Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MESA to fly for Delta???
Whether or not you paid attention is apparently open for debate.
I don't know what the Mesa MEC policy was or is, other than to accept the "advice" of ALPA and claim responsibility for the "innovation" called Jets for Jobs. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call that "policy" one that warrants pride.
There is no evidence to support the claim that ALPA's policy was not to accept sub-par rates to fly the 70 and 90 seat jets, especially in light of the fact that all recent ALPA agreements do just that. On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence to support the contention that ALPA's policy has been to prevent the operation of 70 and 90 seat jets by any regional carrier. This evidence is in repeated public statements made by the ALPA President, numerous ALPA publications, and confirmed by the Scope clauses of every major airline represented by the ALPA.
There is also substantial evidence to support the allegation that the most probable cause of Freedom's genesis was a direct response to a "scope" policy in the USAirways PWA consistent with "ALPA's policy". That same provision is now a component of the Delta PWA. The particular provision borders on restraint of trade in that it attempts to prevent a company from engaging in business with a third party that is not signatory to the contract. The provision has not been challenged legally, simply because there were and are easier ways around it.
It is not a revalation that CHQ is represented by the IBT. If you actually believe that ALPA's policies do not affect negotiations and carriers not represented by the ALPA, you have a great deal to learn about collective bargaining.
I can agree that Wexford may have followed in the footsteps of MAG when it decided to create Republic. Incidentally it also followed in the footsteps of ALPA, which created Mid Atlantic. While Wexford's reasons were not the same as MAG's, it is no secret (to the informed) that Republic was created to circumvent the Chautauqua pilots' NO vote on the issue of Jets for Jobs, an ALPA creation. The creation of Republic in fact forced the CHQ pilots to reverse their vote and accept J4J in an effort to protect themselves against the Republic alter ego. If you believe that the subsequent end product of their negotiations was not adversely affected by this, then there is little point in discussing it with you.
Unlike you, I have read their contract. It is substantially better than Mesa's any way you choose to look at it. Considering the obstacle they had to face as a result of ALPA's policies, I think they did very well. That they were adversely affected by ALPA's policies and would otherwise likely have done much better should be obvious, even to the uninitiated.
Are you honestly that naive? Yes, all 3 WO's did ultimately agree to J4J. All three were intensely pressured by ALPA to do so. PSA was merely the first to violate its pact with the other two and give in to the pressure. ALG was the last and even went so far as to picket ALPA itself. Sure it was a decision of USAG management to "give" jets to PSA and not the others. Shall we call it a reward for their abdication? It is also the decision of USAG management to shrink ALG to nothing and leave PDT hanging. I don't suppose that in your world that could possibly be a punishment for their reluctance? Where was ALPA in all of this? What did it do to support the PDT and ALG pilots? Let me help you... it offered them a "flow through" to the new alter ego it created (Mid Atlantic) as a means of ensuring that at least those regional pilots would never fly anything with more than 70 seats. In addition, its J4J policy forced all 3 WO's, plus Midway, plus Mesa, plus TSA and CHQ to accept J4J, thus abrogating their seniority and their contracts to USAirways pilots. Dirty politics at best and at worst, the total abdication of their responsibility to fairly represent the interest of all of the pilots at each of those airlines.
If you choose to ingnore all of that, go ahead. I just don't happen to think that I can protect my security in the jungle by pretending that venemous snakes do not exist, especially when they are "rattling" all around me. Maybe you know more about snakes than I do. I wish you luck.
That's sort of tacky. With a little effort I'm sure you can do better.
I don't doubt at all the desires or the resolve of Mesaba's pilot group. Unfortunately, resolve is not always the determining factor. It is unfair to compare Mesaba to Comair; unfair to Mesaba. The CMR scenario took place in a completely different environment and is not comparable to the current situation faced by the Mesaba group. Their condition is far more precarious and a strike in this environment is far more likely to result in their replacement. The availability of qualified and unemployed pilots is much greater than it was, the group is smaller, the airline already owns an alter ego, etc., etc. While it is not all doom and gloom, it is much more difficult for them than it was for Comair. While I admire what we were able to do, I'm not stupid. I don't at all expect them to roll over and I admire their guts, but I do realize that the circumstances are not the same. That's not their fault, it's just the way it is. Timing has a great deal to do with the outcome of collective bargaining.
