Compass agreement

[PCL_128]

That's exactly right...and nobody seems to want to talk about WHY? In fact, some seem to want to cover it up......PCL_128...what's your take?

My take is that I don't have enough info to give a solid opinion on the whole issue. The last time I talked to any DAL MEC members was prior to the resolution passing at Council 44, so I haven't discussed it with them. I think it's probably a good thing that they haven't split Compass off into a separate MEC, but beyond that, I defer judgement until I get more info.

 

[JoeMerchant]

My take is that I don't have enough info to give a solid opinion on the whole issue. The last time I talked to any DAL MEC members was prior to the resolution passing at Council 44, so I haven't discussed it with them. I think it's probably a good thing that they haven't split Compass off into a separate MEC, but beyond that, I defer judgement until I get more info.

It should be a no-brainer....Compass wanted a staple. This is proof that the ASA/CMR PID was doomed regardless of a staple pre-nup...No major is ever going to staple a regional...Too much negotiating capital and too much arrogance....

 

[ACL65PILOT]

It should be a no-brainer....Compass wanted a staple. This is proof that the ASA/CMR PID was doomed regardless of a staple pre-nup...No major is ever going to staple a regional...Too much negotiating capital and too much arrogance....

Never say never. A prenup would take care of a lot of those issues.

 

[FDJ2]

It should be a no-brainer....Compass wanted a staple. ...

Who said that? Where was that written? Hint, FI posts don't count.

 

[FDJ2]

Never say never. A prenup would take care of a lot of those issues.

Which MEC signs off on the prenup on behalf of the Compass pilots?

Nothing against a single list with Compass, but the question before the Delta MEC is the representational structure of Compass, not a single list. Can the Delta MEC, which represents both Compass and Delta pilots unilaterally determine that a staple is appropriate? Just something to think about.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Which MEC signs off on the prenup on behalf of the Compass pilots?

Nothing against a single list with Compass, but the question before the Delta MEC is the representational structure of Compass, not a single list. Can the Delta MEC, which represents both Compass and Delta pilots unilaterally determine that a staple is appropriate? Just something to think about.

I have thought about it. Legally it can be done. It has to be done correctly, and carefully. DALPA represents the CPS pilots and because of this we should give them seniority numbers. It is that simple.
There is a precedent here. Fact is that they would come to DAL in a established flow agreement that is preexisting. It is because of this agreement that seniority order is already determined. I am sure that your attorney would agree that there is a legal precedent to this. A compelling one at that.
Just because there is some possibility of some issues does not mean that we need to shy away from it quite the opposite.

My comment was directed more that carriers that are not CPS. But, yes there are some issues there as well. Splitting them off from our representational structure is a quick decision that washes DALPA's hands of the mess, and in effect will create another one. One that now due to CPS not being part of our representational structure is not one that we can reign in. It becomes Lee's worst fears, another OH.

 

[FDJ2]

It has to be done correctly, and carefully.

Yes it does.

Question for you, if it is the desire of the Compass pilots to be stapled to the bottom of the Delta list, does giving the Compass pilots an independent MEC preclude a single list in the future, when Compass pilots can independently determine the direction they should take?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Yes it does.

Question for you, if it is the desire of the Compass pilots to be stapled to the bottom of the Delta list, does giving the Compass pilots an independent MEC preclude a single list in the future, when Compass pilots can independently determine the direction they should take?

Objection, leading the witness

Not per se, but it does do one thing that needs to be looked at very carefully. Ford-Cooksey. As I am sure you are aware of, the E-series jet is not flown by any DCI ALPA carrier except DALPA. We to date do not have to go to the council at ALPA national and meet with the members from said DCI carriers to change how this flying is done. Once we make CPS seperate from our representational structure they now fall under the ford-cooksey settlement. Not a deal breaker by any means, but absent past actions since this agreement was reached, there has been no movement to reel in scope at these carriers.
The way these jets are now, we can bring that series back in to the mainline fold and not have to deal with this one time consuming and costly hurdle.
I am sure that you have become a quick study on the desires of the CPS pilots as of late. 99.99% of them want us to integrate them, and in fact staple them. It is a win-win for all. We take a series of aircraft back, re work section one so it does not bite us, they start gaining seniority at DAL and do not have to restart their clock when they finally flow, and they get their number. They will get it either way.

