting at, but what I don't get is this: Why is a change necessary if they are already in compliance? One does not lead to the other. If you are already in compliance then a change is not necessary. I hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

Let me try to take a stab at this.

"Number of changes to remain under the ownership" refers to changes to the proposed transaction. As we people not privy to the process of the last year only see the final product, one can only assume the first draft of the new ownership plan was not to the DOT's liking.

As no transaction has taken place yet, there has been compliance to the original fitness review. As the proposed transaction now passes the second review, continued compliance will be assured.

Don't you just love lawyer speak?

 

[regionaltard]

The right people are getting paid, and as long as that continues Virgin will continue to operate above the law. That's how it works.

 

[Busdriver320]

TZ,

thx for the link. Not to nitpick but that is the original release from the DOT. Nice source material but it isn't some other news organization doing a news report that is favorable. I read it like the Seattle paper read it. VA has some 'new' guys investing that should keep them out of trouble. No mention of the last 12 months between when the two hedge funds sold their 75% stake and the current ownership distribution.

It seems like everyone is talking about this vis a vis unionizing. But jetblue still isn't union. This is more about playing by the same rules as the rest of the industry, 75% US ownership. It sounds like the DOT has determined that VA is good for now, which is good. I hope they continue to maintain the appropriate ownership structure and if they don't, the proper authorities need to enforce the law. period.

Well, the TWO "hedge funds" never sold their stakes. In fact, ONE of them is still on board with the new review approved by DOT (shows how accurate the WSJ article was, huh?). Maybe here's how it worked:
Original ownership approved by DOT;
One of the funds wanted out (ostensibly);
Alaska and friends file for review based on WSJ article;
VA submits new plan with the one fund wanting out, and new investors;
DOT approves new plan;
New investors write the check;
Original fund (ONE of the them) cashes out.

Looks to me like the article quoted in the original post here parsed some words when they said VA must come up with new investors. VA ALREADY came up with the new investors, submitted that as a response to the inquiry, and that was just approved by the DOT.

Leave it to the uninformed media. I recently read an article about the crotch bomber where it said the flight's "manifesto" had been approved by US TSA/DHS and the flight was allowed to depart AMS. Manifesto...huh?? It wasn't an essay by Ted Kaczynski (sp?) was it?

 

[Tomct]

I see what you are getting at, but what I don't get is this: Why is a change necessary if they are already in compliance? One does not lead to the other. If you are already in compliance then a change is not necessary. I hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

MAYBE if Alaska MGMT would worry more about running THEIR airline and stop worrying about others....NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY! :crying:

I think I smell FEAR in SEA from their MGMNT???

 

[Mamma]

MAYBE if Alaska MGMT would worry more about running THEIR airline and stop worrying about others....NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY! :crying:

I think I smell FEAR in SEA from their MGMNT???

Please. Alaska has seen the likes of VA come and go for years. Bottom feeder outfits like VA who come in and try to get marketshare be selling below cost. Well, to keep marketshare Alaska has to match and everyone ends up losing. So, to answer your question, Alaska is managing their airline and getting rid of VA is a step in the right direction.

 

[relief tube]

Now if you can make them pay landing fees, a/c maintenance, and a/c leases we might have an opportunity to see some fare increases to the west coast.

Better yet how bout they just go away and it'll be better. We got too many airlines out there.

Have you seen their payscales? f-ing retardedly sad. That's the main issue.