Why I'm Voting No
07-04-2017, 06:50 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by WisJudge
Is it a lateral move when everything is better?
Two year's seniority seems a minor reason to hold you back.
Do the benefits of that seniority outweigh the benefits of a move, lateral or otherwise?
I was picked up instantly, interviewed on the spot and got a class date 3 weeks later. All it took was face time at a job fair. I've hired close to 100 employees and subcontractors in my business career. The ones who got instant credibility were those who took the time and expense to come see me. Some from Asia to the US. People take notice when you promote yourself in a respectful manner and in person.
Two year's seniority seems a minor reason to hold you back.
Do the benefits of that seniority outweigh the benefits of a move, lateral or otherwise?
I was picked up instantly, interviewed on the spot and got a class date 3 weeks later. All it took was face time at a job fair. I've hired close to 100 employees and subcontractors in my business career. The ones who got instant credibility were those who took the time and expense to come see me. Some from Asia to the US. People take notice when you promote yourself in a respectful manner and in person.
07-04-2017, 03:26 PM
#112
Living the Dream
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,795
Happy 4th of July
Originally Posted by MAGNegotiations
@deltajuliet,
Thanks for your post. A lot of pilots found it informative, but unfortunately some of your statements are false and/or misinformed. Here are our corrections:
Thanks for your post. A lot of pilots found it informative, but unfortunately some of your statements are false and/or misinformed. Here are our corrections:
Pay rate comparison across the industry-
Industry Average FO is $32.99. CA is $67.19.
TA pay rates 1st year FO $36 interim rates that may be extended. CA rates start at $63 and finish at DOS+3 $67.32.
Your statement that: “FO’s will be lowest in the industry” is false. Based on contractual pay scales at other regionals, Mesa FO’s would be higher than their peers. This includes Envoy, PSA and Piedmont where the current 1st year pay is around $28. There are letters of agreement that increase this number, however their contract payrate is around $28 per hour., and those LOAs do terminate. Industry average 1st year FO pay is less than $33.
Industry Average FO is $32.99. CA is $67.19.
TA pay rates 1st year FO $36 interim rates that may be extended. CA rates start at $63 and finish at DOS+3 $67.32.
Your statement that: “FO’s will be lowest in the industry” is false. Based on contractual pay scales at other regionals, Mesa FO’s would be higher than their peers. This includes Envoy, PSA and Piedmont where the current 1st year pay is around $28. There are letters of agreement that increase this number, however their contract payrate is around $28 per hour., and those LOAs do terminate. Industry average 1st year FO pay is less than $33.
First year FO rates at 76-seat shops:
Compass – 36
Endeavor – 30
ExpressJet – 40
PSA – 39
SkyWest – 37
Envoy – 38
GoJet – 37
Horizon – 40
Republic – 40
Average – 37.44
This doesn’t take into account union-sanctioned retention or new-hire bonuses like the additional $20,000 every single Endeavor pilot gets annually or the $31,000 a 1500 hour CFI gets for going to Air Whiskey. Even if you include 50-seat operators it doesn’t change. To suggest the American wholly-owneds will suddenly be paying $28/hour is laughable. No reasonable negotiator would use that as a baseline for what constitutes standard.
Add to this the fact that DOS+2 regresses to $31.00 and the thing’s a non-starter. Believing that JO will simply decide to keep the rates higher is shortsighted and naïve. He can just pay $31 while shelling out more new hire bonuses and use them as renewed leverage for the following contract. Or, suppose there actually is a major economic downturn or terrorist attack that gives him reprieve from staffing problems. We’ve seen his craftiness year after year. If you give him an inch of ambiguous wording in a contract, he’ll take a mile through interpretation and arbitration. Imagine giving him clear and complete power in reducing pay rates.
As far as Captain rates are concerned, again, we’re not receiving any sort of retention bonus and will only reach the present industry standard at DOS+3, by which point we will continue to be below industry standard. And as you pointed out, here and now, we are $4.32 per hour below industry average. That is significant.
