MESABA TA - Let's make one thing clear

[saabtrash]

Newsouth, I'm going off of what I have seen. Here are YOUR rates, off of the ALPA website, if you don't agree, take it up with alpa national. Here are our rates on the TA, you are right, we make less than you for the first year, that goes for both captain and fo, but that is also on a jet that we won't have the first year of the deal. So here are the rates for DOS +1, and then I jumped to DOS +4, because I didn't feel like typing all day. Once again, I'm not saying it's great, but I also don't like it when I see things on here that I know aren't true. So here we go:
Here are pinnacles rates as of May '04:
PCL 44/50 seat jet CA/FO
1. 55.07 20.73
2. 56.76 24.39
3. 58.51 30.09
4. 60.31 33.28
5. 62.14 34.31
6. 63.96 35.06
7. 65.52 35.64
8. 67.42 36.23
9. 69.62
10. 71.62
11. 73.68
12. 75.80
13. 77.96
14. 80.21
15. 82.37

Here are Mesaba's, DOS +1 year:
MSA 40-59 seat jet CA/FO
Date of signing +1 year
1. 55.42 23.54
2. 57.09 28.22
3. 58.81 30.99
4. 60.57 33.75
5. 62.37 34.76
6. 64.26 35.80
7. 66.19 36.87
8. 68.17 37.98
9. 70.21
10. 72.32
11. 74.48
12. 76.71
13. 79.02
14. 81.40
15. 83.83
16. 86.35
17. 88.94
18. 91.61
Here is pinnacle's again (repeated for easier viewing):
PCL 44/50 seat jet CA/FO
1. 55.07 20.73
2. 56.76 24.39
3. 58.51 30.09
4. 60.31 33.28
5. 62.14 34.31
6. 63.96 35.06
7. 65.52 35.64
8. 67.42 36.23
9. 69.62
10. 71.62
11. 73.68
12. 75.80
13. 77.96
14. 80.21
15. 82.37

Here is Mesaba DOS +4 years:
MSA 40-59 seat jet CA/FO
Date of signing +4 years
1. 61.14 25.97
2. 62.98 31.14
3. 64.88 34.19
4. 66.82 37.24
5. 68.81 38.35
6. 70.89 39.50
7. 73.02 40.68
8. 75.20 41.91
9. 77.45
10. 79.78
11. 82.17
12. 84.63
13. 87.18
14. 89.80
15. 92.49
16. 95.27
17. 98.13
18. 101.06

So yes, Newsouth, you are partially right, you will be paid more than us for an aircraft which we do not have for the first year of this TA, then both captain and FO is higher at XJ. Is it enough, I don't think so. But I'm just stating the facts. It appears that you are uninformed. Also, what, the beauty of pinnacle is to get your pic time and move on? Where are you going to go? I thought the whole point about raising the bar at the regionals was to improve our quality of life, because it isn't as easy to move on anymore. That statement is the exact reason why we don't get paid what we are worth, too many of us view regional jobs as a stepping stone to something more tolerable. So what should we do at XJ then? Should we follow that same notion, sell out and take all of your jets away, simply so we can become captains and go somewhere else? I don't think so.

 

[NEWSOUTH]

No Man, you are showing my 3 year pay as if I had to wait until I had 4 years.

3 yr. CA pay is 60.31 this is 3-4 year pay
I make at 3 years until I become 4 years. At four years I make what you have listed at 5 years.
You have done this for the whole graph.

Quick moving the numbers around brother.

YOU ARE MISINFORMED

Our pay is higher from start to finish now and before.

 

[NEWSOUTH]

You have not only reduced our rates by one year, you have given yourself 2% increase on you sighning rates. Come on man.

 

[NEWSOUTH]

Pinnacle(5/1) Mesaba TA(49-59seats)

0-1 55.07 54.33
1-2 56.76 55.97
2-3 58.51 57.66
3-4 60.31 59.38
4-5 62.14 61.15
5-6 63.96 63.00
6-7 65.52 64.89
7-8 67.42 66.83
8-9 69.62 68.83
9-10 71.62 70.90 14-15 82.37 82.19

And you got a raise to get that.

58.17 is your current 3 yr avro pay.

 

[saabtrash]

I wasn't using avro pay, I was using our rate for crj's. I have no frickin clue how you are getting those numbers, I'm looking at them with my own eyes, and you make no sense.

 

[saabtrash]

Ok, would you have been able to comprehend it more if I had put a year "0" in there? 1 equals first year, 2 equals second year. It is the same as our scale. Plus, you knock me for putting a 2% raise in there, yet you compare your contract to ours after your final raise coming up this May. I honestly think you just want to fight, that is all there is to it, I don't see how I messed up the chart.

