NWA70 Rejected

[michael707767]

Real simple NWA Mgmt. position is - even if the pilots fly it for free the costs are still higher than out sourcing because of other employees.

.

Which raises a good point. If NWA cannot fly an RJ70 as cheaply as a regional, despite the same pilot costs, then the rest of the employees are obvously not in line with where their costs should be. A flight attendant, for example, should be paid the same at Mesa and NWA. Why? Whether you are an FA on a RJ or a 747 there has to be one FA per 50 passengers, so each is doing the same amount of work. Really, you could argue that the FA on a 50 seat RJ should be paid more, as he/she is by themself dealing with pax with no backup.

Over time, pilot costs at the legacies have become too high, and are now being corrected. But, as I said above, what has really gone overboard are non pilot costs. I need offer no more proof than to say that NWA cannot fly an RJ70 as cheaply as Mesa, even with equal or lower pilot costs.

 

[ExAF]

FN FAL, you seem to think nobody at NWA mainline is willing to fly 70 seaters. I can think of about 787 furloughed mainliners that are really tired of watching Pinnacle and Mesaba grow at astonishing rates while they wait for recalls at a rate of 150-200 a year. I'm thinking many of them would be very willing to go fly 70-seaters while waiting for things to get better as opposed to letting these jobs be outsourced and not even getting to make a choice. 70-seaters are mainline flying as negotiated under the current contract. At least let them have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to wait in a cockpit for a little less pay or wait at some other job that is just a means of paying the bills until getting the recall letter.

 

[JohnDoe]

quotes all from fn fal:
"Here's a suggestion. Out source the 70 seaters, but INSOURCE the training department? Will that reduce paranoia about what is happening with the 70 seaters? Heck, you guys are going to take huge paycuts to fly em, but in the end the NWA company bottom line is going to be better up the road...so who really cares if mainline flys the 70 seaters at regional pay levels or if regional pilots fly them under contract?"


What?? ........How would keeping the training only in-company reduce the "paranoia" as you say with regards to the 70 seaters?? The loss of jobs is still a loss of jobs. Training department positions are not going to recall 700+ pilots.


"Heck, you guys are going to take huge paycuts to fly em...."

The proposal stated that priority for these positions was going to be given to furloughed pilots. Do you really think that most of them are going to be taking pay cuts to fly them?? (hint: they're already on the street making zero from NW)


"......so who really cares if mainline flys the 70 seaters at regional pay levels or if regional pilots fly them under contract?"

The furloughed pilots who would be recalled sooner, thats who.


"Jets for Jobs. That way there will be no problems with trying to figure the discount logistics of operating the new aircraft at mainline."
"your bottom end at NWA could be flying them as captains at the code shares and come up into NWA once the times are better. No problems with flow through, flow back or..."


No problems with a jet for jobs scenario???? Apparently you haven't really been reading the thread in the "regionals" section regarding the nw70 proposal. One airlinker stated that there would be "a mutiny" at Mesaba if that happened. That is just one of several comments with regards to a J4J.


"you'll have to get mechanics to take a pay cut, flight attendants, ramp agents and on and on (already beat to death already)."

All of those groups have contract negotiations looming on the horizon. I have a feeling they may be getting some cuts just as the pilots are. But, they still may not be enough, I'll give you that.


"It sounds like mainline pilots don't want to fly the things, but they want control? "

No offense, as you are not the only person to say it, but that is getting to be a really tired arguement. If mainline didn't care, or want to fly the 70 seaters, they wouldn't have expended capital in their last contract negotiations to obtain that scope. Not to mention that a good majority of the furloughs would have no problem flying those aircraft. Yes, there are some "big airplane mentality" types who wouldn't want to, but they do not seem to be the majority.



But, alas, what happens, happens. I have absolutely no say in it whatsoever. I'll just sit back and "live the dream" of 7 days a week on-call.....lol

 

[JohnDoe]

quote from Balls deep340:
"In other words shut your mouths and do your part."

In other words, shut our mouths and do our part so that nobody else has to??


"I know it sucks but you have to do what you have to do."

