Purpleanga

Well the fact that it's not going to be a 100% NO is telling, I hope you're right.

DENpilot

For all you Mesa haters who think YV is going into Chap 7:

Mesa Announces Sale of DHC8-200 Parts and Component Maintenance Agreement

Also stock has doubled in past 2 days. Damn, I knew I should have bought at .18 a share....

H46Bubba

Hahahaha, Ornstein pulls another fast one! It's a sham and it's just like the one we negotiated with AAR when I was at MAG for the CRJ components. It saves money in the beginning first couple of months, but wastes more in the long run. It becomes a pain in the ass to get your parts when you need them and to get them repaired, because you no longer have control over your inventory. Other CRJ operaters don't like to loan or exchange MAG rotable components because AAR is such a pain in the ass to deal with. Fokker is just as bad! This basically makes investors think you got a decent cash infusion, but it will all go back to Fokker and fast!

tpersuit

Remember that Mesa went from $.45 to $1.10 in early May when they settled the Hawaiin lawsuit for $52 million. Then it began it's slow decline to $.17. Aloha settlement is just a speed bump that slowed the decline. They still have to get past the notes in January and February and Delta as well. Not to mention they need to have a profitable business too.

flycrj200

Who cares what tha price of Mesa stock is. That does not mean they are not going out.

UNDGUY

You all love to tell us that we need to raise the standard for the industry. (as if one airline can actually do that) We negotiate a TA that gives us line guarantees, block or better PER LEG, 11 days off for line holders as well as reserves, a raise for FO's in 2010 among other things and everyone wants to vote it down. The improvements mentioned above are pretty much industry standard if not better in some areas. (11 days off for reserves, line guarantees) and everyone wants to vote it down because the "language isn't written clearly enough," and we don't trust the company with PBS. I don't want to hijack the thread because there is already a thread on here about the TA but geez. I've been here long enough to know the Mesa will take advantage of (screw you) on any weakness or questionable language in the contract, but you can not tell me that this contract wouldn't be better than what we have now and better than many other regional airline contracts. I realize we will still be working for Mesa and we will have to argue and fight with management on differences of "interpretations" on the contract's actual meaning, (which we are already doing now) but I see this contract as an improvement for us.

UNDGUY

For those of you who think this TA vote is definately going to be a no. I have had multiple captains ask me how I'm going to vote. They have all been something like: "so your going to vote no right." So of course what do I say, of course I'm going to vote no. I've spoke with many people who have gone to the road shows and participated in the conference calls and actually are going to make an educated decision, most of the people who fall into that category are going to vote yes. I'm not saying I know if it's going to pass or not but I know it's going to be a lot closer than most think.

Purpleanga

I know, that's why it's so disturbing. From who I've talked to they're saying this contract is worse than the current one but bock or better has been a big plus, that's probably the only thing keeping people from voting NO right away, especially the junior ones.

Airfix

Undguy,

I tend to agree that it will be a lot closer than everyone will think on the TA. Most people I know have said no but I have an incline that they are saying no but will actually vote yes. I think the TA will pass.

I don't like your logic that says the contractual language is no good but it is still industry standard so we should vote yes. If the contractual language is no good then the contract cannot be industry standard. Perhaps the intent is industry standard but without the language to back it up it just isn't.

Let's just say the company and ALPA agree on the intent, then it should be a quick and easy step to have the language modified to reflect the true intent.

I'll post more on my TA thread later today or tomorrow to prevent a highjacking of this one.

UNDGUY

worse than the current one? You are either flaming or listening to people who are completely uninformed. The loudest people screaming vote no are the ones who are the least informed. Ask them if they have actually read the TA, ask them if they have participated in a conference call, I suspect the answer would be no. You can also ask them if they read the "letter of clarification" that will be added to the original TA that clears up some of the language that people were complaining about.