New Mesa Thread
08-31-2015, 05:38 PM
#941
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: Ball Turret Gunner
Posts: 297
08-31-2015, 05:48 PM
#942
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 3
Mesa was a nightmare the entire time I was there, glad that part of my life is over!
08-31-2015, 05:51 PM
#943
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,186
Anyone show up today in DFW for the roadshow?
08-31-2015, 05:58 PM
#945
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 175 Left
Posts: 1,539
Then again I thought anything was good after coming from IBT Local 357....
08-31-2015, 09:39 PM
#947
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,602
No vote party at Priors house
08-31-2015, 09:45 PM
#948
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: First Officer
Posts: 14
A yes vote means Mesa will have a firm five-year cost outlook, and an enhanced ability to attract/retain new hires, with which they can secure and staff more flying.
A no vote means Mesa will have an uncertain cost outlook, create the impression of labor instability with our codeshare partners, and decrease Mesa's ability to attract/retain new hires. The company's ability to secure/staff additional flying will be in question--by both JO and our codehsare partners--and it is very likely the status quo and existing fleet size will remain constant indefinitely.
This is truly a "take it or leave it" agreement, folks. If you're in the bottom half of the seniority list, and you don't want a raise or a Captain seat anytime in the near future--then by all means go for it and vote no! It'll be the most irrational career choice you've ever made (I've made the same misguided, emotional "no" vote before), but hey--who am I to attempt to sway your mind.
I just hope people will vote based on a rational assessment of the facts, the company's financial position, and the volumes of history documenting the demise of regionals on quixotic quests to "raise the bar." Set aside the views of a vocal minority of pilots who don't even work here, set aside the bitterness exuded by senior pilots who have enough seniority/salary to comfortably weather the fallout of a "no" vote for 4-5 years, and make the decision that's best for your career, your quality of life, and your family/dog/etc..
A no vote means Mesa will have an uncertain cost outlook, create the impression of labor instability with our codeshare partners, and decrease Mesa's ability to attract/retain new hires. The company's ability to secure/staff additional flying will be in question--by both JO and our codehsare partners--and it is very likely the status quo and existing fleet size will remain constant indefinitely.
This is truly a "take it or leave it" agreement, folks. If you're in the bottom half of the seniority list, and you don't want a raise or a Captain seat anytime in the near future--then by all means go for it and vote no! It'll be the most irrational career choice you've ever made (I've made the same misguided, emotional "no" vote before), but hey--who am I to attempt to sway your mind.
I just hope people will vote based on a rational assessment of the facts, the company's financial position, and the volumes of history documenting the demise of regionals on quixotic quests to "raise the bar." Set aside the views of a vocal minority of pilots who don't even work here, set aside the bitterness exuded by senior pilots who have enough seniority/salary to comfortably weather the fallout of a "no" vote for 4-5 years, and make the decision that's best for your career, your quality of life, and your family/dog/etc..
Wow!!! Just Wow!!!
08-31-2015, 10:16 PM
#949
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Hey bro. I posted that before I saw this p.o.s. TA, based on expectations set by TAs I saw at previous airlines, with strong ALPA chapters.
Specifically, I have never, ever been offered a TA in my career where any section was simply a carbon-copy of an expired bankruptcy contract. I have never been offered TA payrates that didn't even compensate for inflation since the previous contract had expired--I had no idea this TA was going to be not only less than industry-average, but in fact concessionary.
I was hyping this TA before it came out based on the categorical presumption it would be close to industry-average, with a few bucks/hour plus payraises for everyone, along with no more 50-seat base pay, along with "improved work rules & scheduling language"--when the MEC claimed improvements in all sections and compensation, I kind of presumed the same gains I saw at my last employer--not the case at all.
Based on the MEC's emails--and my previous experience with other ALPA MECs, I never, ever expected it would be this bad.
I made an incorrect assumption and totally thought we'd be voting on something just under industry average in return for promises of more airframes--you can be a jerk about it if you want, but keep in mind this is kind of an unprecedented level of concessionary contract for this hiring environment. I regret ever saying anything in support of what I thought would be something good for the career of the average Mesa pilot.
Specifically, I have never, ever been offered a TA in my career where any section was simply a carbon-copy of an expired bankruptcy contract. I have never been offered TA payrates that didn't even compensate for inflation since the previous contract had expired--I had no idea this TA was going to be not only less than industry-average, but in fact concessionary.
I was hyping this TA before it came out based on the categorical presumption it would be close to industry-average, with a few bucks/hour plus payraises for everyone, along with no more 50-seat base pay, along with "improved work rules & scheduling language"--when the MEC claimed improvements in all sections and compensation, I kind of presumed the same gains I saw at my last employer--not the case at all.
Based on the MEC's emails--and my previous experience with other ALPA MECs, I never, ever expected it would be this bad.
I made an incorrect assumption and totally thought we'd be voting on something just under industry average in return for promises of more airframes--you can be a jerk about it if you want, but keep in mind this is kind of an unprecedented level of concessionary contract for this hiring environment. I regret ever saying anything in support of what I thought would be something good for the career of the average Mesa pilot.
Last edited by flapshalfspeed; 08-31-2015 at 10:27 PM.
08-31-2015, 10:27 PM
#950
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 241
Hey bro. I posted that before I saw this p.o.s. TA, based on expectations set by TAs I saw at previous airlines, with strong ALPA chapters.
Specifically, I have never, ever been offered a TA in my career where any section was simply a carbon-copy of an expired bankruptcy contract. I have never been offered TA payrates that didn't even compensate for inflation since the previous contract had expired--I had no idea this TA was going to be not only less than industry-average, but in fact concessionary.
I was hyping this TA before it came out based on the categorical presumption it would be close to industry-average, with a few bucks/hour plus payraises for everyone, along with no more 50-seat base pay, along with "improved work rules & scheduling language"--when the MEC claimed improvements in all sections and compensation, I kind of presumed the same gains I saw at my last employer--not the case at all.
Based on the MEC's emails--and my previous experience with other ALPA MECs, I never, ever expected it would be this bad.
I miscalculated and totally thought we'd be voting on something just under industry average in return for promises of more airframes--you can be a jerk about it if you want, but keep in mind this is kind of an unprecedented level of concessionary contract for this hiring environment. It's absurd and I'm voting no--swear it on my life.
Specifically, I have never, ever been offered a TA in my career where any section was simply a carbon-copy of an expired bankruptcy contract. I have never been offered TA payrates that didn't even compensate for inflation since the previous contract had expired--I had no idea this TA was going to be not only less than industry-average, but in fact concessionary.
I was hyping this TA before it came out based on the categorical presumption it would be close to industry-average, with a few bucks/hour plus payraises for everyone, along with no more 50-seat base pay, along with "improved work rules & scheduling language"--when the MEC claimed improvements in all sections and compensation, I kind of presumed the same gains I saw at my last employer--not the case at all.
Based on the MEC's emails--and my previous experience with other ALPA MECs, I never, ever expected it would be this bad.
I miscalculated and totally thought we'd be voting on something just under industry average in return for promises of more airframes--you can be a jerk about it if you want, but keep in mind this is kind of an unprecedented level of concessionary contract for this hiring environment. It's absurd and I'm voting no--swear it on my life.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
