To all mesa pilots

[Freight Dog]

Ahh.. that's what you get when you are a junior captain. I was on reserve today, and they were doing captain IOE's, so fat chance I'd get called... so good time to catch up on what's going on in the industry.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Freedom Fighters Party 1 of 2

Nah, these guys that went are going to try and argue they saved the company but they backstabbed us. We didn't need any of them to go to prove our case for single carrier. Freedom could have hired off the street 100% and we still would have gotten single carrier.

I agree that those who went to Freedom certainly did not "save the company".

Perhaps it is true that they "backstabbed" you. However, I think that happened because of the way you chose to handle the situation. That's what I meant when I said I thought it was ill advised -- a poor choice of available options.

If you had all decided to go voluntarily you could have set up a situation that would guarantee that ALL of Freedom would be staffed with Mesa pilots. If not right away, later on you could have easily brought Freedom back into the union simply by voting for union representation or through the NMB. This could have avoided the animosity that now exists within your ranks. Nevertheless, I agree that Freedom as an alter ego has to go.

Freedom will eventually be union, whether it is forced by the NMB or done voluntarily. I think it would be better (when that time comes) if you were not angry with each other since you will all be in the same union one way or the other. JMO.

I agree that you don't "need" them to prove your single carrier case. I just think it would be smoother if you were all on the same side when it happens. Because of the way it was done, you will now have a division within your house. Given the nasty management that you guys have to deal with, I just think that a house that is not divided internally is better than one that is.

Anyway, what's done is done so there's not much point in crying about it at this stage. I expect the NMB will grant the single carrier petition thereby giving you union representation that includes Freedom. I hope that is what happens.

Your next paragraph is complex so I'll try to break it up and make sense of the reply.

You made some timely and interesting points yourself, many of which I will bring up in other discussions and look into deeper. I can tell you this much, J4J while many things it does not abrogate Mesa pilots seniority numbers.

Thanks for listening/reading. I think you are mistaken when you say that J4J does not abrogate Mesa pilots' seniority. If the current J4J protocols are accepted by Mesa pilots, it will definitely abrogate your seniority

Yes, the U pilots will go to the "bottom" of your list. However, a seniority number that you can't use is of no value. With J4J, 50% of the new vacancies will go to U pilots, including Captain positions. Every time a "junior" U pilot on the "bottom" of your list gets a Captain position ahead of a senior Mesa pilot --- you have abrogated your seniority. You have given the promotion that would normally go to the senior Mesa pilot, to a pilot that is from another airline.

The U pilots will come with their U longevity. They will be "junior" on paper, but they will be able to outbid you for schedules and vacancies. That abrogates your seniority.

The U pilots will have a "minimum wage", regardless of seat, that is higher than the wage of a Mesa pilot for the very same job. That abrogates your seniority and your contract.

The longer they stay (and some think it will be a very long time) the more of them will be promoted ahead of "senior" Mesa pilots. That abrogates your seniority.

Additionally, there are lots of other "details" in the protocol that are not at all clear. Nearly all of them abrogate your seniority in one way or another. Again I remind you, a number on a piece of paper means nothing unless you can use it. The J4J protocol would give USAirways pilots super seniority on your property. There's no two ways about it.

I'm not against the U pilots getting jobs at Mesa or any other airline. I'm totally opposed to giving them "super seniority" for any reason. They would NEVER give you that at their airline. As a matter of record, their entire past efforts have been directed at reducing or eliminating your very exsistence. This sudden change is nothing more that a blatant effort to benefit themselves at your expense. They didn't have to do things this way, they simply chose this opition instead of the others.

I'm sorry they are furloughed, but that does NOT entitle them to super seniority at your airline just becuse you add more jets and more flying. Their company needs that flying and they need it to be performed in regional jets. If the U pilots will not allow those jets to be flown, then they are the one's that should pay the price of the consequences. YOUR GROUP did not cause any of the problems at USAir Group. You should not have to pay any price, let alone abrogating your seniority and your contract in favor of USAirways pilots. J4J forces you to do that and threatens you with "no new jets for U" if you don't. That's wrong!

