fenix1

I understand there's plenty of passion behind both sides, but I'm trying to focus on what differentiates OO from other airlines (i.e., why is OO the only non-union airline?) rather than spurring discussion over whether OO should or shouldn't unionize. To that end, it seems several themes emerged from responses thus far:
1). People used to be more highly regarded at OO, but the airline has become more corporate. (My question: Given the changes that have already happened at OO, what has kept unionization from occurring already after the airline changed? Also, has the future likelihood of unionization at OO increased?)
2). Senior members of the pilot group perceive themselves to be benefiting from the absence of a union and many of the mid/junior pilots don't see it worth rocking the boat to push for a union given all the movement currently present in the industry. (My question: Why/how is OO's situation any different than every other airline in this regard??)
3). The OO pilot group benefits from the rest of the industry being unionized without having to pay. (My question: If this is the case, what has kept other airlines' pilot groups from seeking to disband their respective unions to achieve this same effect?)
4). OO management influence against unionization. (My question: Why/how has OO management been more successful at preventing unionization that other airlines' management?)
5). The OO pilot group sees values in giving management flexibility/agility, particularly with respect to compensation. (My question: Why don't other airlines' pilot groups see this same benefit?)
6). The OO pilot group is generally satisfied with management. (My question: Is OO's management truly better - in both character & business acumen - than other airlines' management? Also, do OO pilots have different - lower or higher? - expectations for their management than pilot groups of other airlines?)

Thanks to all who commented and those who do so in the future, particularly in response to the questions in parentheses above.