word302

Lol. SAPA isn't a conflict of interest? Mesa absolutely is better off with ALPA. What are you basing these claims on. ALPA can't magically make a terribly ran airline industry leading. Skywest would thrive even better under ALPA.

savedbythevnav

Because it's all I've heard from everyone I've flown with the past two weeks.

I fail to see your point.

Go Sioux.

savedbythevnav

At least your union is handling it. There's never a question about who's on your side.

We can't even say that much. SAPA stays quiet on everything. Representing anything other than the company isn't really their strong point.

FollowMe

Control of an entity will always default to the body which provides its funds. In the case of SAPA that would be SKW Inc.

Joining ALPA would provide OO pilots access to a broader resource group (national programs, officers and support staff). But at a bare minimum SAPA should be member funded and wholly independent.

Nevjets

I don’t really know what to say if you do actually believe Mesa pilots would’ve been better off without a union. What do you think things would be Iike for Skywest pilots if they had the same ceo Mesa has had? They would be worse off then Mesa.

As for conflict of interest, there is none. No mainline MEC can tell any regional MEC what to negotiate for and not regional MEC can tell any mainline MEC what to negotiate for. Each decides independently what they want to negotiate. I don’t blame you for this misconception. This is by for the worst thing that ALPA does, not explain how ALPA works, especially between regional and mainline MECs.

A true conflict of interest is SAPA. By definition, when the organization that is supposed to represent the best interest of the pilots is wholly funded by the entity that is opposed to the best interest of the pilots, you have a perfect example of conflict of interest in the SAPA/management relationship.

RAHkid94

If they’re truly independent, why were the only two pilot groups to fight back on the United JS grab SkyWest and Republic? Not a single UAX ALPA carrier even tried.

JustSomePlt

Seems like a solid argument if you ask me. Could it me that ALPA was leaning towards (or being leaned on to) not poke the UA bear because UA mainline pays so much more in dues than the ALPA UAX regionals?

ninerdriver

Nah. ALPA MECs are very bureaucratic. They're slow. They'll start with an email to interested parties. Next, it'll go to the lawyers. There will be meetings. There might be a communication or two. Action comes later.

This is an advantage of SAPA. SAPA can work much more quickly to make decisions in SGU's favor for you.

So, why did SAPA move so quickly on the jumpseat issue, then? Well, if a bunch of OO pilots suddenly couldn't get to work on time, then that probably wouldn't benefit SGU much, right?

TheFly

Again, not a union, but ALPA. We can’t have the same entity representing us that thrives off us being cheap labor. ALPA just can’t give us what our mainline brethren get in compensation, benefits and outright respect. Why not? It’s because they have to keep subcontractor (regional) costs down, keep them competing against each other and at each other’s throats.

On the major or mainline airline level, ALPA is a totally different ballgame.

word302

Do you realize the irony in your statement? Currently we have a representative body bought and paid for by our own management representing us. You obviously have huge misunderstandings of how ALPA works if you think there would be a conflict of interest if we brought them on board. Nevermind that we would be the 4th largest carrier represented by ALPA. We would be the only carrier with "A" status along side Delta, United, and Fed Ex.