If they don't want the new jets to fly, then they can go out of business -- which is exactly what will happen. This whole J4J abortion is nothing more than ALPA trying to force regional pilots to give their jobs, promotions, plus special pay and privileges to mainline pilots in preference to the pilots of Mesa airlines, the USAir Group subsidiaries, and anyone else that sings on to that scheme. I'm sorry to have to say it, but J4J is nothing more than blatant discrimination by ALPA against regional pilots that are members (in most cases) of ALPA. It's bad politics, bad representation. bargaining in bad faith, bad business and it DOES abrogate your seniority at Mesa.

Why do you think every other regional pilot group has rejected this absurd protocol? I assure you it is not because they are mean, or greedy or don't care about the furloughed pilots. The only ones that have "accepted" it are the wholly owned subsidiaries and that is only because the were forced, by ALPA, to do so.

I'm sure you know that I am not a Mesa pilot and I have no right to tell you what to do. The decision is yours. However, I will tell you that my pilot group would NEVER accept that idea in any form.

I am yet decided on J4J. I do know one fact, J4J is the brainchild of none other than Andy Hughes, MEC chairman @ Mesa Airlines. This I know, it was designed as a bargaining tool for Mesa pilots to get scope, in exchange for USAir furloughed pilots to get back in the air, and Mesa Air Group to get some multi millions of additional revenue per year. At least this is how it being sold to us.

There is a key word or phrase in your paragraph. It is the last sentence where you say: "this is how it (is) being sold to us."

I have no doubt that's how it's being "sold" to you. That's just how a used car salesman takes you to the cleaners by selling you a junker.

It happens that I know your MEC Chairman personally and have know him for a long time. I think he's a good man and I know that he works very hard for the benefit of Mesa pilots. Andy may support J4J (I'm not sure if he does) but I doubt that the idea was his "brainchild". If it was, then it is his first big mistake as your Chairman.

Andy is faced with an extremely difficult situation at Mesa. Right now he desperately needs the support of ALPA to make anything good happen at Mesa. I'm certain he is under extreme pressure and based on my own experience, I can easily guess where that pressure is coming from.

I really don't know what he thinks about J4J for I have not discussed it with him. However, based on my past knowledge of Captain Hughes, I believe that if he supports this it is because he is being forced to do so, just as the WO's were forced to swallow it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't believe that the man I have known for years would invent such a dangerous idea.

The entire J4J concept stinks to high heaven. I don't know who's "idea" it was originally, maybe Beebe, maybe Muggerditchian, maybe Woerth himself, but until Andy tells me personally that it was his idea, I just can't believe that.

Andy is a politician. His duty is to do the best that he can for Mesa pilots in all circumstances. I believe that he is doing that to the best of his ability. Sometimes a politician has to get in bed with the devil himself in order to survive and protect his people. If Captain Hughes supports J4J, in my opinion, it is because he has been given no choice by the powers that be. Those "powers" run the ALPA, not Mesa Airlines.

Regardless, I still think that Mesa pilots should reject the Jets for Jobs protocol. You will still get the additional aircraft and flying simply because USAir Group has no other choice. They have to get those aircraft flying and soon. They have no money to buy their own. They can't fund Mid Atlantic (at least not right now). The dirty deal with Midway is much too slow. Chautauqa pilots have rejected this mess. TSA hasn't voted, but they don't want it. Who else has access to RJs and can get more in a hurry?

They tried SkyWest --- the pilots voted it down, to their credit especially since they don't even have a union. Who else can produce the aircraft required by U in the quantities required, in a hurry?

You don't have to give in to what you are being "sold". ALPA is just trying to dazzle you with smoke and mirrors. It's a used car with high mileage....... don't buy it.

Please go to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

I am not defending it, just defining it. Like I said I am yet undecided on J4J. I will look into your concerns. I saw a press release yesterday that USAir suddenly wants some of our 70 seaters flown in their system. Us/them not sure really. I dont know what thats all about but this gets more interesting by the minute.

Thanks for defining your thoughts. I appreciate that very much. However, I still think you are very mistaken if you believe this does not affect your seniority. It definitely does and I have tried to point out some of the reasons.

As for the press release, just listen to the USAirways MEC VARS and you'll get some ideas as to their next move.

