What happens in August?

[kellwolf]

Steve, I'm not saying that at all. The deal signed was not the first deal the company gave the MEC. Negotiations took place and a deal was reached. Do you really think this deal was just "given" to the MEC?

If they had "zero negotiating capital," then how did they get such a deal in the first place? No, I don't think it was just given to the MEC, but I DO think the MEC was very methodical in trying to figure out what to toss in to get the votes they needed for it to pass. They needed a bone for the junior guys to vote "yes," which turned out to be the furlough money. The senior guys wouldn't see that, so they had to toss out something for those guys to vote "yes." I think that was a combination of the SSP as well as the pay out on emergence from bankruptcy. Was the SSP a direct swap for the LOA mentioned earlier? Nope, but you and I both know that's not how contract negotiations work. I do feel that some portion of the LOA was "costed" along with the SSP and it was part of the larger contract.

Very easy solution then, if people feel they were lied to, then why don't they recall the reps and replace them?



See above.

Can't answer honestly since I'm not there anymore. It could be as simple as no one else wants to do the job.

Not at all. I feel the MEC was extremely behind the curve on a myriad of issues concerning legacy Pinnacle training issues. However, I wasn't there at the time and was told by you to 'get over it'.

No. I told Joe to get over the crew room bickering. At least, that's the post you pointed me to last time we went down this road. At the time I was trying to get people to move forward as a "new company" that had been merged. That was before I was, essentially, stabbed in the back and a LOT of pro-XJ issues started getting crammed down people's throats. Some of it made sense, some of it came across as "We're Mesaba. We're better than Pinnacle. We've got the power and so, this is what we're going to do."

I can't speak what happened, but to say I blindly agree with all the MEC's actions is just not true.

Seems odd to me that, what is pretty close to the same MEC during XJ's bankruptcy and was ready to close the doors rather than roll over, accepted a MUCH worse deal than their deal in bankruptcy with XJ. Same MEC chair (Wychor) and same CEO (Spanjers), but this time around in bankruptcy this was the "best they could do." During road shows it was pretty obvious the MEC went with the "We're not sure how this is going to work, just vote "yes" and we'll figure it out later." This was one of the major reasons we voted down TA1 at Pinnacle. The shaky language and "figuring it out later" BS.

If the SSP works out, fine. I'll say I was wrong and be happy for the guys that move on. However, based on the wording, timing and historical trend of such agreements, I think it was something tossed out there as a zero cost item for the company that will not really benefit near as many people as people think it will.

 

[undsioux1]

Kell...I found out I was no longer part of P2P when my ALPA email login stopped working. Not much has changed.

You guys hiring anytime soon????

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The MEC had no negotiatiing captial, therefore they should just roll over and take what the company gives them?

Obviously they did more than that. They fought for the best deal they could get with virtually no leverage. I'd be interested to hear how you think they could have done better.

How many of those that "overwhelmingly supported it" based on what the MEC told them would be happening now think they were sold snake oil? Based on the people I talk to, many of them "yes" voters on that contract, now say they weren't told the whole truth. A few feel they were outright lied to.

This happens with every CBA. Ask every Alaska pilot you can find how they voted on their last CBA. You won't be able to find a single one of them who will admit to voting yes. And yet it ratified by a large margin. Why? Because it was a good deal. But everyone loves to pound their chest and claim they're so tough that they voted no. Talk is cheap. Actual votes aren't.

It sometimes seems that you and ATN will blindly defend anything that comes from an MEC, almost without question.

No one was more critical of the MEC's actions in Section 6 negotiations towards the end than I was. So your characterization is completely false. Your problem is that you don't have a feel for bargaining leverage, because you've never been in the position of having to weigh your leverage and make difficult decisions at the table. Seggy and I have, so we know how weak the bargaining position was for the MEC in bankruptcy.

