New Mesa Thread
09-05-2015, 07:42 PM
#1021
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: CRJ-900/ CA
Posts: 34
Mine is $10,000 over five years which is 2.4%
09-05-2015, 07:42 PM
#1022
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Interesting. I am waiting for the conference calls. I hope they do as good of a job with those since my schedule won't allow a roadshow event. I'm an FO, so the fancy spreadsheet won't make much difference, but I do have questions about the scheduling section.
09-05-2015, 07:45 PM
#1023
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: CRJ-900/ CA
Posts: 34
Should be out on the website next week
09-05-2015, 08:18 PM
#1025
sippin' dat koolaid
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: gear slinger
Posts: 982
I went to the road show, I heard the other side, and it has allowed me to remove all emotion, and only look at things from a logical standpoint. I encourage you all to attend the road show, show the same fervor there as you do here, ask the hard questions, and hear the side from the negotiating side. All I see on here is emotion based decision making. Vent out your emotion at the roadshow, get it out of your system, and think with a clearer mind.
Really it comes down to this simple question.. If it is voted down, do you believe the company will come back with something better in a year or less? If you do believe the company WILL offer something better, then vote no.
Also, the Flight Attendants are negotiating for their contract as well. I personally would find it hilarious if we vote it down, all the money earmarked for us went straight to them!
As far as the Teamsters are concerned, ALPA has a conflict of interest representing mainline and also regionals, for obvious reasons. Regionals need to have their own union, send Alpa a message to get serious with the regionals.
And I am not a firm Yes or No voter. Used to be a firm No, but the section on scheduling basically reboots the entire scheduling system into something I believe to be much better for our QOL, and I only gained that insight by going to the roadshow.
As far as the excel spreadsheet, they did a good job explaining the formulas, and it worked out to be about 15k more in everyones pockets over a 5 year period. Nothing to put a smile on your face, but better than what we have now.
Really, this vote is nothing more than a gamble.
Really it comes down to this simple question.. If it is voted down, do you believe the company will come back with something better in a year or less? If you do believe the company WILL offer something better, then vote no.
Also, the Flight Attendants are negotiating for their contract as well. I personally would find it hilarious if we vote it down, all the money earmarked for us went straight to them!
As far as the Teamsters are concerned, ALPA has a conflict of interest representing mainline and also regionals, for obvious reasons. Regionals need to have their own union, send Alpa a message to get serious with the regionals.
And I am not a firm Yes or No voter. Used to be a firm No, but the section on scheduling basically reboots the entire scheduling system into something I believe to be much better for our QOL, and I only gained that insight by going to the roadshow.
As far as the excel spreadsheet, they did a good job explaining the formulas, and it worked out to be about 15k more in everyones pockets over a 5 year period. Nothing to put a smile on your face, but better than what we have now.
Really, this vote is nothing more than a gamble.
If they cannot figure it out then maybe they shouldn't stay in business. Don't let someone sweet talk you into pushing this horrendous piece of work through. Vote no and leave yourself a way out for the worst case scenario.
09-05-2015, 08:35 PM
#1026
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,198
Your attitude sucks man. Our main concern is safely flying airplanes from point A to B and receiving fair compensation in return. IT IS NOT our responsibility to subsidize our management team's inability to turn a decent profit to pay those fair wages.
If they cannot figure it out then maybe they shouldn't stay in business. Don't let someone sweet talk you into pushing this horrendous piece of work through. Vote no and leave yourself a way out for the worst case scenario.
If they cannot figure it out then maybe they shouldn't stay in business. Don't let someone sweet talk you into pushing this horrendous piece of work through. Vote no and leave yourself a way out for the worst case scenario.
Seriously, if you truly wanted to prove your point, and do it the most logical way, you would quit. You enable the company to get away with their compensation package by accepting to continue to work here. I am ok with it, you sound like you are not. So why don't you exercise your "worst case scenario" plan and stop enabling the company?
09-05-2015, 09:09 PM
#1028
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
I am a family man with a mortgage. I will gladly vote for their best interest, which is paying the bills. I am not part of the crowd that would rather see their own employer go out of business to prove a point. I quite like my job, and it is the best job I have ever had.