I have read the J4J protocol, the restructuring agreement, the old LOA 81 and the USAirways PWA. I think I'm pretty familiar with what they say and what they do. My own vote, if I had one, would be not no, but HE!L NO!

I still think they are trying to coerce you into abrogating your seniority and other provisions of your contract. If that were not so, there would be no need to get your agreement, they would just do it. They can't do it unless you agree because it violates your contract. So they are "asking you", and coercing you to give up your rights in favor of them. It is not extortion, but it IS coercion and it sucks.

Since I don't fly for Mesa perhaps I should mind my own business. Well, I am minding my own business. If you folks decide to accept this, it will affect every regional pilot in the business one way or the other. Other airlines will try the same thing and ultimately my group will be faced with some version of the same idea. I don't want to "meddle" in your afairs, but this will affect my group too. Therefore, I oppose it vigorously and I hope it never happens.

Other than J4J, I am 100% with Mesa pilots in your effort to control Freedom and obtain a fair contract. Best wishes!

 

[got_jumpseat?]

Ahh.. that's what you get when you are a junior captain. I was on reserve today, and they were doing captain IOE's, so fat chance I'd get called... so good time to catch up on what's going on in the industry.

HAHA did I hit that nail or what. Reserve HNL, shoot I could think of a bunch of things to do out here. AQ lets my other friend check in every two hours (on his reserve days) so we can surf. Any such program at Island?

 

[got_jumpseat?]

Re: Re: Freedom Fighters Party 1 of 2

If you had all decided to go voluntarily you could have set up a situation that would guarantee that ALL of Freedom would be staffed with Mesa pilots. If not right away, later on you could have easily brought Freedom back into the union simply by voting for union representation or through the NMB.

That idead was thrown around by some line pilots before it got real heated up. Much easier said than done. If comes and If's brother.

The U pilots will come with their U longevity. They will be "junior" on paper, but they will be able to outbid you for schedules and vacancies. That abrogates your seniority.

The U pilots will have a "minimum wage", regardless of seat, that is higher than the wage of a Mesa pilot for the very same job. That abrogates your seniority and your contract.

Additionally, there are lots of other "details" in the protocol that are not at all clear. Nearly all of them abrogate your seniority in one way or another. Again I remind you, a number on a piece of paper means nothing unless you can use it. The J4J protocol would give USAirways pilots super seniority on your property. There's no two ways about it.

Super seniority within their fenced flying, sure, maybe, OK I'll give you that, but it is still supposed to be fenced flying, they can only excercise their "super seniority" within the NEW, ADDITIONAL, EXTRA flying. They can't mooch their way over to any other system. I am fairly certain they cant even fly the current US Air flying. Its only out of the new jobs. I see your point but I think it's a lot of fear of the unknown. I think you're just worried about black helicopters.

If they don't want the new jets to fly, then they can go out of business -- which is exactly what will happen.

And how is that a good thing for mesa pilots? Do you know how much of our flying is in the US Air system? How is losing 40% of our current flying better than making a deal on an EXTRA 20% that we never had before?

Why do you think every other regional pilot group has rejected this absurd protocol? I assure you it is not because they are mean, or greedy or don't care about the furloughed pilots. The only ones that have "accepted" it are the wholly owned subsidiaries and that is only because the were forced, by ALPA, to do so.

This is one point that holds some weight. If it is such a good deal, why didn't somebody else step up to the plate when given the chance?? Then again maybe nobody else sees the value in scope protection. Who ever thought we'd see the day a regional airline
struck over scope? Mesa is about to. Our strike center is up and running with an open house scheduled next Friday.

I have no doubt that's how it's being "sold" to you. That's just how a used car salesman takes you to the cleaners by selling you a junker.

Well thats because I am an ex-metal slinger myself. I think I might know a few things about negotiating and selling.

It happens that I know your MEC Chairman personally and have know him for a long time. I think he's a good man and I know that he works very hard for the benefit of Mesa pilots. Andy may support J4J (I'm not sure if he does) but I doubt that the idea was his "brainchild". If it was, then it is his first big mistake as your Chairman.

