View Poll Results: Would you vote yes or no to ALPA at SkyWest?
Yes
57
70.37%
No
24
29.63%
Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll
Skywest alpa Vote
09-27-2007, 05:03 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CRJ
Posts: 2,356
Here is something from our message board.... just like i have said before, i would like you to read this and tell me it has no bearing on your future as an airlinepilot. (had to shorten it,, to long for the forum.)
ALPA’s 110th Congress Agenda
June 2007
Airport Access
Airport access is our #1 priority. It’s been every pilot and every flight attendant’s nightmare before and especially since 9/11. ALPA drafted language, met with staff, and thanks to our friends on the Senate Commerce Committee, the recently passed Senate version (S. 4), of the legislation implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission contains a provision that requires TSA, after consultation with airlines, airports, and flight crew unions, to report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on the status of establishing a process that would give flight deck and cabin crew members expedited access through screening check points. The TSA is further directed to begin full implementation of the system no later than one year after submitting the report. The bill is now in conference with the House and we have had some very positive conversations with them about this provision being in the final product. However, keep in mind that the President has threatened to veto this bill if it contains a provision, which is in both bills, to grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. Hopefully, we will have further congressional action before the July 4 recess.
Akaka Amendment
If airport access is item #1, then this is item #1A. We came very close last year when Sen. Akaka’s (D-HI) bill to allow pilots whose defined benefit plan had been terminated, the ability to receive the PBGC maximum guarantee at age 60 rather than at 65, was added to the Senate pension reform by a vote of 58-41. A similar bill had been introduced in the House by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and the House of Representatives subsequently voted three times to instruct it’s conferees to accept the Senate language. Unfortunately, House Republican conferees chose to ignore the wishes of the body and opposed every attempt by the Senate to include it in the conference report and it was ultimately dropped. The results of the last election have improved our chances; for one think, Rep. Miller is now the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
On May 2, 2007, Rep. Miller and Sen. Akaka re-introduced their bills in the 110th Congress: H.R. 2103 and S. 1270, respectively; both titled the Pilots Equitable Treatment Act. ALPA President John Prater recently met with Sen. Akaka on this issue. The Senator pledged his full support for the measure and committed himself and his staff to working to see this legislation enacted into law as soon as possible. On May 3rd, Prater testified on behalf of ALPA before the House Education and Labor’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions on modifications to the Pension Protection Act. His comments, which focused on the Miller/Akaka language, were well-received by the Subcommittee members, both Republicans and Democrats alike.
The bill will have to move as part of another vehicle. What that will be, is unknown at this time. There will also be some other pension issues, which are more on the tax side as it relates to being allowed to rollover into an IRA certain monies that are distributed to pilots outside of a qualified plan. ALPA will also be working with the flight attendants to get FMLA extended to flight crews.
ALPA has launched a nationwide grassroots Action Alert on the website where all ALPA members can help generate maximum congressional support for the Miller and Akaka bills by contacting their Senators and Representatives to urge them to co-sponsor these bills and work for their speedy passage. Sign onto the crewroom.alpa.org and look under the Advocacy tab or click on the Legislation and Politics link. Click on the Action Alert button and follow the directions to send e-mails to your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. Suggested messages are provided.
Security
There are several other security issues on ALPA’s agenda such as the FFDO program and possibly aircraft secondary barriers. On the FFDO program, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed such as carriage, time off for training and reimbursement of training costs. Captain Prater has written a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, asking him to hold a hearing on the program so that we can air our concerns and address some of the problems with an otherwise successful program.
FAA Reauthorization
Both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have begun in earnest the process of reauthorizing the FAA. In fact, Captain Terry McVenes, the Executive Air Safety Chairman, testified in March before the House Aviation Subcommittee outlining what safety items need to be addressed in this process.
The Senate Commerce Committee reported their bill, S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, on May 16. The bill contains dedicated funding of approximately $400 million annually for modernizing the air traffic control system through the establishment of the Air Traffic Modernization Fund. The Fund would be supported through a surcharge of $25.00 per flight on commercial and high-end general aviation (GA) jet flights. Approximately 90% of GA aircraft would be exempt from the surcharge. The funding generated by the $25 surcharge will be entirely dedicated to modernization costs. The House version of the bill has not yet been introduced; nevertheless, work on this important measure will progress throughout the summer.