Seriously, if you truly wanted to prove your point, and do it the most logical way, you would quit. You enable the company to get away with their compensation package by accepting to continue to work here. I am ok with it, you sound like you are not. So why don't you exercise your "worst case scenario" plan and stop enabling the company?
Seriously, if you truly wanted to prove your point, and do it the most logical way, you would quit. You enable the company to get away with their compensation package by accepting to continue to work here. I am ok with it, you sound like you are not. So why don't you exercise your "worst case scenario" plan and stop enabling the company?
That costs nothing--and that glaring hole in this contract means we get zero when the company goes public in late 2015/early 2016.
I'm not thinking emotionally--the scheduling section reduces the value of seniority greatly. Lineholders will have to compete with reserves for open time, reserves won't be called in seniority order--all things I will never vote for. Been there, done that--balancing systems suck for everyone.
09-05-2015, 09:14 PM
#1029
sippin' dat koolaid
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: gear slinger
Posts: 982
I am a family man with a mortgage. I will gladly vote for their best interest, which is paying the bills. I am not part of the crowd that would rather see their own employer go out of business to prove a point. I quite like my job, and it is the best job I have ever had.
Seriously, if you truly wanted to prove your point, and do it the most logical way, you would quit. You enable the company to get away with their compensation package by accepting to continue to work here. I am ok with it, you sound like you are not. So why don't you exercise your "worst case scenario" plan and stop enabling the company?
Seriously, if you truly wanted to prove your point, and do it the most logical way, you would quit. You enable the company to get away with their compensation package by accepting to continue to work here. I am ok with it, you sound like you are not. So why don't you exercise your "worst case scenario" plan and stop enabling the company?
I get that I signed up to work here on the current contract, but I'll be damned if I contribute to this subpar piece of work. This vote allows many of us to have a say in these matters for the first time. Also I'm not a huge fan of voluntary colonoscopies, so you can bet your below industry average paycheck that I will be voting down this degrading piece of filth.
09-06-2015, 12:09 AM
#1030
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
What would it take for you to vote yes? I know some say it's a bad idea with negotiations to telegraph what you would agree to, but I'll do it anyway. I think all of these would be non-negotiable for me. They are still mostly below industry average. The union and the company will say they can't afford it and will ask where I would take concessions to get this stuff. Well, the Mesa pilots have taken concessions for the last decade plus. We are taking concessions in comparison to other regionals. I am not asking for a $10k-$20k bonus several other regionals pay. Nor am I asking for wages or even healthcare benefits equal to my other regional peers. Any agreement would have the following:
Pay - still below industry standard, but palatable to me (and I would think the rest of the pilot group):
CA 900/175 pay at current 79 seat rate at date of signing, not blended
CA 700/170 pay: current TA blended rates as published in TA
FO rates 25/30/35/40
Rewrite of TA soft pay language with more clarity so as not to get exploited by JO. Specifically, soft pay would be "at the highest pay rate for the aircraft on which a pilot is qualified in domicile." Or even "at a pay rate blended in an equal proportion to the number of different sized aircraft on which a pilot is qualified in domicile." If there were 10 200s and 10 900s in my domicile and I flew both, I'd be ok getting blended 900/200 soft pay which would equal my normal flying pay in theory. It's that simple. If that is truly the intent of the company as the MEC says it is, then why won't they put it in writing, where it counts? If I am qualified on a 200 and it's in my domicile, the way the language is written, I am getting 200 pay for soft time. We would lose that in arbitration like we lost the base pay recently.
DH = 100% pay.*We are on duty, period.
Per Diem = 1.75 per hour. Still below most other regionals.
KCM paid for.
Min day guarantee, probably of 4 hours. The next worst behind us in the industry I think is PSA at 3.5. Everyone else I think has 4 or more with additional trip/duty rigs. We have nothing. 4 hours a day would be a good start, but not asking too much. It just makes those wasted days with 1 or 2 short legs more palatable being away from home but not making very much money. Wouldn't cost the company much and would force the schedules to be more efficient. Could even be a cost neutral item if it got the schedulers and AA to be more efficient. Even with 117 rules and short flights, we can still have efficient schedules.
