The below is taken from another thread. It may or may not be authentic.
Look at the fourth paragraph. It claims that if NWA contracts for 40 more 50-seat RJs, they cannot be flown by Mesaba or Pinnacle.
NWA pilots, is this accurate or is this incorrect? What is correct?
******************
Mesaba ALPA MEC Special Hotline
October 27, 2004
Dear Fellow Mesaba Pilot:
Many questions and concerns have arisen in connection with the
NWA Bridge/Investment Agreement that is currently being reviewed
and voted on by the NWA pilots. Given the potential impact of
some of the terms of that agreement on Mesaba Airlines, we
thought it prudent to review the key points, and share our
perspective on the potential consequences.
The NWA MEC views the TA as a "bridge" agreement that
effectively ends their Section 6 negotiations. It is being labeled as a
"bridge" because of its relatively short duration, and because it is
designed to allow NWA management time to implement other cost cutting
measures, including the negotiation of concessions from other
work groups. The NWA MEC concluded that the TA'ed concessions
were necessary at this time to assist NWA in securing additional
financing and credit during a time when the airline continues to
experience significant losses. The concessions negotiated in the
Bridge agreement require that all management employees take pay
cuts as well.
The Tentative Agreement reduces all pay rates by 15%, caps sick-
leave accruals, and requires the pilots to pay 20% of their
health and dental premiums (NWA pilots currently do not pay any part of
the premium for their medical insurance). All told, the cost
reductions outlined in the TA result in $300 million in annual
savings. The NWA pilots will receive 4.05% of outstanding shares
in NWA stock on option, and have guaranteed profit sharing in line
with other NWA employee groups.
The TA also includes concessions in Section 1, the Scope
provisions. The TA allows for the conversion of up to 60-44 seat
jet aircraft into 50 seat jet aircraft, whereas under the
current agreement, the operation of additional 50 seaters was
prohibited. Additionally, and this is the provision that is probably of the
greatest concern to Mesaba pilots, the TA explicitly permits NWA
to add up to 40 more 50 seat jet aircraft, provided that such
aircraft are not flown by Mesaba, Pinnacle, or any other NWA affiliate.
The idea behind this provision was to give NWA the ability to
take advantage of an opportunity to expand into markets where another
airline was reducing or eliminating service (such as UAL or
USAir), and to do so on an expedited basis. If, for example, UAL
drastically cuts service in a certain area, the United Express carriers
would have an excess of aircraft and crews, and would likely be
interested in signing a code share agreement with NWA to perform the same
flying. NWA is concerned that if it does not fill the vacuum
created in the event of an exit of any carriers in NWA's "Heartland
Markets", other carriers will beat them to it. As a result of this relaxed
scope provision, NWA would get a turn key operation, without any of
the ramp up costs associated with bringing in its current code share
partners to do that flying. In addition, if the transition were
made quickly, it would increase NWA market share and feed, and result
in increased revenue.
This new provision in the NWA contract is obviously at odds with
the whole idea of "family or brand scope" because the addition
of these aircraft is contingent upon bringing in another Airlink
carrier. No one on our MEC welcomes this move. At the same time, we
think it is important to put this new development in
perspective, and keep in mind the level of concessions being made by the NWA
pilots.
First, there has never been a prohibition in the NWA scope
language on adding additional Airlinks. That could have occurred
3 years ago when we started negotiations, and it could occur today
without this new language. Put another way, NWA has been free to
contract with other carriers to fly all the 44 seat jets it
wants, without limitation. This new provision simply says that another
40 jet aircraft may be flown with 50 seats - an incremental change
of 6 seats. Second, it is understandable that the NWA MEC does not
wish to allow NWA to finance additional jet aircraft that would
not be flown by its pilots, especially in light of the very large
number of Northwest pilots who remain on furlough. Combined with a 15 %
pay cut, which is not insignificant, we believe it is
understandable the NWA MEC opted to agree to this provision. No pilot would
willingly agree to cut his own pay only to have those cost
savings go to finance another airline's operation.
Scope provisions necessarily impact the job opportunities of
others. In many respects, we faced similar issues when we
elected to limit Big Sky to 19 seat turbo prop operations. We did so
because we wanted to protect the viability of Mesaba Airlines,
and the careers of our pilots. Put yourself in the shoes of the NWA
MEC and consider what you might have chosen, given the various
alternatives. Keep in mind that the threat of bankruptcy still
looms, and that is a development that we should all view with extreme
alarm. If NWA files a Chapter 11 petition, it will have the
right to ask the bankruptcy court to void all of its contracts -including
its contract with the NWA pilots and including its code share
contract with Mesaba. If the Bridge Agreement helps to avoid a bankruptcy
filing, that is to our very great advantage.
There will likely be many hard choices and difficult decisions
for all ALPA MEC's before the industry comes back around. We must and
should view our fellow pilots as our allies --- even if we have
disagreements about the best course of action.
