Tug -
I think all salaries are 52-55% of the company cost (not just pilots). Or pilot salaries are 52% of the salary cost, but I highly doubt that pilot SALARIES are 52% of company expenses.
Machdog -
You kinda inflamed the "no" votes because your original statement was a sweeping generalization that "no's" were emotional and "yes's" were rational.
My "no" is based on the following:
1.) The company says that FO's are overpriced at ACA. Take a second or third year FO on the CRJ making 32-35K per year. That person is going to take a $2000 to 3000 pay cut. Or, just on paper, a professional pilot who has the choice of living or commuting to Washington DC or Chicago, IL will have to do so on $30Kper year. Sorry, I don't agree. That is a starvation salary in those two markets. You want to change our bases to Columbia,SC and Indianapolis and I'll buy that salary level.
2.) The work rule (minor changes) will eliminate most of the "soft" money areas of our contract. Bid the monthly conflict, vacation conflicts, training conflicts, etc. Don't know about your pay and personal vacation/time off but I'm seeing about a 5-7% salary hit on the removal of this "soft" money. That changes our little 7.5% as advertised by the union and management to almost a 12-18% pay cut. Now that is getting outrageous. Yes, United took 23% pay cuts - guess what I don't have United pay every month - this is a regional. Again - I contend we are not overpaid for what we do.
3.) Five years - We lock ourselves down to an unbelievably low rate for 5 years. There is no relief if a turn-around in the industry other than a "promised" 401K payout. So the company has the ability to see an industry rebound, take massive gross profits and we will get the old "sorry, you signed the contract!" Can't do it. I want some provision that says if the comapny goes like crazy, I either get my salary back or I share in the profit some way. The 401K is so thin it's not worth talking about.
4.) The contract language again is nebulous and just plain unacceptable. "May", "should", "at their discretion" - do we have lawyers reviewing this stuff or can we only afford law students? Every time we change the contract, the company takes more and more liberties with the "soft" language. I don't ever want to see words like this in another contract. We need to start detailing every last item of what scheduling can and cannot do with my life. Sorry, there's an emotion there, I'm fed up.
Now if you want me to get emotional - let's look at that.
Anger - Tom Moore writes a letter that states that our last TA "no" vote was a vote "not to grow the charter operation". Funny, I voted no because I didn't want to be assigned to a Charter job that by the "soft" language in the contract could keep me away from home for 20 days at a time. 8 days off is an insult. I don't work for Mesa.
Distrust - I really don't trust any one in our management. TM and KS have turned from entrepeneurs into risk averse guys who seem only to want money and a better stock price. Our company and union keeps telling us that we need to think "strategic" not "tactical" (stealing terms from the military). Really, then how about TM and KS getting up in front of the stockholders and telling them that our corporate philosophy is "strategic". We are going to have a lower stock price due to our lower PE ratio since costs will temporarily rise due to continuing our pilot salaries. In the long run, the aviation industry will see a huge turn around and we predict "IN THE LONG TERM" that our stock price will return to the pre-9/11 levels. Yeah, when pigs fly.
Distrust again - The Bain thing - it's not our fault - it's Bain! Yeah, right. A third party consulting firm getting paid a measily $750K for a sweeping overhaul of 47% of United's market. Bain ain't making line item decisions on which contract to sign - they told everybody that Mesa's cost structure is now "industry average" and then told each contractor how much they were out of kilter. I was a consultant. When the turnaround comes back in there is one bottom line and that is the bottom line. Let's say that we come in and do nothing about the pilot contract, but ACA has a lower fee per departure cost than Skywest and AWAC (I know we can't beat Mesa and CHQ). It doesn't matter - our bid wins. What does that take from our management - a commitment to make a bid without reliance on our puny $9Mill contribution. BUT NO - THEY tied the bid to our acceptance of the TA. I'm calling a big BS alert on this Bain stuff - they don't have the kind of power that our company and union are giving them! This is a ploy because it sure is a lot easier to point at a 3rd party and say "Blame Bain". Sorry - didn't fall off the truck yesterday and not buying it.
Fear - not mine but everybody who votes yes has one huge bit of emotion that the company is counting on. You fear that this job will evaporate based on all the dire things they have told you. Why is ACA's stock price so high going into a vote that according to Tom will kill the company? I'm going to tell you institutional investors would be selling ACA faster than fans on a Miami sidewalk. It's not - in fact our stock has gone up in light of this vote. Me, I couldn't care less. Aviation has become a rope around my neck - I used to love flying planes - can't stand flying this bus with wings on and quite frankly they don't pay me enough to do it.
So there - if anyone associated with the Union reads this take it back to your next meeting. You guys can't seem to understand why people would vote "no".
My own opinion listening to crew room and cockpit gossip is that our pilot's are caving and this TA will pass with a slender "yes" majority. I notice that everyday someone is in our crew room to "control" pilot dicussions to a "yes" conclusion or to keep the fear mongering. Tom Moore, Coulter, Union reps - they don't want anyone to think for themselves because that would create this dangerous "no" thinking which from managements view is just selfish of us rich pilots.
If this did get voted "no", I'm sure Tom will point at the pilots and say "see - they voted not to grow the company". Funny, I'm voting to not take a pay cut - growing the company is completely out of my level of responsibility - my expectation is that management has the insight and ability to "grow" the corporate organism. When the company does grow - I would like to be compensated - sorry the capitalist in me wants a share of the action. TM and KS keep treating me like I'm an opponent - I'm giving them exactly what they are giving me. Now if they want to treat me like a valued employee - then I will quite happily fall on the sword - but that would take quite a change for them to actually convince me that I am of any value beyond the fact that my salary is about the equivalent of a CRJ winglet on their bottom line.
My take - if you are afraid of losing your job - vote YES - keep your job temporarily at lower pay. If you feel that pay is not commesurate with the services provided, vote NO. Plain and simple. Maybe that will help all the fence sitters.
PS. As of this morning the rumor is that 50% of the membership has voted. Leaving the second half to consider their vote this weekend. I contend that anything less than 95% of the membership actively voting on this TA is an embarassment!