It is Andy's idea. Robert Henry was boasting about it to my face. Every time I talk to Andy I forget to ask him. I seem to remember Andy saying it was his idea at a pizza party a few months ago. I'm fairly certain it is his idea.

I really don't know what he thinks about J4J for I have not discussed it with him. However, based on my past knowledge of Captain Hughes, I believe that if he supports this it is because he is being forced to do so, just as the WO's were forced to swallow it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't believe that the man I have known for years would invent such a dangerous idea.

Andy is a politician. His duty is to do the best that he can for Mesa pilots in all circumstances. I believe that he is doing that to the best of his ability. Sometimes a politician has to get in bed with the devil himself in order to survive and protect his people. If Captain Hughes supports J4J, in my opinion, it is because he has been given no choice by the powers that be. Those "powers" run the ALPA, not Mesa Airlines.

You might be right, or J4J might simply be worth it to trade for scope protection from a mgmt that about defines the word whipsaw.

Regardless, I still think that Mesa pilots should reject the Jets for Jobs protocol. You will still get the additional aircraft and flying simply because USAir Group has no other choice.

Unless they die in the desert waiting for the water. Then what do we do? Fly our RJ's under our own colors and compete with Southwest? Riiight. Have you flown on a Mesa RJ to a Mesa staffed base? I get visions monkeys fu**ing footballs every time I fly into one of our bases. As bad as they the HP and U staffed bases are, they are leagues above our own.

I dont have an answer yet on the negative side to J4J, I'll let you know if I make up my mind.

 

[Freight Dog]

HAHA did I hit that nail or what. Reserve HNL, shoot I could think of a bunch of things to do out here. AQ lets my other friend check in every two hours (on his reserve days) so we can surf. Any such program at Island?

Heheh, yep you did. However, it was pouring down rain everywhere on the island yesterday, the surf - at least in Da Country was all blown to bits, not to mention water all dirty from the rain and runoffs... Nice case of itchy-scratchies for some surf? Naw... I'm still on reserve - there will be better days. It looks like the cold front has passed us, so we'll see when the water clears up a tad..

I go surf all the time and just check in with Dispatch and ask them if it looks likely that I'll get called. Usually, they either tell me to check in with them again when I get out of water, or if it's afternoon, and things are good over there.. they occasionally release me.

Easy money, brah!

Anyhow, SURPLUS, I am still waiting for a response. I enjoy reading your pro-regional anti-mainline posts. Could you please post a reply to my question to you? Thanks!

 

[FR8mastr]

Mesa will get J4J this is how: Ornstien and the ML pilots want this really bad!! Ornstien, Siegal, and the ML pilots want 70 seat RJ's really bad. Mesa Pilots want CC Air pilots and Freedom Pilots on the senoirity list. Ornstien gives the pilots what they want, the pilots give Ornstien what he wants, J4J!! ALPA will actually claim victory here because of Freedom, how ironic. It's all but a done deal. And everything that happens to me a WO pilot will be completely deserved! We signed on to the extorsion so we will pay for our cowardice.

A previous poster pointed out a conversation with JO about 90 seat pay rates and ALPA. I have to admit, that is brilliance!! Ornstien will prove what ALPA is really about. And make himself look like a good guy(almost). If you were JO, that logical approach to the whole ALPA situation really is brilliant. "Look guys it's not my fault, Alpa is stopping the CC air and Mesa pilots from thriving, not me"

 

[got_jumpseat?]

A previous poster pointed out a conversation with JO about 90 seat pay rates and ALPA. I have to admit, that is brilliance!! Ornstien will prove what ALPA is really about. And make himself look like a good guy(almost). If you were JO, that logical approach to the whole ALPA situation really is brilliant. "Look guys it's not my fault, Alpa is stopping the CC air and Mesa pilots from thriving, not me"

That was me, and it is brilliant until you think that ALPA already has pay rates for regional pilots in 90+ seat aircraft. They are known as BAC-Jets Those BAe whatever the crap 4 engine deals. Air Whiskey and Mesaba have ALPA contracts for 90 seaters. JO is just blowing smoke out his arse.

 

[surplus1]

Freight Dog,

I didn't reply previously for two reasons: 1) I thought you and I had agreed to disagree and 2) I really didn't want to get into a debate about Comair and create personal controversy. Since you really want an answer, I'll give it a try.

