As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, only flying that was being done by the striking pilots would be struck work. This means that if Delta operates 7 flights from DTW-ORF and each is by a different company, 6 of those flights would continue to operate after 1 company goes on strike. Those 6 routes are not "struck" work.

No I think that is incorrect. First of all 3 of those 6 are DAL owned regionals so if one strikes, the other should respect the strike as all 3 are ALPA members. Only one likely to continue to fly will be SkyWest since they are non union. If SkyWest strikes, then the rest of the DCI should respect that also to support SkyWest pilots. Chautauqua pilots are Teamsters members and not ALPA so can't say how they will act.

At any case 6 will be down to 4 soon as 2 of those, Mesa and Chautauqua will be dropped by DAL soon, according to most people.

SkyWest will not fly struck work...didn't for Comair, won't next time.

Correct

Incorrect. So long as the other airlines to do not increase frequency or take over a new struck route, it is NOT flying struck work. When Comair and went on strike and when Mesaba was about to strike, we (9e) had a ALPA phone number to call to see if that route was already being flown by us at the time of the strike. If so, you are good to go. If it was a route put on after the strike (frequency or new), refuse the route.
As surf said, if airline X flies DTW-ORD 2 times a day, and Airline Y flies DTW-ORD 2 times a day and goes on strike, airline X continuing to fly their 2 and only 2 DTW-ORD routes is NOT crossing the line.

It's imperative for our profession to insure that this additional experience gets put in the books. The first time a person is really in command of an airplane should not be at a 121 airline and that 121 airline should not be anyone's first flying job. That's the first step at making professional pilots (professional = being paid) how is someone a professional if they have never had a flying job before. Becoming professional as a pilot is meant for flying smaller planes without a boat load of passengers on board preferably teaching the craft itself for awhile for starters.

FO 121 Airline Minimums = ATP with 1500 hours, previous professional experience as a pilot, and a 4 year degree is what I say. Wages will go up if this happens too. No more 6 month wonder kids. (oh yeah, read speak and understand English too ;-) Lets go a step further and make Captain mins for part 121, 2500 hours and 1000 turbine engine.

When regionals weren't hiring anyone with less than 1500 hours anyway there was still a large pool of applicants because the wage and benefit collapse from 911 hadn't happened yet. Now there are way less pilot starts in the country do to the erosion of the profession by airline managements and the supply of qualified pilots under these new rules will be much less.

+1. Well put. As I've said before, minimum for any part 121 carrier should be ATP, 1500 hours, prior professional flying experience including, CFI, Part 135, Freight etc, and College degree, fluent in the English language, preference to US Citizens.

I agree that increasing 121 FO mins to an ATP could have a significant effect of moderating the oversupply of airline pilots, therefore leading to better pilot compensation from the airlines. However, I'm not sure why the FAA would require a 4 year degree to be a pilot. Unless it's a requirement for some sort of aviation degree (and I'm sure ERAU would love to see that regulation) I don't see having a federal requirement for a 4 year degree really having any correlation to someone's ability to safely pilot an airplane.

And I see no justification to giving preference to US citizens (over, say, resident aliens) unless you're going to start requiring airline pilots to have security clearances (and there's no reason to do that).

As a side, I wonder what an ATP min for 121 FOs would do to compensation for other sectors of the pilot industry (135, CFIs, ect.). I could see it creating a glut of low time pilots, leaving a larger number of CFIs to compete for potentially less students, driving down CFI pay even further.

(for reference, I have a 4 year degree, a security clearance, and am currently applying to regional airlines with less than ATP mins)

Honest question, but considering that SKW have turned down three opportunities to unionize, why would it matter to the pilots to fly struck work? It seems as though you want your cake and eat it too. You don't want the stigma of flying struck work yet you also don't want to participate in the brotherhood that reinforces that stigma, so why would it matter to the pilots? I know why your management wouldn't want it, because they know if they can't provide the cake for their pilots to eat, the stigma created by the brotherhood the pilots continue to vote down will be enough for them to vote for it the next time. Seems like some sort of double standard from my perspective.

Probably b/c most of those guys won't be at skywest forever, and most of the majors ARE union of one sort or another. I am curious if they have it in their contract that they don't have to fly struck work, if they actually avoided it before then perhaps they do.... of course I'm not sure how much skywest would be overlapping coverage with comair either...

And that's the other thing as well. Most SKW pilots will be more than happy to take a union job at FDX, SWA, UPS, DAL, UAL, etc.

But they don't have a contract. Their management is just smart enough to not force them into more of an awkward position they are already in.