Allegiant Country
#211
Thread Starter
Gets Wednesdays Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 49
Likes: 17
I agree, the bonus must be paid. The JCBA will be the opportunity to take the best of both contracts. In order to do that, we need pilot unity. Leaving these issues unresolved would not be a good starting point.
Additionally, I really don't see why we can't achieve both outcomes, it's way too soon to accept the frame that this is an either-or question.
Additionally, I really don't see why we can't achieve both outcomes, it's way too soon to accept the frame that this is an either-or question.
#212
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 65
Likes: 22
ALPA is definitely the superior union (pilots). Until the company (Allegiant) makes it clear that the current retention bonus will be honored regardless of union, IBT / ALPA, most Allegiant pilots will reluctantly stick with Teamsters. The wording in the stupid retention bonus agreement specifically states IBT (not pilots or elected representation).
If the payout is guaranteed with ALPA we’re all set…ALPA it is.
If the payout is guaranteed with ALPA we’re all set…ALPA it is.
#213
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 70
Likes: 12
There are some pilots in the system that apparently are already saying they plan to vote no, as a strategy to get more from the company. Some plan to vote no "on principle"; this is nuts.
When this E-board is able to lock down a TA, and soon, it will be imperative that people not think that we will have time to drag on negotiations more to get a little extra here or a little extra there. One way to put this retention bonus in jeopardy is by playing games, getting iced out by the NMB, and now having to wait for JCBA. Like you said, JCBA will be the opportunity to capitalize on the best of both contracts. It's astonishing that some people really think rejection/just saying NO, is some form of strategy.
When this E-board is able to lock down a TA, and soon, it will be imperative that people not think that we will have time to drag on negotiations more to get a little extra here or a little extra there. One way to put this retention bonus in jeopardy is by playing games, getting iced out by the NMB, and now having to wait for JCBA. Like you said, JCBA will be the opportunity to capitalize on the best of both contracts. It's astonishing that some people really think rejection/just saying NO, is some form of strategy.
How many others voted no and got a much better deal, just in the previous 5 years? WN, UAL? FDX did and they still haven’t gotten a contract, but they seem to be shrinking. G4 is in a different situation than FDX. G4 needs pilots and if they can’t provide an industry standard contract I would hope your pilots would vote NO. Y’all deserve a great contract.
#214
On Reserve
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 181
Likes: 14
Because they have no intention of paying it. Any deal made with G4 can't be trusted. Would also mean no new contract for G4 pilots for 15 years (start of last one till JCBA)
#215
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 46
From: A320 CA
its gonna be paid out. will they cry poor and tell us they cannot afford [fill in the blank] because of the retention bonus? absolutely.
#217
On Reserve
Joined: May 2024
Posts: 87
Likes: 32
I remember it clearly. In early 2025, GU spoke openly about his desire to “go.” He framed his role as temporary, a necessary but short-lived intervention.
Here we are now.
Nearly two full years after the initiation of an “emergency” trusteeship, and almost six months beyond what the Department of Labor contemplates as lawful duration, nothing of substance has changed.
Were elections held? Yes.
Did those pilots ever exercise real authority? No.
GU remains in control. He directs outcomes, controls messaging, and overrides the will of the pilots those elections were supposedly meant to empower. The structure may have changed on paper, but the power did not change hands.
There is no serious indication that GU intends to relinquish control. Any forthcoming merger will simply become the next justification. It will be sold as “protection for Allegiant pilots.” In practice, it serves as political cover for continued self-preservation.
This is not representation. It is entrenchment.
This is precisely why Allegiant pilots find themselves in desperate need of ALPA.
The problem is not simply one individual. It is a system that allows indefinite control without accountability, leadership without consent, and power without meaningful checks. That system is not fixable through another internal election, another promise, or another rebrand of the same structure.
ALPA offers what this environment has systematically denied: pilot-run governance, constitutional limits on authority, elected leadership that answers to the membership, and a proven record of enforcing contracts rather than managing pilots. It replaces trusteeship and political appointments with accountability and transparency.
The clock is still ticking. The National Mediation Board will eventually grant a representation election. When Allegiant pilots finally end this Teamsters experiment, GU’s utility to the IBT will evaporate. Organizations like the IBT are not sentimental. They discard failed political projects.
What concerns many pilots is the period between now and that day.
A trustee whose authority is eroding is not a stabilizing force. History shows that leaders in that position tend to govern through escalation rather than restraint, through control rather than consensus. Many pilots believe they are already seeing that pattern play out.