True block or better with full cancelation pay. A cancelation currently negates leg by leg overages elsewhere in the month. One cancel in the month puts you at line guarantee, and you don't get paid for your extra work. Again, wouldn't cost the company much.
Reserve:
Keep CMF/CML but keep the ability to pick up trips while on reserve. Keep most of the rest of the reserve language. Keep long call, but do something to address the lack of transparency with respect to buffers and all reserve language being contingent upon buffers. If the company is serious about wanting to use long call, make the language stronger to support it.
FLICA: add just a little bit of language for FLiCA to make it more efficient.
And here is another thing not getting enough attention, that IMO should.
Profit sharing. The company and the union's whole argument why we got such a garbage 5 year TA is that there is no money now since the company will be cashflow negative for the next couple years. Well, if in 3 years the company is profitable, then by their own logic they can afford to pay us more. The reality is though that with a 5 year contract, it will be 7-10 years before we get a new contract. So that is 4-7 years the company will theoretically be profitable that we are making negligibly more than we are now. Profit sharing would enable the company to not pay us when they are cashflow negative or neutral, and not pay us very much when there are razor thin profit margins. We would only get paid an appreciable amount if the company was making healthy profits. So why don't we try to capture some of that future money now instead of in 7-10 years? God knows we won't get retro pay.
Pay - still below industry standard, but palatable to me (and I would think the rest of the pilot group):
CA 900/175 pay at current 79 seat rate at date of signing, not blended
CA 700/170 pay: current TA blended rates as published in TA
FO rates 25/30/35/40
Rewrite of TA soft pay language with more clarity so as not to get exploited by JO. Specifically, soft pay would be "at the highest pay rate for the aircraft on which a pilot is qualified in domicile." Or even "at a pay rate blended in an equal proportion to the number of different sized aircraft on which a pilot is qualified in domicile." If there were 10 200s and 10 900s in my domicile and I flew both, I'd be ok getting blended 900/200 soft pay which would equal my normal flying pay in theory. It's that simple. If that is truly the intent of the company as the MEC says it is, then why won't they put it in writing, where it counts? If I am qualified on a 200 and it's in my domicile, the way the language is written, I am getting 200 pay for soft time. We would lose that in arbitration like we lost the base pay recently.
DH = 100% pay.*We are on duty, period.
Per Diem = 1.75 per hour. Still below most other regionals.
KCM paid for.
Min day guarantee, probably of 4 hours. The next worst behind us in the industry I think is PSA at 3.5. Everyone else I think has 4 or more with additional trip/duty rigs. We have nothing. 4 hours a day would be a good start, but not asking too much. It just makes those wasted days with 1 or 2 short legs more palatable being away from home but not making very much money. Wouldn't cost the company much and would force the schedules to be more efficient. Could even be a cost neutral item if it got the schedulers and AA to be more efficient. Even with 117 rules and short flights, we can still have efficient schedules.
True block or better with full cancelation pay. A cancelation currently negates leg by leg overages elsewhere in the month. One cancel in the month puts you at line guarantee, and you don't get paid for your extra work. Again, wouldn't cost the company much.
Reserve:
Keep CMF/CML but keep the ability to pick up trips while on reserve. Keep most of the rest of the reserve language. Keep long call, but do something to address the lack of transparency with respect to buffers and all reserve language being contingent upon buffers. If the company is serious about wanting to use long call, make the language stronger to support it.
FLICA: add just a little bit of language for FLiCA to make it more efficient.
And here is another thing not getting enough attention, that IMO should.
Profit sharing. The company and the union's whole argument why we got such a garbage 5 year TA is that there is no money now since the company will be cashflow negative for the next couple years. Well, if in 3 years the company is profitable, then by their own logic they can afford to pay us more. The reality is though that with a 5 year contract, it will be 7-10 years before we get a new contract. So that is 4-7 years the company will theoretically be profitable that we are making negligibly more than we are now. Profit sharing would enable the company to not pay us when they are cashflow negative or neutral, and not pay us very much when there are razor thin profit margins. We would only get paid an appreciable amount if the company was making healthy profits. So why don't we try to capture some of that future money now instead of in 7-10 years? God knows we won't get retro pay.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