They ARE doing what they have to do. With 700+ pilots on the street, they are doing everything they can to prevent the further outsourcing of mainline jobs.

Again, drop the hypocritical rhetoric. If your pilot group was in this position, you would be doing exactly the same thing.

 

[GogglesPisano]

All NWA flying belongs to NWA pilots. They may choose to allow less desirable flying on less desirable aircraft to be flown by non-NWA pilots if they choose -- as they have in their last contract.

Bottom line: If NWA wants 70-seat aircraft, NWA pilots should fly them. Even if they are at CMR rates, at least they'll be flown by NWA pilots.

 

[JohnDoe]

"All NWA flying belongs to NWA pilots."

Now, now....while the support is appreciated, management ultimately owns all the flying. They agreed to give anything above 55 seats to mainline via their last contract.

You're gonna get surplus1 all "up in here." lol

I agree with the last portion.

 

[fly4ever]

ExAF,

A correction to your statement about Mesaba growing - Mesaba is NOT growing. In fact, NWA has let us shrink since 9/11 to fit their whipsaw plan. We had pilots furloughed until the end of last year. We haven't received a new plane in the past four or five years. The only hiring we have had was to replace those who were fortunate enough to get hired elsewhere or quit out of sheer frustration.

From someone that knows

 

[surplus1]

Now, now....while the support is appreciated, management ultimately owns all the flying. They agreed to give anything above 55 seats to mainline via their last contract.

Thanks JD, I didn't realize you were paying attention. That is good.

You're gonna get surplus1 all "up in here." lol

Two out of two. You're scoring well today. Just in case >>>>>>>.

Your current contract does give you 56-seats and above. Surplus has no problem at all with your attempts to retain that provided:

1) Your proposal does not incorporate the 36 aircraft that MSA is currently flying (the Avros).

Unfortunately, it appears that it does and would result in the Avros being eliminated, which in effect transfers that flying to you. MSA should be able to get replacements (not 50-seat, which pay much less) but the equivalent of what they now have. Otherwise, you are trying to take from them. That's a no-no.

2) When you negotiate your contract within a contract, don't do what USAirways did and under bid everyone else because you have higher overhead elsewhere in your airline.

If you agree to fly for a comparable compensation package, including work rules and benefits, it doesn't bother me at all. However, if you give up your longevity and agree to work for $58 for a Captain, that definitely gets me "up in here". In other words, don't underbid to get this "growth". When you do that NW becomes the new Mesa, just like AAA has.

I don't care if you fly 10-seaters, as long as you don't try to keep other people from flying them in other airlines and you don't agree to underbid eveyone that does already.

3) If you want to do a "Jets for Jobs" deal, do it in a way where you don't force another pilot group to give you "super seniority" or to change their contract so that you get higher pay for the same work.

Talk with the other carriers and get an agreement with them that does not involve coercion and force them to abrogate their contract in your favor and Surplus will be on your side.

As I've tried to say, the devil is in the details. Fix the details to remove the devil and I'm a happy camper.

 

[FN FAL]

Thanks JohnDoe and ExAF for the thoughtful and well written replies. I think that your points are very good, thank you for providing a little bit more illumination on the subject.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Thanks JD, I didn't realize you were paying attention. "

Well, thats not so much a result of paying attention to you or anyone else. I have never thought that mainline had an "inherent" right to any and all NW flying. I have said many a time that you get what you can negotiate for.


"Surplus has no problem at all with your attempts to retain that provided: "

"1) Your proposal does not incorporate the 36 aircraft that MSA is currently flying (the Avros).

Unfortunately, it appears that it does and would result in the Avros being eliminated, which in effect transfers that flying to you. "

Not sure where you get that, but the proposal I read stated that management wanted to outsource a total of up to 72 70-seaters, to include the current Mesaba avros. To me, that means they want 36 additional 70's (I could be wrong). It also said that it "does not envision capturing flying currently allowed by our contract and performed by our regional partners in..........or the avro-85." Now if you mean the avros may go away because it might be more advantageous for mainline to do all 72 aircraft due to cost of the avros or some similar situation, well, thats speculation and may or may not happen. Only management knows that one.


