"...a step forward for all Mesa pilots" (huh?!)

[SpiraMirabilis]

Well, I am still learn about union. Here is my question:

Mesa pilots vote in their contract or TA, can ALPA national refuse to sign? If yes, what would happens to TA..etc?

No, I don't believe they can. The national body of ALPA doesn't have much say on the operations of the local union -- they're just trying to put the best spin on this as they can I guess. Although ALPA national's recommendation was to ratify the TA so maybe they do think it has significent gains.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Hey Kellwolf - you mentioned "rising inflation"


???


WHERE


Not in housing prices, gas prices or computer equipment. Didn't I just read somewhere that Consumer Price Index went down the last quarter?

 

[jynxyjoe]

Hey Kellwolf - you mentioned "rising inflation"


???


WHERE


Not in housing prices, gas prices or computer equipment. Didn't I just read somewhere that Consumer Price Index went down the last quarter?

Well its down from a record incline. Housing, gas, then healthcare.

CPI went down but it's not down to 1998 levels or something like that

 

[derg]

OMG, is that "The Tenney"?

 

[Minuteman]

According to the BLS Inflation Calculator, one 1999 dollar is worth $0.77 in 2008 dollars (or, what cost $1 in 1999 would cost $1.30 today).

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Our last contract was 2003, what is this 1999 from?

 

[kellwolf]

As usual, I use real life as my model not what some staticitians in a building come up with crunching numbers. Fact is, I was existing okay on $300-400 a week in 1998. Can't do that now. So, for me, cost of living appears to have gone up. I was paying $400 a month for a 2 bdrm/2 bath apartment in Orlando in 1998. That apartment is $700 a month now. Price of gas in 1998 was still less than it is now, too. Granted, gas is still heading that way, but it's not down to 1998 prices yet.

But since some people like stats.....

The CPI calculator on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website also says a 1998 dollar is worth $1.33 in 2008. Also from the BoLS:

The October
level of 216.573 (1982-84=100) was 3.7 percent higher than in October 2007

So, we're looking at 3.7% higher than a year ago based on that.

Here it is in 1998:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.2
percent in October, before seasonal adjustment, to a level of 164.0

and 1999 (FYI, I pulled that one out b/c that was the year the last Pinnacle contract was signed)

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.2
percent in October, before seasonal adjustment, to a level of 168.2

And since Mesa's last contract was in 2003, we'll get those numbers, too:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) decreased
0.1 percent in October, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The October
level of 185.0 (1982-84=100) was 2.0 percent higher than in October 2002.

So, 2008 is roughly 32% higher on the CPI than 1998, 29% over 1999 and about 17% over 2003. So, according to the stat people around here basing things off the CPI, anything less than a 17% increase, in my mind, would be concessionary in the Mesa contract.

Back to the calculator on the site, $21 starting FO pay in 2003 would buy $21. In 2008, it would by $24.72. So just to MAINTAIN the buying power they had, Mesa FOs would need a minimum of $24.72 as a first year pay rate. CAs, then, took a cut since they got zero raise.

I stand by my original assesment of inflation.

 

[berge7f9]

Does the new contract allow Mesa pilots to get block or better?

 

[kellwolf]

Does the new contract allow Mesa pilots to get block or better?

Yes. Someone at Mesa refresh my memory, though. Is that one of the improvements that's tied to PBS?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm not ignorant.

Beg to differ.

ALPA National's position should be to refuse this concessionary contract.

This isn't a concessionary contract. Is it a great contract? Nope, but it's not concessionary.

Prater should NOT sign it. MESA's succumbing to fear is going to <edit> us all royal when we enter section 6.

Captain Prater isn't in the habit of telling pilot groups that they can't have what they've voted to approve through a democratic process. The pilots voted for it, so they can have it. It isn't your place to tell them that they can't have what they want.

ALPA National has been complicit in the creation of a gigantic C scale. The organization has failed woefully in its fiduciary duty to its members. A DC-9 captain made $180.00 per hour in 1980's dollars.

ALPA National doesn't vote on contracts, pilots do. Captain Woerth hated those concessionary contracts after 9/11, but he wasn't going to force pilots to stand up for themselves. The choice is at the local level, not at the national level.

Mesa pilots vote in their contract or TA, can ALPA national refuse to sign? If yes, what would happens to TA..etc?

Yes, the ALPA President has the ability to refuse to sign a contract, but it's only been used when a pilot group didn't follow ALPA policy in negotiating an agreement. For instance, the CCAir MEC entered into concessionary talks with management even though management wasn't able to demonstrate the need for concessions. That's against ALPA policy, so Captain Woerth refused to sign the TA. An ALPA president has never refused to sign a contract that was reached in accordance with ALPA Bylaws and the Admin Manual. ALPA is a democratic organization, not a dictatorship.

 

[kellwolf]

This isn't a concessionary contract. Is it a great contract? Nope, but it's not concessionary.

