If it would change the policy, sign me up......

However, when I learned of Tony's situation, and I began talking to my captains about the policy, I learned that the vast majority of them support the policy. (Again an unscientific poll of ORD based capts.)
And being that ALPA at each airline, is run by that airline's pilots, I feel fairly certain that this paticular policy would stick. The airline for whatever reason likes it, and unfortunately a large sector of our pilots support it.

Seems as though not everyone agrees with you, chair. From TonyW himself:

"The grossly unscientific poll I saw on the SAPA forum was that 25% supported Up-n-Out."

That leaves 75% who don't support it.

Here's an unanswered question. Besides AA, who else has this policy? Anybody? Why would Skywest pilots support a policy that seems to be quite rare in the industry?

I think at Mesaba we may employ a similar policy for people upgrading prior to being off probation. In that case the union can do nothing for you, but after you are off probation, you just go back to your previous position. I believe you do have the option to attempt it one more time rather than go back to the other position, with a failure that time resulting in termination.

I just stumbled across this thread and learned for the first time of Tony's dismissal. I want to comment on a few things, but I must preface my comments with this. Although Tony and I have had a great number of discussions, and have agreed on very few principles, I would never have wished ill will on him, and am sorry that he was fired. I gave up days off to jumpseat across the country to talk with Skywest pilots, I took time off from a vacation weekend in Denver to encourage Skywest pilots, and I spent plenty of time here pleading with them to protect their careers. Still, I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so." -- please do not misinterpret my remarks as such. I'm sorry that Tony was fired.



What I hope everyone will recognize is that SAPA is not "labor representation." An in-house group of pilots does not have the authority to negotiate a contract or represent the pilots. That authority is only given by the National Mediation Board (NMB) to those unions that have been certified to represent the Class and Craft at that airline. ALPA petitioned the NMB to have that authority, and the pilots voted against it. What they have is a committee with no teeth.







A subtle, but very important nuance lies here. SWAPA, APA, and USAPA are INDEPENDENT unions, certified by the NMB to be the sole Collective Bargaining Agent for their respective pilot groups. They negotiate Collective Bargaining Agreements, and they represent pilots in matters concerning the employer. "In-house" organizations, such as the Flight Advisory Board (FAB) at FedEx before it was organized, or SAPA at Skywest do not negotiate contracts, and they have no legal standing to represent pilots in matters dealing with the company.




The union enforces the contract, and it defends the pilot. Were you to be fired by Skywest for failing an upgrade with ALPA as the Collective Bargaining Agent, ALPA would be fighting for your job back.



That sounds like a testimonial if I've ever heard one. What folks need to glean from this is that loyalty is a one-way street in companies like this. You can dedicate your life and your livelihood to them, but you shouldn't rely on them to return the favor. You don't always get what you deserve -- you get what you negotiate. Tony, and every other pilot at Skywest deserved far better than what he got.






I wish you were working with the ones I know. They're tenacious, and they've got a good track record.

Best Regards







.

Yea I read that, I hope he's right, if that's the case maybe something will someday change. However the discussions I've had in the flight deck don't support his numbers.
Also I think you think I'm arguing with you... I haven't a clue why any SkyWest pilot would support it, I certainly don't. However rare it is in the industry, there are a great number of pilots here that do.

It should also be noted that there was a similar poll before the union drive about how they were voting. It had ALPA winning... easily if I recall. The SAPA forum is not a microcosm for the pilot group as a whole. I also recognize that the ORD capts I fly with represent a faction of the group as well. I'm just repeating what I gathered to be the average sentiment from my discussions.

SkyWest Crewmember Policy Manual Revision 9
TRAINING
STANDARD PRACTICE 315


8) Training Failures
a) A maximum total combination of three (3) failures in the ground
school, oral, FTD, simulator, flight training, or rating rides will be
allowed.
b) Pilots who successfully pass ground training but fail FTD training
will be given additional training to proficiency prior to commencing
simulator training.
c) Pilots who fail an oral examination (either FAA or Company) will be
trained to proficiency and given another oral.

Ok, this is interesting. It specifically says that I will be trained and given another oral. That, my friends, did not happen.