"However, if you give up your longevity and agree to work for $58 for a Captain, that definitely gets me "up in here". "

I agree there. I sincerely hope that the payrates and workrules will be, at a very minimum, commesurate (sp) with the higher (est) paid 70 seat flyers out there. I have faith in the mec that they will. More is obviously better for everyone. Some have balked at the lack of pension in this deal. I don't have too much hearburn about it because I just don't see pensions (DB) being around in another 10 years. Give me a better 401k match. Don't get me wrong, a pension contribution would be great, but in todays world, I don't see myself ever getting it back. If they gave nw70 pension plus a good 401k match, that'd be even better. But we all know that won't happen.

I will add, however, that if the rates do end up being lower, say equal to what Mesaba currently has for the avro, it may hurt future 70 seat negotiations, and that would be unfortunate, but I don't see that it would be underbidding Mesaba, as their rate would be the same. And if we don't do the flying, they or PCL will be. I doubt Mesaba would be getting a much better rate than what they currently are getting for the avro. They would be "underbidding" everybody else as well. (if Mesaba or PCL currently has a higher 70 seat rate, I stand corrected)


"If you want to do a "Jets for Jobs" deal, do it in a way where you don't force another pilot group to give you "super seniority" or to change their contract so that you get higher pay for the same work. "

I'm staying away from the j4j deal discussion........I'm not that excited about the prospect of taking that route. If I wanted to work at PCL, I would have applied there. Not commenting on what may be right or wrong here......

The devil is in the details, however, for now, management has rejected whatever details they may have been.

 

[xjhawk]

mesaba is growing?

FN FAL, you seem to think nobody at NWA mainline is willing to fly 70 seaters. I can think of about 787 furloughed mainliners that are really tired of watching Pinnacle and Mesaba grow at astonishing rates while they wait for recalls at a rate of 150-200 a year. I'm thinking many of them would be very willing to go fly 70-seaters while waiting for things to get better as opposed to letting these jobs be outsourced and not even getting to make a choice. 70-seaters are mainline flying as negotiated under the current contract. At least let them have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to wait in a cockpit for a little less pay or wait at some other job that is just a means of paying the bills until getting the recall letter.

...
I beleive it is Pinnacle that is growing, not Mesabe. If you call hiring 4-6 pilots growing at astonishing rates.......you are living in a world apart from reality. We at Mesaba want new aircraft...the but not at the expense of NWA mainline jobs. I would jump at the opportunity to fly a 70 seat aircraft but only if NWA ppilots thought it was in their best interests. I would rather have NWA pilots off the street and maybe have a future at NWA than have those jets now......the way i see it, is i will be an F/O making under 30 grand for the next 3-4 years....and under 35 grand for years after that (in todays dollars) So lets just hope ALPA will do whats right for the entire industry, not just those senior guys in the industry that make 200 grand a year.......GOD do i wish i will get to that level someday....but i feel i will not........

 

[ExAF]

ExAF,

A correction to your statement about Mesaba growing - Mesaba is NOT growing. In fact, NWA has let us shrink since 9/11 to fit their whipsaw plan. We had pilots furloughed until the end of last year. We haven't received a new plane in the past four or five years. The only hiring we have had was to replace those who were fortunate enough to get hired elsewhere or quit out of sheer frustration.

From someone that knows

My apologies to fly4ever, xjhawk, and all Mesaba pilots. I shouldn't have lumped Mesaba with Pinnacle. I know Pinnacle is the one who has been growing and I know they used them to whipsaw Mesaba. Yea, Mesaba got the shi**y end of the stick on that one. My point should have been to protect the flying already paid for from any entitiy that it would be outsourced too. If Pinnacle had a contract coming due, they would be giving the flying to Mesaba to punish Pinnacle. If the flying wasn't worth keeping, why did they protect it in the last contract.

