Foxcow

Have you guys read it? The MEC and negotiating committee have my full support.

I thought that the bridge proposal was complete crap.

DublinFlyer

VARS? I'm not familiar - can someone explain?

ExperimentalAB

What the Negotiating committee offered for a bridge was fair and reasonable enough, IMHO...I wouldn't go for anything short of that! Hulas is playing y'all for fools

undflyboy06

Here's the meat and potatoes of the offer that they discussed:

They characterized two possible catastrophic outcomes should negotiations continue to progress. First, in a worsening economic climate, there is no way they can give us what we want. Second, by reaching an impasse we would eventually be released to self help. They also pointed out the inherent liability an open contract has on them as a Company. Thus, the Company proposed an 18-month hiatus in negotiations and a two-year extension to our contract, which they called a “Bridge Agreement.” The Company proposed to resume FLiCA and to increase pay and per diem rates, but in amounts which would still be below industry average. The Company also proposed to put all sections which have been tentatively agreed to so far on hold (none of them would be implemented). The Company’s offer made no improvements to any other section of the agreement, including retirement, insurance, job protection, hours of service, scheduling, reserve, vacation, sick leave, etc.

I say BS to that. The MEC continued by saying that even if the pilot group acccepted the Bridge Program that second year FO's TSA would still be $6.00 below the industry average

Foxcow

They also want a 2 year extension because they claim any improvements are not feasible. This will give them plenty of time to continue to shrink TSA down and expand g0jets.

undflyboy06

I totally agree with that. The company is also cry like little babies on how the market is not economically reasonable, however with the loss of aircraft, less fuel to buy, less leases to pay they are still probably making money.

ExperimentalAB

Typical management bull...SkyWest's latest pay raise conveniently left out the largest group of Pilots in both seats.

Seattlecfi

Sort of like when the Brasilia pilots got a 0% raise a couple of years ago.

Purpleanga

That vars was not very promising. I'm all for what the MEC said but the fact that there is such a deep division in negotiations is also very troubling considering what management has done in the past and what this company is capable of doing... It leads me to believe that management has absolutely no problem with transferring all of TSA flying to GJ if these negotiations continue to go the way they have and the MEC is willing to go all the way if it means the closing of TSA. I was also kind of surprised that the mergin of the gj and tsa pilot list was rejected as an idea. I guess they'll do that when TSA no longer exists and we're all be transfered to GJ.

flyinaway411

Why dont we post the whole VARS message so we can see that in fact we (TSA pilots) are trying to raise the bar. By the way, I would have voted against what the MEC offered too. I'm sick of this place. Here it is. And notice the comments regarding GJ. (but its ok to take a job there )

Despite three years of negotiations, prior to last week, the company had yet to present an economic package (hourly rates, guarantees, per diem,
insurance rates, 401K Company match). Therefore, the mediator instructed the company to come to this session with a complete economic proposal.
Rather than complying with the mediator’s instruction, the Company came to the table citing financial concerns over the progress of negotiations.
They characterized two possible catastrophic outcomes should negotiations continue to progress. First, in a worsening economic climate, there is no
way they can give us what we want. Second, by reaching an impasse we would eventually be released to self help. They also pointed out the inherent
liability an open contract has on them as a Company. Thus, the Company proposed an 18-month hiatus in negotiations and a two-year extension to
our contract, which they called a “Bridge Agreement.” The Company proposed to resume FLiCA and to increase pay and per diem rates, but in amounts
which would still be below industry average. The Company also proposed to put all sections which have been tentatively agreed to so far on hold (none
of them would be implemented). The Company’s offer made no improvements to any other section of the agreement, including retirement, insurance,
job protection, hours of service, scheduling, reserve, vacation, sick leave, etc.

The Association negotiating committee consulted with the MEC, which established some new objectives to engage in such a dialog. Job Security
would be at the forefront of those negotiations with some minor contractual improvements, and an end game to resumed negotiations. ALPA’s
proposal agreed to a two-year extension, and provided industry average pay rates, FLiCA, electronic bidding of monthly schedules (not PBS), a
commuter policy, an increase to company matching 401k contributions to 3%, a 100% line guarantee in months with a 98% completion factor (and
retention of the current 95% guarantee). Most importantly, ALPA proposed a single carrier letter which would have resulted in the combining of the
GoJet and TSA seniority lists, the only true way to provide protection against the alter ego company established four years ago. We saw the Bridge
Agreement concept as an opportunity to get close to industry average pay and obtain the job protections all of you desire (that comes from crew room
discussions and polling results). Finally, ALPA requested that TSA provide financial data to ALPA’s Economic and Financial Analysis Department to
confirm the company’s claim of economic need for the extension.

