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.