11) Pilots, who are unable to satisfactorily complete the additional training or
pass a third simulator/flight check, or are not recommended for a flight
check after the additional training is complete, will be treated as follows:

a) Pilots who are undergoing upgrade training for a captain position
will be terminated.

(<<<<That's me)

b) New hire pilots who are undergoing initial first officer training will
be terminated.

c) Pilots, who are undergoing transition training for a captain or first
officer position, may elect to return to their previous position for
which he/she was qualified and be frozen for a period of twelve (12)
months.

(This is the logical answer to upgrades, also. But, as has been pointed out, probably half the captains at SkyWest disagree. And, as is the case with SAPA, I believe any union would be largely... well, almost exclusively run by captains. Doesn't matter if 75% of the bargaining unit is all over this. They don't negotiate the contracts.

In the event that the pilot cannot pass the required flight training for their previous position, employment will be terminated.

12) The Company will freeze pilots who fail to qualify, after entering a
transition program for the second time,

(I love this... protect the good 'ole boys! Fail TWICE and still keep your job.)

in status and equipment for as long as the equipment remains in operation. If such equipment is phased out, the pilot’s employment will be terminated.

According to the Department of Labor, each member of the Class or Craft has the same vote.


Talk to someone who thought it was a good idea to screw the junior guys with a substandard pay scale at American Airlines, and ask 'em how that worked out in the end. :rolleyes:








.

I am fairly certain that the policy at RAH is if you fail at upgrade twice you will be terminated...... maybe TD who still works there can chime in on that...

TW - It seems to me that you fall under 11(c) and NOT under 11(a).

11(a) makes it sound like if you were an RJ FO upgrading to CA on an RJ and failed then you would be terminated.
11(c) makes it sound like if you were an RJ FO transitioning and upgrading to be a CA on the EMB-120, they may elect to return to their previous position (the RJ for you) and frozen for 12 months.

What am I misreading here?

USMCFLYR

That's how i see it too

USMCFLYR:

Transition does not equal upgrade.

Unfortunately, you have them mixed up. Any FO to any CA is upgrade training, which would fall under 11a. 11c is a little more complicated, since if I remember correctly, it barely even applies to SKW. SKW, I believe, trains all it's jet captains on all of its jets (since they're all CRJs) and gives you differences trainings. However, let's pretend that they only trained you on the CRJ200, and you would have to bid a CRJ700 slot. The training to the CR7 would be transition training.

To summarize, upgrade training=upgrading to a CA position that you don't already have a class of ATP for.

Transition training=upgrading from one jet to another jet or one turboprop to another turboprop (well, I might stand corrected on this, not sure if they're treated differently). To give another example; if SKW got 170s and a jet CA bidded a 170 CA slot, he/she would go under transition training.

My own unscientific poll revealed that about 50% of captains support it, and about 0% of FO's. I think the policy could even be changed now if the pilot group asked SAPA to push for that.

Some of the older captains did not have up-or-out when they upgraded, and many don't see the need for it.

I think the correct solution is to hire for captains in the first place, and if a few ringers slip through (they will) let 'em stay in the right seat if they want...I suspect many would eventually find another career anyway rather than remain a lifer regional FO :rolleyes:

Tony,

The reason I think you have a case is that while SKW may have the right to fire you after they give you additional training, in your case they elected to terminate you without any additional training. Going from an oral check to a simulator check does not constitute training. I still do not think they followed their own policy.

The other point I have is if they decide they no longer want you working for them, and have the right to dismiss you as an at will employee, it does not give them the right to destroy your career opportunities in the rest of the industry.

I think I understand this.
I understand that you could TRANSITION from an FO on a CRJ to an FO on a EMB-120. In the military I would call TRANSITION from a F-14 to a F/A-18 - transitioning to a different airframe.

Upgrading to me means moving from a FO position to a Captain position.
Again - military analogy - moving from wingman to section lead.

So.......11 (c):
makes it sounds like a FO who is UPGRADING to CAPTAIN and TRANSITIONING to a different airframe would fall under this paragraph.

