GoJet hiring or just taking applications???
10-21-2009, 07:54 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by AirWillie
You keep bringing up the contract. Do you know anything about the Gojets contract? How much we credit what our pay is? Our QOL?
Here is my problem with your bashing.... Your management Skywest or ASA or whichever it is just gave UA 80 million dollars(probably the value of Gojet and a couple of regionals combined) to get more flying. You like to talk about theory and what could have or should be happening in our profession, no matter what happened in 05, how are we and others supposed to get our rates and qol up in our next contract when our management wants us to be paid as little so that next time they can afford to outbid Skywest/ASA when they pay 80 million when they should be earning it with good performance??? Better yet they could just ask us to go non union to compete with skywest hmmm???? As it was said by Leftwing: there is something wrong with working for a regional airline and then bashing another regional airline especially when your reginal just paid to outbid everyone. Skywest RAH etc are supposed to be industry leaders, they're buying up majors left and right and their contracts still say 23 bucks an hour. That is the reality of the regionals and it will continue to happen, that's why it's called the regionals.
Here is my problem with your bashing.... Your management Skywest or ASA or whichever it is just gave UA 80 million dollars(probably the value of Gojet and a couple of regionals combined) to get more flying. You like to talk about theory and what could have or should be happening in our profession, no matter what happened in 05, how are we and others supposed to get our rates and qol up in our next contract when our management wants us to be paid as little so that next time they can afford to outbid Skywest/ASA when they pay 80 million when they should be earning it with good performance??? Better yet they could just ask us to go non union to compete with skywest hmmm???? As it was said by Leftwing: there is something wrong with working for a regional airline and then bashing another regional airline especially when your reginal just paid to outbid everyone. Skywest RAH etc are supposed to be industry leaders, they're buying up majors left and right and their contracts still say 23 bucks an hour. That is the reality of the regionals and it will continue to happen, that's why it's called the regionals.
10-21-2009, 09:39 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by pause
"My Regional is better than your Regional" *eyeroll* You need to shake the sand out of your diaper(s)
Oh yeah I forgot, once one is on a seniority list at a major, then and only then will be ok to be ****ed about whipsaw, alter-egos, etc...
10-21-2009, 09:40 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by whoareyou310
Unfortunately for you....even Mesa has a better contract than you....I know a guy from college who went straight from college graduate to flying a CRJ-700, and I ran into him one day and he told me he was so excited that he actually got a pay check over $400. When I was sitting reserve at my regional I made 3 times that. We also chatted about overall QOL and insurance and I couldn't believe how far below what I have known here his contract really was. This shouldn't be a discussion about a "regional" but about an "AIRLINE" and how sub standard it really is...and that goes back to its hiring practices when it was taking fresh college graduates putting them into shiny new aircraft(ie...COLGAN accident), all the way through every section in their contract. Why would any normal human being go to a place like that? And all these pilots from the majors that claim they don't know anything about GOJET before they go there and it is just "another regional" are shaming themselves and deserve what they get in return a crappy life and hated by most pilots.....
10-21-2009, 09:41 AM
#44
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by AirWillie
hahahahahahaha.
10-21-2009, 09:48 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: CRJ-200 First Officer
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by AirWillie
hahahahahahaha.
10-21-2009, 10:03 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by FlyASA
The internet is a wonderful thing, I have seen your contract. It is posted here along with a lot of other contracts.
http://www.****************/forum/mi..._pay_main_page
Tell me AirWillie, which major has Skywest Inc. bought? UAL has a market cap of $1.14 billion, Skywest's $80 million dollar loan won't buy UAL. Not even close. Skywest Inc. used its financial muscle to outbid carriers like Mesa, TSA, etc. The loan Skywest has provided is at a much lower interest rate than UAL could have gotten otherwise and it is from a creditor that wants to see UAL stay solvent.
If this had been a strict operating cost comparison there is no chance ASA would have won this flying. Inc. made a good move and I like the idea of my management securing flying from their back pocket not mine. They could have asked for concessions saying they needed them to get the contract, but they didn't.
