Compass agreement

[~~~^~~~]

I can tell you this. This bi-lateral flow that DALPA has talked about does a few things and look at it for what it is.
It give a bone to the DCI pilots. It is not much, but it allows a mainline slot, the golden egg if you will.
What it really does is this.

See DCI costs are now legacy costs. DAL know it, ALPA knows it. What that means is two things. One they need bigger jets to amortize costs across more seats, and two, they need to get their longevity costs in check. Having a flow that resets longevity of said pilots reduces the pilot costs at DCI. Keeps the longevity at around year four instead of where it is now at year 8 or nine. See DCI has done so well that it now has costs are border mainlines. Don't want to believe me, do the E and A that has been resolved to do. It appears that you already know what the results would be. You just do not want the data to be used in a one list arguement. Management seems to think that the DCI costs are too high.

They have tried putting bigger jets on DCI, and it has not helped. They tried outsourcing to "younger" carriers, and it has not helped, They have tried to consolidate ops where possible, and it has not helped. Look at their actions and tell me there really is another reason for it.

Unity... accept NO substitute.
​

 

[~~~^~~~]

Do you honestly think that ALPA needs you to pass a resolution at the local level in order for them to do costing on scope?

What is your opinion on the MEC's resolution to not do E&FA on kicking Compass to the curb?

 

[PCL_128]

PCL - you and my ALPA leadership have so convinced me of the benefits of outsourcing that I'd like to try outsourcing ALPA. Call them buffoons if you like, but I'm 110% behind the APA's opener.

I've done no such thing. You know full well that I can't stand outsourcing. I'm just trying to inject some realism into this discussion. Zero-seat scope is not realistic at this stage in the game. Deal with it.

And yes, the APA leadership is completely off their rockers and will soon get parked by the NMB.

 

[PCL_128]

What is your opinion on the MEC's resolution to not do E&FA on kicking Compass to the curb?

I've heard of no such resolution. What I heard is that they've delayed the decision. Is that not correct?

 

[mynameisjim]

I've heard of no such resolution. What I heard is that they've delayed the decision. Is that not correct?

Correct, that is not correct.

BE IT RESOLVED no action taken on AI 09-50 “Compass Integration Cost/Benefit Analysis.”

*Resolution passed unanimously

 

[JoeMerchant]

I've heard of no such resolution. What I heard is that they've delayed the decision. Is that not correct?

Not only is that not correct...they don't seem to want to talk about it much....

 

[~~~^~~~]

I've done no such thing. You know full well that I can't stand outsourcing. I'm just trying to inject some realism into this discussion. Zero-seat scope is not realistic at this stage in the game. Deal with it.

And yes, the APA leadership is completely off their rockers and will soon get parked by the NMB.

PCL - You are right that zero seat scope is not realistic at this stage, but capturing the E175 is a reasonable start, at least worth evaluation.

All I'm asking for is economic analysis and an ALPA that has a favorable policy towards unity.

The reality is that our union is blatantly hostile to unity and supportive of outsourcing. That policy is a failing strategy that will be exploited by those who use ALPA's conflicting duties as leverage against pilots.

It is what it is.

APA's negotiations help set the standard for the rest of us. I fully support their negotiations and wish them the very best.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL - You are right that zero seat scope is not realistic at this stage, but capturing the E175 is a reasonable start, at least worth serious evaluation.

I agree. But even that will require using some of your leverage to achieve it, and that means giving up something that you could have gained in another area. This is something that you want that management doesn't. That means you have to burn negotiating leverage to make it happen. That's all I'm saying.

All I'm asking for is economic analysis and an ALPA that has a favorable policy towards unity.

You might want to try a resolution that just asks for economic analysis, then. They might move on that where they wouldn't move on the full resolution that talked about adding Compass to your list. One step at a time if you can't get the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

The reality is that our union is blatantly hostile to unity and supportive of outsourcing.

I completely disagree, and I see no evidence of that. You've had a setback with your MEC, and you're projecting that onto the entire Association. No reason for that. Keep politicking with your MEC and see what you can come up with. I'm sure there's a middle ground that will allow you to move this thing forward. Start with the economic analysis mentioned above. It's a start.

 

[mynameisjim]

You might want to try a resolution that just asks for economic analysis, then. They might move on that where they wouldn't move on the full resolution that talked about adding Compass to your list. One step at a time if you can't get the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

Did you see my post on the previous page? The resolution the MEC shot down was just a cost/benefit analysis, as far as I know.

 

[PCL_128]

Did you see my post on the previous page? The resolution the MEC shot down was just a cost/benefit analysis, as far as I know.

I'm pretty sure that they were going off of the resolution that was passed at Council 44 that went much further than just a cost analysis. But I could be wrong.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Deleted - rather than debating something that maybe most people have not read, why not reproduce the resolution and make it easy for people to read for themselves and draw their own conclusions....

See below.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Keep politicking with your MEC and see what you can come up with. I'm sure there's a middle ground that will allow you to move this thing forward. Start with the economic analysis mentioned above. It's a start.

