Originally Posted by
TheDashRocks
Yep, that would be a good strategy. I would love to have a tie to CPI. I do not think it is realistic to expect that of this company in this ecomomy. The TA only lasts 2 years, not 5.
The reason I put 5 years is because of the length of time of negotaitions which generally take more than 1 year but more likely 3 or more and can be delayed by the company if it benefits them for as long as the RLA permits (which I'm not familiar with). I think if you vote yes on this contract (speaking generally as you said you couldn't vote) then you should be prepared to work under the TA for up to 5 years at the outset. This is why I see yearly cost of living scheduled increases as mandatory. Even our last contract had yearly increases for at least 3 years (don't remember the exact number and my old contract is in my flight bag).
Originally Posted by
TheDashRocks
Regarding pay; Mesa has fewer pilots on furlough than many of the other carriers in your lists. I would rather be flying for $3.00/hour less than be furloughed from a company that used to pay me $3.00/hour more.
That implies that getting an extra $3/per hour will cause furloughs or worse. I believe the furloughs are caused by us not satisfying our customers and meeting their expectations so they cut our flying to minimize their risk. Perhaps paying more to the pilots and giving us an industry leading or even standard contract with good time off and flecibility will improve our attrition rate, our morale (sp?) and perhaps more pilots would actually care enough to help the company out of a bind if that 'bind' was on a rare occasion. Then perhaps furloughs would go down because we would win more flying? I'd much rather get paid $3.00 more per hour and get furloughed than get paid less and still get furloughed. Do you see my point? Our compensation is so lean that I don't believe it makes a difference to our solvency or our furloughing.
Originally Posted by
TheDashRocks
I think we would be in the driver's seat because the ALPA folks explained during a TELCON that JA's go to the "junior available" pilot and that it is up to the pilot him/herself to determine if he/she is available.
Where is the language in the contract that says a pilot may deny JA's? The company was recording all JA's that you denied as UFW (Unavailable For Work). Then I believe they could use the total number of UFW's to threaten you with disciplinary action. There is nothing in the TA that prevents them doing the same again.
Originally Posted by
TheDashRocks
My understanding; During the footprint of your trip/pairing, the company can reassign you. This cannot impinge on time off. If it does, you get 200%. If you lose time off, extra dough.
I think we both have a fundamental difference in how we are interpreting the reassignment language. For this reaon alone the language is obviously not clear enough. What I read is that they CAN reassign you outside of your footprint (thus impinging on your time off) IF they do not have any ready reserves OR the flight is going to be late. I don't see any language that states if you lose time off you get extra dough. Am I missing something? It would be great if the language did state if you lose time off, you get extra dough but I don't see where it is.
DashRocks I really appreciate the discussion it is much more constructive than all the flaming and 'JUST VOTE NO' statements. I must say you surprised me when you mentioned talking to your FO implying you were a Captain. I was sure all captains had been at Mesa for at least 1 year as I don't think we hired street guys. That must have been a super quick upgrade. Good for you. I was hoping for a quick upgrade too but that is by the wayside now.
Hey at least with the new email regarding furlough's and reorganization I won't be joining you on the Dash until AFTER Christmas.