Of course I speak for everyone here when I say I wish UA was keeping the 737s, but Tilton seems hell bent on giving it away. So if we beat out GoJet, Mesa, TSA, etc. in the future by using our financial muscle then I'm totally ok with that. In fact I think it's a good thing. If the only way your company can win contracts is by beating concessions out of the employees you have to ask yourself how business savvy your management team is and if that is the place you want to work for. Skywest/ASA provides better pay, benefits, QOL, etc. than Mesa, TSA, GoJet, and Pinnacle and yet we still make more money. Do you even want your management to win new flying if it costs you more and more of your QOL, pay, and benefits? Why would you want to be a part of that? I would hope that you would say "NO!"
http://www.****************/forum/mi..._pay_main_page
Tell me AirWillie, which major has Skywest Inc. bought? UAL has a market cap of $1.14 billion, Skywest's $80 million dollar loan won't buy UAL. Not even close. Skywest Inc. used its financial muscle to outbid carriers like Mesa, TSA, etc. The loan Skywest has provided is at a much lower interest rate than UAL could have gotten otherwise and it is from a creditor that wants to see UAL stay solvent.
If this had been a strict operating cost comparison there is no chance ASA would have won this flying. Inc. made a good move and I like the idea of my management securing flying from their back pocket not mine. They could have asked for concessions saying they needed them to get the contract, but they didn't.
Of course I speak for everyone here when I say I wish UA was keeping the 737s, but Tilton seems hell bent on giving it away. So if we beat out GoJet, Mesa, TSA, etc. in the future by using our financial muscle then I'm totally ok with that. In fact I think it's a good thing. If the only way your company can win contracts is by beating concessions out of the employees you have to ask yourself how business savvy your management team is and if that is the place you want to work for. Skywest/ASA provides better pay, benefits, QOL, etc. than Mesa, TSA, GoJet, and Pinnacle and yet we still make more money. Do you even want your management to win new flying if it costs you more and more of your QOL, pay, and benefits? Why would you want to be a part of that? I would hope that you would say "NO!"
10-21-2009, 10:04 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Hulas Kanodia
You guys don't even have per-segment block or better.
10-21-2009, 10:40 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
So, back to the original topic....is GoJet hiring? Or just taking applications?
10-21-2009, 12:44 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: ERJ145 Captain
Posts: 473
For the Original Poster, here's an excellent paper written about why gojets was created. You may want to consider this research before making your decision to join this company.
Best of luck,
goaround
Trans States Pilots vs GoJet
A White Paper Analysis
Purpose:
The purpose of this document is to inform airline professionals on how GoJet Airlines, LLC adversely affects Trans States Pilots. While this white paper is factual, it is not meant to be unbiased or devoid of opinion. To the contrary, this document’s is designed to educate anyone considering a job or career with GoJet so that he or she may make an informed decision by answering this question: Will accepting a position at GoJet be detrimental to Trans States pilots and the airline industry as a whole?
Background:
In late 2003, Trans States Airlines management indicated their desire to acquire and operate large regional jet aircraft. In early 2004, the Trans States MEC and TSA management began negotiating rates of pay for large regional jet aircraft (i.e. those in excess of 64 seats). Despite months of negotiations, the TSA MEC was unable to reach an agreement on the substandard pay scales Trans States management demanded. As a result, in early fall of 2004 negotiations had diffused.
In October 2004, Trans States Airlines’ President announced a need to create another airline to operate large regional jet aircraft, citing the Allied Pilots Association (APA – American Airlines) scope language restricting Trans States Airlines from operating aircraft larger than 50 seats. This airline, GoJet, would be controlled by the newly created Trans States Holdings1. While the APA scope restrictions did exist, that limitation did not prevent two airlines with independent operating certificates from operating with one seniority list or under a single collective bargaining agreement.
Meanwhile, four TSA management pilots who were hired as GoJet pilots, signed authorization cards stating they wished to be represented by the Teamsters, and GoJet management secretly signed on to the bogus scheme. ALPA challenged this attempt with the National Mediation Board, claiming that the Teamsters could not be the bargaining representative of GoJet since GoJet had not yet obtained an operating certificate. ALPA’s challenge was upheld by the NMB. The Trans States MEC immediately requested a meeting with the President of Trans States Airlines, who, by no coincidence, would also be the President of GoJet Airlines. Only after informational picketing, a pilot rally at St. Louis and a letter written by then ALPA President Duane Woerth to TSA CEO Hulas Kanodia, was the President of TSA finally convinced to
meet and negotiate with the TSA MEC.Negotiations began in the summer of 2005. Throughout the negotiations, TSA took a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Eventually in late summer 20052 TSA management put their last, best proposal on the table. Their LOA proposal contained Single Carrier language, a Holding Company Letter (binding TSH to TSA CBA), merged seniority list, substandard 70/90 seat pay scales, and a contract extension of 4 years3. Unfortunately, the GoJet LOA, in the opinion of many TSA pilots, lacked true job security protection. Management’s LOA prevented the bumping of those pilots already at GoJet from their equipment in the event of a reduction in another piece of equipment. This was particularly sensitive to the J41 fleet, which had already been scheduled to be removed from service by mid 2006. ALPA had tried to remedy this inequity through an additional proposal that protected the Trans States pilots, but TSA management was not interested. The TSA MEC conducted a series of road shows that outlined what management’s LOA did and didn’t provide in terms of wages, duration and scope. The pilots of Trans States Airlines voted down the proposal 3 to 1 in what was clearly a very emotional vote.
