Now it's been a while since I've been in a logic class, but I believe the fallacy you're making is called "affirming the consequent". You're saying that just because Mesa, Trans States (vis a vis GoJet), and Pinnacle (I don't know who Tinnery is, but I think you mean Phil Trenary) are better off with unions (which I'll grant you for the sake of argument) then SkyWest would be better off with a union, too. That's not necessarily true.

I've said in previous posts, which you probably haven't seen, that I did in fact vote for ALPA the last time I was given the chance. Certainly that's not because I'm an advocate of ALPA, and I was conflicted about that vote. Generally speaking, I don't even like labor unions, but in our seniority-based industry which completely strips us of any free agency (and thus the ability to bargain individually, on our own merits) there are some definite advantages to having a true, legally binding contract, especially if you ever run afoul of the company.

Ideally, as others have said, we'd have an in house union. I don't need 2% of my income going toward some guy with a big mustache named Prater. I don't need to pay for office space in Herndon. I don't need a Tim Martins ALPA magazine. Or a lanyard. Or a pin. I certainly don't need to be funding lavish MEC banquets. Or their top shelf bar tabs. I think the corruption goes on; that's just off the top of my head. Still, I voted for it, begrudgingly, because there are some benefits.

My original point, though, is that you assume that because bad airlines are better off with a union, ours would be, too. But maybe not. You can't prove it either way.