Slaphappy

Ask the newhires from prior 121 Carriers, about 80% of the newhire classes are prior 121. Lots from ASA, Mesaba and Transtates. 9 out of 10 of them will tell you why alpa would be bad at skywest.

I was one of them so I can tell you the grass isn't always greener on the otherside. In the case of skywest it would hurt the airline more than help it.

robthree

Oh, don't worry Ellen. I'm sure that if the pilots decide a union is not in thier best intrest, SKYW will cut a retro check to compensate for the delayed pay increase. There's no law prohibiting that is there?
And if the pilots do elect to be represented by ALPA, a retro check is pro forma when a new contract is signed.

Very intereresting. I assume you can cite some sources?
ALPA communique to UAL pilots?
SEC filing statements?
I assume that ALPA must have held a vast number of shares, and thus had a signifigant position in UAL, right? Funny, I wonder how an entitiy like ALPA could "secretly" sell thier shares and not have it disclosed in a timely manner? I mean a large publicly traded company like UAL is subject to scrutiny from a myriad of professional traders, as well as Federal Regulators. You would think that if Wall Street heard that UAL's union was liquidating thier position on the carrier that it would have widespread repercussions. And if it didn't there would be insider trading prosecutions forthcoming.

I mean unless you made it all up.

AirWillie

You have been here long enough to know how to use a search. There might be 50 topics about Skywest on this forum and all about the same thing.

Ellen

Correct!

[/QUOTE]I mean a large publicly traded company like UAL is subject to scrutiny from a myriad of professional traders, as well as Federal Regulators. You would think that if Wall Street heard that UAL's union was liquidating thier position on the carrier that it would have widespread repercussions. And if it didn't there would be insider trading prosecutions forthcoming. I mean unless you made it all up.[/QUOTE]

Insider trading? ALPA would have to have had sold based upon non-public information. This wasn't the case. They sold their shares, told UAL pilots not to (because this would create competition for the shares ALPA wants to sell . . .and obviously ALPA wanted to liquidate at a higher price vs. competing with the people they represent.)

When companies are going South (out of business) the Institutions typically offer out "BUY" recommendations to the general public . . .WHY? so the institutions (ALPA) have somewhere to dump their stock. And then institutions say (forget it dump it) after the stock falls 99.9%, so THEY have shares to buy at extremely depressed prices. This happens ALL the time, this is what happened in crash of 2000. Hence, so new rules . . . There are two sides to your Merrill Lynch 401K accounjt. The Institutional side and the Retail side. The Retail side is ALWAYS left holding the bag.

And widspread reprecussions . . . ? Like what. Sounds like panic talk to me.

copcar1988

Hmmmmm....Don't I feel like a donkey's a**. My bad, I swear I couldn't but you are right. Thanks for pointing that out, and also thanks for the replies guys.

Adios