 

[Seggy]

If they had "zero negotiating capital," then how did they get such a deal in the first place? No, I don't think it was just given to the MEC, but I DO think the MEC was very methodical in trying to figure out what to toss in to get the votes they needed for it to pass. They needed a bone for the junior guys to vote "yes," which turned out to be the furlough money. The senior guys wouldn't see that, so they had to toss out something for those guys to vote "yes." I think that was a combination of the SSP as well as the pay out on emergence from bankruptcy. Was the SSP a direct swap for the LOA mentioned earlier? Nope, but you and I both know that's not how contract negotiations work. I do feel that some portion of the LOA was "costed" along with the SSP and it was part of the larger contract.

As Todd asked, how could they have done better? You seem quite opinionated that the MEC sold everyone down the river but a select few, so how could they realistically have done better?

Can't answer honestly since I'm not there anymore. It could be as simple as no one else wants to do the job.

If you aren't willing to do it, be grateful you have people that do.

No. I told Joe to get over the crew room bickering. At least, that's the post you pointed me to last time we went down this road. At the time I was trying to get people to move forward as a "new company" that had been merged. That was before I was, essentially, stabbed in the back and a LOT of pro-XJ issues started getting crammed down people's throats. Some of it made sense, some of it came across as "We're Mesaba. We're better than Pinnacle. We've got the power and so, this is what we're going to do."

What you described here is typical merger bull fecal matter. When you merge again, it will be rinse and repeat, not worth getting ones blood pressure up over.

Seems odd to me that, what is pretty close to the same MEC during XJ's bankruptcy and was ready to close the doors rather than roll over, accepted a MUCH worse deal than their deal in bankruptcy with XJ. Same MEC chair (Wychor) and same CEO (Spanjers), but this time around in bankruptcy this was the "best they could do." During road shows it was pretty obvious the MEC went with the "We're not sure how this is going to work, just vote "yes" and we'll figure it out later." This was one of the major reasons we voted down TA1 at Pinnacle. The shaky language and "figuring it out later" BS.

If the SSP works out, fine. I'll say I was wrong and be happy for the guys that move on. However, based on the wording, timing and historical trend of such agreements, I think it was something tossed out there as a zero cost item for the company that will not really benefit near as many people as people think it will.

I know when the deal was being put out to the pilots, you were pretty much out the door, did you even go to a roadshow or is it second hand info? Also every bankruptcy is different, why would you expect the same results from the first Mesaba Bankruptcy? Furthermore, Spanjers had NO power to direct anything during both bankruptcies, it was being controlled by Northwest and Delta. Why even bring his name up?

 

[kellwolf]

As Todd asked, how could they have done better? You seem quite opinionated that the MEC sold everyone down the river but a select few, so how could they realistically have done better?

Snapbacks seemed to work last time. Why not this time around? Pinnacle management kept dropping hints that they could get more flying during negotiations, yet is there anything in the contract that would start to return wages where they were previously in the event that more flying WAS secured (a la Mesaba's bankruptcy contract)? The MEC could have actually manned up and SAID "Look, this is the best deal we could get, and we're not sure how any of this is going to work." Instead, they were selling it like a door-to-door salesman looking to make a quota without really knowing what the language was going to do, or even what Pinnacle management was going to do.

What you described here is typical merger bull fecal matter. When you merge again, it will be rinse and repeat, not worth getting ones blood pressure up over.

Doesn't mean I have to just go with it. It was BS then, it'll be BS again, I should just shut up while my part of the merged list is getting bent over? No thanks. I was pretty vocal about what I thought about the merged MEC while I was at 9E. Hell, THEY didn't even stick to the contract. How's that scheduling committee that was supposed to be around after the merged MEC was formed coming? That was the whole selling point on the transparency of reserve and scheduling issues in the JCBA. You couldn't get access to it directly, but there would be a union rep on call you could get in contact with that would have access to it as part of a committee formed post-merger. Yeah, so much for that. I can't blame the company for that one, that was all the lack of motivation on the union's part. Guess they had other priorities. Then there was the representation (or lack thereof) in JFK. I even said I'd run for CA rep in JFK, but there was no interest in splitting us off from DTW even though our pilot group had grown bigger than MEM. The DTW reps didn't really seem to care about JFK, it was tough getting a rep when you needed one (since none of them were based in JFK) and in e-mails it often seemed they FORGOT they repped JFK. This is the stuff that CAN NOT happen in a merger and expect people to just say "Eh, this is typical merger stuff." This was AFTER the dust settled. I was getting better info from the EWR reps than my own reps. Why they didn't merge those two councils is beyond me. I asked, and I was never given a straight answer by the union leadership. I never felt the merged MEC had any kind of plan for integration of the three airline union systems going forward. It seemed like it was a "lets get merged and we'll figure it out as we go" type deal. Instead of a plan, they were putting out fires as they went.

