got_jumpseat?
NO BLO JETS
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Posts
- 139
WHY DID WE TAKE THIS TA
This contract was represented by management to be a first step, not a take-it-or lose your jobs proposal. They wanted jets-for-jobs, and we would have the opportunity to take some or none of the company-proposed sections, debating the rest in further negotiations. How did we get from this position to "take this contract or lose your careers?
First of all this contract was not represented to be a first step by management. The opposite is true The Company refused to do a partial contract because they said they had to fix their costs before they could deal with the Code-share partners. That may be a valid concern.
Was it a mistake to agree to meet with the company without the mediator present? Were they able to make threats they could not make with the mediator present?
We steadfastly refused to meet without the oversight of the NMB after we had petitioned them for assistance. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the NMB was present during this process.
How can a company just shut down?
The misconception is that the Company threatened to shut down. They made it very clear that they would proceed with their plans with or without us. That includes rapid expansion of Freedom, an option of either selling AMW in whole in pieces or leasing the Aircraft to someone else and furloughing the pilots. Also they clearly indicated that America West would gladly reduce the D-* fleet and pay cash to severely reduce the CL-65 200 fleet. They had plans to leas the aircraft to an entity that was approved for J4J .
It would not be unusual for them to use the value of those leases to acquire a position in another carrier. The Company would fly the airplanes with or without you.
If JO can shut down the airline if we don't accept this contract why do we have a date of 5 years? What is going to stop him from shutting down the airline whenever it suits him? Why are we really bothering with a contract? If he is forcing this contract down our throats, then he could have any thing in this contract he wants, he must be being nice?
The protection in our Section 1 Recognition(Scope) protects our Pilots from alter egos, asset sales , purchases etc. As to why other airlines aren’t employing this tactic, the answer is that they have and they are. Do not Forget Lorenzo, Ichan, what is happening at Eagle, Delta, Mesaba, and practically the whole industry.
If we accept this contract, what is going to stop him from saying no to it and sending out another one that is even worst than this one? And saying if you don't except this one I will shut down the airline?
This agreement is a TA. We have Company signatures on the TA and the Implementation Agreement, the Jets for Jobs Agreement. You can view these on the road show. It appears that the Company has realized not only are they obligated to deal with us, but also we have come up with a solution to both sides greatest concerns.
If JO could shut down the airline, why has he spent all this time and money with us at a bargaining table?
The time at the bargaining table was in the Companies view at the time, money well spent. We paid dearly to rescue our jobs from Freedom and recover CC Air.
Sure he shut down CC Air, but he only did that because he could transfer the flying to Mesa and AMW. What would he have done with CC Air with out two more airlines to pick up the flying?
It was obvious from the proposals at CC Air (which became drastically worse for the pilots with every proposal) that the intent was to use CC Air as a leverage against all ALPA representation at MAG. The intent was never to operate CC Air unless it was under a contract that was so far below adequate that no ALPA officer could endorse.
What is to stop JO from going to court and asking for more concessions with this contact in the future?
The Company is bound to this agreement for the duration and is more concerned with seizing opportunities in the industry. If they wish to open bargaining mid-term then we would be in a much better position by having all MAG Pilots together.
The Scope clause has to be iron clad. What is to stop JO from starting a totally different airline under a totally different Corp. and shut down Mesa?
The Scope language we have is the best. It covers MAG. However there are lawyers who make career out of circumventing scope. There is more incentive at this time for the Company to grow MAG in accordance with this agreement. We have language for transfer of assets, successor, purchases, etc. We have covered all the bases that we can.
The big “hammer “ that management has over us is the fact that they can start other airlines with MAG assets and use them against us and unfortunately there will always be a enough pilots who are short sighted and self centered enough to staff a carrier designed to damage the bargaining strength of all Pilots.
How did JO substantiate his threat of shutting us down?
As we discussed earlier, the Company had plans in place to operate without us. These were very real threats. The Company proposed the current TA not with the intent of agreeing to it but rather using the “hypothetical offer” to convince the NMB, their code-share partners, you the Pilots ,that the Company was trying to bargain and your Neg. Committee was being unreasonable and causing furloughs and the creation of these alter-egos. With the verbal offer that they put out , the Company was prepared to present a case to the NMB that ALPA was not serious about getting a deal. They would argue that we needed more time to negotiate. They suggested 18 to 24 months before we would even get their scope proposal. In the mean time the Company could grow Freedom, transfer assets, and furlough Pilots. By accepting the offer and subsequently the implementation letter of Agreement, your Negotiating Committee secured the jobs and
Halted all attempts to have you replaced with non-contract labor.