Is this a B scale?
No, the interim rates are our way of tying Mesa’s hands to the bonus structure that they are currently using to lure New Hire pilots.
No, the interim rates are our way of tying Mesa’s hands to the bonus structure that they are currently using to lure New Hire pilots.
As far as new hire bonuses, honestly, it would be worth negotiating capital to stop them if the lawsuit doesn’t pan out. Barring that, we need industry standard pay (not $4.32 below it) to consider sanctioning them, probably with a me-too clause thrown in.
Pilots advancing to the next pay scale annually- Your statement is not true, pilots get 12 months of a pay rate. You will always have 24 pay checks at your applicable rate.
Sits and long layovers are a factor of flights assigned to Mesa from our mainline partners. With Min. Day language of 4 hours per day, your schedules could suffer more than currently.
When Mesa builds pairings, multiple parameters are available in the optimizer, including a minimum day. If selected and set at 4 hours per day, the optimizer tends to dilute the pairings across the entire month trying to get at least 4 hours on each day, at the expense of higher credit days. The results that we reviewed were overall worse than those produced today without the Min. day.
Remember that if Mesa provided your iPad, they would have the ability to assign you flying, track your whereabouts , as well as restrict any apps from being downloaded and monitor your activity while using the company provided iPad.
The Preferable part of hotel language in section 5-B-11-a is placed there purposefully. This single word does not negate this entire section.
If we moved microwaves and refrigerators into the mandatory section, this would move us out of good existing hotels such as Sheratons and Marriotts and guarantee us a slot at the La Quintas.
The current hotel language states a “suitable” accommodation will be provided to the pilots and nothing much more. We’ve stated multiple times before that this TA isn’t perfect. However, of the multiple improvements to our current CBA, hotel language has some of the greatest gains. If there is a problem with a hotel, this language provides a means of changing out problematic hotels, however this requires pilots to actively participate by filing hotel complains.
5-E-4 gives us no power in changing hotels. It just lays out the process we’ve been using for a year or so. If a certain hotel generates enough egregious complaints, the company might choose to humor us with a hotel change if they’re feeling generous, but they don’t have to. Mesa can say, “Oh, API talked to the property manager about that bed bug infestation, they said they’d get right on it. Problem solved! Thanks for playing.”
This is not true. Some examples of where Mesa stays and other airlines stay: Midland (MAF), Birmingham (BHM), National (DCA), Cincinnati (CVG), Detroit (DTW), Dulles (IAD), Toronto (YYZ), Tulsa (TUL), Indianapolis (IND), San Antonio (SAT), Austin (AUS)- to name a few.
This was sought by the Negotiating Committee, but again since pay was deemed more important by the pilot group, the money for uniforms was shifted into seeking better compensation.
Our peers have a range of 50% to 100% deadhead pay in the air and some have ground deadhead language with the average specified at 50%. If you ground deadhead at Mesa, it is paid at applicable pay rate at 62.5%. Obviously, in our next negotiation, we will seek a higher deadhead rate, which will be easier to achieve if we are at 62.5% versus 50%.
This is a software issue. We also would have liked 3 days of partial vacation, but this wasn’t our call. It’s purely a limitation of the software.
1-year training notes for equipment transfers is not ideal
…but is a way to keep training costs lower to Mesa...
Mesa is offering retention bonuses currently, and it is part of the New Hire Compensation plan. Captains are not leaving in the amounts as FOs with less than 3 years seniority at Mesa. LOA-3 addresses this and should put a cap on future retention bonus offered to select pilots by requiring Mesa to offer such bonuses to all pilots in a given status or the entire pilot group.
Cost associated with this was too high and Mesa was only willing to implement for line holders anyways. Since the majority of line holders receive 12 or more days off currently, we refocused our sights on compensation.
