iPilot

Unions don't usually have power over staffing levels. That's why the company controls how many get furloughed and controls the hiring process. The fact that they didn't staff properly is the whole reason they got into this mess. You can't blame the union for the company making bad decisions, blame the managers.

nwa757

...and ALPA should not and is not responsible for Ornstein's poor business decisions.

The thing about it is this... if you stuck with Mesa and rode JO's carpet of corruption, you are now suffering the consequences. A crooked company finally gets what they've asked for all along. By supporting JO and working at Mesa, Mesa employees have supported JO with their subpar paychecks.

rickair7777

This has great potential to control QOL, especially at the regional level, at least one regional has such a clause.

But you need a significant penalty for violations...otherwise it's cheaper to run undermanned and pay a trivial penalty.

A no-junior-manning clause is nice too.

winglet

United, Mesa Tussle In Court | AVIATION WEEK

Sniper

Ah, the 'original intent', huh? I hate to say it, but this is airline management getting their just desserts here. After a decade of blatantly violating the intent of scope clauses, work rules, pay rates, and pension guarantees, United and Mesa are now arguing about the intent of a contract vs. the actual language of the contract, or so it seems.

I'm no fan of JO, but he and his team are well versed in reading a contract and complying w/ the language, yet brutally violating any obvious intent. I hope United has something better than this, or they're going to be in the same situation Delta is in with Mesa, a never-ending legal wrangle.

This is a lose, lose, lose situation for our profession:

• Mesa may go under or furlough hundreds = lots of pilots on the street.
• Mesa wins, and lots of regional guys @ other carriers are not hired or called back to fill these positions = lots of pilots on the street.
• United mainline pilots don't get this flying regardless of the outcome = lots of pilots on the street.

Just a horrible situation for the United brand; once a grand dame of aviation, now looking more like a haggard nag, possibly fighting to avoid the glue factory itself.

H46Bubba

I posted that part of the contract below in a previous post. The language is pretty clear and JO doesn't have a leg to stand on. The great management team at MAG;pulled this hail marry play and it's going to go into the stands! MAG had till October 31st to give UA notice of any of the 10 -700's entering service. 180 days from October 31'st is April 30th (-200 contract expiration); which means those a/c have to enter service on or before April 30th 2010 so they can be transfered over to the 70 seat contract which expires in 2018. Lotz sends their letter dates Ocober 15th 2009 stating that the forst batch of a/c will enter service on October 15th 2010. Hmmm that souds like 365 days notice to me! UA said no deal unless all 10 a/c enter service on or by 4/10/10. Lotz shoots a letter back revising the service entry date for all a/c to 4/30/10!. UA writes back assking for proof; i.e. Bombardier production slots, delivery dates, or leases if acquiring from 3rd party leasors. Lotz reponded with rescinding the 4/30/10 service entry dates and reverts them back to October, November, and December; all more than 180 days from 10/31/09.

iPilot

I'd have to wonder even if MAG wins this lawsuit if they could get financing for these airplanes. They've screwed their debtors several times over and they're not going to be able to sell more stock or anything for that matter. So if they win, UA might not have much to worry about since they won't get airplanes to fly the routes anyway.

hslightnin

they have 26 -200's, 10 dash 8-s 14 erjs and some 1900's that are or will be sitting around. the lessors might be interested in some sort of deal to avoid getting them and more all at once.

H46Bubba

I was up in at Bombardier in Montreal two weeks ago and asked about MAG. They have options for 10 CRJ-700, but can't get financing or cash to buy. Since Bombardier is one of those MAG creditors, who had to adjust their terms; they are pretty much not willing to work with them. That's why Lotz couldn't provide them with proof that all 10 a/c would enter service by April 30th. I'm also willing to bet if UA were to budge on the dates Mesa initially gave; that if required to provide the same info, MAG couldn't provide it.

LMEN

Hhhhmm. Interesting. Keep us posted.