What was entailed in the deadline that was so pressing, and was it confirmed, and how? What is the big "hammer" that Mgt. has over us? Apparently the NC feels the threat is real. Why more so now than any of his threats before?
We knew that US Airways was putting pressure on the Company for J4J. We knew that Freedom was scheduled to have about 16 aircraft in service by June of this year. We knew that the Company had discussed with America West the option of them paying Mesa to withdraw a large number of 200’s from their operation. We knew that the Company had been in discussion with other carriers about using those aircraft for J4J. We knew that he Company had been planning the sale of AMW and/or returning the Beeches to Raytheon, or leasing them to another carrier. We knew that with current staffing the Company could furlough initially up to 200 Pilots and was prepared to do so. We on the Committee are very familiar with management threats. Our evaluation was based upon our years of experience and the insight of our ALPA staff.
As a result of no input from our MEC on the TA, and this being the company's proposal are both sides considered to be negotiating in good faith?
The MEC, the people you elected, have been informed of the negotiating progress. The MEC has in the past unanimously endorsed J4J. The proposals have been published on the website for all Pilots. The MEC after receiving a thorough briefing from the Negotiating Committee unanimously approved the TA to be presented to you for voting. They also unanimously recommended that Pilots vote for the TA. This is not “just the Company’s proposal”. We have six sections that were previously agreed to. It is our Scope provision. The implementation Agreement secured additional benefits.
If this "hammer" consists of simply shutting down the Mesa/AMW certificates and transferring everything to Freedom or leasing our planes to Airways, and this is such any easy task to If this "hammer" consists of simply shutting down the Mesa/AMW certificates and transferring everything to Freedom or leasing our planes to Airways, and this is such any easy task to perform, even when considering Jonathan's "fiduciary duties" to his MESA shareholders, then why wasn't this threatened sooner, say, 3 weeks ago before the supposed Airways deadline, and why doesn't every airline with "labor strife" employ this tactic to avoid bargaining under the RLA outline? In other words, what's different in this case that would facilitate Mesa's simply shutting down and/or transferring all the assets?
The big question “was Freedom a success from the Company’s point of view?”
Freedom and the pilots who chose short term self interest cost us dearly. Hopefully the Company will realize that such tactics ultimately cost everyone at Mesa Air Group. The expense of Freedom, the ill feelings, the delay in putting aircraft on line, the managerial man power that could have been better spent working on a more efficient operation and growth, all of these things cost all of us including the Management and the shareholders.
This contract was represented by management to be a first step, not a take-it-or lose your jobs proposal. They wanted jets-for-jobs, and we would have the opportunity to take some or none of the company-proposed sections, debating the rest in further negotiations. How did we get from this position to "take this contract or lose your careers?
First of all this contract was not represented to be a first step by management. The opposite is true The Company refused to do a partial contract because they said they had to fix their costs before they could deal with the Code-share partners. That may be a valid concern.
Was it a mistake to agree to meet with the company without the mediator present? Were they able to make threats they could not make with the mediator present?
We steadfastly refused to meet without the oversight of the NMB after we had petitioned them for assistance. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the NMB was present during this process.
How can a company just shut down?
The misconception is that the Company threatened to shut down. They made it very clear that they would proceed with their plans with or without us. That includes rapid expansion of Freedom, an option of either selling AMW in whole in pieces or leasing the Aircraft to someone else and furloughing the pilots. Also they clearly indicated that America West would gladly reduce the D-* fleet and pay cash to severely reduce the CL-65 200 fleet. They had plans to leas the aircraft to an entity that was approved for J4J .
It would not be unusual for them to use the value of those leases to acquire a position in another carrier. The Company would fly the airplanes with or without you.
If JO can shut down the airline if we don't accept this contract why do we have a date of 5 years? What is going to stop him from shutting down the airline whenever it suits him? Why are we really bothering with a contract? If he is forcing this contract down our throats, then he could have any thing in this contract he wants, he must be being nice?
The protection in our Section 1 Recognition(Scope) protects our Pilots from alter egos, asset sales , purchases etc. As to why other airlines aren’t employing this tactic, the answer is that they have and they are. Do not Forget Lorenzo, Ichan, what is happening at Eagle, Delta, Mesaba, and practically the whole industry.
If we accept this contract, what is going to stop him from saying no to it and sending out another one that is even worst than this one? And saying if you don't except this one I will shut down the airline?
This agreement is a TA. We have Company signatures on the TA and the Implementation Agreement, the Jets for Jobs Agreement. You can view these on the road show. It appears that the Company has realized not only are they obligated to deal with us, but also we have come up with a solution to both sides greatest concerns.
If JO could shut down the airline, why has he spent all this time and money with us at a bargaining table?