Flight Crew Fatigue
Language requiring the FAA to arrange a study on pilot fatigue with the National Academy of Sciences was included in S. 1300. The study will include consideration of research on fatigue, sleep, and circadian rhythms; sleep and rest requirements recommended by the NTSB and international standards. Within 18 months a report will be submitted to the FAA Administrator including recommendations that should be incorporated into the FAA’s rulemaking proceeding on flight limitation and rest requirements. It’s anticipated that similar language will be included in the House FAA reauthorization bill.
Family and Medical Leave Act
On Friday, June 15, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and thirty of his colleagues introduced H.R. 2744, a bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to clarify that flight crews are covered under its provisions. As enacted in 1993, the law states that an employee must have worked 60 percent of a full-time schedule over the course of a year, or the equivalent of 1,250 hours. While this figure adequately reflects 60% of a full-time schedule for the vast majority of workers in this country, it does not adequately take into account additional time spent on the job that is unique to pilots and flight attendants.
H.R. 2744 clarifies that an airline crewmember will be eligible for FMLA benefits if he/she has been paid for or completed 60 percent of their company’s monthly hours or trip guarantee.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, but no action has been scheduled at this time.
Bankruptcy Reform
ALPA has worked very closely with the AFL-CIO and other affiliates to draft a bill to make needed changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Although the egg can’t be unscrambled; in particular, ALPA needs to re-establish the original intent of the 1113 process and allow unions to take self help when companies use the bankruptcy code to abrogate their contracts with the blessing of judges who have no clue about labor law.
In light of the recent decision against the AFA in the 2nd Circuit, the lawyers are re-drafting those provisions to reflect a fix to that ruling. ALPA has had several meetings with the House and Senate Judiciary Committee staffs and looks forward to introduction of a bill in the very near future with hearings to follow. Given the slight Democratic majority in the Senate, this bill will not move. Sixty votes will be needed, and they are not there. However, we can put the argument out there and hope to move it further in a different Administration.
Age 60
On May 24, 2007, the ALPA Executive Board voted by an overwhelming 80 percent margin to end the union’s longstanding support for the FAA Age 60 mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. In the faced of concerted efforts to change the rule in Congress and the FAA, the Executive Board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change.
ALPA President, John Prater, noted that “ALPA pilots will be fully engaged in shaping any rule change. Any legislative or regulatory change needs to address ALPA’s priorities in the areas of safety, medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactive application of change, liability protection, and appropriate rule implementation.”
ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:
· Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot (captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”
· Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”
· Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.
· Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.
· Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.
· Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60.
· Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all operations.
· Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.
The Board charged that ALPA continue to aggressively lobby for the adoption of the Akaka bill (which would provide full PBGC benefits to pilots who retire at age 60).
The ground began shifting on the Age 60 rule when FAA Administrator Marion Blakey announced in January 2007 that “the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65”, and that “(t)he rule we intend to propose will parallel the ICAO standard – either pilot or copilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60.”
In response to the FAA Administrator’s announcement, Prater established the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel “to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age.”
The Panel presented its findings in the areas of aviation safety; collective bargaining; the cost and structure of heath care, disability, and retirement benefits; pilot training; medical standards; and scheduling rules to the Executive Council at its April 2007 meeting.
Congress introduced S.65 and H.R.1125 – The Freedom to Fly Act. The Panel concluded that the provisions in these bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues with respect to a change in the mandatory retirement age.
In response to this conclusion, the Council recommended to the Executive Board that ALPA modify its policy to enable ALPA to influence legislation and regulatory efforts. This became more critical as legislative efforts to change the rule accelerated.
