Mesa a Step Close to Vote on TA

[pdub20s]

A "Principal Agreement" has been met. This is a step before it turns to a TA. The negotiating committee is drafting final Language and then the agreement will come to. First it must meet the approval of the MEC then to the Pilot Group.

Here are some key points...

*short term 24 month agreement with early opeer

*PBS

*Scheduling Mods with Line Gaurantee

*Block or better

*200% Pay for JA and Volunteer Flying

*Re-assignment restrictions

* "Modest Pay increase"

*Perdiem tied to CPI

*DH pay at 75%

and more to come...

 

[McNugent]

Gee that sounds like a real winner of a contract. Will you get up to 9 days off a month too????

 

[Raoul Duke]

Anything positive is a huge win given the current outlook

 

[zawillif]

Mesa Sucks A$$!!

 

[johnboy99]

Last one out please turn off the lights.

 

[14RF SUX]

Mesa Sucks!

Always wanted to say that.

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Please just put a pillow over the face and pull the trigger.

 

[Soverytired]

Actually, this is better than I expected based on the current outlook for Mesa. The 2 year shelf life on the contract is a good idea.

That said, I hope there's more to this. Focusing on pay above all else is a big mistake at Mesa. Captain pay isn't really that bad, and as upgrades have always been fast and furious at Mesa, FO pay consideration before year 3 should be somewhat downplayed (sorry) . . . increase 1st year pay, certainly, but flatten year 2/3 year pay.

What SHOULD be implemented is QOL items, like:

• Strict language on stand-up overnights (high-speeeds). 2 legs max, minimum of 6 hours between legs, hotel provided for all crew members.
• Increase in 401(k) contribution
• Pay protection for re-assignments for lineholders.
• Min 10 days off for reserve pilots.
• No phone contact by the company except during "on duty time" for reserve pilots. Strictly enforced by, say, $50 pay given to each reserve pilot for EACH time the company successfully contacts a pilot during his off duty time. Make the company have a financial incentive not to bother their employees when off duty.

And so forth. I'm pulling for Mesa guys, but I'm afraid that focusing on pay is a HUGE mistake. It's classic Mesa, I'm afraid, and horribly short sighted.

Best of luck.

 

[pdub20s]

Actually, this is better than I expected based on the current outlook for Mesa. The 2 year shelf life on the contract is a good idea.

That said, I hope there's more to this. Focusing on pay above all else is a big mistake at Mesa. Captain pay isn't really that bad, and as upgrades have always been fast and furious at Mesa, FO pay consideration before year 3 should be somewhat downplayed (sorry) . . . increase 1st year pay, certainly, but flatten year 2/3 year pay.

What SHOULD be implemented is QOL items, like:

• Strict language on stand-up overnights (high-speeeds). 2 legs max, minimum of 6 hours between legs, hotel provided for all crew members.
• Increase in 401(k) contribution
• Pay protection for re-assignments for lineholders.
• Min 10 days off for reserve pilots.
• No phone contact by the company except during "on duty time" for reserve pilots. Strictly enforced by, say, $50 pay given to each reserve pilot for EACH time the company successfully contacts a pilot during his off duty time. Make the company have a financial incentive not to bother their employees when off duty.

And so forth. I'm pulling for Mesa guys, but I'm afraid that focusing on pay is a HUGE mistake. It's classic Mesa, I'm afraid, and horribly short sighted.

Best of luck.

Well there is more to the QOL that I did not list. I only gave a snippet. The negotiating committee did not go into detail in the email. It would be a lot to cover to say the least. I have faith that if the proposal is not good enough, it wont even make it past the MEC vote. Trust me, we will go over the proposal with a fine tooth comb. I have faith the negotiating committee would not hand us a sub par TA this go around.

 

[flyboyike]

I have faith the negotiating committee would not hand us a sub par TA this go around.

Based on what, their previous track record?