Ah, my cynicism wins again. I had this feeling that no matter what our contract came out to be, there would be a vast array of critics who work for a variety of companies who would characterize its contents as "dragging the industry down". I honestly believe that if we signed a contract with $100/hour third year FO rates and every other work rule advantage you can name, but our per diem was a nickel less than somebody's, soon the Mesa comparisons would come streaming out from every direction.
First of all, we are not looking at a Mesa contract. I have had a lot of positive experiences with Mesa's people while jumpseating in the system, and because of the way I've been treated, I'm always reluctant to jump on the Mesa bashing bandwagon. That said, it is a horrible contract that they accepted, and it doesn't even compare to our TA. As has been mentioned, SkyWest, Mesa, and ACA have all signed concessionary agreements (though, in ACA's defense, it's been rendered null and void by their United business loss, so whether those rates will be reinstated is anybody's guess), along with Piedmont and Allegheny. PSA's contract, as far as I can see, ain't no model agreement either. TSA's rates are a lot lower, and they just signed an extension, along with Junior Manning and several other areas in which work rules come up short of our own (BTW, I'm told SkyWest, ExpressOne, and CoEx have Junior Manning as well, and I'm certain there's others). Our TA looks a lot better than Eagle's contract, too. Express One still doesn't pay a dime to you while in training (no hotel, no jumpseat privis, nothing...), and their pay rates are also lower than the TA. I also know CoEx is in negotiations, and I'd love to see them come out way ahead of everybody, but for right now, we come out significantly ahead of their old contract, and our old contract wasn't much behind theirs, either.
ASA has some advantages, I admit, in their current (and several year old) contract. The pay rates I have for them are not higher than our TA, though; They're actually slightly lower. ASA's per diem is 5 cents higher right now, true. I also understand that you are in negotiations, and I wish the best for all of you. However, your contract, along with ComAir and Horizon's, are unfortunately the exception, not the norm.
Our TA pay rates are sizably above any industry average that I've seen taken, and we enjoy a number of work rules (no Junior Manning, and we have 12 days off for line holders, guaranteed). We have better pay rates than SkyWest on the table for 70 seaters, and higher 90 seat pay (if it comes down the pipe) than anyone else. Though we didn't get back pay, we'll all get a 4% bonus for signing the contract for all gross pay accrued since November of '01.
In addition, we faced the whipsaw sister company, Republic, which we've effectively neutralized while achieving significant contract advancements.
Of course, none of us have seen the final product, and we can't assess all of the finer points about it until we see the final product. But the confirmed details paint a picture of a well negotiated, if not perfect, agreement.
Finally, to address the "wholly-owned" versus "contract" carrier issue, I don't buy it. As was stated, Chautauqua has been around for a long time; We didn't start up three years ago with the express purpose of stealing everyone else's flying. And most of the WO companies were, at one point, not wholly owned by their current parent company (Piedmont, Allegheny, ComAir, ASA, to name a few). I think it's the case of the pot calling the kettle black just a bit, don't you think? There are a lot of reasons why we are able to achieve growth that others are not as well; For instance, much of our aircraft financing is secured internally, so companies like USAirways who cannot finance themselves all of the aircraft of this size they would like to operate, are forced to look for companies that are able to do that independantly. In other words, they couldn't buy some of you folks aircraft even if there weren't a CHQ, since there's no money in the pot to buy them.
There are those among us here at CHQ who are, well, jerks, and I apologize for their behavior. But most of us feel the same way about our competitors--we wish you the best of luck, and if you outperform us, can provide services that we cannot, or can operate more efficiently than we can, we bear no ill will should you receive growth that we would enjoy. I'm not going to lose any sleep, either, about our management successfully securing more business for our company. I think that anyone who believes that this TA of ours is going to destroy the regional airline industry, needs to take a look at the rest of the industry a little more; I think you'll find you've got a lot bigger fish to fry.