The loss of Allegiant at Local 1224 matters. It was a power base, a revenue source, and a social circle. Its collapse was not just political; it was personal. Ignoring that reality requires pretending incentives do not exist.
GU’s legacy is being written now.
Not as a defender of pilots.
Not as a reformer.
But as a cautionary example of what happens when control becomes more important than representation.
Allegiant pilots deserve more than damage control and delay. They deserve a union that is built for pilots, run by pilots, and constrained by rules that prevent exactly this kind of concentration of power.
Allegiant pilots will move on. The industry will move on.
ALPA is how that happens.
GU will be remembered not for leadership, but for the damage done while clinging to authority long after legitimacy had expired
To the pilots who ran the ALPA drive, please don’t stop. We need you now more than ever. It sounded like you all had some real support, it will only grow.
Here we are now.
Nearly two full years after the initiation of an “emergency” trusteeship, and almost six months beyond what the Department of Labor contemplates as lawful duration, nothing of substance has changed.
Were elections held? Yes.
Did those pilots ever exercise real authority? No.
GU remains in control. He directs outcomes, controls messaging, and overrides the will of the pilots those elections were supposedly meant to empower. The structure may have changed on paper, but the power did not change hands.
There is no serious indication that GU intends to relinquish control. Any forthcoming merger will simply become the next justification. It will be sold as “protection for Allegiant pilots.” In practice, it serves as political cover for continued self-preservation.
This is not representation. It is entrenchment.
This is precisely why Allegiant pilots find themselves in desperate need of ALPA.
The problem is not simply one individual. It is a system that allows indefinite control without accountability, leadership without consent, and power without meaningful checks. That system is not fixable through another internal election, another promise, or another rebrand of the same structure.
ALPA offers what this environment has systematically denied: pilot-run governance, constitutional limits on authority, elected leadership that answers to the membership, and a proven record of enforcing contracts rather than managing pilots. It replaces trusteeship and political appointments with accountability and transparency.
The clock is still ticking. The National Mediation Board will eventually grant a representation election. When Allegiant pilots finally end this Teamsters experiment, GU’s utility to the IBT will evaporate. Organizations like the IBT are not sentimental. They discard failed political projects.
What concerns many pilots is the period between now and that day.
A trustee whose authority is eroding is not a stabilizing force. History shows that leaders in that position tend to govern through escalation rather than restraint, through control rather than consensus. Many pilots believe they are already seeing that pattern play out.
The loss of Allegiant at Local 1224 matters. It was a power base, a revenue source, and a social circle. Its collapse was not just political; it was personal. Ignoring that reality requires pretending incentives do not exist.
GU’s legacy is being written now.
Not as a defender of pilots.
Not as a reformer.
But as a cautionary example of what happens when control becomes more important than representation.
Allegiant pilots deserve more than damage control and delay. They deserve a union that is built for pilots, run by pilots, and constrained by rules that prevent exactly this kind of concentration of power.
Allegiant pilots will move on. The industry will move on.
ALPA is how that happens.
GU will be remembered not for leadership, but for the damage done while clinging to authority long after legitimacy had expired
To the pilots who ran the ALPA drive, please don’t stop. We need you now more than ever. It sounded like you all had some real support, it will only grow.
Last edited by BroncoFtbl; 02-06-2026 at 01:53 PM.
#218
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 323
Likes: 13
#219
Thread Starter
Gets Wednesdays Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 49
Likes: 17
Okay, can you clarify what you meant by:
“Not trying to stir the pot, but I think there's a good argument that even with or without the RT, ALPA is the way to go.”
The way I read it, your hypothetical makes it sound like even if Allegiant pilots lose the retention bonus switching to ALPA, it would be worth it. I’m all for ALPA, but I’d vote IBT in a heartbeat to get my money — luckily, that scenario is probably BS.
#220
If the deal is no good why should you vote yes!?!
How many others voted no and got a much better deal, just in the previous 5 years? WN, UAL? FDX did and they still haven’t gotten a contract, but they seem to be shrinking. G4 is in a different situation than FDX. G4 needs pilots and if they can’t provide an industry standard contract I would hope your pilots would vote NO. Y’all deserve a great contract.
How many others voted no and got a much better deal, just in the previous 5 years? WN, UAL? FDX did and they still haven’t gotten a contract, but they seem to be shrinking. G4 is in a different situation than FDX. G4 needs pilots and if they can’t provide an industry standard contract I would hope your pilots would vote NO. Y’all deserve a great contract.
Saying I'm voting YES regardless, is as silly to me as someone saying "I'm gonna vote NO" no matter what is offered.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



