From ALPA (LONG!!)
Just to throw another log on the fire. The latest FAQ on the TA from the ALPA folks. This is long and in 3 parts, but if you want to keep arguing pro or con, at least read the whole thing.
WHY DID WE ACCEPT THIS TA?
This proposal was presented as a “Package” proposal by the Company on January 21, 2003. Such “package” deals are fairly common in labor negotiations. The proposal included the ALPA Scope clause (Section One), plus the six previously TA’d sections, plus eighteen other sections (all of which had been previously discussed at the bargaining table with the management representatives). Taken as a whole, this proposal reflected a number of incremental work rule improvements over the current contract, plus Scope. The National Mediation Board Deputy Chief of Staff witnessed this offer. Your Negotiating Committee immediately requested a private caucus to consider this proposal. After a thorough discussion, your Negotiating Committee unanimously agreed to accept this proposal. Since this is a “package” agreement, if either party attempted to make adjustments or to re-negotiate individual provisions of the agreement, the other party would be free to do likewise, or to simply claim that the agreement is void.
If JO can shut down the airline what is going to stop him from shutting down the airline whenever it suits him? Why are we really bothering with a contract?
In many ways, Scope is truly the most important section of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: it defines what work is covered by the CBA, and who will perform that work. The lack of Scope protections in our current CBA has allowed management to “whipsaw” CCAir against Mesa pilots, and has allowed management to create Freedom Airlines. The best work rules and wage rates in the world mean little if the work can be transferred to other entities and workers. Pilots at other carriers are seeing the same tactics used against them: Mesaba (with their holding company’s acquisition of Big Sky Airlines); Chautauqua (with their holding company’s acquisition of the old Republic Airlines certificate); etc.
If JO could shut down the airline, why has he spent all this time and money with us at a bargaining table?
In the months since negotiations began in March of 2002, Freedom Airlines has gone from a business plan to an operating entity with (currently) nine aircraft in revenue service. Freedom is scheduled to have 16 aircraft in revenue service by June 18. The Company strategy was simply to try to “buy time” to get Freedom into operation. Management felt that the presence of Freedom reduced ALPA’s negotiating leverage.
What is to stop JO from going to court and asking for more concessions with this contact in the future?
Upon ratification, this agreement will be legally binding upon both ALPA and the Company. Currently US Airways is utilizing the bankruptcy court to revise and amend it labor agreements…but a bankruptcy filing is a drastic step. It would jeopardize (and possibly eliminate) the value of Mesa Air Group stock and such a bankruptcy filing would undoubtedly only be considered in the most dire financial circumstances. Keep in mind that Mesa management has huge stock holdings in Mesa stock which could be wiped out by a bankruptcy filing.
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 covers MAG, the Mesa Air Group holding company. However there are lawyers who make career out of circumventing scope. From a purely collective bargaining standpoint, we cannot prevent JO from using his personal funds to buy stock in Southwest or Jet Blue, or any other company. However, the Scope clause prevents the use of Mesa Air Group assets—aircraft, operating certificates, managerial/staff talent, routes, codeshare agreements, etc.—from being utilized to create an “alter ego” airline to circumvent this collective bargaining agreement. Also, there may be practical restraints to limit such action: employment agreements with MAG preventing senior management from working for a competitor, MAG shareholders (including large institutional shareholders) who might assert legal claims of breach of fiduciary duty if key Mesa Air Group staff were to invest in, advise or simultaneously commence work for a competitor; and so forth. Keep in mind that external events can impact Scope, too: US Airways had a highly-evolved Scope clause, but as a result of that Company’s financial condition, its pilots—represented by ALPA—agreed to modify that Scope clause to allow more small jets. The important point: they negotiated that Scope relief at the bargaining table—it was not unilateral action by the Company.
What was entailed in the deadline that was so pressing, and was it confirmed, and how? Apparently the NC feels the threat is real. Why more so now than any of his threats before?
We had what we consider to be credible information 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 considering 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. Our evaluation was based upon consideration of information from numerous sources throughout the airline industry (both labor and management). Our ALPA staff advisors, in particular, made extensive inquiries to verify information. In short, we based our decision upon what we considered to be credible information. We did not simply take management’s statements at face value.
It was already apparent that the company was already replacing your flying in PHX with Freedom flying with every aircraft delivery. Secondly a number of ERJ’s were already parked and it was evident to us that the company was not going to keep aircraft parked that could no longer be in service.
Is this Tentative Agreement concessionary?
This is not “just the Company’s proposal”. We have six sections that were previously agreed to. It is our Scope provision, without a single change. Other sections of the agreement reflect improvements that your Negotiating Committee had sought at the bargaining table. There are changes in several sections that are more restrictive to the Pilots than the current contract. However the TA as whole agreement is an improvement. As previously discussed the biggest improvement is in Scope. It is difficult to appreciate the value of Scope until it is needed. It has never been more important than it is right now . At a time when most other carriers are engaged in concessionary bargaining, we have achieved at least some improvements in working conditions and work rules.
The Implementation Agreement secured additional benefits for all Mesa Air Group pilots.
What's different in this case that would facilitate Mesa's simply shutting down and/or transferring all the assets?
The Scope clause in our current CBA binds only Mesa Airlines, not Mesa Air Group. Nothing prevents Mesa Air Group from shrinking Mesa Airlines and growing another entity (such as Freedom).
.
Do the equipment commitments begin with training events that occur after the TA is ratified or are they retroactive. For example, I am an ERJ captain and I want to bid the 700. Do I have to 36 months from my ERJ upgrade or can I get it whenever my seniority will hold it?
There is no retroactive application of the equipment commitments. In other words, all training events that occurred under the old contract would continue to have the same commitments. The new commitments will apply ONLY to those training events that occur AFTER the new contract becomes effective.