Surplus,

We've had a couple of discussions before, and I am curious... what exactly is wrong with AWA pilots blocking 90 seat RJ's flown under *THEIR* code in *THEIR* colors at CONTRACT carriers?

I have previously gone on record saying that no contract flying should be allowed. However, like everything else, there are two sides to that. 1) If you start with scope that allows no contract flying I can support that. 2) If you did not do that and then you suddenly try to change your scope in a way that hurts another pilot group, I have a problem with that. Why? Because the same union represents both pilot groups.

ALPA's right hand is negotiating to benefit AWA pilots at the expense of Mesa pilots. ALPA's left hand is allegedly negotiating to benefit Mesa pilots at the expense of AWA pilots. This obvious conflict of interest is what I can't live with.

If AWA pilots and Mesa pilots can sit down together and jointly agree to where they would like to draw a mutually beneficial line allocating the work, I would have no problem with that. However, I see no effort in that direction and I do not accept the concept that either pilot group has some God given "right" to simply impose its will on the other.

I don't buy the mainline concept that they own all the flying and can do whatever they choose. IMO, "ownership" of the flying was relinquished when the AWA pilots failed to negotiate control of the flying originally. Now, after the fact, they can't simply go back in time and draw arbitrary lines of division, wherever they choose, and cost Mesa pilots their jobs. ALPA is basically trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

If you accept the idea that they can do that, then why couldn't they draw the line at 19-seats and force Mesa pilots out of everything bigger than a Beech 1900? Maybe they won't do that (because management will not allow it) but the principle remains the same. Once you accept the principle, you accept the idea that AWA pilots can negotiate for the jobs of Mesa pilots, without the knowledge or consent of Mesa pilots. Basically, that is exactly what ALPA is trying to do, i.e., transfer as much of the flying of regional pilots to mainline pilots as it possibly can. Perhaps some regional pilots are willing to accept that idea due to illusions of potential mainline jobs. I don't happen to be one of those.

Regional pilots, just like mainline pilots, pay ALPA to represent their interests. Therefore, whenever ALPA chooses sides between major and regional, ALPA has to violate its responsibility to one or the other. There are only three ways, that I can think of, to legitimately eliminate this conflict of interest: 1) Combine the pilots and create one seniority list (virtually impossible - especially with a contract carrier), 2) Divide the work based on agreement between the two pilot groups; 3) Remove its representation from one of the two conflicting groups.

ALPA has chosen to avoid/evade all three of these options and promotes and exacerbates the conflict of interest by choosing sides and favoring one group over the other. I believe that this violates ALPA's duty of fair representation. Since ALPA 's decisions in this matter have consistently favored major airline pilot groups, at the expense of regional airline pilot groups, it doesn't take rocket science to determine ALPA's position.

ALPA's behavior is similar to a prosecutor in a criminal case serving as the defense lawyer for the accused. It can't work, hasn't worked and never will work. Change is necessary. If we do not make change, the conflicts will grow wider with every decision until there is outright war between different pilot groups. That level of conflict could eventually destroy the Association. I would not like to see that happen.

I hear you Comair boys aren't too happy about Chautauqua taking your MCO base and doing DCI flying.

That is correct, i.e., I am not happy about the addition of Chautauqua. Now let's look at why that happened. 1) The Delta pilots are busily fighting the ASA/Comair pilots with misguided Scope directed against airlines owned by a single Company. 2) The Comair/ASA pilots are busily fighting the Delta pilots to prevent what they see as misapplication of Scope and attempts to take from them and limit their careers.

Meanwhile back at the farm, the Delta pilots have no contractual provision that controls the sub-contracting of Delta System flying to outside entities and the Comair/ASA pilots have prohibitions against sub-contracting negotiated with Companies that are paper shell corporations, neither of which control anything. As a result, the Company (Delta Air Lines) is free to create havoc for all three of the airlines it owns and play them against each other as well as against an unlimited number of outside entities.