The Trans States MEC re-polled the pilots to determine why the vote failed and also attempted to resume negotiations, but Trans States management refused despite our best efforts to re-engage. ALPA also filed a petition with the NMB to recognize Trans States and GoJet as a single carrier. The NMB received briefs from the Company and ALPA. Primarily because the Company had separated the labor relations functions of TSA and GoJet, the NMB denied ALPA’s single carrier petition and Teamsters (IBT local 618) remained as the representational party. Trans States’ MEC also filed a Section 1 scope violation grievance, which remains pending today. The TSA CBA states that the Company shall not create or acquire an alter-ego to avoid the terms and conditions of this agreement. Although ALPA lost the Single Carrier petition, a different standard will be used by an arbitrator on whether TSA violated that portion of the CBA
Ex-TSA Pilots
During the course of the GoJet negotiations in 2004 and 2005, two TSA pilots who had become Flight Managers4 assisted in the creation and operation of GoJet. These flight managers would later actively try to prevent ALPA from becoming the labor representation unit at GoJet by signing authorization cards with two others in an attempt to place IBT 618 on property and block any attempt by pilots to choose ALPA. In early 2005, these same pilots were directly involved with other senior TSA management personnel in union busting tactics that resulted in the wrongful termination of five union officers in a direct attempt to undermine the TSA MEC and ALPA.
In late 2005, after the LOA vote failed, TSA management began offering GoJet jobs to TSA pilots by enticing them with up to five years’ longevity. At the time, TSA pilots were actively demonstrating that GoJet flying belonged to and should be flown by TSA pilots on the TSA Seniority List. Only a few pilots from TSA rank and file went to GoJet, but their decision to do so at the expense of our campaign to unify these companies left deep scars and set off the beginning of a pilot war. Most of the ex-TSA pilots who went to GoJet were made check airmen and held IBT shop steward positions. Even members of IBT’s Airline Division Local 747 condemned the actions of IBT 618 to unionize this group while ALPA was trying to resolve the issues. TSA pilots wore “Alter EGoJet” badge backers in a visual display of their discontent, while ALPA filed a grievance5 over the alter-ego carrier (a label which remains with GoJet today).
When this was posted a few months ago I took the time to verify the information and its all valid and documented by all parties.
Best of luck,
goaround
Trans States Pilots vs GoJet
A White Paper Analysis
Purpose:
The purpose of this document is to inform airline professionals on how GoJet Airlines, LLC adversely affects Trans States Pilots. While this white paper is factual, it is not meant to be unbiased or devoid of opinion. To the contrary, this document’s is designed to educate anyone considering a job or career with GoJet so that he or she may make an informed decision by answering this question: Will accepting a position at GoJet be detrimental to Trans States pilots and the airline industry as a whole?
Background:
In late 2003, Trans States Airlines management indicated their desire to acquire and operate large regional jet aircraft. In early 2004, the Trans States MEC and TSA management began negotiating rates of pay for large regional jet aircraft (i.e. those in excess of 64 seats). Despite months of negotiations, the TSA MEC was unable to reach an agreement on the substandard pay scales Trans States management demanded. As a result, in early fall of 2004 negotiations had diffused.
In October 2004, Trans States Airlines’ President announced a need to create another airline to operate large regional jet aircraft, citing the Allied Pilots Association (APA – American Airlines) scope language restricting Trans States Airlines from operating aircraft larger than 50 seats. This airline, GoJet, would be controlled by the newly created Trans States Holdings1. While the APA scope restrictions did exist, that limitation did not prevent two airlines with independent operating certificates from operating with one seniority list or under a single collective bargaining agreement.