Fraternally,
Tom Wychor
Mesaba MEC Chairman
Look at the fourth paragraph. It claims that if NWA contracts for 40 more 50-seat RJs, they cannot be flown by Mesaba or Pinnacle.
NWA pilots, is this accurate or is this incorrect? What is correct?
******************
Mesaba ALPA MEC Special Hotline
October 27, 2004
Dear Fellow Mesaba Pilot:
Many questions and concerns have arisen in connection with the
NWA Bridge/Investment Agreement that is currently being reviewed
and voted on by the NWA pilots. Given the potential impact of
some of the terms of that agreement on Mesaba Airlines, we
thought it prudent to review the key points, and share our
perspective on the potential consequences.
The NWA MEC views the TA as a "bridge" agreement that
effectively ends their Section 6 negotiations. It is being labeled as a
"bridge" because of its relatively short duration, and because it is
designed to allow NWA management time to implement other cost cutting
measures, including the negotiation of concessions from other
work groups. The NWA MEC concluded that the TA'ed concessions
were necessary at this time to assist NWA in securing additional
financing and credit during a time when the airline continues to
experience significant losses. The concessions negotiated in the
Bridge agreement require that all management employees take pay
cuts as well.
The Tentative Agreement reduces all pay rates by 15%, caps sick-
leave accruals, and requires the pilots to pay 20% of their
health and dental premiums (NWA pilots currently do not pay any part of
the premium for their medical insurance). All told, the cost
reductions outlined in the TA result in $300 million in annual
savings. The NWA pilots will receive 4.05% of outstanding shares
in NWA stock on option, and have guaranteed profit sharing in line
with other NWA employee groups.
The TA also includes concessions in Section 1, the Scope
provisions. The TA allows for the conversion of up to 60-44 seat
jet aircraft into 50 seat jet aircraft, whereas under the
current agreement, the operation of additional 50 seaters was
prohibited. Additionally, and this is the provision that is probably of the
greatest concern to Mesaba pilots, the TA explicitly permits NWA
to add up to 40 more 50 seat jet aircraft, provided that such
aircraft are not flown by Mesaba, Pinnacle, or any other NWA affiliate.
The idea behind this provision was to give NWA the ability to
take advantage of an opportunity to expand into markets where another
airline was reducing or eliminating service (such as UAL or
USAir), and to do so on an expedited basis. If, for example, UAL
drastically cuts service in a certain area, the United Express carriers
would have an excess of aircraft and crews, and would likely be
interested in signing a code share agreement with NWA to perform the same
flying. NWA is concerned that if it does not fill the vacuum
created in the event of an exit of any carriers in NWA's "Heartland
Markets", other carriers will beat them to it. As a result of this relaxed
scope provision, NWA would get a turn key operation, without any of
the ramp up costs associated with bringing in its current code share
partners to do that flying. In addition, if the transition were
made quickly, it would increase NWA market share and feed, and result
in increased revenue.
This new provision in the NWA contract is obviously at odds with
the whole idea of "family or brand scope" because the addition
of these aircraft is contingent upon bringing in another Airlink
carrier. No one on our MEC welcomes this move. At the same time, we
think it is important to put this new development in
perspective, and keep in mind the level of concessions being made by the NWA
pilots.
First, there has never been a prohibition in the NWA scope
language on adding additional Airlinks. That could have occurred
3 years ago when we started negotiations, and it could occur today
without this new language. Put another way, NWA has been free to
contract with other carriers to fly all the 44 seat jets it
wants, without limitation. This new provision simply says that another
40 jet aircraft may be flown with 50 seats - an incremental change
of 6 seats. Second, it is understandable that the NWA MEC does not
wish to allow NWA to finance additional jet aircraft that would
not be flown by its pilots, especially in light of the very large
number of Northwest pilots who remain on furlough. Combined with a 15 %
pay cut, which is not insignificant, we believe it is
understandable the NWA MEC opted to agree to this provision. No pilot would
willingly agree to cut his own pay only to have those cost
savings go to finance another airline's operation.
Scope provisions necessarily impact the job opportunities of
others. In many respects, we faced similar issues when we
elected to limit Big Sky to 19 seat turbo prop operations. We did so
because we wanted to protect the viability of Mesaba Airlines,
and the careers of our pilots. Put yourself in the shoes of the NWA
MEC and consider what you might have chosen, given the various
alternatives. Keep in mind that the threat of bankruptcy still
looms, and that is a development that we should all view with extreme
alarm. If NWA files a Chapter 11 petition, it will have the
right to ask the bankruptcy court to void all of its contracts -including
its contract with the NWA pilots and including its code share
contract with Mesaba. If the Bridge Agreement helps to avoid a bankruptcy
filing, that is to our very great advantage.
There will likely be many hard choices and difficult decisions
for all ALPA MEC's before the industry comes back around. We must and
should view our fellow pilots as our allies --- even if we have
disagreements about the best course of action.
Fraternally,
Tom Wychor
Mesaba MEC Chairman