ALPA was trying to get a more refined definition of Reserve Buffers, but due to the complexity of calculations and numerous variables it proved nearly impossible. For example: Reserve Buffers are affected by local weather phenomena, Historic pilot sick calls, TDY or moving reserves from one Domicile to another with fewer reserves. This language was the only way to get started in defining Reserve Buffers. Since now they have to provide us with their method of calculation it will be easier for us to call them out when they don’t stick to it.
Our current contract was written before the new FAR 117. That is why the definition has to be defined. This is not a concession because if we do not define FDP then Mesa retains rights to do as they please by section 1-F. Therefore, defining this term is vital to protecting pilots.
Call me first/ Call me last is not dead. Your argument is false. Reference 13-N-15-d-(1)-(d). Reserves will be implemented different than current book, so comparing it to the current process is comparing apples and oranges. The only time seniority is not considered in reserve assignments is ready reserve, which is the same as current practice.
If our math is right, 17% is greater than 0% which is current book that Mesa MAY offer long call if staffing permits. Now Mesa MUST offer long call. During the next round of negotiations this number should become larger.
This was discussed in negotiations, but did not progress further due to short staffing system wide and removal of the pro rate table would increase the number of days off.
Again, per pilot demand, our focus was mostly on compensation.
Once again, if our math is correct, 1% is higher than the current 0%. We know this TA isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the equipment lock that our senior captains currently experience.
You’re right. We’re also disappointed that we couldn’t get improved insurance. But with 30% of the pilot group involvement and 8% enrolled in higher premium plans, we just couldn’t justify the cost.
Since a smaller portion of pilots would receive improvements in benefits and 100% of the pilots would receive the benefit of a bigger paycheck, we decided to concentrate more on compensation.
We agree that new hire bonuses are discouraging to pilots on property, however due to the Railway Labor Act, there is very little we can do about New Hire Bonuses. This isn’t just our problem, it’s every regional airlines’ problem. Until a pilot finishes IOE, ALPA has no control over what the company can offer them. This LOA does not allow management to pay “whoever they want,” that is what management is currently doing with their bonus programs. This LOA states that if one pilot of a group is offered a retention bonus, ALL pilots of said group will be offer the SAME retention bonus.
Other regional pilot groups have reconciled new hire bonuses upon receiving a satisfactory contract.
This does not threaten your flying schedules. Reference 1-B-2 states that a very specific and rare type of flying may be contracted out to meet the needs of service. As far as Mesa pilots flying Mesa aircraft, they are Mesa Pilots, just on retired status. The number of flights flown under this LOA is miniscule due to the extremely high cost (Mesa must keep these pilots trained and current), they must only fly with other retired pilots, and must be travelled to and from locations. Keep in mind that flying allowed is only what is NOT covered in our OPS SPECS. It’s not a scope violation. Negotiations are a give and take, and we got a lot of other benefits in the TA because of this. Also, Section 1-B-3 prevents the formation of alter egos such as Freedom in past Mesa Practices.
In closing, Mesa Management has always needed us. After all, there is no airline without pilots. Although pilots talk about not needing this deal as much as our management, the pilot group has been very loud in asking about the pace of negotiations. You asked to be in line with our peers and the numbers show that this TA will bring us in line with our peers on many items. We’ll say it again, we know it’s not perfect, but it is a vast improvement from where we currently are and gives us a much stronger foundation from which to build in our next negotiation. We encourage all our pilots to ask us questions directly and not use speculation or she said/he said talk. If you do not know the answer, just ask. We’re here to give you the correct information.
Fraternally,
Your Negotiating Committee
Fraternally,
Your Negotiating Committee
IMG_2988.JPG
Last edited by deltajuliet; 07-04-2017 at 03:50 PM.
07-04-2017, 04:00 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
$32.99 the industry FO! That was their starting point? Our negotiators can't even get their facts straight or are simply too lazy to do the necessary research.
