snackysmores

Management hired a union busting consultant firm which helped them deceive, antagonize, intimidate, and instill fear within the pilot group. Basically they followed every management play that is outlined in the book "Confessions of a union buster" which should be mandatory reading for all pilots.

fivebyfive

What keeps the QX exco going under the realization their pilot group has no backbone?

fivebyfive

I mean local union reps sacrifice a lot of time going to battle for their pilot group. There has to be some trust that in the end, pilots will have their locals back. Otherwise their fight is for nothing.

PowderFinger

Didn't matter for me but that was 30 years ago ... Fewer jet jocks to choose from at that time. I had no problems in training, IOE, or on the line but it did take a few years to feel truly comfortable.

Different times now and YMMV

DashAviator

In the case of our 2016 contract, I felt that the union was "part of the problem", not part of the solution. Horizon management was able to convince a majority of the pilot group (and our union leadership) that they were willing to SHUT THE COMPANY DOWN if we did not ratify the tentative agreement. As a result, the union leaders did their part to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) during union meetings prior to the vote.

Historically, Horizon has had a very weak pilot group. It's possible that our union leadership believed that the pilot group wasn't willing to hold out for a better deal.

fivebyfive

Interesting. Did the union recommend a yes vote? A look at the upcoming QX and OO E175 rout length comparison and it tells a very scary tale. Did the union not see this coming? My understanding is that the union took the “companies word for it”, regarding the need for a 4.2 in the jet. Has the company lived up to their word in the past? Is this an 8 year contract? It is my understanding that in business, you get it all in writing. I assume Teamster lawyers were involved?

DashAviator

“Yes” to most of the above. The 4.2 hour credit only applies to the Dash - it was felt that the trips built for the jet would be high block and well above 4.2 hours per day.

The union recommended a “yes” vote. To quote directly from one of the union E-mails: “As a whole, we don’t believe this is a concessionary contract.”

I voted NO anyway, primarily because I didn’t like the reserve section. I was also willing to call the company’s bluff when it came to shutting down the airline. Commit to compete? Nope!

Ironically enough, the ink was barely dry on the contract before the company started figuring out ways to violate the agreement.

fivebyfive

The contract obviously lacks any wording that would hold the company accountable for the implementation of “long thin routs”. Odd that union lawyers would completely pass on that. Understanding the history of mgmt dishonesty, this is very disturbing. Especially knowing that the Q400s would be phasing out. What equipment would replace those routs? Did the union think Sky West would bring back the Brasilia 120 and a few CRJ 200s? Completely oblivious to our E175s taking over those routs?
It is alarming that the union didn’t find this to be a concessionary contract. I personally find it unacceptable. Any word on bringing on a different union? Maybe give someone else a chance? Just because Teamsters can’t get it done doesn’t mean it is impossible to get a respectable contract. Maybe give someone else a try. Any thoughts?

Excargodog

REALLY? How is that working out for you...?

amcnd

SkyWest doesn’t fly E120’s (haven’t in 2 years) so thats some other operator.. The SkyWest 200’s (as of now) are done middle of June. (Per the system wide scheduling report)