I would venture that SKW pilots did not create the "bottom bidding regional industry".

There are many binding legal agreements which have no union involved whatsoever Inc has acknowledged that the pilot agreement is a legal contract. The idea that the contract not being a "legal agreement" is union propaganda...and trying to perpetuate a myth like that is counter-productive because not many people are actually that stupid.

Unions provide other things such as the ability to (or threat of) strike to apply leverage during negotiations.

Inc's approach to the pilot contract has been similar to other regionals...weak language which can later be subject to interpretation. A union (or a good labor lawyer) would be a great help there.

While company minions can "re-interpret" PPM language to their hearts content, if the company were to unilaterally make a big adjustment to pilot pay scales after the pilots voted no, that would be a major turning point and would most likely result in a union on board asap. I suspect they would make another offer before just granting selective raises. Also somebody *could* file a class-action suit, and presumably at least one somebody would have the time and inclination. If it were me, I'd file in Cali...easier venue than S. Utah and there are plenty of class members employed there. Newer employees may have signed binding arbitration agreements, but the old-skool peeps probably did not.

Do you think that is what it would take?? I really wonder because it seems we just keep taking more and more abuse from management. I guess we will see what the pay package results are. Seems we may actually get over 85% and it would be interesting to see what the company response would be if that was overwhelmingly negative. I am being cautiously optimistic that it would open some eyes in SGU.

If you honestly think that ANY of those places would be better off dealing with their respective managements without a union, then I don't know what to tell you. And that's one BIG difference a union at a regional makes.


Air Wisconsin, Horizon, ASA, XJT


What about flying 76 seat jets for 50 seat rates? Maybe you didn't create it, per se, but that certainly didn't help.

1. There are many contracts. What I'm saying is that what you have in your ppm is not one. So therefore it's not binding. This is not a myth. It's the meaning of being an at-will employee.

2. Inc acknowledged it? Oh then I guess it must be true that you have a contract! Did they also acknowledge that you are the best of the best? Or that you have a fair, third party, grievance resolution process? Or that thee is no conflict of interest in management funding SAPA? Do you supposed that that acknowledgement by your management serves their purpose and illusion to the pilot group? I have to believe that you guys are not that naive and are actually smarter than that.

3. Strike as leverage is the true myth here. Unless you are a ULCC. This is not the only leverage a union provides. The fact that they can't unilaterally reinterpret, change, delete, add, work rules is what gives leverage, among other things. The BIGGEST leverage actually comes from outside sources, such as pilot shortages, improving economy, etc. But without a union, you cannot use as much of it to your advantage.

4. Weak language in contracts are a product of old contracts. At ALPA for example, we know what language has been taken advantage of at all the other ALPA carriers and therefore know what doesn't work, how to improve it, and if new strategies are required. Of course, strict contract administration with the ability to ultimately send disputes to third party arbitration is also required. Something you don't even have in order to stem attempted reinterpretations.

5. You admit that company can reinterpret the ppm and can also change pilot pay scales (which in eyes of the nmb, would be an act that qualifies as a 'major dispute') just as I was saying! So is it not a contract with legal interpretive precedence (as all pilot contracts have) or not? Do you have the federal jurisprudence of being able to act under the auspices of major disputes or not? My feeling is that if you did, you would be summarily fired. Meaning you don't have a contract because you are an at-will employee.

7. So I this class action lawsuit, you didn't answer a couple of questions. Under what basis (law) and what jurisdiction (federal or state) would this supposed suit be filed? In other words, what law are you alleging would be broken?

8. They are making new employees sign binding arbitration agreements?! Geez, what's it going to take for you guys to realize that you are at a disadvantage work it an b recognized bargaining agent?



I'll repost:

"I'm just asking a question. I didn't intend for you to get defensive about it. I'm curious if you are a pilot at Skywest or any other regional for that matter? Or are you a dispatcher or something else for Skywest? I honestly don't think that the supposed Skywest dispatchers on this board are really dispatchers. So which is it? No judging, promise."

SkyWest announced today a stock buy back of nearly $20,000,000. That buy back will be taken from any net profit, which will be taken from any profit sharing payout.

Vote NO!

seriously? how dumb are they to do this the day before the vote closes?

It's as binding as any other agreement between two parties. A lot of it is weak because of poor language, but the payscale table could not be any clearer.

Well it is true, regardless of what SGU has to say about it. The fact that they acknowledged just shows their state of mind and gives some insight as to how they might approach a conflict.

WTH???


I never said anything to the contrary and of course we're smarter than that (well some of us are probably too lazy to care).

I think that's what I said before. Unions provide other benefits, but they are not technically needed to get a contract enforced...I've executed countless business and personal contracts, and never had union involved in any of them.

Yeah, I said that or tried to.

No law needs to be broken. This would a tort claim in the civil system (better review your first-year lawschool textbooks again).

A professional labor lawyer would be needed to determine the best venue, but the CA civil system pops out as glaringly obvious...lots of SKW pilots live and employed in CA, labor friendly judges & juries, and no close ties to any particular church. A win there might not legally help the UT crowd but it would be hard for the company to pay out only to the Cali peeps...

Not as elegant as the NMB system by any means but I'm willing to bet it's a mess that Inc would really like to avoid. They might get multiple suits in multiple states...good times.
That's what I heard but I can't say for sure it's fact. But most companies do these days.

SkyWest, Inc. Announces Authorization For Stock Repurchases And Declares 80th Consecutive Quarterly Dividend - MarketWatch

I would vote NO on your pay package just for this reason.
"here, here, vote on this awesome package that includes profit sharing, but we're going to take $20,000,000 off of the number from which your profit sharing checks are calculated."

Corporate greed at it's best, you can never trust an MBA in a suit that only cares about their golden parachute and stock options

Looks like new hires are getting FAT, DEN, COS, and SFO out of training based on the latest bid. In addition to ORD and MSP.