New Mesa Thread
09-07-2015, 07:41 AM
#1081
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
Let me learn you some "knowlage." There already are stakeholders in Mesa. It's not like ornstein owns the company outright. He is merely the puppet and voice for those who actually own the company. There already are shares of Mesa that people/companies own, it's just not publicly traded. Other funds and retail investors would buy shares in Mesa for the same reason our current stakeholders own shares. You don't typically buy shares of a company based on past performance or current margins (how do you think startups who make zero revenue but spend millions get seed/investment capital?). You buy shares on predicted future performance based on the knowledge you have. The fact that Mesa has an all 70/76 seat fleet and low operating costs gives it a fairly good shot at not parking planes and not having issues gaining future contracts. We are cash flow negative the next two years due in large part to CRJ engine replacement costs. After the wave of those large costs is over, especially with all the new ejets and future ejets yet to be announced, we will continue to grow, which is what investors want.
Investors don't buy shares based solely on a company's profit. In fact lots of companies operate at a loss and have plenty of buyers of their stock. They are buying shares of a company based on future performance, revenue (not to be confused with profit), and growth. The value of that company is based on cash on hand, debts, assets on hand, lease terms, costs, and future earnings, among other things.
What's funny is the union will tell us there is no money to pay us for the next 5-10 years because the company said they are cash flow negative for the next 2-3 years and the union (and all you yes voters) bought it. The company is laughing all the way to the bank (and will be popping the Dom if it passes), and when the company conducts road shows to go public they will be touting that they have secured the industry's low labor costs in a 5+ year deal and still fills classes, even in this environment.
This is why pilots should stick to flying. Our lack of business knowledge only hurts us. It's like believing your realtor that this is the best we can do. He legally has to have your best interest in mind, but really he wants the deal done and is getting his check if the deal goes through, and the quicker the better so he can get on with other things (time is money). My realtor insisted the best we could do was $29k higher than I bought my house for a year ago. You just have to know how to negotiate and use leverage. And sometimes the first offer/counteroffer isn't the best. The company's MBAs/JDs will always have the upper hand in negotiations against people who pull levers, push buttons, talk on a radio, and look outside for a living.
Investors don't buy shares based solely on a company's profit. In fact lots of companies operate at a loss and have plenty of buyers of their stock. They are buying shares of a company based on future performance, revenue (not to be confused with profit), and growth. The value of that company is based on cash on hand, debts, assets on hand, lease terms, costs, and future earnings, among other things.
What's funny is the union will tell us there is no money to pay us for the next 5-10 years because the company said they are cash flow negative for the next 2-3 years and the union (and all you yes voters) bought it. The company is laughing all the way to the bank (and will be popping the Dom if it passes), and when the company conducts road shows to go public they will be touting that they have secured the industry's low labor costs in a 5+ year deal and still fills classes, even in this environment.
This is why pilots should stick to flying. Our lack of business knowledge only hurts us. It's like believing your realtor that this is the best we can do. He legally has to have your best interest in mind, but really he wants the deal done and is getting his check if the deal goes through, and the quicker the better so he can get on with other things (time is money). My realtor insisted the best we could do was $29k higher than I bought my house for a year ago. You just have to know how to negotiate and use leverage. And sometimes the first offer/counteroffer isn't the best. The company's MBAs/JDs will always have the upper hand in negotiations against people who pull levers, push buttons, talk on a radio, and look outside for a living.
The fact that you don't realize that Mesa doesn't have to potential to make better margins than the negotiated rate proves that you know less about business than you think. Those rates are the best case scenerio! The fact that they're cash flow negative in the short term doesn't at all akin Mesa to a startup that could turn a modest investment several hundred times over.
09-07-2015, 07:58 AM
#1082
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Originally Posted by Navmode
It's called auto correct, professor.
The fact that you don't realize that Mesa doesn't have to potential to make better margins than the negotiated rate proves that you know less about business than you think. Those rates are the best case scenerio! The fact that they're cash flow negative in the short term doesn't at all akin Mesa to a startup that could turn a modest investment several hundred times over.
The fact that you don't realize that Mesa doesn't have to potential to make better margins than the negotiated rate proves that you know less about business than you think. Those rates are the best case scenerio! The fact that they're cash flow negative in the short term doesn't at all akin Mesa to a startup that could turn a modest investment several hundred times over.
Oh and autocorrect will never give you "knowlage" unless you previously have used that word and added it to its database.
09-07-2015, 08:26 AM
#1083
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by Navmode
our profit margins are public knowlage.
You're obviously ignorant of the difference between publicly-traded corporations subject to independent audit and records/reporting requirements, versus privately-held Nevada companies such as Mesa.
There are countless ways for both public and private companies to make themselves look poor on paper--go read "Treasure Islands" by former Economist writer Nicholas Shaxson, or pickup a corporate law text from a library, or research the Pinnacle bankruptcy.
At the end of the day, as a privately-held Nevada co., Mesa is under no legal obligation to disclose anything to anyone, aside from minimal reporting to the IRS. Mesa is owned by a consortium of other entities, each of which contains its own complex web of subsidiaries, holding co's, etc.--some of those entities are in jurisdictions abroad where it is in fact illegal for the trustee to disclose any information about the beneficial ownership of assets held in accounts.