ALPA’s 110th Congress Agenda
June 2007
Airport Access
Airport access is our #1 priority. It’s been every pilot and every flight attendant’s nightmare before and especially since 9/11. ALPA drafted language, met with staff, and thanks to our friends on the Senate Commerce Committee, the recently passed Senate version (S. 4), of the legislation implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission contains a provision that requires TSA, after consultation with airlines, airports, and flight crew unions, to report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on the status of establishing a process that would give flight deck and cabin crew members expedited access through screening check points. The TSA is further directed to begin full implementation of the system no later than one year after submitting the report. The bill is now in conference with the House and we have had some very positive conversations with them about this provision being in the final product. However, keep in mind that the President has threatened to veto this bill if it contains a provision, which is in both bills, to grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. Hopefully, we will have further congressional action before the July 4 recess.
Akaka Amendment
If airport access is item #1, then this is item #1A. We came very close last year when Sen. Akaka’s (D-HI) bill to allow pilots whose defined benefit plan had been terminated, the ability to receive the PBGC maximum guarantee at age 60 rather than at 65, was added to the Senate pension reform by a vote of 58-41. A similar bill had been introduced in the House by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and the House of Representatives subsequently voted three times to instruct it’s conferees to accept the Senate language. Unfortunately, House Republican conferees chose to ignore the wishes of the body and opposed every attempt by the Senate to include it in the conference report and it was ultimately dropped. The results of the last election have improved our chances; for one think, Rep. Miller is now the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
On May 2, 2007, Rep. Miller and Sen. Akaka re-introduced their bills in the 110th Congress: H.R. 2103 and S. 1270, respectively; both titled the Pilots Equitable Treatment Act. ALPA President John Prater recently met with Sen. Akaka on this issue. The Senator pledged his full support for the measure and committed himself and his staff to working to see this legislation enacted into law as soon as possible. On May 3rd, Prater testified on behalf of ALPA before the House Education and Labor’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions on modifications to the Pension Protection Act. His comments, which focused on the Miller/Akaka language, were well-received by the Subcommittee members, both Republicans and Democrats alike.
The bill will have to move as part of another vehicle. What that will be, is unknown at this time. There will also be some other pension issues, which are more on the tax side as it relates to being allowed to rollover into an IRA certain monies that are distributed to pilots outside of a qualified plan. ALPA will also be working with the flight attendants to get FMLA extended to flight crews.
ALPA has launched a nationwide grassroots Action Alert on the website where all ALPA members can help generate maximum congressional support for the Miller and Akaka bills by contacting their Senators and Representatives to urge them to co-sponsor these bills and work for their speedy passage. Sign onto the crewroom.alpa.org and look under the Advocacy tab or click on the Legislation and Politics link. Click on the Action Alert button and follow the directions to send e-mails to your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. Suggested messages are provided.
Security
There are several other security issues on ALPA’s agenda such as the FFDO program and possibly aircraft secondary barriers. On the FFDO program, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed such as carriage, time off for training and reimbursement of training costs. Captain Prater has written a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, asking him to hold a hearing on the program so that we can air our concerns and address some of the problems with an otherwise successful program.
FAA Reauthorization
Both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have begun in earnest the process of reauthorizing the FAA. In fact, Captain Terry McVenes, the Executive Air Safety Chairman, testified in March before the House Aviation Subcommittee outlining what safety items need to be addressed in this process.
The Senate Commerce Committee reported their bill, S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, on May 16. The bill contains dedicated funding of approximately $400 million annually for modernizing the air traffic control system through the establishment of the Air Traffic Modernization Fund. The Fund would be supported through a surcharge of $25.00 per flight on commercial and high-end general aviation (GA) jet flights. Approximately 90% of GA aircraft would be exempt from the surcharge. The funding generated by the $25 surcharge will be entirely dedicated to modernization costs. The House version of the bill has not yet been introduced; nevertheless, work on this important measure will progress throughout the summer.
Flight Crew Fatigue
Language requiring the FAA to arrange a study on pilot fatigue with the National Academy of Sciences was included in S. 1300. The study will include consideration of research on fatigue, sleep, and circadian rhythms; sleep and rest requirements recommended by the NTSB and international standards. Within 18 months a report will be submitted to the FAA Administrator including recommendations that should be incorporated into the FAA’s rulemaking proceeding on flight limitation and rest requirements. It’s anticipated that similar language will be included in the House FAA reauthorization bill.