If the MEC decides to separate them so that the admin manual does not need to be changed in regards to flight pay loss, avoid a possible lawsuit etc, it will set it self up for a lot of headaches.
I personally see the work around to Ford-Cooksey as a top reason to do this. I know all of the EA arguments to keeping DCI separate, but this is one opportunity we have to change the was we and ALPA play our game.
We can rewrite the book. It will take some work and set backs, but all good things do. I am hopeful that this MEC will see the fruits of seeing this though. It is not just about some more bodies below a few pilots. Fact is that as the flow stands now, it is a better furlough protection than having them on the list. This is about recapturing lost flying and changing the way we can achieve that goal.

 

[FDJ2]

I don't see much of an issue with Ford-Cooksey, or whether or not others fly the E-Jet. The Delta MEC has the right to determine it's own negotiating objectives and its own scope. Ford-Cooksey is a non factor.

For the time being I'm pleased that there has not been a rush to judgment on this issue. I hope folks are writing their reps and giving input.

 

[NuGuy]

I don't see much of an issue with Ford-Cooksey, or whether or not others fly the E-Jet. The Delta MEC has the right to determine it's own negotiating objectives and its own scope. Ford-Cooksey is a non factor.

For the time being I'm pleased that there has not been a rush to judgment on this issue. I hope folks are writing their reps and giving input.

Heyas FDJ,

While we have had our differences in the past, on this point I agree with you.

Obviously there have been wholesale shifts of flying in the past between ALPA carriers, with no DFR implications.

The mass transfer of flying back in the 90's from PDT/ALG to Mesa (FloridaGulf), as well as the wholesale shutdowns of Westair and ACA are all good examples. That flying when somewhere, mostly to lower cost outfits, which the argument could be made that ALPA caused by signing PWAs with lower overall pilot compensation. Yet none of those occurances generated any DFR complains. Why? Because those entities had no claim to the flying in the first place. They were simply vendors providing a product.

Why then would the transfer of flying back from the regional outsourced entities back to the mainline be any different? Certainly airline management is within it's rights to determine how it's flying is allocated. If it decides, as other airlines have done, that the flying is best done in-house, then there is no recourse. If, as a matter of course, that DALPA agrees with managament's decision, well then, so much the better.

Nu

 

[~~~^~~~]

Yes it does.

Question for you, if it is the desire of the Compass pilots to be stapled to the bottom of the Delta list, does giving the Compass pilots an independent MEC preclude a single list in the future, when Compass pilots can independently determine the direction they should take?

Sort of. For several reasons:

• An independent MEC is less likely to cede a staple pre-nup if ALPA's policy manual gives them a shot at arbitration.
• If Compass has its own MEC, the representational distinction between Compass and the other ALPA DCI carriers is lost. While a staple might be remotely possible with Compass, I doubt the same could be said for Comair.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Sort of. For several reasons:

• An independent MEC is less likely to cede a staple pre-nup if ALPA's policy manual gives them a shot at arbitration.
• If Compass has its own MEC, the representational distinction between Compass and the other ALPA DCI carriers is lost. While a staple might be remotely possible with Compass, I doubt the same could be said for Comair.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[FDJ2]

Sort of. For several reasons:

• An independent MEC is less likely to cede a staple pre-nup if ALPA's policy manual gives them a shot at arbitration.
• If Compass has its own MEC, the representational distinction between Compass and the other ALPA DCI carriers is lost. While a staple might be remotely possible with Compass, I doubt the same could be said for Comair.

Congratulations, you just made a great case for a DFR lawsuit. Absent their own representational structure, the Compass pilots would not have a voice in whether or not they agree to being stapled.

Is it your position that we should staple the Compass pilots before they can freely express whether or not they agree to be stapled?

Again, I'm not saying I'm against a single list with Compass, I can definitely see situations where that could be mutually beneficial for all parties, I'm just saying we need to proceed with caution if that's the road we ultimately go down. We need to be open to all the different strategies available.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Fair enough, but you can give them a voice within DALPA. It is different and does not have precedence but it can be done.
An LEC for all of the 380 CPS pilots can voice their opinion. Take the ANC LEC away and DAL-S will still have the edge on the MEC.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Congratulations, you just made a great case for a DFR lawsuit. Absent their own representational structure, the Compass pilots would not have a voice in whether or not they agree to being stapled.

Is it your position that we should staple the Compass pilots before they can freely express whether or not they agree to be stapled?

Again, I'm not saying I'm against a single list with Compass, I can definitely see situations where that could be mutually beneficial for all parties, I'm just saying we need to proceed with caution if that's the road we ultimately go down. We need to be open to all the different strategies available.

Lets keep it real for just one moment. The Delta MEC is looking for every excuse to package Compass up so they can be traded.