In terms of pay scales....it's concessionary. I've already stated how inflation has kicked in since 2003. Therefore, no pay raises for CAs means CAs took a pay cut. At least that's the argument we've been using at PCL at LEAST since I was hired here. Bottom line is, if you agree to pay scales that giving you less buying power than you had 5 years ago, you conceded.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That's debatable. I agree with your analysis, but many people would say that if the scale didn't actually go down, then it's not a concession. In any case, the contract included a lot of improvements, and Mesa is in dire straights right now. A short-term 21 month agreement with work rule improvements is probably a good strategy, in my opinion. They will come up for Section 6 again before the Obama administration is even half way through the first term, and hopefully Mesa will be in much better shape financially.

 

[IrishSheepdog]

Todd, are you for real? You are defending this terrible contract, but yet in the same breath will condemn non-union airlines with much better pay and work rules? You have got to be kidding me. This Mesa TA is a whole lot of garbage. I remember the thread that discussed our concessions here at ExpressJet, and you didn't hesistate to express your negative opinion. Nevermind the fact we were able to retain our industry leading work rules, and still stay towards the top in 50-seat pay. How can you condemn our pilots for voting for the small concessions to keep our company viable, then turn around and say this Mesa contract is acceptable for the same reason?

You'll probably interject here with your resume of union volunteer work, then tell me "I don't understand" because I volunteer for committees that do not deal with negotiations or contract enforcement. It doesn't take a genius to recognize why the Mesa pilots voted like they did. It also doesn't take a genius to realize what kind of ripple effect this contract will have across the regional airlines. But it's OK if the regionals undercut the regionals, especially since this regional is ALPA, right? You do realize that we were forced into concessions because of other regionals undercutting us, right?

How is a 51 percenter at Mesa any different than a pilot who goes to work at a non-union airline? It seems that both have their own self interests in mind, the rest of the world be damned. Oh but one of them is union, so it's OK?

What a joke.

 

[surreal1221]

This TA passed because of two things.

Ignorance

and

Passiveness.

Nothing else.

 

[kellwolf]

Straight from the mouth of one of our PCL negotiators:

"Mesa f'ed us."

Fact is, this TA makes it hard on our negotiators. If it wasn't concessionary, then it would have made things easier. It puts WAY too much in the hands of management and gives them the power to nix a LOT of the improvements if they so choose just by yanking PBS. How many times have we said that pilot contracts don't make or break a company? Now we've got some of those same people saying it's okay b/c Mesa is in dire straights.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Straight from the mouth of one of our PCL negotiators:

"Mesa f'ed us."

Fact is, this TA makes it hard on our negotiators. If it wasn't concessionary, then it would have made things easier. It puts WAY too much in the hands of management and gives them the power to nix a LOT of the improvements if they so choose just by yanking PBS. How many times have we said that pilot contracts don't make or break a company? Now we've got some of those same people saying it's okay b/c Mesa is in dire straights.

I voted No for you guys but primarily for us. It's a shame.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Todd, are you for real? You are defending this terrible contract, but yet in the same breath will condemn non-union airlines with much better pay and work rules? You have got to be kidding me. This Mesa TA is a whole lot of garbage. I remember the thread that discussed our concessions here at ExpressJet, and you didn't hesistate to express your negative opinion. Nevermind the fact we were able to retain our industry leading work rules, and still stay towards the top in 50-seat pay. How can you condemn our pilots for voting for the small concessions to keep our company viable, then turn around and say this Mesa contract is acceptable for the same reason?

Wow, someone's a little upset. Honestly, I don't think the two situations are comparable, although I still haven't talked to the ALPA reps to see what they heard from E & FA about ExpressJet. In the case of Mesa, they would have already been delisted from the stock exchange if it weren't for a temporary reprieve from the rules due to the market crashing. Mesa is in a world of hurt. There's a real possibility that they won't exist in a couple of years. I can understand why they did what they did.

With that being said, yeah, it's a crappy contract. It doesn't make things easy for the PCL and RAH guys that are working on negotiating new agreements. But it's tough for me to tell pilots whose airline is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy to keep fighting, when it might be a better strategy to see how things look in 21 months.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize why the Mesa pilots voted like they did.

What is your opinion on why the MAG pilots voted this way? Keep in mind, it was almost evenly split, too.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

What is your opinion on why the MAG pilots voted this way? Keep in mind, it was almost evenly split, too.

It was? What happens during a union drive when a pilot votes no? What happens when a pilot doesn't vote?

Oh yeah, the same thing. Nearly 300 people chose not to vote. So out of 1200 pilots, only 33% voted no on the concessionary contract.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It was?

I would call 51-49 pretty evenly split, yeah.

What happens during a union drive when a pilot votes no? What happens when a pilot doesn't vote?

It's counted as a NO vote, which is something we've always argued is an unreasonable policy on the part of the NMB. It wouldn't make much sense to argue the opposite in this case, would it?

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I would call 51-49 pretty evenly split, yeah.



It's counted as a NO vote, which is something we've always argued is an unreasonable policy on the part of the NMB. It wouldn't make much sense to argue the opposite in this case, would it?

51 to 49 isn't even if you look at it from an NMB perspective. Since that's the hand we're dealt all those who didn't vote voted yes, and that makes the ratio somewhat skewed.... 66 to 34 almost.