Family and Medical Leave Act
On Friday, June 15, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and thirty of his colleagues introduced H.R. 2744, a bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to clarify that flight crews are covered under its provisions. As enacted in 1993, the law states that an employee must have worked 60 percent of a full-time schedule over the course of a year, or the equivalent of 1,250 hours. While this figure adequately reflects 60% of a full-time schedule for the vast majority of workers in this country, it does not adequately take into account additional time spent on the job that is unique to pilots and flight attendants.
H.R. 2744 clarifies that an airline crewmember will be eligible for FMLA benefits if he/she has been paid for or completed 60 percent of their company’s monthly hours or trip guarantee.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, but no action has been scheduled at this time.
Bankruptcy Reform
ALPA has worked very closely with the AFL-CIO and other affiliates to draft a bill to make needed changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Although the egg can’t be unscrambled; in particular, ALPA needs to re-establish the original intent of the 1113 process and allow unions to take self help when companies use the bankruptcy code to abrogate their contracts with the blessing of judges who have no clue about labor law.
In light of the recent decision against the AFA in the 2nd Circuit, the lawyers are re-drafting those provisions to reflect a fix to that ruling. ALPA has had several meetings with the House and Senate Judiciary Committee staffs and looks forward to introduction of a bill in the very near future with hearings to follow. Given the slight Democratic majority in the Senate, this bill will not move. Sixty votes will be needed, and they are not there. However, we can put the argument out there and hope to move it further in a different Administration.
Age 60
On May 24, 2007, the ALPA Executive Board voted by an overwhelming 80 percent margin to end the union’s longstanding support for the FAA Age 60 mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. In the faced of concerted efforts to change the rule in Congress and the FAA, the Executive Board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change.
ALPA President, John Prater, noted that “ALPA pilots will be fully engaged in shaping any rule change. Any legislative or regulatory change needs to address ALPA’s priorities in the areas of safety, medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactive application of change, liability protection, and appropriate rule implementation.”
ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:
· Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot (captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”
· Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”
· Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.
· Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.
· Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.
· Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60.
· Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all operations.
· Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.
The Board charged that ALPA continue to aggressively lobby for the adoption of the Akaka bill (which would provide full PBGC benefits to pilots who retire at age 60).
The ground began shifting on the Age 60 rule when FAA Administrator Marion Blakey announced in January 2007 that “the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65”, and that “(t)he rule we intend to propose will parallel the ICAO standard – either pilot or copilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60.”
In response to the FAA Administrator’s announcement, Prater established the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel “to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age.”
The Panel presented its findings in the areas of aviation safety; collective bargaining; the cost and structure of heath care, disability, and retirement benefits; pilot training; medical standards; and scheduling rules to the Executive Council at its April 2007 meeting.
Congress introduced S.65 and H.R.1125 – The Freedom to Fly Act. The Panel concluded that the provisions in these bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues with respect to a change in the mandatory retirement age.
In response to this conclusion, the Council recommended to the Executive Board that ALPA modify its policy to enable ALPA to influence legislation and regulatory efforts. This became more critical as legislative efforts to change the rule accelerated.
09-27-2007, 05:43 AM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 90
I'll say it again. Skywest is a very, very good company to work for. I understand where our pilots who say that SKW doesn't need a union are coming from--a lot of them came from ALPA carriers where conditions were much worse, and now there QOL and pay has drastically increased. I disagree with them, but I see why they think that. I think that people do the ALPA drive a major disservice by preaching that SKW is a bottom-feeder or some other BS--it just makes our fence-sitting pilots indignant.
09-27-2007, 05:50 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Dreamniner
Posts: 352
[quote=ExperimentalAB;237919]
Don't mention the plethora of other regionals paying low first-year pay with no rigs, lousy benefits, and then even lousier second and third year pay.
I've decided ya'll are out to get SkyWest...very sad, considering there's little reason for any of it (besides ::gasp:: we're not union)
Please, we're tired of hearing about it.
First, nobody is out to get you. We are simply trying to get you to put down the kool-aid for a minute and take an objective look at things. Do other places have it worse than SkyWest at the moment: Yes. Could that change tommorow if JA wants to: Yes. I really don't understand is why so many SkyWest pilots are willing to blindly believe anything management tells them, and don't want a legally binding contract.
