rickair7777

Do we know each other? If so lets take it offline.

But I'm the least apathetic human being on the face of the earth. I didn't make up my mind on the vote until the very last hour, I actually considered it carefully even though one vote is a drop in the bucket. I was inclined to go the other way but I know some Bro FO's with families who would rather stay on that airplane if they could afford to. Since I always disclose how I vote, you could say that I was making a statement...

Anyway the FO's got their raise, sapa is already soliciting assistance for the next round and the pilot shortage is ramping up. Maybe next year will be better.

saturn

Maybe we can come out on top next year and get COLA, again...or like 6 golden days.. or enough to pay for a WHOLE medical.. or some more sweet lanyards. Thanks for all you do,
~winning

Nevets

This is not necessarily a bad way to operate. It works for all the unions at SWA. But that's just it. They are unionized which means that they can work with management IF management is willing to work with them. But the fall back for the union is that management can't just unilaterally change interpretations. So if the union comes to a deal with management, they know that it's a legally enforceable contract with a grievance process that involves a neutral third party to resolve differences in interpretations or violations. With what you have now, you are operating on a wing and a prayer.

Would you have been better off at those other two carriers without a union at all? Because I find it hard to believe that Ornstein or Hulas would be more benevolent if they didn't have any resistance from having a union on property.

On the other hand, when many pilots were suffering at the hands of those CEOs, others were doing good at places like AWAC, Comair, and XJT. And what do all five airlines that I mentioned have in common? They are all represented by the same union.

So it's a false premise that just because life sucked at your last union carrier, it would suck if you unionized at your current carrier.

This can be found on the SEC website. I've got a copy of the ASA (DAL) and XJT CPAs. You just have to really dig for a while to find them. Of course, numbers are redacted. But the terms are all there for anyone to see.

No one will ever know. What we do know is that anytime there is a disagreement about these things with a unionized pilot group, it's ultimately decided by a neutral arbitrator. Sometimes just the cost of arbitration keeps the company from unilaterally changing interpretation of language. Or the costs move the parties to come to some mutual agreement. But it's never unilateral.

clearprop

weak excuse for voting yes.

rickair7777

I don't need an excuse. I did have a reason though.

clearprop

Yes you did. And, after all that has been "said" back and forth, you have every right to vote the way you did. Hopefully more good than bad will come out of the future discussions between the MEC and management. I think most of us can agree that there were concessions and the majority of the pilot group got the shorter end of the stick. It would have cost OO very little, in the grand scheme of things, to have left the 1% COLA in place.

Paid2fly

Who's talking about "hitting one out of the ballpark"? I'm saying that the world's largest regional, and one of, if not the most consistently profitable airlines in the world can at the very least afford to give its crews COLA that keeps up with or even keeps them ahead of inflation. If things were really so tight, shouldn't management have led by example and all taken 0% as well?

HermannGraf

Never say never. We are a lot of guys at OO waiting for an ALPA drive. Last time we had one the vote rules at the time did not allow ALPA in but if the new voting rules that we have now would have been in place back then we would have been an ALPA carrier. SAPA has lost a lot of support among the pilots since change of its president and the way it has been working since. It has become more clear that it is a Company tool more than a pilot union. There is nothing anyone can do to make it better, the former president did the best I have seen and was voted out. SAPA is paid by the company. It is a conflict in itself.
When it comes to ALPA. People that complain about paying 2% for alpa dues can go out and try to buy loss of license/certificate insurance and legal representation insurance by them self and see how much it cost. Just the value of those two things makes it worth the 2%. The ability to stop the company in the violations of agreements and to have pro negotiators available is also benefits.

You cannot compare Skywest with other regionals and say "look at how much ALPA did at so and so". Skywest is not like other regionals, it makes profits every quarter and it is the hen with the golden eggs for Inc. We the pilots that makes Skywest airlines great need protection in form of insurances and pro negotiators. We need compensation for at least what we lose because of inflation. We need lawyers that are not paid by the company. Enough is enough. We are good workers and we are insulted in every pay negotiation that SAPA presents. We need something else. Please ALPA make a drive and let the current pilot group at Skywest vote. Enough is Enough.

rickair7777

Of course they can afford to. But they have no reason to unless you force them to. Leading by example is a military thing, in corporate America the ideal is to take as much money from anyone and everyone that you can. "Leadership" is just a buzzword they use when trying to motivate the workers.

Is offline

After going back and looking at my schedules for last year every reserve pilot took a major pay cut under the new pay package! The reserve guarantee being raised to 76 hours along with the removal of the BHO not considered in braking guarantee is significant. Last year three months I broke by minutes each month. This accounted for over 70 hours of pay that I would not have received under the new pay package. So glad 1642 pilots voted this jewel in