Karma is not relevant in a practical discussion...only multi-millionaire hollywood wackos can afford to mix business considerations and mystic religions...go light some incense, dude.

For about the 1000th time...I wish the XJT peole well, and don't need or want any of their flying. But if there's going to be a merger, I don't want SKW pilots to take the hit for the branded thing.

BTW, the business people who run SKW have long-term contracts protecting SKW UAL and DAL flying...as long nobody goes BK.

 

Soooo...you're bragging about taking SLC flying, but you feel entitleed to the LAX stuff??? Checkmate.

There is no stipulation that says DAL cannot move RJ's around it's system...but they have to keep a certain number of SKW planes in service SOMEWHERE. They have, in the last several months, already made cuts to that minimum level and can't go any deeper without SKW's concurrence or their own Ch.11.

The UAL deal is similar.

Nobody in their right mind thinks SKW is immune to anything. We are better positioned than most regionals right now...our most likely soft-spot is the Midwest thing, which is only a few airplanes.

 

That might work, but I'm off for a few weeks.

 

Perhaps I spoke too rashly on my last post. However, the price of a combined seniority list is, well, everyone shares the problems of the other. Our contract only specifies that the XJT pilot seniority list be fairly combined with the other pilot group, not that it be combined on the terms of the acquiring/merging company so that they get a sweet deal. I can certainly see, for a number of reasons, why SKW pilots would not want a combined list. But that's the price of doing business, and if that means that if SKW were to lose a contract and people get furloughed, well, XJT pilots would go too.

Personally, I didn't apply or consider SKW in the first place because of the lack of union representation. Even today with XJT's troubles I stand by that choice. However, what I consider to be SKW's problem is being made my problem due to the possibility of whipsaws and seniority list battles due to the lack of a union.

Our scope letter is there, in part, to keep acquiring companies from being able to do what you're talking about: tear apart our ranks and discriminate against our pilots.

Our scope isn't for sale. If your company wants XJT so badly, then they'll have to take us with our contract intact.

 

That part of our contract most likley won't apply in this case because the way it is written.

SKYW holdings isn't an affiliate of an air carrier, Sky West Airlines is an affiliate of SKYW holdings. Maybe we can show that this was writen to protect us in the case of the current situation, but I don't think it's likley.

I think as far as this buy-out goes or leverage and barganing power is gained from "Letter 1" (pages 223-226 of the CBA) not from anything in Section 1.

 

I'm not really following. SKW, Inc. is an air carrier right? Wouldn't that apply just the same?

 

SkyWest Inc. isn't an air carrier, they are a holding company that owns 2 air carriers (SkyWest Airlines and ASA). SKYW Inc. will argue that the holding company isn't an affiliate of SkyWest Airlines or ASA because they are affiliates of the holding company[(Affiliate meaning having a subsidiary relationship) not affiliate meaning related to - the word has multiple dictionary meanings].

Hopefully whoever presides over this thing throws that out saying something along the lines of "this was written in plain language, and affiliate means 'related to' not subsidiary." I guess it just depends on who and how this thing get interpreted. That's kinda the problem with using a word that can be a verb or a noun and has a few different meanings.

Letter 1 is written much better, and thats why SKYW wants it gone - they know with it in place any CAL flying done by SKYW Inc. will have to be performed by XJT.

 

Well, here's the applicable paragraph in Letter 1:



That's really where all of this is coming from. Letter 1 is a clarification of Ch. 1, and doesn't seem to contain any of the same "air carrier" vs. "air carrier affiliate" issues that Ch. 1 may have.

 

That's what I'm saying!

Although it's not a clarification of scope it's additional protection. Letter 1 was written to protect us from being accuired by a holding company, if SKYW gets that thrown out - Section 1 isn't going to do anything for us.

 

I think letter 1 was written to prevent the pilots from being mis-used by mis-management. Its an insurance policy against whipsaw action. This should not be given away freely. If an acquiring company had our best interest in mind and wanted an exemption to the clause we might think about it but the protections should never be taken away. It also protected acquired pilots as well. It protected guys that did not have protection from language in their contract also. The intent was to further the well benefit of all pilots and not short shrift any group.