SkyWest compares favorably to places like Mesa and ASA (who SkyWest owns), but it still has a way to go before anybody should be bragging about pay. Do you think your pay is going to substatially improve without a union?
Don't mention the plethora of other regionals paying low first-year pay with no rigs, lousy benefits, and then even lousier second and third year pay.
I've decided ya'll are out to get SkyWest...very sad, considering there's little reason for any of it (besides ::gasp:: we're not union)
Please, we're tired of hearing about it.
SkyWest compares favorably to places like Mesa and ASA (who SkyWest owns), but it still has a way to go before anybody should be bragging about pay. Do you think your pay is going to substatially improve without a union?
09-27-2007, 06:36 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 30 West
Posts: 421
You and I must be thinking of different companies...last time I checked, SKW was one of the best paying regionals?!?! 
The pay should absolutely be better (as it should at all regionals), but come on man, you're painting such an elaborate picture in your post, I think you even got lost in it's colors.
The pay should absolutely be better (as it should at all regionals), but come on man, you're painting such an elaborate picture in your post, I think you even got lost in it's colors.
09-27-2007, 07:26 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: rj 700/900
Posts: 506
I talked with a guy here at skyw who organized a lot of the union drives here at skyw in the past, he said that he is buddies with RR and BH, and RR actually said that he would want a union if he was in his shoes. He said management has left him alone the whole time. Also he said that he knows that they are planning on merging pilot groups it’s in the works as we speak. With out a union I guarantee we will have doh staple, that’s skyw's plan. At least with ALPA, we would have some recourse, and get some gates.
Its just business guys, we are not out to put skyw under, just protect our end of the deal management understands that. The guys down in sgu have treated us better that most, but those guys are retiring, br (cfo) is gone, RR (coo) is gone, and a few others. Jerry is getting old; he won’t be here for to much longer either. So we can get the union now, or wait a few years until we need it. Remember things can change real fast in this business.
Your choice.
Its just business guys, we are not out to put skyw under, just protect our end of the deal management understands that. The guys down in sgu have treated us better that most, but those guys are retiring, br (cfo) is gone, RR (coo) is gone, and a few others. Jerry is getting old; he won’t be here for to much longer either. So we can get the union now, or wait a few years until we need it. Remember things can change real fast in this business.
Your choice.
09-27-2007, 08:31 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
I talked with a guy here at skyw who organized a lot of the union drives here at skyw in the past, he said that he is buddies with RR and BH, and RR actually said that he would want a union if he was in his shoes. He said management has left him alone the whole time. Also he said that he knows that they are planning on merging pilot groups it’s in the works as we speak. With out a union I guarantee we will have doh staple, that’s skyw's plan. At least with ALPA, we would have some recourse, and get some gates.
Its just business guys, we are not out to put skyw under, just protect our end of the deal management understands that. The guys down in sgu have treated us better that most, but those guys are retiring, br (cfo) is gone, RR (coo) is gone, and a few others. Jerry is getting old; he won’t be here for to much longer either. So we can get the union now, or wait a few years until we need it. Remember things can change real fast in this business.
Your choice.
Its just business guys, we are not out to put skyw under, just protect our end of the deal management understands that. The guys down in sgu have treated us better that most, but those guys are retiring, br (cfo) is gone, RR (coo) is gone, and a few others. Jerry is getting old; he won’t be here for to much longer either. So we can get the union now, or wait a few years until we need it. Remember things can change real fast in this business.
Your choice.
09-27-2007, 09:13 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: rj 700/900
Posts: 506
It will happen. You might be interested in reading this article it gives great info on how mergers work.
http://www.skywestalpa.org/documents...ut.Mergers.pdf
09-27-2007, 09:24 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
It will happen. You might be interested in reading this article it gives great info on how mergers work.
http://www.skywestalpa.org/documents...ut.Mergers.pdf
http://www.skywestalpa.org/documents...ut.Mergers.pdf
09-27-2007, 09:40 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: rj 700/900
Posts: 506
It’s much more cost effective to run one company, rather than two. The only benefit they have now is to whipsaw us against asa; I think the cost benefit analyst is now leaning more to merging the two companies rather than a continued whipsaw.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