Also, for Surplus1, the info I have seen has the Avros currently with Mesaba staying at Mesaba. I wouldn't be one to propose taking flying from anyone. It is kind of amusing though, to hear non-mainline pilots complaining about possibly losing flying to mainline. That shoe has been on the other foot for so long it sounds really weird. Sucks don't it.

 

[320AV8R]

1) Your proposal does not incorporate the 36 aircraft that MSA is currently flying (the Avros).

Unfortunately, it appears that it does and would result in the Avros being eliminated, which in effect transfers that flying to you. MSA should be able to get replacements (not 50-seat, which pay much less) but the equivalent of what they now have. Otherwise, you are trying to take from them. That's a no-no.

The36 AVROs would stay at Mesaba, and are not connected in any way to the 70 seat proposal.

 

[Lear70]

Yea, Mesaba got the shi**y end of the stick on that one.

Mesaba ratified their contract with an over 2/3 vote and signed for CRJ rates that are lower than ours at Pinnacle to protect the Avro guys... The junior 40% of the company got screwed by their own people, so I'd agree with you - they got the sh*tty end of the stick. (Before the MSA people start bashing, yes, I went to the roadshow. Yes, I read the T.A. Yes, I talked to Wychor. Yes, I talked to my friends over there, some of whom even voted yes in fear of what would happen if they didn't. You guys and gals got sold a load of horsesh*t prettied up with a nice little ribbon).

If Pinnacle had a contract coming due, they would be giving the flying to Mesaba to punish Pinnacle.

PCL DOES have a contract coming due; we're currently in negotiations, the amendable date is May '05. The company is dragging their feet in a serious way while starting the typical B.S. with the other employees about "negotiating in good faith". At the same time, our C.E.O. made a press statement that he was "seeking concessions" from the pilot group in the form of work rules and increased productivity. How the #*@#% can you do that when we're already working 95+ hours per month junior manned and extended down to 8 and even 7 days off? It's going to be an ugly battle.

I, and a lot of other pilots around here, will REFUSE to settle for sub-par wages just to gain more flying. I'd rather stay the same size or even shrink slightly and get liveable wages, work rules, and a much better 401k, than sign for total sh*t rates.

Because of all the above reasons, there's ONE thing ExAF got right: Mesaba will start getting the next batch of jets - PCL is going to be at war with management over this contract for several more years to come.

 

[Propsync]

One more thing...

I see from these posts there are 787 on the street. I'm sure most all want to get back quickly, but here's the rub. Whatever the union does with this down the road, and it will get proposed again and again, they will protect what they have negotiated. Here's why:

Management is probably just trolling on this 70 seat thing to see how high/low the union would take them for. The problem is if the rates go lower, even if it get people back to work, it makes negotiating DC-9 and Airbus rates tougher next time around. The company can say all day: "But you're flying 70 seats for X". The union won't budge on this, and I don't blame them a bit. They really are protecting the 787's best interest. If it takes a few years longer, unfortunate as it sounds, so be it. But, when you do go back, it's not some "sell your soul to fly" B scale rate, and you would be flying the equipment you probably were hired for, mainline equipment.

 

[sf3boy]

Lear 70, you are exactly right. The 66% that voted this contract in, was in fact scared. You can barely find 1 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3 that admit to voting for this thing. The pay is a slap in the face for the jet seats and pretty poor for the right seat of the saab. Even the MEC said the other day at a meeting that he was "a little surprised that we haven't seen any growth yet." No s*#t. With those pay rates.....Anyway, I am glad that the NW boys and girls are going to stay the course. I am so sick of seeing larger and larger aircraft get labeled as a regional plane. Along with that comes the regional pay for it. As an FO at Mesaba with over 6000 hours of time, I believe that I am quite qualified to fly any size aircraft out there, but not at the ever dwindling pay rates.

NWA, keep the 70 seaters and above on your property.

I think balls deep was actually on our negotiating committee.