More power to you. I wish you well, however I'll wait to cross that bridge when we get to it.
I like that attitude but I regret that while everyone is willing to procalim it, few seem willing to do it. Witness the steps backward by SKYW, AWAC and ACA (before their management decided to stand). All three took concessions for "growth" from their bankrupt "partner". The result, combined with the Mesa debacle and the shafting of the USAG regionals, will negatively impact the Mesaba effort, torpedo the XJT and ASA negotiations, has forced a contract extension and J4J on TSA, forced J4J on CHQ, and are likely to ultimately result in concessions at CMR. The struggle at EGL is legendary.
In case you didn't notice, one of those carriers is non-union, one is represented by the IBT and all the rest belong (I won't say represented) to ALPA. To date, the ALPA has taken no public position against the decline of wages and benefits at any of those member carriers and is officially silent on the issues at Eagle. I suppose that is understandable, given that ALPA is busy "defending the profession" and can't be bothered protecting the interests of all those commuter pilots and their stepping-stone airlines who after all are not yet a component of "the profession".
My apologies, I am too "slow". I understand your words, but their significance or relevance both escape me. I'm happy that you hope to fly for a real airline some day and hope that your wishes will be realized. Unfortunately, I don't think your dream will come true prior to 2010, unless of course you aspire to AirTran, ATA or JB. While those are all fine companies, I haven't forgotten that only yesterday, most folks like you didn't consider them worthy of your aspirations. Now all of a sudden they seem to represent the "new dream". Sort of fickle don't you think?
Lets just say that whether or not you get your dream job or when you get it, has nothing to do with how or what I feel about my present job.
Best wishes. I sincerely hope you'll be hired at the major of your choice, next week if not sooner.
T-Gates said:
Whether or not you paid attention is apparently open for debate.
I don't know what the Mesa MEC policy was or is, other than to accept the "advice" of ALPA and claim responsibility for the "innovation" called Jets for Jobs. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call that "policy" one that warrants pride.
There is no evidence to support the claim that ALPA's policy was not to accept sub-par rates to fly the 70 and 90 seat jets, especially in light of the fact that all recent ALPA agreements do just that. On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence to support the contention that ALPA's policy has been to prevent the operation of 70 and 90 seat jets by any regional carrier. This evidence is in repeated public statements made by the ALPA President, numerous ALPA publications, and confirmed by the Scope clauses of every major airline represented by the ALPA.
There is also substantial evidence to support the allegation that the most probable cause of Freedom's genesis was a direct response to a "scope" policy in the USAirways PWA consistent with "ALPA's policy". That same provision is now a component of the Delta PWA. The particular provision borders on restraint of trade in that it attempts to prevent a company from engaging in business with a third party that is not signatory to the contract. The provision has not been challenged legally, simply because there were and are easier ways around it.
It is not a revalation that CHQ is represented by the IBT. If you actually believe that ALPA's policies do not affect negotiations and carriers not represented by the ALPA, you have a great deal to learn about collective bargaining.
I can agree that Wexford may have followed in the footsteps of MAG when it decided to create Republic. Incidentally it also followed in the footsteps of ALPA, which created Mid Atlantic. While Wexford's reasons were not the same as MAG's, it is no secret (to the informed) that Republic was created to circumvent the Chautauqua pilots' NO vote on the issue of Jets for Jobs, an ALPA creation. The creation of Republic in fact forced the CHQ pilots to reverse their vote and accept J4J in an effort to protect themselves against the Republic alter ego. If you believe that the subsequent end product of their negotiations was not adversely affected by this, then there is little point in discussing it with you.
