Skywest v2.0
03-30-2017, 07:42 PM
#6611
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,043
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
03-30-2017, 08:12 PM
#6612
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 130
We don't, that's my point.
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
03-31-2017, 06:12 AM
#6613
Dumb Pilot
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Broke
Posts: 784
That's a little over my head, I'm not sure who starts or determines the end result of a common carrier petition. I was under the impression that the buck stops in SGU. If that's the case they're smart enough to end the petition under the assumption that the new pilot group would vote in ALPA as you said. Which is why I doubt it would happen.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
03-31-2017, 06:28 AM
#6614
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,283
Many of them would not otherwise risk failing out of a new employer
03-31-2017, 06:30 AM
#6615
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,378
That's a little over my head, I'm not sure who starts or determines the end result of a common carrier petition. I was under the impression that the buck stops in SGU. If that's the case they're smart enough to end the petition under the assumption that the new pilot group would vote in ALPA as you said. Which is why I doubt it would happen.
03-31-2017, 11:58 AM
#6616
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,238
Part of the purchase agreement, was XJT alpa not askimg for "one list". Them doing so now would most definitely be the death blow of the ERJ side.. (faster then the current one..)
03-31-2017, 02:17 PM
#6617
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 31
What death blow is currently happening on the 175??
03-31-2017, 02:32 PM
#6620
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
Last time I called in sick, they used my vacation time because I didn't have enough user. Do I have the option of not using vacation time on sick call?
Hypothetically- I have vacation scheduled and just enough vacation time to cover it. If I call in sick for a trip right before the vacation with not enough user time to cover the entire sick call, what will happen?
Hypothetically- I have vacation scheduled and just enough vacation time to cover it. If I call in sick for a trip right before the vacation with not enough user time to cover the entire sick call, what will happen?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