 

[Lear70]

"1 is equal to 1. 2 is equal to 2. And there are 5 in the aft equipment bay".

The only real error I can see is SaabTrash putting down numbers for DOS + 1 Year - that's a year from now. PCL FLT OPS has put down numbers that go into effect 4 months from now. Either way, we're only talking pennies difference between salaries. Personally, I'm a little disappointed at what the Mesaba MEC has TA'd to. Why, you ask?

Simple: whatever MSA agrees to now is what we will have to work with starting next year. If I don't realize AT LEAST a 20-25% total increase in compensation (trip and duty rigs plus hourly compensation, plus days off), they can take any TA and shove it right up their *ss. I'd rather go back to flying charter than sign for anything less.

The MSA TA makes some real gains in one or two areas, but is overall a disappointment from not only those of us on the sidelines, but nearly every single Mesaba pilot I've talked to, even those who have been to the roadshows. Some think it will pass narrowly, I think (and hope) it'll flop near the 60/40 mark. Either way, I KNOW the Mesaba pilots both deserve more AND CAN GET IT! You guys have been WAY too dedicated and professional to take the first offer they throw your way at the 11th hour!

 

[saabtrash]

Lear70, read my post. It's not an error, I specifically said that the pay rates for the first year of the ta are less than pinnacles. This is getting retarted. I'm trying to stick up for the pilot group that I'm a part of, and explain that the Ta isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. I'm done, **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** it.

 

[surplus1]

I don't want to start a fight either, and I predict that the TA will pass.

Having said that, the truth is that the pay rates and other terms to which you have agreed tentatively, are a long way from the "spin" that is being put on this TA by ALPA (that includes your own MEC and the National leadership).

It is true that you do not have any 50-seat jets. It is also true that lot's of other ALPA carriers and non-ALPA carriers do. The fact is the rates you propose to agree to will put increasingly intense pressure on the contracts of the industry leaders, and will probably force the two carriers now in negotiations (ASA and COEX) to make lesser agreements than they otherwise could. When it's PCL's turn, what they can do will likewise be limited by what you are doing.

Your Avro rates, will also put intense pressure on all of the carriers operating 70-seat jets, and may very well force concessions on those that have not already made them.

I concede that you haven't "lowered the bar" because you have not agreed to fly for less than Mesa, but to say that you are raising it or holding the line, is a monumental exaggeration on the part of your leaders and the national union.

Apart from your new pay rates, I have to wonder at just how Woerth seems to think that your scope against Big Sky is going to stop the "bidding war". You did need to get that under control, but the whipsaw isn't with Big Sky, it is between MSA and PCL. That will remain untouched. Similar whipsaw exists between the "portfolios" of regionals associated with every major airline. If Woerth can't see that he's blind.

Of course I expect you to vote for your own interests. I don't expect nor am I asking you to go on strike for others. I just wish the union would stop all the propaganda and admit that it is in fact leading the race to the bottom, not stopping it.

Anyway, good luck to you all. It is better than what you have now, so I suppose that makes it OK.

 

[NEWSOUTH]

I can not beleive we have attracted the attention of the great "Surplus 1". I personally am honored that this thread has brought this kind of focus.
Everything surplus 1 has said is what I want to say without the emotion. This person is very experienced in the regional industry. I have stayed up many long nights reading his post on the rjdefense and DCI promblems with Delta. Listen to this man. Vote NO. Get it right this time. Your MEC and Alpa have something to gain by your loss.
Do not trust them. They have proven to be spineless in the final hour. There is something much bigger behind curtain #2. Come back Surplus1.

 

[CaptDave]

NEWSOUTH: Hello. You said, "Listen to this man. Vote NO". Are you saying Surplus1 said to vote NO? I am not sure he did.

I feel this would be a hard decision for the Mesaba pilots, but I predict this will pass with a minimum of 60 percent. That is just MY prediction.

I agree with Surplus1.

Good luck.

 

[mesaba2425]

Great post surplus1. I say vote YES.

 

[AvroJockey]

First, I want to say that every Mesaba pilot out there appreciates the support of their airline brethren.

Second, this is not support! Meaningless dialog, in any medium, fuels the agendas of Management, against labor. I would not forsake an XJ colleague voting in favor of this TA, but respect them for the decision to be true to self or family. Every ALPA member should support whatever we decide as a pilot group! I hope this TA is declined, but I only have 1 vote and will accept the results of our negotiations, good or bad.

All I have seen on this thread about our new TA are the pay rates. Yes, they suck in the RJs, but no one has mentioned anything about other areas. In order to make meaningful posts in opposition to this TA, one must know our current contract and this TA in their entirety. Otherwise the opinion is based on ignorance. Additionally, if one goes only as far as this message board to get information on our TA, your opinions are based on stupidity.

