Yes, that's what I said. "Over the life of the contract" means when the contract is complete. That would be DOS +5. Show me any other contract where a turboprop is equal in pay to a jet, thus setting it up to pay MORE on the next negotiating cycle. Thinking long term, here, not just "What's gonna be in my pocket this time next year." Technically the guys flying the -900 are doing the same job I am on the -200, but they get paid more. In fact, from what I hear from guys that have flown both, the -900 is less work thanks to the automation.

I think that from MGMT's perspective they are unable to provide mesaba saab rates to the future use of the sf because the business models are vastly different. The Mesaba saab rate is based on a capacity purchase agreement with Delta that generates much more revenue than CJC's pro rate agreements for that airframe. Since the future of that flying will likely be under cjc's pro rate agreements (No risk for Code share partners) the revenue won't be there moving forward for the SF

All of this being known, it still does not seem justified on the labor end of things to pay one guy more than another for essentially the same job. however looking at it from what is possible at the negotiating table, the rates they were able to secure are not bad.

Last I checked you don't work there. What's acceptable to someone in the peanut gallery vs someone working the line and putting up with the company BS might be two different things.


As far as you guys talking about the Q's vs the 200s go. What are the RASMs for each aircraft? The 200 might only carry 50 people but if it's traveling twice as far the RASM might be higher and the CASM might be lower.

You're right, I don't work there - in the thread I posted where you can find the actual document I posted my thoughts on the TA from the perspective of all three pilots...all three of which were YES.

That said, just because I don't work there doesn't mean I can't see the divisiveness of the pay structure in this TA, set up by management and agreed to by negotiators.

Going into SLI, the pilot groups aren't going to be unified - they're going to be ****ed. Who wins in that situation? Management.

Is it that really that difficult a concept to understand?

ATR-72 @ ASA pays the same as the CRJ-200.

Looks mediocre to me, I expect more. The pay rates seem pretty close to other current companies (Wiskey, SKW.

If/when Republic get a TA, and its similar, I'll vote no.

So management hit a home run and you agree with it. Got it. My point was you don't work there and your opinion on what matters might not be the same as someone who's out putting up with the daily grind. Apparently it's gaining traction in all three groups. There's a lot of headway that's been made leading up to it and given fleet projections, ie DAL cancellations of Saabs, in my opinion it's going to be more than some clear victory for management.

Yeah, sure, you'd vote no on a contract that gives you (in Mesaba's case) higher pay rates, whipsaw/fragmentation protection, better work rules and benefits all around, job security and an actual chance at an upgrade in two years (verses a possible job loss). I'm sure you would vote no.

Yes I would. Apparently I see more value in myself than you see in yourself.

Divisiveness and disappointment.


Let's assume the "Grandfather" scale is what Mesaba could have negotiated on its own.

So......

Mesaba CAs have done fine.

And Mesaba FOs have done okay .... UNTIL they upgrade when they revert to the standard rate (my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong).

All others, present and future, will be paid at a rate BELOW current Mesaba rates. That is disappointing.