This goes right back to the problems of conflict outlined in my opening paragraphs. The ALPA generated and unresolved conflict of interest between the DAL/CMR/ASA groups operates to create new and additional conflicts of interest vis a vis, Chautauqua, SkyWest, ACA and whomever comes next. Essentially, ALPA has its head firmly embedded where the sun don't shine.

Predatory Scope has demonstrably failed at every airline where it is used. Yet we (ALPA) make no serious effort to correct the problem. Recently, Duane Woerth touched on what he called "brand" scope. I think Woerth may have a handle on the "big picture". but I also know that Woerth's abilities are severely limited by what I see as a total lack of reality on the part of the mainline MEC's.

All of those big MEC's, (DAL, UAL, AAA, NWA, CAL) as well as the APA continue to live in yesterday's world. They remind me of Don Quijote, jousting at windmills. Until they come to the realization that they must deal with the world the way it is now and not the way it was yesterday or how they might like it to be, Woerth can do little and ALPA flounders. Their policies border on brinkmanship and, ironically, they are the one's that will be the major losers if they don't stop living in dream world's.

You will claim that Comair is still expanding... GREAT.
You will also claim that you went on strike to get parity in pay.. GREAT, I applaud you for that.

Wrong, I won't claim that at all. Yes, Comair is still expanding but that has nothing to do with the problems we face. Secondly, we did NOT go on strike to get parity in pay rates. If you believe that, then you have no understanding of why Comair pilots struck.

My question is... when your flying slowly starts getting chipped away by *contract* carriers flying your old routes at slave-labor cost, are you not gonna try to prevent it especially given the fact that you've walked the line for 89 days trying to get rid of the slave labor wages at your airline?
Looking forward to your response...

Again, we did not strike to get rid of "slave labor wages" at our airline. With the exception of 1st year new hire pilots, we did not have slave labor wages.

Yes, we had wages that were lower than we thought they should be but pay rates were not the major objective of our negotiations. If that had been the case, we would never have had a strike.

You are correct it saying that we do not want Delta System flying to be farmed out to subcontractors. Unfortunately, for us, we were not able to achieve a means of preventing that. Why? Once more the same reasons, i.e., the internal conflicts of interest within the ALPA and therefor within the Delta System pilot groups, have operated to prevent effective control of system flying. Until the internal conflicts are resolved, that will continue and management will retain its current advantage.

This entire situation is highly complex and will never be resolved by debates in online forums. It can't even be adequately discussed in these venues. Most line pilots are much too busy defending what they see as their private "turf" to fully comprehend the complexity of what is happening, let alone resolve it.

Political rangling with each other will not resolve anything. There is no real statesmanship at the helm of our union. This is a classic case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

After reading all that, maybe you understand why I didn't respond to your questions. I doubt it gets us any closer to meaningful solutions.

Best regards.

 

[Freight Dog]

Surplus, thanks for the answer. I would however like to counter some of the points regarding AWA and Mesa.

You see, Mesa has not done any 90-seat flying in AWA colors before. Sure, Mesa flew as America West Express in aircraft with 50 seats or less flying between PHX and small markets like say Havasu, Carlsbad-Palomar, etc. Now, you get a 90 seat jet *contractor* flying in AWA colors between PHX and LAX which was a bread and butter of AWA. It is used as a B737 replacement on a regular route. I don't mind swapping equipment. But that replacement equipment should be flown by the mainline, and AWA pilots have every right to protect their flying and by that I mean flying under their code.

Mesa is a contract carrier, and they are free to fly B737's or B777's if they want under their own code. They are not a wholly-owned. AWA doesn't own any regionals. Therefore, ALPA is absolutely correct in protecting AWA pilot jobs by trying to scope out the RJ's and especially 90-seat RJ's flown under AWA code. Isn't this the same if you had a scope that prevented outsourcing of DCI flying to contract carriers and especially non-ALPA carriers like CHQ and SkyWest and kept the growth or movement in-house?

As for Delta's mess, from the outsider's view, I'd say it's a lack of a good strong scope at Comair and ASA. You boys n girls are getting whipsawed like no one before. Makes me wonder if either Comair or ASA will ever be able to stage a successful strike because everything overlaps now on your end, and strike wouldn't be as effective. But then again, I'm not privvy to what's going on inside Delta's house, so I don't know all the facts...