MESA Ta
11-07-2008 | 09:27 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 244
Likes: 1
Is there pay protection? Block or better don't mean squat if they cancel your flights and you don't get paid. If you are awarded an 85 hour line and get paid 70 that's crap. Inform yourself. The only people I'd trust less than ALPA in negotiations is JO. If you push things back 2 years by taking this there will just be a new excuse in 2 more years. Not to mention when JO has you, he'll drag the next round of negotiations on forever.
Obviously that split between 700 and 200 pay only applies to captains as fo's, in my opinion unfairly don't get premium, on the bigger equipment.
11-07-2008 | 09:32 AM
#52
*********
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Well some senior captains have been saying that JO really really wants us to sign this contract if we don't sign it we have him over a barrel and will be able to negotiate for what we are worth. Then from there speculation takes over as to why he needs a pilot contract. Having not ever worked in finance I used logic to deduce that companies want a employee contract so that they have a fixed known cost over a period of time so that they can plan their budgets, look for financing and look stable to potential buyers or to their share holders. Not that anybody in their right mind would say Mesa is a stable place.
I agree obviously that a pilot contract give no guarantees that Mesa will stay out of bankruptcy but I would be surprised if Mesa management does not have a plan to try and keep the company from bankruptcy. It might not be a good plan but never the less there are people in Mesa that think they know what they are doing to prevent bankruptcy.
So to be clear what you are saying is:
1) Mesa appears to be on the inevitable path bankruptcy
2) Don't vote on the TA thinking it will keep us from bankruptcy because it probably won't.
3) Mesa's cash flow would be hurt by ALPA going down the RLA route for negotiations making bankruptcy more inevitable
4) If we go into bankruptcy either contract old or new would be thrown out and we'd end up making concessions
Our ALPA lawyer guy said if we were to sign this TA then bankruptcy court would have a very hard time throwing it out due to the fact Mesa signed it so recently when management must have been aware of bankruptcy concerns. Other factors could be that it is arguably still below an industry standard contract.
I agree obviously that a pilot contract give no guarantees that Mesa will stay out of bankruptcy but I would be surprised if Mesa management does not have a plan to try and keep the company from bankruptcy. It might not be a good plan but never the less there are people in Mesa that think they know what they are doing to prevent bankruptcy.
So to be clear what you are saying is:
1) Mesa appears to be on the inevitable path bankruptcy
2) Don't vote on the TA thinking it will keep us from bankruptcy because it probably won't.
3) Mesa's cash flow would be hurt by ALPA going down the RLA route for negotiations making bankruptcy more inevitable
4) If we go into bankruptcy either contract old or new would be thrown out and we'd end up making concessions
Our ALPA lawyer guy said if we were to sign this TA then bankruptcy court would have a very hard time throwing it out due to the fact Mesa signed it so recently when management must have been aware of bankruptcy concerns. Other factors could be that it is arguably still below an industry standard contract.
This contract is terrible, and a slap in the face. It's going to be a no vote from me, and everyone else I've spoken to. It's the junior guys (like yourself) that I worry about. I urge you to read the entire contract, and attend a roadshow. Then ask questions.
I trust you will see the lack of anything good (beyond block or better) in this TA.
11-07-2008 | 09:37 AM
#53
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
From: EMB145
ALPA seems to honestly think this is a good contract. I read the entire thing, went to the roadshow, and participated in the conference call.
This contract is terrible, and a slap in the face. It's going to be a no vote from me, and everyone else I've spoken to. It's the junior guys (like yourself) that I worry about. I urge you to read the entire contract, and attend a roadshow. Then ask questions.
I trust you will see the lack of anything good (beyond block or better) in this TA.
This contract is terrible, and a slap in the face. It's going to be a no vote from me, and everyone else I've spoken to. It's the junior guys (like yourself) that I worry about. I urge you to read the entire contract, and attend a roadshow. Then ask questions.
I trust you will see the lack of anything good (beyond block or better) in this TA.
if this thing passes, it will be amazing(not in a good way)
11-07-2008 | 09:56 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 244
Likes: 1
Section 13 - Scheduling, A.2.b. Regular lines of time will be constructed with a minimum of 75.83 block hours per bid period and will not contain reserve days.
The other thing I didn't think about is the freedom seat lock being a back door for JO to furlough out of senioriy. Does anybody know if legally he can do this due to the freedom seat lock. If so that is total BS and the TA should be a no vote just on that alone.
One thing I do know from life experience is that you don't ever sign something unless you are completely sure you will agree to abide by everything in it. I'm somewhat dissappointed at some of the sloppy language in it that could be manipulated by the company to their advantage.
I'm not sure I understand why our negotiating committee, that probably knows better than I how the company can manipulate the contracts, allowed some of the sloppy language. If it was an error or an oversight on the committee then I'd expect them to admit to it and recommend to the pilot group not to sign it until they fix the language.
Did you notice at the road show ALPA never talked about the freedom seat lock, only talked about the electronic sign in when asked and generally ommitted all the negative aspects or concessions of the TA. Why would they do that?
I guess I better go look at mesahub.com I had no idea about that forum and I'll bet 70% of the new FO's don't either.
Thanks for feedback and constructive arguments. This is how we learn and how we make informed decisions.
11-07-2008 | 10:04 AM
#55
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 244
Likes: 1
ALPA seems to honestly think this is a good contract. I read the entire thing, went to the roadshow, and participated in the conference call.
This contract is terrible, and a slap in the face. It's going to be a no vote from me, and everyone else I've spoken to. It's the junior guys (like yourself) that I worry about. I urge you to read the entire contract, and attend a roadshow. Then ask questions.
I trust you will see the lack of anything good (beyond block or better) in this TA.
This contract is terrible, and a slap in the face. It's going to be a no vote from me, and everyone else I've spoken to. It's the junior guys (like yourself) that I worry about. I urge you to read the entire contract, and attend a roadshow. Then ask questions.
I trust you will see the lack of anything good (beyond block or better) in this TA.
I just don't think ALPA presented the contract fairly and without the questions I wouldn't have realized many of the negative aspects. Many people who attend roadshows might only see the + things and make no further effort to understand the details.
11-10-2008 | 02:35 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
From: A320/321 First Officer
The fact that ALPA is absolutely trying to spin this thing positively does worry me. According to them everything is great and they clearly want a yes vote on this TA and are not being very objective. Thanks for all the good info guys. I am definately going to visit mesahub.com which I did not know about until today.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