RJ FO upgrading to CA and transitioning from RJ to EMB-120 would be covered here.
Military analogy - F-14 wingman upgrading to a flight lead right after he has transitioned to the Hornet.

OK - long post - but please point out where I have misunderstood the airline model.

USMCFLYR

[QUOTE]I do see the upgrade training here but it doesn't say anything about transitioning like 11(c) does - which is why I said that if upgrading with no other transition (except differences training for example) I could understand it - though not agree with it. I don't know.

But he moved from one airframe to another airframe - which was upgrading and transitioning. Doesn't his situation fall more in line with 11(c)

Yep - got this I'm pretty sure. very similar.

OR CRJ TO TURBOPROP RIGHT?

USMCFLYR

You can upgrade, or transition, or do both at the same time. Just because you are transitioning does not imply that it is not also an upgrade.

When you go from FO to CA for the FIRST time at SKW, that is your initial upgrade which you cannot fail. Any other training event (except new hire) you can fail and go back to your previous position.

[QUOTE]Agreed.....and he was doing BOTH at the same time so I keyed on
because he was undergoing transition (RJ to EMB) training for a captain [upgrade]....

This is definiley the part that I'm getting stuck on. What is the scenario in 11(c) that isn't covered by the first time going from a FO to CA in the quote above? It certainly sounds like if an FO is going from a EMB to CRJ FO and he fails then he gets to go back to being an EMB FO. Correct?

USMCFLYR

I think this says a lot about SkyWest and what type of place it is.

Union Yes ;)

I think we all got your message the first time.

Your previous post about TW was technically legal but in very poor taste...I think it says a lot about someone when he kicks a man who's down :mad:

The FO transition failure goes back where he came from.

I'm not sure if the SKW policy is particularly well written, but NOBODY here mis-understands the up-or-out policy. I think they remind you before you commit to upgrade training. Most folks knew about before we took the job in the first place.

[QUOTE=de727ups;485771Here's an unanswered question. Besides AA, who else has this policy? Anybody? Why would Skywest pilots support a policy that seems to be quite rare in the industry?[/QUOTE]

Eagle also has that policy.

Just a lesson for everyone else. The questions TW got shouldn't be on a type ride. In TW's case, he was also getting his ATP. In the eyes of an examiner, you are getting two check rides. Answer some ATP questions then some a/c specific ones. Those questions were legit for the ATP certificate. If you don't want to run the risk, go to a weekend warrior course and get your ATP before you go for a type ride.

TW and I are at similar stages in life, and in my opinion the important issues here are loyalty and respect, as opposed to the technicalities of "upgrade" vs "transition" (if we were 22 year-olds fresh out of 'Riddle, then the situation might be different). Loyalty is a two-way street, and personally I would rather work as a crack-wh*** than give that kind of organization the satisfaction of begging for my old job back! Also, "when one door closes another one opens." For example, I know of a job possibility that I told TW about (although I don't know if he'll pursue it) that doesn't involve growing a long beard and wearing a turban.

While the contract language may seem ambiguous, unfortunately, the terms and definitions within come straight from the FARs:

For your benefit, I've included a snippet about what a "group" is (as referenced in part 1 in the previous quote):


Like I said, there's unfortunately not a whole lot of gray area in terms of what counts as "transition" and "upgrade". Because turboprop (I.E. EMB120) is not in the same training "group" as a turbojet (I.E. CRJ), you must use the "upgrade" phraseology instead of the more lenient "transition" phraseology.

You're absolutely correct about loyalty and respect, I believe the debate about terminology was in reference to a question about the possibility that TW was wrongfully terminated, against the contract. That being said, I agree with you wholeheartedly about begging for an old job back.

Loyalty should be a two-way street, but it is rarely found in actuality. Many thought (think) it existed (exists) at SkyWest. Some are learning different.



SkyWest has no contract.

SkyWest has no contract.

SkyWest has no contract.


There is no Collective Bargaining Agent -- no union -- so there can be no contract.


SkyWest employees are at-will employees. They can be fired for no reason at all. Any reason at all. (Well, except for discrimination against a protected class.) They can be fired for tubing one oral, or for having a wrinkled shirt.

Game over.







.

Tony, it's nice to see you posting again.