Along the infinitas of reasons to reject unity, ALPA's DFR excuse is probably the worst for these reasons:

• ALPA's DFR problems are the result of NOT being unified and treating pilot groups differently
• It is impossible for a pilot group to have a DFR claim within itself. Just as a person can not sue himself.
• SLI would require member ratification, including the Compass pilots
• The Compass pilots are within a representative structure, Delta's.

FDJ2 - respectfully, our MEC is not open to "all the strategies." Just look at the determined resistance to even getting an updated economic analysis on Compass. Most of what I hear justifying our current scope was dreamed up to justify bankruptcy concessions. This old data lacks relevance to current economic reality and fails to consider future threats.

 

[Schwanker]

An LEC for all of the 380 CPS pilots can voice their opinion. Take the ANC LEC away and DAL-S will still have the edge on the MEC.

Are you suggesting our representational structure needs to ensure DAL-S has an edge? So far I've been less than impressed with "the way it's always been" at DAL-S. Theoretically it should be a bottoms up organization. It certainly doesn't feel that way as it quite secretive, unresponsive and lacks communication.

As a junior guy, I would think a few more DAL-N thinking folks would be a nice change. Now getting rid of the ANC and/or SEA LEC would also assist junior issues as these small bases carry an improportionate amount of weight which usually was "all about them."

Schwanker

 

[ACL65PILOT]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that is the way that some members of the MEC are thinking. Simply put there is a small edge now for the Southies, and when ANC goes away, they give CPS those votes and keep the balance the way that they want it.

I am guessing that the decision was delayed to leave this open as an option. Look at the vote/representational spread and you will see what I am talking about.

I personally think it needs to be equal, but this is about politics.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Are we not all Delta pilots now? Should the MEC's decisions be based on what is best for the whole group? Not just former Delta.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that is the way that some members of the MEC are thinking. Simply put there is a small edge now for the Southies, and when ANC goes away, they give CPS those votes and keep the balance the way that they want it.

I am guessing that the decision was delayed to leave this open as an option. Look at the vote/representational spread and you will see what I am talking about.

I personally think it needs to be equal, but this is about politics.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Like I said look at the tilt. Small but there is one.

I personally think we are all equal.

I will probably be bidding F-NWA bases and jets post SOC.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Are you suggesting our representational structure needs to ensure DAL-S has an edge? So far I've been less than impressed with "the way it's always been" at DAL-S. Theoretically it should be a bottoms up organization. It certainly doesn't feel that way as it quite secretive, unresponsive and lacks communication.

As a junior guy, I would think a few more DAL-N thinking folks would be a nice change. Now getting rid of the ANC and/or SEA LEC would also assist junior issues as these small bases carry an improportionate amount of weight which usually was "all about them."

Schwanker

Speculation grows like weeds in an unmaintained field. Since the divestiture of Compass and outsourcing of flying is nonsensical, it is human nature to contrive some explanation so the the world we see out the window makes sense. This theory resolves the question of Compass via political intrigue, but I don't think it is the core issue.

Again, more irony, is that the DAL-N crowd somehow blames the DAL-S crowd for Compass, when it wasn't a creation of the DAL-S crowd.

The SPECULATION I have that makes sense is as follows:

The core issue is, from the perspective of a 767 Captain, that sub 150 seat flying is never going to make them a penny on the race to their personal finish line. They would not want to fly, or be a Captain on anything less than 150 seats, so why would anyone else? Economically they belive they can trade jobs below them for more money and a better chance at restoring this profession. If a job does not pay enough, it should not be on a mainline list, thus elevating the mainline list.

Compass has costs that are allegedly 30% below the regional carriers it competes with because Compass has no real structure, profits, staff, or longevity. It is believed the DCI contracts force other carriers to compete with this phantom. There is no way a Republic, or Skywest, can run their Corporations, make a profit for shareholders and deal with their increasing legacy costs. Compass and other shiny plastic toys will be used to whipsaw down longer lived carriers in a vicious cycle that destroys many pilots careers.

Rather than trying to fix our profession, those who have theirs are trying to preserve as much as they can by the time their personal finish line arrives. They believe a magnanimous management team gives them some of the extra profits from this outsourcing. It all goes back to selling what really isn't yours.

This is a failing strategy. By selling scope we make job protection a bargaining credit. Management then violates scope and expects a bargaining event (as we saw in December). By not "taking it back" the line only moves towards more outsourcing. 76 seats is not an objective number on an airplane certified to 88. It is a line in the sand that is difficult to defend and which will be wiped away when the Company wants the revenue and when we pilots think that revenue will be shared with us.

The sad reality is the more we outsource, the less power we have and the poorer our results will be.

The core truths of unionism are the only way out of this mess.