ALPA files Oppostion to Part 135 Operation

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 21

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

08-05-2022, 07:53 AM

#11

AA717driver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2014

Posts: 286

Quote:

Originally Posted by threeighteen

Why is SkyWest running a 30 seat part 135 operation unsafe in the eyes of ALPA, but other non-union operations like key lime, contour, etc are totally fine?

That was my question on my union message board. Where’s their lawsuit against JSX or any other Pt. 135 Embraer 135/145 operation?

If I were an ALPA member, I’d be reminding my reps that, as long as they have outstanding grievances, their time and MY money could be better spent.

TC

08-05-2022, 07:53 AM

#12

Jeepers

On Reserve

Joined APC: Mar 2017

Posts: 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by amcnd

I feel like alpa is “targeting” Skywest. What about the other 25+ 135 operators out there. Wonder if OO can file a harassment claim in court to stop them.. hate how there is zero accountability for wrongful media reporting or things like this..

Were those 135 operators prior 121 operators flying 121 routes with 121 pilots and then switched them to 135 to cut costs? I don’t understand the ALPA hate here. Sure they’re a union and we don’t have them but a 121 company taking 121 routes and cutting costs and taking our flying and putting it on a 135 cert is not in our best interest as Skywest pilots.

08-05-2022, 07:55 AM

#13

bpizm

On Reserve

Joined APC: Aug 2022

Posts: 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by amcnd

A “harassment” claim? Wowzer.

08-05-2022, 08:05 AM

#14

rickair7777

Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined APC: Jan 2006

Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim

Posts: 39,293

Quote:

Originally Posted by amcnd

I'm on the fence, other 135 operators are pretty small by comparison. This could portend a large nation-wide expansion of the concept.

It's technically legal. But I see some grey area in how it's marketed via major airline reservation systems... the pax are going to think it's "regular airline service", which is exactly what OO and their major partners want them to think. That could be a hangup. Recall part 91 "holding out"... the perceived relationship between the parties defines the regulatory boundaries.

08-05-2022, 11:25 AM

#15

EELightning

Line Holder

Joined APC: Feb 2019

Posts: 46

Quote:

Originally Posted by threeighteen

Why is SkyWest running a 30 seat part 135 operation unsafe in the eyes of ALPA, but other non-union operations like key lime, contour, etc are totally fine?

My question too. My enthusiasm for unions is eroded by Alpa’s approach to this problem. Protest the rule. Not a specific operator.

08-05-2022, 02:59 PM

#16

TFAYD

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Dec 2018

Posts: 1,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyweight

And thats not mentioning the absurd FDP and work rules that 135 allows. Days off in a hotel after an endless 14 on 10 off in williston? Thats legit and legal. Livin the dream.

This right here is the scariest part - I didn’t even think of it. I am sure screw support will have a field day with these guys.

08-06-2022, 09:26 AM

#17

OOfff

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2016

Posts: 6,716

Quote:

Originally Posted by GojetFires

OO pilots have a heck of a lot more power without a union. The threat of a union is more powerful than having a union. I'm still waiting for my union to finish my 2015 grievance. Take a look at today's Mesa thread and hear about their union representation.

h
ahahahhhahhahahahhahhhaaahahahahahahah holy sh*T I love this troll

08-06-2022, 04:01 PM

#18

BrockPiston

On Reserve

Joined APC: Mar 2022

Posts: 14

Skywest was originally a 135 operator when they only flew the turbo props. (Metro and EMB 120’s). Delta and United didn’t seem to mind that it was a 135 operation that could hire very low time pilots.

08-06-2022, 05:14 PM

#19

BrewCity

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2011

Posts: 382

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrockPiston

You are glossing over the fact (or are perhaps unaware) that in 1995 the FAA implemented "one level of safety" rule changes in 1995 requiring scheduled flights with over 10 passenger seats to be operated under part 121. The intention of this rule change was to ensure that passengers booking tickets on the mainline carriers got the same level of oversight and safety on the mainline airlines' commuter/connector carriers. This rule change occurred after several commuter airline accidents in the early 1990s.

08-06-2022, 05:59 PM

#20

trip

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2009

Posts: 2,231

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrockPiston

Actually they weren't OK with it, ALPA initiated the one level of safety campaign arguing that all carriers be brought up to part 121 standards, the FAA agreed and adopted the slogan in 1995. After that all carriers over 10 seats had to operate at 121 standards.