But yeah, I'm sure we can trust that our crack team of "professionals" at ALPA national spent the due diligence necessary to fully analyze the records the company chose to provide.
Lastly, unlike publicly-traded corps, there is no legal requirement for Mesa to disclose any material facts about projected future changes to its financial position going forward. There are likely cashflow-boosting lines of credit already being negotiated contingent upon this TA passing, and the company had zero obligation to disclose any of that.
09-07-2015, 08:40 AM
#1084
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
The company could literally hand them a piece of paper with the number 0 on it for every quarter going forward for the rest of the century, and:
1) A good accounting team could actually make the actual profit zero out every quarter, forever
and
2) The company faces zero legal obligations or fraud charges if they flat-out made up everything they showed to ALPA
Not saying they lied, I'm just saying I'd give very little weight to records voluntarily disclosed by a privately-held Nevada co..
1) A good accounting team could actually make the actual profit zero out every quarter, forever
and
2) The company faces zero legal obligations or fraud charges if they flat-out made up everything they showed to ALPA
Not saying they lied, I'm just saying I'd give very little weight to records voluntarily disclosed by a privately-held Nevada co..
09-07-2015, 09:06 AM
#1085
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
I disagree with #2...they were independently audited financial statements. Whether public or not, the IFA has a responsibility to do the proper due diligence before signing off on the accounts and has legal ramifications if not done.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
09-07-2015, 09:47 AM
#1086
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver
I disagree with #2...they were independently audited financial statements. Whether public or not, the IFA has a responsibility to do the proper due diligence before signing off on the accounts and has legal ramifications if not done.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
It's called IPO if your negotiators were smart enough and did not just get their Checkairman status and someone said 12.5 k per month they should have said " ok you have no money I can buy that but here is my offer to TA this POS ....any future stock allocation for an IPO Alpa will get 10% of all stocks that Mesa issues at whatever price it opens in the market ".
09-07-2015, 09:57 AM
#1087
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Yeah we already discussed an IPO a couple of pages back. Apparently it is quite unlikely given our current financial position. I know some of you hold the ALPA financial and legal folks with significant disdain, but I'm not one to claim I'm smarter than them, especially when I have no firsthand info at my disposal to evaluate.
09-07-2015, 10:02 AM
#1088
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver
I disagree with #2...they were independently audited financial statements. Whether public or not, the IFA has a responsibility to do the proper due diligence before signing off on the accounts and has legal ramifications if not done.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
I'm also skeptical of some master game plan the company has up its sleeve just waiting to pounce once the TA is ratified. With razor thin profit margins into the future and negative cash flow for the next few years, any investment into the company will likely be measured and incremental.
I agree that Mesa is positioned well in terms of fleet type and cost structure and that will help attract new business, however that cost structure will be impacted if they gave to start forking out more money to get pilots in the door. I think Mesa is walking a financial tightrope right now and the future is far from certain.
Signing a marginal TA isn't going to be the windfall that all of sudden attracts a lot of new business if the investors realize the company will likely have to start forking out more money half way through the term of the contract to get more pilots in the door.
The "crack team" of professionals at ALPA may not have had all the information at their disposal, they may not be the best in the business, but they're the best we have available to us. It certainly beats a bunch of line pilots who have exactly "0" information coming up with varying theories on how we're about to get taken.
At the end of the day I'm personally voting no because these reserve rules are worse for me (as a lineholder or reserve) than the existing rules, and because there is no provision for readjustment of payrates/per diems in the event the company's finances improve.
When I'm bidding a line, I don't want reserves fighting me for open time. When I'm on reserve, I want my seniority to actually mean something, giving me an opportunity to fly first or last depending on what I have going on that month.
These work rules are a nightmare, particularly for reserves. I have worked under a balancing system before and it sucks for everyone.
The company will get the additional EJets regardless of whether we vote yes or no. I prefer the status quo work rules to the proposed TA's. If you prefer a balancing system and reserve OT pickups, then by all means--go for it. I don't want it.
09-09-2015, 10:58 AM
#1089
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 580
Any news from DFW or IAH road Shows? Good bad ugly?
09-10-2015, 04:51 PM
#1090
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by Duct Mon
Any news from DFW or IAH road Shows? Good bad ugly?
Every FO I have flown with (who isn't very close to upgrade) is filling out apps for Compass/PDT/etc. etc.. And every non-lifer CA with a decent amount of time/"real" college degrees (myself included) is spending their time updating apps and networking/searching for greener pastures.
Anecdotally, I'd say the "yes" votes are the lifers, people heavily involved in ALPA, and brand-new Captains new to the industry who are cluless and think they somehow owe the company for their fast upgrade.
The "no" votes will be comprised of mid-seniority Captains, junior Captains with previous 121/life experience, and pretty much all of the FOs off probation.
No idea how those statistics will breakdown in the end-game. The swing votes seem to be junior Captains new to the industry and senior FOs close to upgrade. Which makes perfect sense b/c that is the sub-population most susceptible to vague implications of growth and false promises of better reserve QOL (balancing systems do exactly the opposite, imho).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