Meanwhile, four TSA management pilots who were hired as GoJet pilots, signed authorization cards stating they wished to be represented by the Teamsters, and GoJet management secretly signed on to the bogus scheme. ALPA challenged this attempt with the National Mediation Board, claiming that the Teamsters could not be the bargaining representative of GoJet since GoJet had not yet obtained an operating certificate. ALPA’s challenge was upheld by the NMB. The Trans States MEC immediately requested a meeting with the President of Trans States Airlines, who, by no coincidence, would also be the President of GoJet Airlines. Only after informational picketing, a pilot rally at St. Louis and a letter written by then ALPA President Duane Woerth to TSA CEO Hulas Kanodia, was the President of TSA finally convinced to
meet and negotiate with the TSA MEC.Negotiations began in the summer of 2005. Throughout the negotiations, TSA took a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Eventually in late summer 20052 TSA management put their last, best proposal on the table. Their LOA proposal contained Single Carrier language, a Holding Company Letter (binding TSH to TSA CBA), merged seniority list, substandard 70/90 seat pay scales, and a contract extension of 4 years3. Unfortunately, the GoJet LOA, in the opinion of many TSA pilots, lacked true job security protection. Management’s LOA prevented the bumping of those pilots already at GoJet from their equipment in the event of a reduction in another piece of equipment. This was particularly sensitive to the J41 fleet, which had already been scheduled to be removed from service by mid 2006. ALPA had tried to remedy this inequity through an additional proposal that protected the Trans States pilots, but TSA management was not interested. The TSA MEC conducted a series of road shows that outlined what management’s LOA did and didn’t provide in terms of wages, duration and scope. The pilots of Trans States Airlines voted down the proposal 3 to 1 in what was clearly a very emotional vote.
The Trans States MEC re-polled the pilots to determine why the vote failed and also attempted to resume negotiations, but Trans States management refused despite our best efforts to re-engage. ALPA also filed a petition with the NMB to recognize Trans States and GoJet as a single carrier. The NMB received briefs from the Company and ALPA. Primarily because the Company had separated the labor relations functions of TSA and GoJet, the NMB denied ALPA’s single carrier petition and Teamsters (IBT local 618) remained as the representational party. Trans States’ MEC also filed a Section 1 scope violation grievance, which remains pending today. The TSA CBA states that the Company shall not create or acquire an alter-ego to avoid the terms and conditions of this agreement. Although ALPA lost the Single Carrier petition, a different standard will be used by an arbitrator on whether TSA violated that portion of the CBA
Ex-TSA Pilots
During the course of the GoJet negotiations in 2004 and 2005, two TSA pilots who had become Flight Managers4 assisted in the creation and operation of GoJet. These flight managers would later actively try to prevent ALPA from becoming the labor representation unit at GoJet by signing authorization cards with two others in an attempt to place IBT 618 on property and block any attempt by pilots to choose ALPA. In early 2005, these same pilots were directly involved with other senior TSA management personnel in union busting tactics that resulted in the wrongful termination of five union officers in a direct attempt to undermine the TSA MEC and ALPA.
In late 2005, after the LOA vote failed, TSA management began offering GoJet jobs to TSA pilots by enticing them with up to five years’ longevity. At the time, TSA pilots were actively demonstrating that GoJet flying belonged to and should be flown by TSA pilots on the TSA Seniority List. Only a few pilots from TSA rank and file went to GoJet, but their decision to do so at the expense of our campaign to unify these companies left deep scars and set off the beginning of a pilot war. Most of the ex-TSA pilots who went to GoJet were made check airmen and held IBT shop steward positions. Even members of IBT’s Airline Division Local 747 condemned the actions of IBT 618 to unionize this group while ALPA was trying to resolve the issues. TSA pilots wore “Alter EGoJet” badge backers in a visual display of their discontent, while ALPA filed a grievance5 over the alter-ego carrier (a label which remains with GoJet today).
When this was posted a few months ago I took the time to verify the information and its all valid and documented by all parties.
10-21-2009, 01:24 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: "if it's got wings, I can crash it".
Posts: 886
During the course of the GoJet negotiations in 2004 and 2005, two TSA pilots who had become Flight Managers4 assisted in the creation and operation of GoJet. These flight managers would later actively try to prevent ALPA from becoming the labor representation unit at GoJet by signing authorization cards with two others in an attempt to place IBT 618 on property and block any attempt by pilots to choose ALPA. In early 2005, these same pilots were directly involved with other senior TSA management personnel in union busting tactics that resulted in the wrongful termination of five union officers in a direct attempt to undermine the TSA MEC and ALPA.
One of them (the younger one) is currently flying for Delta. Not sure how that happened. Wonder if they know?.
One of them (the younger one) is currently flying for Delta. Not sure how that happened. Wonder if they know?.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