If one would like either of these documents, I would be happy to email copies. Just email me at [email protected]

Speaking of support! Hopefully this TA gets voted down and we go back to the table to achieve a desirable contract, during which Pinnacle pilots can again show their support by picketing with us.

 

[AvroJockey]

Surplus1 wrote:

“…are a long way from the "spin" that is being put on this TA by ALPA (that includes your own MEC and the National leadership).”

Actually, I just when to a road show expecting just that, and got a totally impartial presentation.

Still voting NO!

 

[surplus1]

I was very hesitant to post anything on the MSA TA for fear that whatever I said would be somehow misinterpreted.

For the record: I have not suggested how Mesaba pilots should vote. I'm not a MSA pilot and I don't presume to have that right.

Also, I have not seen the full text of the contract. All that I have seen is the summary released by your MEC, and the public comments made by the Mesaba Chairman and the ALPA President.

I would very much like to see the full text, if it is available. If you are willing to provide it, please PM me.

I have three principle problems with the public statements regarding the TA.

One is the statement that says this TA puts Mesaba in line with its "peer group". How you read that depends on whom you consider to be your "peer group" If you decide to choose MES, TSA, PCL and PSA as your "peer group", then the statement is accurate. If you think CMR, ARW, ACA, are your "peer group", then it is not accurate. It's all a matter of perspective. [I have not included ASA or XJT because both are currently in negotiations. I have also not included the non-ALPA carriers.]

Two is Duane Woerth's statement that the new Scope in the MSA TA will "stop the whipsaw dead in its tracks". What I have seen in the summary, does not even come close to doing that. Therefore, I see that statement as "spin".

I think the TA with respect to Big Sky is a good, valuable, and necessary part of the contract. However, it only applies to MAIR Holdings. It will prevent MAIR from whipsawing MSA against Big Sky, but it will do nothing to stop Northwest from whipsawing MSA against PCL. Nor will it affect the whipsaw at any other airline system. Whipsaw is alive and well and it will continue to be if this TA is ratified. Therefore I see DW's statement as an extreme exaggeration, i.e., political spin.

Third, I have a problem with calling enhancements to a 401K a "retirement plan". That statement may well come back to haunt us all. That statement could set a precedent that, in my opinion, is not beneficial to airline pilots. The enhancements to your 401K are a good thing, but they are not a "retirement plan." Why can't W&W just tell it like it is?

I have not attended any road shows and they are not open to me. I am not an elected official and hold no ALPA office, so the only sales pitch I get to see/hear is the public statements that are released by the union and sometimes included in newspaper articles. Those that I have read so far, appear to be, in the main, "spin".

Again, I make no recommendation as to how MSA pilots should vote. That is your decision to make, not mine.

However, as an outsider whose airline contract will be negatively affected by this TA (if it becomes a contract), I'm not a happy camper. I suspect the pilots at ASA and COEX(XJT) and PCL aren't happy campers either. It will not be helpful to them, and it will be harmful to them. It is not "neutral". Compared to my airline, some of the differences in book rates can only be described as huge.

It's not just about "book rates", Avro is right about that. It's the whole package. Whether or not it lowers the bar, holds the line or raises the bar, depends on where you set the bar. Only the MSA pilots can judge where the bar is (for them) and how they want to relate to it. For me, the TA certainly does not raise the bar, and does not hold it either. I have no doubt it will make our efforts to hold, extremely more difficult.

A strike is not something you engage in because it "makes you feel good". Strikes are the equivalent of a war. They are very dangerous to all concerned and they do have a point of diminishing returns. To strike for the sake of striking is almost always a mistake. There are no wars without casualties.

Sometimes war is inevitable and sometimes it is justified. Other times it is foolish. The decision should never be made on the basis of emotions. Please include that in your thinking. Please also consider that rejection of this TA does not necessarly equal a strike. If the parties wish to talk more, they can do so without a strike or a lock out.

Contract negotiations almost never result in satisfying everyone's expectations. There are needs and there are wants. In very broad terms, needs should be satisfied. When the chips are down, wants are often better left for another day. It's a tough call, but that's what it boils down to. Your leaders obviously believe that your needs have been met by the TA, which is why they have endorsed it. You may or may not agree .... that is why you have pilot ratification. You will have to make the final decision.

Get fully informed, consider ALL the pros and cons, and then vote for what you know (to the best of your own ability) is right. As FDR said, "you have nothing to fear, but fear itself".

Sorry for the rant. I do have a lot of experience, both in the business and with contract negotiations, and I do understand how difficult this type of decision always is. That's why I know that I cannot recommend how you should vote.

Whatever you decide as a group, I feel it is safe to say that my group will continue to support you. We wish you nothing but success and the very best.

God speed.