Originally Posted by
No Land 3
How does one answer this objectively, without having worked at all of the choices at the same point in time? People only know about where they currently work. You have the typical Skywest pilot touting how a union and contract is not really needed, to the Envoy guys trying to convince the world that they have a short upgrade and short flow time, to the Mesa guys that simply say, "don't come here". If this was 2013, hands down I would suggest Mesa.
Well having worked for more than one airline I've got some insight into giving advice on how to pick.
You're right though the best insight would come from someone who has worked at all of them... But I doubt there's anyone that has. The other thing that can be done objectively is to ask pilots from each company the pros and cons make a list then decide.
Not having a union vs having one isn't what I'd be worried about, more QOL and the leadership of the company. Having worked at union shops and seeing how it's grieve and fly it, maybe there is something more than Kool Aid at SkyWest? I think that their pilot group would know since they have guys from PSA, American Eagle, Mesaba, Great Lakes, Mesa... You get the point, guys that have worked at a union airline yet have not voted in ALPA.
I would not have suggested this guy go to Mesa in 2013, nor today. I would not suggest he go to TSA or anyone owned by Hulas Kanodia, at least not without doing the research and understand the history.
I would suggest if he's short sighted enough to exclude SkyWest from his research on a company he might consider that he aims for a wholy owned. So AA WO- Envoy, PSA, Piedmont, DL WO-Endeavor.
Essentially this guy really needs to do some homework, talk to a pilot at each of the companies he's considering to get their pros and cons, the more the better so it's more objective rather than one ****ed off guy.