It is pretty simple, there aren't that many regionals flying for AA or UA. Their FO pay is public. Just do a little research before you hit us with asinine statistics.
If that doesn't tell you we have incompetent negotiators, nothing will. This one post convinced me to Vote No.
Sure, Mesa may fold and if it is that poorly managed, it is probably time. The AA and UA flying isn't going away --- we will all land someplace.
It is pretty simple, there aren't that many regionals flying for AA or UA. Their FO pay is public. Just do a little research before you hit us with asinine statistics.
If that doesn't tell you we have incompetent negotiators, nothing will. This one post convinced me to Vote No.
Sure, Mesa may fold and if it is that poorly managed, it is probably time. The AA and UA flying isn't going away --- we will all land someplace.
07-04-2017, 08:40 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by Systemized
2-hour 117 extensions are not legal for "added flying." You can only use and accept a 2-hour extension if it's for scheduled flying. Scheduled flying would be the flying already on your schedule when your FDP started or the night before when you entered the rest prior to your known scheduled show time.
Since you can't be extended for additional flying, why on earth would you agree to sit around until you hit the limit on the FDP table? You need at least 1.5 hour buffer to work the shortest possible flight. Why not sit around until 1.5 hours for your max FDP and go home?
Your company or scheduling department may tell you, you can accept 2-hour extensions for additional flying, but remember, you are the one "accepting" the extension on record. If anything happens, you will be hung out to dry for accepting an illegal assignment. We all know, when accepting a 2-hour extension, you've had a long day and chances of "anything happening" increases.
Since you can't be extended for additional flying, why on earth would you agree to sit around until you hit the limit on the FDP table? You need at least 1.5 hour buffer to work the shortest possible flight. Why not sit around until 1.5 hours for your max FDP and go home?
Your company or scheduling department may tell you, you can accept 2-hour extensions for additional flying, but remember, you are the one "accepting" the extension on record. If anything happens, you will be hung out to dry for accepting an illegal assignment. We all know, when accepting a 2-hour extension, you've had a long day and chances of "anything happening" increases.
07-05-2017, 07:37 AM
#115
patience
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver
Do you have a source that backs up the "no extensions for added flying" as being illegal?
07-05-2017, 08:32 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by Systemized
It's black and white spelled out in 117. I can find the section if you want and post it but I'm certain 2-hour extensions for added flying is not legal. 2-two extensions are only legal for scheduled flying, flying that was on your schedule at your show time when your FDP began. In other words, once the FDP clock has started, you can't extend for added flying. You can only extend past your 117 table for delayed flights that were on your schedule at show time.
07-05-2017, 08:36 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 918
[QUOTE=Systemized;2389762]It's black and white spelled out in 117. I can find the section if you want and post it but I'm certain 2-hour extensions for added flying is not legal. 2-two extensions are only legal for scheduled flying, flying that was on your schedule at your show time when your FDP began. In other words, once the FDP clock has started, you can't extend for added flying. You can only extend past your 117 table for delayed flights that were on your schedule......
Yes you cannot be extended just so they have u walk across to the next flight they just added to ur schedule. Example, U are operating a flight out of let's say Newark and u have 1hr of FDP left b4 u time out and suddenly ur airplane broke and takes 1.5 hrs to get it fix. That's wen scheduling will call to ASK you if u can take an extension for that UNFORSEEN circumstance. It is always up to u to accept it. If u feel ur getting too tired then NO, if u feel u can operate the flight safely then ok. Simple. That's what the UP TO 2 hr extension is for, unforseen circumstances.
U cant be sitting on reserve and they extend u for 2 more hrs to just sit there if that's wat the question was.
Here's a link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.19
Yes you cannot be extended just so they have u walk across to the next flight they just added to ur schedule. Example, U are operating a flight out of let's say Newark and u have 1hr of FDP left b4 u time out and suddenly ur airplane broke and takes 1.5 hrs to get it fix. That's wen scheduling will call to ASK you if u can take an extension for that UNFORSEEN circumstance. It is always up to u to accept it. If u feel ur getting too tired then NO, if u feel u can operate the flight safely then ok. Simple. That's what the UP TO 2 hr extension is for, unforseen circumstances.