 

[balls deep340]

Lear 70, you are exactly right. The 66% that voted this contract in, was in fact scared. You can barely find 1 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3 that admit to voting for this thing. The pay is a slap in the face for the jet seats and pretty poor for the right seat of the saab. Even the MEC said the other day at a meeting that he was "a little surprised that we haven't seen any growth yet." No s*#t. With those pay rates.....Anyway, I am glad that the NW boys and girls are going to stay the course. I am so sick of seeing larger and larger aircraft get labeled as a regional plane. Along with that comes the regional pay for it. As an FO at Mesaba with over 6000 hours of time, I believe that I am quite qualified to fly any size aircraft out there, but not at the ever dwindling pay rates.

NWA, keep the 70 seaters and above on your property.

I think balls deep was actually on our negotiating committee.

First off Right seat Saab pay is the highest in the world so I think you are smoking crack.

NWA70 would screw us and the NWA pilots but its ok either way if NWA70 comes to NWA then it will just help the LCC and mean more jobs for us to go to.

If you don't like working for the highest paid saab airline in the world then quit.

LEAR70 we have higher 50 seat jet pay then you do check your numbers again.

 

[fly4ever]

ExAF,

Thanks for the reply.

Being in the NWA group as a feeder is definitely sitting between a rock and a hard place. The management at all three airlines has successfully pitted the pilot groups against each other several times in effect getting people to believe that it is the other pilot group(s) who are "taking" the flying. NWA assigns flying to each group according to their own marketing and financial goals. We have a contract with our company who has a contract with NWA to perform whatever flying they assign us. It has been our (XJ's)turn in the barrel this past few years and Pinnacle will soon be facing the same pressure. Meanwhile, mainline pilots are trying to protect the flying that their last contract covered.

It is a nasty business. BTW, Lear70, maybe you weren't at Express 1 when your last contract was approved but there wasn't much of a fight when some of your pilots accepted one of the worst work rule contracts that exists today in order to fly CRJs. I hope you are successful in your negotiations but that will be a long time in coming with a lot of hassle and stress between now and then. Payrates are only part of the equation, not the only thing.

 

[surplus1]

I have never thought that mainline had an "inherent" right to any and all NW flying. I have said many a time that you get what you can negotiate for.

On this aspect our thinking is pretty close to being the same. I'm still concerned however, about how we go about getting what we "can negotiate for". If that means lowering our compensation packages to achieve promised "growth" I would have serious problems with the concept.

There are $10 whores and $50 whores. Now that we know that, the difference in the price does not change the fact that both are whores. Ultimately the "trade" will go to the lady with the lowest bid until all eventually become $10 whores. We will all get "what we can negotiate for" but there is considerable doubt as to the value of having it.

There is a current "trend" to sacrifice contractual gains in exchange for short term growth potential. I think that is a serious mistake that will adversely affect both mainline and regional for a very long time. Perhaps I'm wrong but I do not see this "race to the bottom" as beneficial to any pilot group. In my view it is "penny wise and pound foolish".

I readily admit that my concerns about this are not altruistic. My group currently enjoys the best compensation package in the business for 70-seat jets and as everyone knows we had to risk the whole Company to get that.

For the last year or more I have seen contract after contract bid for "growth" by lowering wages and giving up other contractual benefits. Each such negotiation put increasing pressure on our contract. In my opinion, this is not justified by economics, it is the by-product of very unwise thinking and bad advice. I don't want my group to be forced into the $10 category so that some new hire can upgrade in six months on the regional side or so that a mainline pilot can recapture flying that he previously chose to give away. If economic conditions truly justified these actions I could learn to live with them. I don't believe that they do.

That does not mean that I think anyone is obliged to "match" us for I don't. However, I do think that reasonable decisions should be made during negotiations that incorporate the whole. Given that most of us are represented by what is supposedly the same labor union, I don't understand the madness.

I hope that "NW70", if it gets off the ground, will turn out to be more than just another iteration of the lowest bidder concept, but I have little confidence that it will.

Not sure where you get that, but the proposal I read stated that management wanted to outsource a total of up to 72 70-seaters, to include the current Mesaba avros. To me, that means they want 36 additional 70's (I could be wrong).

