Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom

If this gets legs and goes the distance, more than a few retired SKYW pilots will jump on the band wagon and pile on. The potential is very large, will be interesting. SKYW is unique in as much it's one of the few non-collectively bargained airlines out there. With 40+ years of union free operations, might backfire on them.

Originally Posted by disillusioned

I know FA's have it way worse, but do you not think the above is a perfect description of SAPA? Every pay package we have it is the sell job of "this is the best we can get" and "who knows what will happen if we vote this down" There is no negotiation on our part. It is more like accepting what the company is willing to give.

The theory of not having a union is that we can work together and share in the companies success without being obligated to align with a national organization that may not have the companies best interests in mind. The reality is that the company can just make changes to our "contract" without a pilot wide vote simply by getting SAPA to buy off on it. Block vs credit, EFB changes, allowing new hires to vote ect.... It would be interesting to see what happens with this. If a judge does side with the FA's, it pretty much will blow away any company rhetoric that the pilots have a true contract.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

That's the big conceptual failure most people have. It IS collectively bargained, union or not has nothing to do with it.

If you can prove that the bargaining agency (SIA) either was controlled by the company for it's own benefit to the detriment of the members, or that SIA failed to adequately represent certain members then you might have a case. Unions can (and do) get sued for the same sort of failings.

Proving in court that SIA is a company vehicle would by no means establish the same determination for SAPA although it might hint at the possibility.