The time at the bargaining table was in the Companies view at the time, money well spent. We paid dearly to rescue our jobs from Freedom and recover CC Air.
Sure he shut down CC Air, but he only did that because he could transfer the flying to Mesa and AMW. What would he have done with CC Air with out two more airlines to pick up the flying?
It was obvious from the proposals at CC Air (which became drastically worse for the pilots with every proposal) that the intent was to use CC Air as a leverage against all ALPA representation at MAG. The intent was never to operate CC Air unless it was under a contract that was so far below adequate that no ALPA officer could endorse.
What is to stop JO from going to court and asking for more concessions with this contact in the future?
The Company is bound to this agreement for the duration and is more concerned with seizing opportunities in the industry. If they wish to open bargaining mid-term then we would be in a much better position by having all MAG Pilots together.
The Scope clause has to be iron clad. What is to stop JO from starting a totally different airline under a totally different Corp. and shut down Mesa?
The Scope language we have is the best. It covers MAG. However there are lawyers who make career out of circumventing scope. There is more incentive at this time for the Company to grow MAG in accordance with this agreement. We have language for transfer of assets, successor, purchases, etc. We have covered all the bases that we can.
The big “hammer “ that management has over us is the fact that they can start other airlines with MAG assets and use them against us and unfortunately there will always be a enough pilots who are short sighted and self centered enough to staff a carrier designed to damage the bargaining strength of all Pilots.
How did JO substantiate his threat of shutting us down?
As we discussed earlier, the Company had plans in place to operate without us. These were very real threats. The Company proposed the current TA not with the intent of agreeing to it but rather using the “hypothetical offer” to convince the NMB, their code-share partners, you the Pilots ,that the Company was trying to bargain and your Neg. Committee was being unreasonable and causing furloughs and the creation of these alter-egos. With the verbal offer that they put out , the Company was prepared to present a case to the NMB that ALPA was not serious about getting a deal. They would argue that we needed more time to negotiate. They suggested 18 to 24 months before we would even get their scope proposal. In the mean time the Company could grow Freedom, transfer assets, and furlough Pilots. By accepting the offer and subsequently the implementation letter of Agreement, your Negotiating Committee secured the jobs and
Halted all attempts to have you replaced with non-contract labor.
What was entailed in the deadline that was so pressing, and was it confirmed, and how? What is the big "hammer" that Mgt. has over us? Apparently the NC feels the threat is real. Why more so now than any of his threats before?
We knew that US Airways was putting pressure on the Company for J4J. We knew that Freedom was scheduled to have about 16 aircraft in service by June of this year. We knew that the Company had discussed with America West the option of them paying Mesa to withdraw a large number of 200’s from their operation. We knew that the Company had been in discussion with other carriers about using those aircraft for J4J. We knew that he Company had been planning the sale of AMW and/or returning the Beeches to Raytheon, or leasing them to another carrier. We knew that with current staffing the Company could furlough initially up to 200 Pilots and was prepared to do so. We on the Committee are very familiar with management threats. Our evaluation was based upon our years of experience and the insight of our ALPA staff.
As a result of no input from our MEC on the TA, and this being the company's proposal are both sides considered to be negotiating in good faith?
The MEC, the people you elected, have been informed of the negotiating progress. The MEC has in the past unanimously endorsed J4J. The proposals have been published on the website for all Pilots. The MEC after receiving a thorough briefing from the Negotiating Committee unanimously approved the TA to be presented to you for voting. They also unanimously recommended that Pilots vote for the TA. This is not “just the Company’s proposal”. We have six sections that were previously agreed to. It is our Scope provision. The implementation Agreement secured additional benefits.
If this "hammer" consists of simply shutting down the Mesa/AMW certificates and transferring everything to Freedom or leasing our planes to Airways, and this is such any easy task to If this "hammer" consists of simply shutting down the Mesa/AMW certificates and transferring everything to Freedom or leasing our planes to Airways, and this is such any easy task to perform, even when considering Jonathan's "fiduciary duties" to his MESA shareholders, then why wasn't this threatened sooner, say, 3 weeks ago before the supposed Airways deadline, and why doesn't every airline with "labor strife" employ this tactic to avoid bargaining under the RLA outline? In other words, what's different in this case that would facilitate Mesa's simply shutting down and/or transferring all the assets?
The big question “was Freedom a success from the Company’s point of view?”
Freedom and the pilots who chose short term self interest cost us dearly. Hopefully the Company will realize that such tactics ultimately cost everyone at Mesa Air Group. The expense of Freedom, the ill feelings, the delay in putting aircraft on line, the managerial man power that could have been better spent working on a more efficient operation and growth, all of these things cost all of us including the Management and the shareholders.