Good luck trying to convey your message;).

Time for the you-know-what flag...

SKW does not fire people lightly, that is a well known fact. If you don't work there you don't really have the slightest clue about how things work.

In TW's case there was likely more than meets the eye, and none of us here know the full story, perhaps not even TW.


100% True. Neither do 95% of American workers.

I was a corporate manager in a previous life.

As you mentioned, At-Will employees are protected from discrimination by specific laws (ie protected classes). This doesn't mean you can't fire a protected class, you just need to document that it was for legit reasons (and you might get sued anyway).

But At-will (and any other) employees are also protected by the general concept of Tort...in short you cannot treat someone unjustly. What does unjust mean? Whatever you want it to mean, as long as you can convince a jury! Another SKW pilot recently won a lawsuit along those lines.

They cannot fire you for not ironing your shirt...because they do not fire EVERY employee who wears wrinkled clothes. Same with any other trivial offense.

Most of us rely on SKW managment to do the right thing, and they almost always do (they had better, if they want to stay union-free).

Pilots who get fired at SKW almost invariably did one of these things:

- Show up drunk
- Fail a drug test
- Lie
- Commit repeated safety violations (one of which involves the NTSB).
- Aggressively and REPEATEDLY P/O other people, including manangers.
- Fail new-hire training.

Apparently upgrade training as well after reading this thread. Not slamming the guy or kicking him when he's down. It's just a fact that's been revealed.

It is common knowledge that people do not just have a bad day and fail upgrade training...there are always underlying issues, such as attitude. If you bust a ride and have a good attitude, they work with you.

But you never hear "he was a great guy, but he failed upgrade and got fired". It usually does not come as a surprise...

Again TW's situation seems unusual and I don't know the answer, nor do I believe in up-or-out. If there is a wild-card in the process, it would be personality conflicts.

what are you talking about? I said he seemed like a stand up guy. I commented on the fact I feel bad for people that want to fly so badly they go across the world looking for a job.

The reason I stopped posting on here.....................its all coming back to me now haha

Yep, thanks, I know that. ALL I was saying is, they can can a guy when he's in the situation TW was in. I never implied I had inside knowledge. And yes, between the two places I've worked, I've seen plenty of which you speak

The post I read yesterday said nothing of the sort...looks like you edited it.

Don't think so Rickair, I didnt post anything other then whats up there now....

"On the approach lights, he also asked how long the lights of an ALSF-2 extended from the runway. I said 3000ft. It's 2600."

I'd like to know where he got this. Both the Jepps and AIM have the ALSF's listed in a range from 2400-3000'. Also, the part about descending to 50' is not a reg. If you are over the Approach light system and don't have the runway in site (REIL's, etc) then I would think you also have lost the visibility and would have to go missed anyways.

A. Conflict off interest by Check Airman/Designee. Unprofessional policy to have same person involved after a failure. Poor policy hurts credibility of company reputation. Skywest training dept:, you just took a hit in alot of professional minds.

B. This demonstrates the value of unions on property for pilots. Hopefully, this will be remembered next time their is an organizing effort at Skywest.

C. Loyalty and extra efforts done for your company are never remembered or 'banked'. People remember, but they are often not in a position to affect a change. i.e. Scheduling may have like TW's efforts to move airplanes, but in a corporate sense, you are invisible and will never be rewarded.

D. TW, sorry this happened. I would contest the termination on technicalities that Skywest did not follow the policy (except to terminate)


E. How any Capt at Skywest would support this policy flies in the face of the industry knowledge and current philosophy on CRM, etc.
Can only say "Wow" Again, not reputation enhancing.

Position is Captain, First Officer, etc.

Equipment is EMB-120, CRJ-700, etc.

It does not say return to previous equipment, it says return to previous position, i.e. Captain back to FO.

An attorney worth a darn should be able to work with that.

Well Said
 

This is a perfect summary of the situation from what I can tell.

It's funny, I've also heard the "good idea" part a lot before. I think this is a big wake up call to us RJ FOs that have never flown the EMB before that this particular upgrade route is MUCH harder than most people make it out to be... Sorry to hear about what happened, best of luck to you Tony...