I get if from the proposal and statements like the one you just made. Yes, the Company wants 36 additional aircraft of that size. It is highly improbable that those 36 aircraft will be Avros. If the company decides to purchase a new type, e.g., the CR7 or EMB-170, in the final analysis it will not matter whether they are placed at NWA or at MSA. Eventually they will replace the Avro in either case. That is the same fear that you have when you look at them as replacements for the DC9-10.

You are correct in presuming that regardless of where they go, eventually they will replace the DC9-10 and perhaps some -30s as well. When that happens, if the "new" aircraft are assigned to MSA, your group will lose those jobs. If they are assigned to NWA, the MSA pilots will lose the Avro jobs. That is the problem that needs to be resolved.

To be equitable, the agreement should include a provision that protects those jobs, on both sides, regardless of where these "new" aircraft are ultimately placed. That is possible, but I see nothing in the current "NW70" proposal that would come close to doing that. Therefore, the proposal in its current format becomes a "tool" that would in effect transfer those Avro jobs from MSA pilots to NWA pilots. I do not see that as being the right thing to do, nor do I see it as a practical solution for NW pilots. Sort of a self-inflicted Achilles' Heel

I also do not see permitting these "new" aircraft to be placed at MSA (or PCL) and allowing them to result in a further loss of jobs for NWA pilots. Two wrongs can't make one right.

If they go to MSA something must be done to protect the NW pilots. If they go to NWA something must be done to protect the MSA Avro pilots. I believe there are ways to do this contractually without harming anyone or threatening anyone. I just don't think that "NW70" is the way.

It also said that it "does not envision capturing flying currently allowed by our contract and performed by our regional partners in..........or the avro-85."

"Does not envision", what does that mean? In fact, it means absolutely nothing. This reminds me of the classic contractual phrase "the Company will use its best effort", which is equally meaningless. Given the experience of the NW MEC and its ALPA "advisors", I can only regard the phrase you quoted as one that attempts to obscure an attempt to "capture flying currently <> performed by our regional partners." This phraseology is a dose of Kool Aid suitable for amateurs who are presumed to be both inexperienced and naïve. It is either ludicrous, subterfuge or both.

Now if you mean the avros may go away because it might be more advantageous for mainline to do all 72 aircraft due to cost of the avros or some similar situation, well, thats speculation and may or may not happen. Only management knows that one.

That is exactly what I mean and it is not speculation. It is a foregone conclusion that anyone with experience as a negotiator should instantly recognize. If that is the intent of the proposal, why not just come out and say it? While I might not agree with it, I can deal with an honest presentation.

From my perspective, there is no doubt whatever that if this "new" aircraft goes to NWA, it will replace the Avros one day. If it goes to MSA (or PCL) it will replace the DC9-10 one day. Instead of all the phony pretense, what we need is a solution that protects the interests of both parties. When one is put in place the aircraft can then go to the place that benefits the Company most and the jobs of both pilot groups will be protected. Not jobs for future new hires, but current jobs (including those of furloughed NW pilots) in both pilot groups.

I'll grant you it's a little harder to do that than it is to just take from each other. Nevertheless, it needs to be done. If the Company really needs this "new" aircraft saying that "if we don't fly it then it won't fly" is just as nonsensical as "full pay to the last day". A win/win situation that benefits the Company and protects the pilots in both groups is not only possible, it is essential.

As pilots, it is my opinion that our best interests are better served by being realistic rather than defensive. Some out-of-the-box thinking would appear to be prudent, especially in the current state of our industry. Management is going to do what it sees as being best for the Company and believe me, they don't care who flys what airplane. It is our task to find ways to accommodate their desires while at the same time protecting our needs. In most cases it is not impossible to do that. In my opinion, "NW70" (or what we know about it) falls short of the mark.