I know when the deal was being put out to the pilots, you were pretty much out the door, did you even go to a roadshow or is it second hand info? Also every bankruptcy is different, why would you expect the same results from the first Mesaba Bankruptcy? Furthermore, Spanjers had NO power to direct anything during both bankruptcies, it was being controlled by Northwest and Delta. Why even bring his name up?

I tend to think the CEO of a company has a bit of leeway in the proceedings. Admitedly, the info I got was second hand. Where's your info that Spanjers had no power and Delta was pulling the strings coming from?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Snapbacks seemed to work last time. Why not this time around? Pinnacle management kept dropping hints that they could get more flying during negotiations, yet is there anything in the contract that would start to return wages where they were previously in the event that more flying WAS secured (a la Mesaba's bankruptcy contract)?

Yeah, that sounds great. The problem, of course, is that any idiot can list a few things that they want. But negotiations is not called "demands" for a reason. Each side has a limited amount of leverage at their disposal, and they make decisions on how to use it. And each specific negotiation has different amounts of leverage for each side. MSA had more leverage in their first bankruptcy. In the second bankruptcy, Pinnacle was teetering on the edge of non-existence. Leverage was practically nil for the pilots. Expecting snapbacks was fantasy land stuff.

I tend to think the CEO of a company has a bit of leeway in the proceedings. Admitedly, the info I got was second hand. Where's your info that Spanjers had no power and Delta was pulling the strings coming from?

Really? You actually doubt that Delta was in control the whole time? Spanjers was a puppet, just like Phildo was a puppet. That's how Anderson likes his regional carriers. He doesn't want them to think for themselves. That's why Bedford left Mesaba years ago. NWA wouldn't let him run the company the way he wanted.

 

[kellwolf]

Yeah, that sounds great. The problem, of course, is that any idiot can list a few things that they want. But negotiations is not called "demands" for a reason. Each side has a limited amount of leverage at their disposal, and they make decisions on how to use it. And each specific negotiation has different amounts of leverage for each side. MSA had more leverage in their first bankruptcy. In the second bankruptcy, Pinnacle was teetering on the edge of non-existence. Leverage was practically nil for the pilots. Expecting snapbacks was fantasy land stuff.

Apparently they weren't teetering as much as they said, given the current state of affairs over there. What happened to no airline was "saved" by pilot givebacks? Wasn't Mesaba weeks away from shutting the doors (or hours depening on who you talk to), and the pilots signed a deal? I'd call that about the same or worse "teetering on the edge of non-existence" than Pinnacle was this time last year. Snapbacks are a zero cost (at the time they are agreed to, at least) item. How is that "fantasy land?" Set the limits to the point where the company is profitable again, and there you go.

Really? You actually doubt that Delta was in control the whole time? Spanjers was a puppet, just like Phildo was a puppet. That's how Anderson likes his regional carriers. He doesn't want them to think for themselves. That's why Bedford left Mesaba years ago. NWA wouldn't let him run the company the way he wanted.

I love how I have to state where I hear everything and what I say is unfounded, yet other people can toss conjecture out and expect me to accept it on face value. Conspiracy theories rock. I think the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sandusky?]

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Snapbacks are a zero cost (at the time they are agreed to, at least) item. How is that "fantasy land?" Set the limits to the point where the company is profitable again, and there you go.