U cant be sitting on reserve and they extend u for 2 more hrs to just sit there if that's wat the question was.
Here's a link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.19
Last edited by Bgood; 07-05-2017 at 08:49 AM.
07-05-2017, 08:51 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 918
[QUOTE=Bgood;2389788]
And in addition to this, scheduling has to call u and ASK u to extend BEFORE u time out. Else u cant accept it if u wish to cuz u already timed out.
Originally Posted by Systemized
It's black and white spelled out in 117. I can find the section if you want and post it but I'm certain 2-hour extensions for added flying is not legal. 2-two extensions are only legal for scheduled flying, flying that was on your schedule at your show time when your FDP began. In other words, once the FDP clock has started, you can't extend for added flying. You can only extend past your 117 table for delayed flights that were on your schedule......
Yes you cannot be extended just so they have u walk across to the next flight they just added to ur schedule. Example, U are operating a flight out of let's say Newark and u have 1hr of FDP left b4 u time out and suddenly ur airplane broke and takes 1.5 hrs to get it fix. That's wen scheduling will call to ASK you if u can take an extension for that UNFORSEEN circumstance. It is always up to u to accept it. If u feel ur getting too tired then NO, if u feel u can operate the flight safely then ok. Simple. That's what the UP TO 2 hr extension is for, unforseen circumstances.
U cant be sitting on reserve and they extend u for 2 more hrs to just sit there if that's wat the question was.
Here's a link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.19
Yes you cannot be extended just so they have u walk across to the next flight they just added to ur schedule. Example, U are operating a flight out of let's say Newark and u have 1hr of FDP left b4 u time out and suddenly ur airplane broke and takes 1.5 hrs to get it fix. That's wen scheduling will call to ASK you if u can take an extension for that UNFORSEEN circumstance. It is always up to u to accept it. If u feel ur getting too tired then NO, if u feel u can operate the flight safely then ok. Simple. That's what the UP TO 2 hr extension is for, unforseen circumstances.
U cant be sitting on reserve and they extend u for 2 more hrs to just sit there if that's wat the question was.
Here's a link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.19
07-05-2017, 09:57 AM
#119
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by calmwinds
$32.99 the industry FO! That was their starting point? Our negotiators can't even get their facts straight or are simply too lazy to do the necessary research.
It is pretty simple, there aren't that many regionals flying for AA or UA. Their FO pay is public. Just do a little research before you hit us with asinine statistics.
It is pretty simple, there aren't that many regionals flying for AA or UA. Their FO pay is public. Just do a little research before you hit us with asinine statistics.
For example: the contract pay rates for Envoy is 25.84 (2015-2017) then 26.10 (2018). Envoy has an LOA that starts FO's at year 4 which is 39.78 (2015 - 2017).
ALPA is always looking for volunteers. I suggest you give it a try.
07-05-2017, 11:00 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 918
Originally Posted by MAGNegotiations
32.99 is industry standard. Pay rates on Airline Pilot Central are not accurate to contracted pay rates with FOs. This information was derived from the ALPA contract archives. We didn't just make this number up. Research was done. Maybe do some more research rather than just using APC.
For example: the contract pay rates for Envoy is 25.84 (2015-2017) then 26.10 (2018). Envoy has an LOA that starts FO's at year 4 which is 39.78 (2015 - 2017).
ALPA is always looking for volunteers. I suggest you give it a try.
For example: the contract pay rates for Envoy is 25.84 (2015-2017) then 26.10 (2018). Envoy has an LOA that starts FO's at year 4 which is 39.78 (2015 - 2017).
ALPA is always looking for volunteers. I suggest you give it a try.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
