That's exactly where I am at.
I didn't mean to imply it was a miracle cure. There will be problems either way.
If it went to a vote, I wouldn't be shocked if we went union.

I don't get why this is an issue? The company wants us to achieve a higher block (they get paid by the hour too), so I try to accommodate them. I don't get paid until the door is shut, so there's plenty of time to do most of my job after that. Not trying to rip anybody off, that's just the way the accounting is set up.

So when you get awarded 88 hours, really you were awarded 92 hours (at any other airline), and now you have to play catch up.

You get delayed, which is extremely common, and now you play catch up all day making only credit, and further diminishing historical credit, which had nothing to do with anything you did but you lose out on it.

How do you not see this as an issue?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Also, there is a lot of captains who do not try to fly block better than historical credit. Most of the Delta flying is set up like this. We can try to fly credit or better, but seldom do we manage it. It is good that the company is paid more for when we fly higher block, but if we do not exceed the historical credit, it is the pilots who are being screwed as usual. NICHT GUT

Completely agree. You have to have realistic expectations.

Not saying it wouldn't be good to have B or B, just that there are other things I would prioritize higher. And it has nothing to do with a union or not, just what the pilot group prioritizes.

Skywest v2.0
 

The difference is that you can have rules as to who is forced to training during red-eye times. For example, at xjt, unless you agree, only re-train events can be scheduled at that time.

If I had to make a guess, management approached the union MECs with Skywest soft landings program and offered it for free. And the MECs agreed to accept free money for nothing. Not sure it's going to help much though.

Newsflash: airline unions are a lot more than pay rates in the contract. That's just ONE thing they do. But people conveniently ignore that as they go through KCM or file an ASAP.

Anyway, it's not 2%, never was. It's now 1.85% and it's tax deductible. So your effective dues rate can be as low as around 1.25%. I see it as insurance premium, just like health insurance.

It's not about better or worse than others. It's about being the best that your potential allows. If you had hostile management like mesa or owned by a wholly owned and shutdown like comair, or had to endure a bankruptcy/reorganization like endeavor, mesa or xjt, you wouldn't have your QOL you have now. But all those places are better for having a union than going through those circumstances (beyond the control of pilots) without a union.

His point was that that issue alone made up the 1.85% in dues money. But as an example, at xjt, we do exactly as you do, try to fly at least scheduled block in order to increase revenue to the company. The difference is that if we can't, for whatever reason (making up time after running late, etc), we don't lose pay.

This depends on your management. So if you believe your management is fair (they are at xjt when it comes to grievances), then you wouldn't have this problem. But imagine your previous regional without a union? They would "violate" the policy manual without impunity and not have to pay that one hour in April.

That's what I meant. All the other union drives that resulted in ALPA being voted in after Skywest voted down 10 years ago, has been hands off at first until there is a strong organic push for it. I wasn't referring to any non-boots on the ground organizing effort (consulting, advise, etc).

That's exactly the point. It's ridiculous to me that most people don't seem to understand that having a union, AND a good working relation with management ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

It's a logical fallacy to say "ABC Regional, and XYZ Regional are both ****ty, and they both have unions, therefore they must be ****ty because of the union"

Do people really think SkyWest management will somehow "turn" on the pilots, and change the way they operate their business model just because the pilots unionize?

It's a ridiculous notion to presume that SkyWest will turn into Mesa or Pinnacle just because of a union. Give our management a little more credit than that. They aren't that stupid or petty. However this seems to be the prevailing wisdom of the hardened anti-union crowd around here.

You can have your cake (union), and eat it too (good management). It does however take smart, capable, and rational people on both sides to make the relationship work.

Too many crusty slc guys + sapa hypnotizing new hires = no union. Just ask the ground instructors, they love OO.
Our only hope is to gtfo, let the new hires figure out this dumpster fire out themselves.

Then for their sake they better hope that when a vote does take place, they have classes full of all impressionable young minds and not experienced people from a union regional via soft landing 2.0.
To answer the next inevitable question:
Why would they leave their union regional to Skywest if they loved it so much?
Imagine union regional X goes under. Disgruntled but experienced pilots have many options of other regionals to go to. Reluctantly they choose Skywest, not because they want to come here (they really would rather have a union, and possibly also loathe Inc already) but because they can pick up where they left off at 8 years on the pay scale and a quick upgrade.