You're still approaching the situation as if you have some leverage. You don't. It doesn't matter if it's a "no cost item" (it's not, though). When you don't have leverage, you can make any sort of reasoned argument you want, and it's not going to matter. They can get what they want with the stroke of a judge's pen. Sure, they would rather get a consensual deal just because it looks better to creditors, but that doesn't get you very far. Until bankruptcy laws change, your leverage is nil.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

The most telling part of the bankruptcy agreement was the roadshow. "We will be shut down if this agreement isn't voted in." Take your pick, anyone who represented ALPA at the roadshow said this.

 

[amorris311]

The most telling part of the bankruptcy agreement was the roadshow. "We will be shut down if this agreement isn't voted in." Take your pick, anyone who represented ALPA at the roadshow said this.

I did? That is news to me. I distinctly remember saying that no one knows for sure but our odds are not good if we vote no. No one had a crystal ball and knew for sure. Delta sure did make it clear on several occasions that the flying could be shifted in short order if need be.

 

[DL31082]

You're still approaching the situation as if you have some leverage. You don't. It doesn't matter if it's a "no cost item" (it's not, though). When you don't have leverage, you can make any sort of reasoned argument you want, and it's not going to matter. They can get what they want with the stroke of a judge's pen. Sure, they would rather get a consensual deal just because it looks better to creditors, but that doesn't get you very far. Until bankruptcy laws change, your leverage is nil.

The problem with saying they can get what they want with the stroke of a judge's pen is they tried that and failed. Granted the judge pretty much said that if the motion was re-filed he would have had no choice but to grant the 1113. The company did say they would not attempt to get the judge to throw out the contract again.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The problem with saying they can get what they want with the stroke of a judge's pen is they tried that and failed. Granted the judge pretty much said that if the motion was re-filed he would have had no choice but to grant the 1113.

Exactly.

The company did say they would not attempt to get the judge to throw out the contract again.

Yes, and my CEO said that he would allow us to go to arbitration and honor a binding arbitration award for our seniority integration. We even had it in writing. Guess how that went down? Never trust the company. Their motivations are different than yours.

 

[kellwolf]

You're still approaching the situation as if you have some leverage. You don't. It doesn't matter if it's a "no cost item" (it's not, though). When you don't have leverage, you can make any sort of reasoned argument you want, and it's not going to matter. They can get what they want with the stroke of a judge's pen. Sure, they would rather get a consensual deal just because it looks better to creditors, but that doesn't get you very far. Until bankruptcy laws change, your leverage is nil.

In that case, I guess it's amazing they got what they did and everyone should just be happy to be employed.....

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I did? That is news to me. I distinctly remember saying that no one knows for sure but our odds are not good if we vote no. No one had a crystal ball and knew for sure. Delta sure did make it clear on several occasions that the flying could be shifted in short order if need be.

I don't remember you being up on stage. The Detroit road show was a sell job.

 

[amorris311]

I did both crew room sits as well as sits at the Westin. I was the big guy from CJC. I also did recurrent sits in MSP but I think that was 900 guys for the most part.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I did both crew room sits as well as sits at the Westin. I was the big guy from CJC. I also did recurrent sits in MSP but I think that was 900 guys for the most part.

Never made a crew room sit (I don't go to work on my days off), but didn't see you at the P2P luncheons at the Online Café. Did you present the TA? Sounded like during the QA portion that Tom and Co said "vote yes to stay in business" and also when I brought up how much other ALPA units hate us for negotiating a concessionary TA he said "screw them, these are our jobs to lose". Paraphrased as well. But it was a HEAVY sell.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It should have been a heavy sell. Everyone's jobs hung in the balance.

 

[amorris311]

I never did the online cafe and was not there when Tom did his visits. I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I approached the meetings a little differently. I would start with people asking questions and I would answer them to the best of my ability with the information I was allowed to talk about. In my opinion it's less productive to sit there and just talk and not let people air their grievances. JB and I took a lot of notes and shared them with the MEC as well as the negotiators. As other have alluded to we didn't have much leverage. This made it hard to make any significant gains. I'm with you though that our concessions did not save the company. This was planned months in advance.

 

[DPApilot]

Eve

Man crush much?

r

Man crush much?

Everyone loves me!