The Company provided a response to ALPA’s proposal, which they stated was their last and final proposal (meaning they would not entertain any further
negotiations on the Bridge Agreement). The only changes in this proposal to their previous one was to increase the pay rates slightly, add a 1.5% hourly
pay bump and a five cent per diem bump at the one year anniversary date, and a commuter clause. The pay increases for Captains in years 1 to 15
ranged between 3.8% to 5.8%. The smallest pay increase (3.8%) was applied to the largest captain longevity group (5th year captains). The Captain pay
scales were extended out from 15 to 19 years. On the First Officer side, the pay hikes for years 1 to 5 ranged from 5.4% to 5.9% and were extended out
to 7 years. There are more first officers in the second year of longevity than all other longevity years combined. The current second year first officer
rates are significantly below industry average. Despite the Company’s proposed 5.5% increase for second year FOs, they would still be $6.00 below
industry average rates.

The Company rejected all other proposals in ALPA’s Bridge proposal. Despite claiming an economic need for an extension, they refused to provide any
financial data to prove economic need nor did they accept any zero cost items. They also refused to consider our single carrier proposal and any other
form of job protection. They also asked for their “Bridge proposal” to be taken to the MEC for consideration of a full pilot vote.

Following the Company’s final Bridge offer, the mediator again insisted that the Company provide a complete economic proposal and a summary of
where they stand on all open sections. This was done so that in the event the Bridge proposal failed, the parties would have a place to resume normal
negotiations. Late Thursday night, the Company provided a complete economic proposal. This economic proposal included an across-the-board 5%
wage increase.

Yesterday was the first time the entire MEC and Negotiating Committee had common availability to meet and discuss the merits of the company’s Bridge
Agreement proposal. As many of you are aware, even before the MEC had a chance to meet with the negotiating committee, management has been
spreading misinformation about what actions have been taken by the MEC. We believe this was a political propaganda attempt to build mistrust in the
union, divide pilot unity and promote fear by stating how bad economic times are for the pilots and company. None-the-less the MEC took their proposal
into due consideration.

Late last night the MEC was extensively briefed by the Negotiating Committee. It was clear that neither the Negotiating Committee nor MEC would
endorse such a proposal. As a result, the MEC unanimously voted not to put this proposal out to a ratification vote. This was a carefully considered
decision and was reached primarily because the Company’s offer did not come close to meeting the negotiating goals established by the MEC which
were in turn derived from scientific pilot polling. The Company flatly rejected the job security concerns articulated by the Negotiating Committee.
Giving Trans States management an extension of time would simply give them time to continue to grow Gojet at the expense of Trans States pilots.
Increased revenue streams on our sister carrier would only serve to make any self help measure by TSA pilots ineffective.

At the table last week, the company claimed their Bridge Agreement proposal constituted a wage increase in excess of 6%. In fact, ALPA’s economic and
financial analysis department concluded that the overall increase was only 5.6%. In contrast, the Company’s comprehensive economic proposal contained
a wage increase of 5% for each longevity year. The Bridge proposal had wage increases in most of the longevity years which were below 5%. Thus, many
pilots would have received a smaller wage increase under the short term bridge agreement than if we resumed negotiations with the company’s
comprehensive proposal. It seems fruitless to grant a 2-year extension for a mere .6% overall increase with no other benefits or job protection. Not
surprisingly, while the company did extend the longevity wage rate tables, the smallest increases in rates applied to the largest group of pilots and the
largest increases applied to the smallest group of pilots. This was consistent for both captain and first officers.

Finally, I would like to point out that Trans States has not been acting like a company in financial crisis. While total operative revenue may decrease because
of the loss of aircraft, their operating costs have also diminished. They will no longer have those aircraft leases, maintenance, fuel (several were pro-rate
agreements) and crew costs associated with those aircraft. Similarly, in 2007 TSA showed a reduction in operating revenues after parking the J41 fleet BUT
their total operating expenses decreased by a greater amount. This resulted in TSA operating income increasing by $3 million and their profitability increasing
by $6 million. This was a 58% increase in profitability before taxes year over year.

Oddly enough, the only group of employees that seems to be shouldering the burden of the company’s alleged financial concerns are the pilots. The new
flight attendant agreement had signing bonuses ranging from $200 to $2500. The company even gave $1000 hiring bonuses to IAD new hire flight attendants.
TSA Management also received a $1 million payment for the cancellation of the American contract. Maybe if Trans States spent less money paying for
FAA enforcement actions on deficient maintenance, they wouldn’t feel compelled to make it up from the pilot group.

Their financial concerns might be better characterized as a financial impediment. Without the ability to buy more jets for GoJet, they may not be able to
leverage us into submission. Self help may very well scare them more than it scares us. Without a doubt, TSA Management will begin a fear campaign by
making claims that should we be released to self help, TSA will cease to exist. I can’t guarantee that won’t happen, but what future do we have if we ratify
an agreement without any job protections? After all, scope language costs them nothing.