I will add, however, that if the rates do end up being lower, say equal to what Mesaba currently has for the avro, it may hurt future 70 seat negotiations, and that would be unfortunate, but I don't see that it would be underbidding Mesaba, as their rate would be the same. And if we don't do the flying, they or PCL will be. I doubt Mesaba would be getting a much better rate than what they currently are getting for the avro. They would be "underbidding" everybody else as well

I tend to agree with most of that, with one important exception. Low-balling the rates will not hurt only future 70-seat negotiations, it will hurt all negotiations. Low wages and inferior work rules for 70-seat jets increase the pressure to reduce rates on larger jets as well. Your current contract pays a common rate for all versions of the DC9, including the 78-seat DC9-10. My information says your 4-yr CA rate is $180; your 12-yr rate $191. Your 2-yr FO rate is $88 and 5-yr rate $112. (I won't even mention the rest of your contract.) Over at MSA on the Avro, the 4-yr CA rate is $64; the 12-yr CA rate is $81. The 2-yr FO rate is $28 and the 5-yr FO rate is $34.

It will be interesting to see just how you plan to compete with MSA on that basis.
If NWA acquires the CR7 or the EMB-170 and operates them at NWA, it does not take rocket science to see what will happen to your DC9-10, even if you give up all the extras in your contract. It should also tell you that ALL of your DC9 rates will come under intense pressure and there is only one way for them to go. This is true, even if you "match" MSA's Avro rate, which is already substantially less than CMR's. On top of that, your DC9's will be competing with USAir's EMB-170's where all captains fly for $58 hr.

Given these realities, it does not appear to me that any proposal to operate a 70-seat regional jet at NWA mainline will ever be able to approach the practical, unless you give up everything and get the rest of your Company's non-pilot employees to accept similar circumstances.

As the saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention". If you really expect this airplane to be operated at NW mainline, you will have to be a lot more creative. In the process, none of us will benefit.

The devil is in the details, however, for now, management has rejected whatever details they may have been.

Very true. Is it any wonder why?

 

[Lear70]

BTW, Lear70, maybe you weren't at Express 1 when your last contract was approved but there wasn't much of a fight when some of your pilots accepted one of the worst work rule contracts that exists today in order to fly CRJs. I hope you are successful in your negotiations but that will be a long time in coming with a lot of hassle and stress between now and then. Payrates are only part of the equation, not the only thing.

I agree 100%, that's why I included work rules and 401k just to name a few of the things most of us will refuse to settle on, and I think you're also right about it will be a long time coming... most of us are just sitting back and waiting it out. And no, I wasn't here during the last contract; I was at the other Express One (727 ops out of Dallas) which went out of business mostly due to losing the Postal Service contract to FedEx.

LEAR70 we have higher 50 seat jet pay then you do check your numbers again.

Ummm... Nope. YOU go check your numbers again. Your CA rates were more than us at Date Of Signing, but we got another yearly increase in May '04 (the month after you signed) that puts us above yours again.

Year 1 CRJ CA $55.07
Year 2 CRJ CA $56.76
Year 3 CRJ CA $58.51
Year 4 CRJ CA $60.31
Year 5 CRJ CA $62.14
Year 10 CRJ CA $73.68
Year 15 CRJ CA $82.37

Do they suck? Yup. I'm not trying to claim "bragging rights" to whose rates suck less than the other's, I'm simply pointing out that Mesaba negotiated rates lower than Pinnacle's ON A CONTRACT THAT WAS JUST SIGNED THIS YEAR!! It set the tone for our negotiations and after walking the line with the Mesaba pilots and believing the hype then seeing the crap that got ratified, it just p*sses me off.

Incidentally, MSA work rules aren't that big of an increase over what we already get anyway. You guys got a 4 hour min day and suddenly most of your trips are built to work 4 - 5 hours where my average days are 6 - 7 hours of flying, I only get cancelled once every 3 or 4 months and get 50% versus 100%, and most pilots don't pick up open time on their off days - h*ll, there's no CA open time anywhere in our system right now to pick up even if someone wanted to (except high-speeds). Not much else in there worth mentioning as far as differences go.

All of this aside (I knew we'd get into a debate over it but I posted it anyway to make a point), none of this matters one single bit in the grand scheme of who gets to fly the 70-seaters, except that the Mainline MEC did the right thing by telling Management to stick their idea of farming 70-seaters out right up their *ss. Go get 'em boys!