Skywest v2.0
03-30-2017 | 02:42 PM
#6611
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,218
Likes: 819
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
If this enables ten senior CA's to leave but only one comes back, SGU is much money ahead.
If they give it away XJT, they'll have lots of them coming over next Monday. They'd probably rather they stay at XJT for now.
Also, more importantly for SKW pilots...that might be something which could be used to justify a common carrier petition, to force seniority list integration (by DOH of course!).
03-30-2017 | 03:03 PM
#6612
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
From: RJ Captain
03-30-2017 | 03:27 PM
#6613
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
The company agreed to soft-landing because it encourages senior folks to leave. Many of them would not otherwise risk failing out of a new employer, but this way they can return and be back in high-seniority CA money in two years if they need to.
If this enables ten senior CA's to leave but only one comes back, SGU is much money ahead.
If they give it away XJT, they'll have lots of them coming over next Monday. They'd probably rather they stay at XJT for now.
Also, more importantly for SKW pilots...that might be something which could be used to justify a common carrier petition, to force seniority list integration (by DOH of course!).
If this enables ten senior CA's to leave but only one comes back, SGU is much money ahead.
If they give it away XJT, they'll have lots of them coming over next Monday. They'd probably rather they stay at XJT for now.
Also, more importantly for SKW pilots...that might be something which could be used to justify a common carrier petition, to force seniority list integration (by DOH of course!).
We won't merge, XJT won't give up ALPA, and SGU won't accept ALPA.
03-30-2017 | 07:42 PM
#6616
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,218
Likes: 819
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
03-30-2017 | 08:12 PM
#6617
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
We don't, that's my point.
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
Yes.
Not quite that simple. A *successful* common carrier petition would force a seniority list integration.
Since one group is union, there would then be mandatory vote to keep or reject the union (SGU does not get a vote on that). With 99% of XJT voting yes and maybe as little 30% of SKW voting yes it would almost certainly pass.
SGU has little control over that process. What they can do is continue to do nothing which would enable a common-carrier petition. That's why XJT management, crew support, etc is kept separate. Also why it would be a bad idea to grant them longevity at SKW...in addition to the cost, it would blur the common-carrier line a bit.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
03-31-2017 | 06:12 AM
#6618
Dumb Pilot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: Broke
That's a little over my head, I'm not sure who starts or determines the end result of a common carrier petition. I was under the impression that the buck stops in SGU. If that's the case they're smart enough to end the petition under the assumption that the new pilot group would vote in ALPA as you said. Which is why I doubt it would happen.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
I guess anything is possible, especially if Chip is becoming friendly to the idea of SKW pilots organizing. Something tells me that is not the case, though.
SAPA can barely organize a website, let alone a group of pilots.
03-31-2017 | 06:28 AM
#6619
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 14
Many of them would not otherwise risk failing out of a new employer
03-31-2017 | 06:30 AM
#6620
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 1
From: the right side
That's a little over my head, I'm not sure who starts or determines the end result of a common carrier petition. I was under the impression that the buck stops in SGU. If that's the case they're smart enough to end the petition under the assumption that the new pilot group would vote in ALPA as you said. Which is why I doubt it would happen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