Unlike you, I have read their contract. It is substantially better than Mesa's any way you choose to look at it. Considering the obstacle they had to face as a result of ALPA's policies, I think they did very well. That they were adversely affected by ALPA's policies and would otherwise likely have done much better should be obvious, even to the uninitiated.
Are you honestly that naive? Yes, all 3 WO's did ultimately agree to J4J. All three were intensely pressured by ALPA to do so. PSA was merely the first to violate its pact with the other two and give in to the pressure. ALG was the last and even went so far as to picket ALPA itself. Sure it was a decision of USAG management to "give" jets to PSA and not the others. Shall we call it a reward for their abdication? It is also the decision of USAG management to shrink ALG to nothing and leave PDT hanging. I don't suppose that in your world that could possibly be a punishment for their reluctance? Where was ALPA in all of this? What did it do to support the PDT and ALG pilots? Let me help you... it offered them a "flow through" to the new alter ego it created (Mid Atlantic) as a means of ensuring that at least those regional pilots would never fly anything with more than 70 seats. In addition, its J4J policy forced all 3 WO's, plus Midway, plus Mesa, plus TSA and CHQ to accept J4J, thus abrogating their seniority and their contracts to USAirways pilots. Dirty politics at best and at worst, the total abdication of their responsibility to fairly represent the interest of all of the pilots at each of those airlines.
If you choose to ingnore all of that, go ahead. I just don't happen to think that I can protect my security in the jungle by pretending that venemous snakes do not exist, especially when they are "rattling" all around me. Maybe you know more about snakes than I do. I wish you luck.
That's sort of tacky. With a little effort I'm sure you can do better.
I don't doubt at all the desires or the resolve of Mesaba's pilot group. Unfortunately, resolve is not always the determining factor. It is unfair to compare Mesaba to Comair; unfair to Mesaba. The CMR scenario took place in a completely different environment and is not comparable to the current situation faced by the Mesaba group. Their condition is far more precarious and a strike in this environment is far more likely to result in their replacement. The availability of qualified and unemployed pilots is much greater than it was, the group is smaller, the airline already owns an alter ego, etc., etc. While it is not all doom and gloom, it is much more difficult for them than it was for Comair. While I admire what we were able to do, I'm not stupid. I don't at all expect them to roll over and I admire their guts, but I do realize that the circumstances are not the same. That's not their fault, it's just the way it is. Timing has a great deal to do with the outcome of collective bargaining.
More power to you. I wish you well, however I'll wait to cross that bridge when we get to it.
I like that attitude but I regret that while everyone is willing to procalim it, few seem willing to do it. Witness the steps backward by SKYW, AWAC and ACA (before their management decided to stand). All three took concessions for "growth" from their bankrupt "partner". The result, combined with the Mesa debacle and the shafting of the USAG regionals, will negatively impact the Mesaba effort, torpedo the XJT and ASA negotiations, has forced a contract extension and J4J on TSA, forced J4J on CHQ, and are likely to ultimately result in concessions at CMR. The struggle at EGL is legendary.
In case you didn't notice, one of those carriers is non-union, one is represented by the IBT and all the rest belong (I won't say represented) to ALPA. To date, the ALPA has taken no public position against the decline of wages and benefits at any of those member carriers and is officially silent on the issues at Eagle. I suppose that is understandable, given that ALPA is busy "defending the profession" and can't be bothered protecting the interests of all those commuter pilots and their stepping-stone airlines who after all are not yet a component of "the profession".
My apologies, I am too "slow". I understand your words, but their significance or relevance both escape me. I'm happy that you hope to fly for a real airline some day and hope that your wishes will be realized. Unfortunately, I don't think your dream will come true prior to 2010, unless of course you aspire to AirTran, ATA or JB. While those are all fine companies, I haven't forgotten that only yesterday, most folks like you didn't consider them worthy of your aspirations. Now all of a sudden they seem to represent the "new dream". Sort of fickle don't you think?
Lets just say that whether or not you get your dream job or when you get it, has nothing to do with how or what I feel about my present job.
Best wishes. I sincerely hope you'll be hired at the major of your choice, next week if not sooner.