You must mean something like this, passed on 13 March 2008

WHEREAS Compass Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, Inc. with a unique representational structure and flow though provisions, and
WHEREAS Compass pilots are now represented by their Delta Local Executive Council Representatives to the Delta Master Executive Council and have the right to run and serve as Local Executive Council Representatives to the Delta MEC, and
WHEREAS Compass pilots have conditional employment rights at Delta Air Lines and Delta pilots have employment rights at Compass under a bilateral flow through agreement which places them in a rational seniority order, and
WHEREAS many routes formerly flown by mainline pilots are now flown by Compass pilots, often using Delta facilities, and
WHEREAS the current economic environment could trigger the employment rights provisions of the Delta PWA, which would place current Delta pilots at Compass, a regional affiliate, and
WHEREAS recent seniority awards suggest that pilots actively employed by the mainline have enhanced standing over pilots who have been displaced to a regional affiliate, and
WHEREAS ALPA’s Executive Council has requested a recommendation from the Delta Master Executive Council on the matter of Compass Representation within the Delta MEC.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the pilots of Council 44 request the Council 44 Representatives present a resolution addressing the following issues at the next regular MEC Meeting:

1. The Delta Master Executive Council should evaluate the economic and professional benefits for Delta pilots under the current structure of Compass Representation within the Delta MEC, the potential benefits and effects of a single senioritylist with the pilots of Compass Airlines,and any effect of changing the representational structure at Compass would have on existing employment rights for current Delta pilots.
2. The Delta MEC should make every reasonable effort to communicate to the membership the results of their evaluation of the economic and professional benefits for Delta pilots of maintaining the status quo, creating a single list, and what effect, if any, changing the representational structure of Compass would have on the employment rights of Delta pilots.
3. The Delta MEC should determine the best course of action for the Delta Pilots and make an appropriate recommendation to the ALPA Executive Council. If the Delta MEC determines that it has insufficient time to thoroughly examine these issues prior to the April 14, 2009 ALPA Executive Council meeting, the Delta MEC should consider postponing its recommendation until these issues can be thoroughly examined.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Council 44 requests its Representatives report to the Council 44 Pilots the results of the actions requested above in a timely manner.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Council 44 request its Representatives seek and consider input from Council 44 pilots on this issue prior to the next Regular MEC meeting.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm familiar with the resolution. I offered suggestions to the authors when it was being written.

I would suggest removing any references to a "single list" or Compass and only requesting that E & FA do a study on the costs of flying E-Jets at mainline and any possible cost savings. If you get rid of the political football that is Compass from the resolution and make it only about studying the practicality of E-Jet flying at mainline, then you may be able to get the E & FA data that you need in order to push the Compass issue. Just a suggestion.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

There shouldn't be this much of a fight to bringing flying back to mainline from our own union. They should proactively be doing this stuff in the first place. Bunch of sold out idiots.

 

[NuGuy]

I'm familiar with the resolution. I offered suggestions to the authors when it was being written.

I would suggest removing any references to a "single list" or Compass and only requesting that E & FA do a study on the costs of flying E-Jets at mainline and any possible cost savings. If you get rid of the political football that is Compass from the resolution and make it only about studying the practicality of E-Jet flying at mainline, then you may be able to get the E & FA data that you need in order to push the Compass issue. Just a suggestion.

Heyas PCL,

This was a resolution out of 20. They requested an EF&A about this very thing, and it was tabled at the MEC meeting.

Nu

 

[eaglesview]

There shouldn't be this much of a fight to bringing flying back to mainline from our own union. They should proactively be doing this stuff in the first place. Bunch of sold out idiots.

There you have it. It's not just me who has handed back the ALPA Kool-aid.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Not only is that not correct...they don't seem to want to talk about it much....

You must have run out of tissues!

:bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Lots of people on this thread seems to be talking about taking back the 70+ seat flying. My question would be how? How will it be sold to management? Will Delta under cut ASA on the 70 seat rate? Would Prater sign such an agreement? Then what happens to the CRJ-700s SkyWest owns? Do you really think Jerry Atkin is just going to sit by while a bunch of "union thugs" make him park his planes? Not likely. He will use all of his resources ($500 million+) to fight it. Can D-ALPA win that battle? The only solution to recapture the 70+ seat flying seems to be to undercut the ASA CRJ700/900 rate, then force management to buy Jerry Atkins' CR7s. We all know neither one of those things are going to happen, so anything more is nothing but chest thumping. So what are we really talking about here?

 

[NuGuy]

Lots of people on this thread seems to be talking about taking back the 70+ seat flying. My question would be how? How will it be sold to management? Will Delta under cut ASA on the 70 seat rate? Would Prater sign such an agreement? Then what happens to the CRJ-700s SkyWest owns? Do you really think Jerry Atkin is just going to sit by while a bunch of "union thugs" make him park his planes? Not likely. He will use all of his resources ($500 million+) to fight it. Can D-ALPA win that battle? The only solution to recapture the 70+ seat flying seems to be to undercut the ASA CRJ700/900 rate, then force management to buy Jerry Atkins' CR7s. We all know neither one of those things are going to happen, so anything more is nothing but chest thumping. So what are we really talking about here?

You have it backwards. This won't be seen as union muscle....at the surface, anyway.

It will be made to look like a business decision. Delta will just decide to get out of ousourcing 70 seaters and turn instead to doing the flying in-house. It will be part of any agreement, and it will serve to insulate ALPA from any liability.

AirTran made the same decision, and you didn't hear boo from anyone.

If DAL and DALPA are on the same page to muscle anyone out, you can bet on it happening, and you won't know what hit you.

From sounds from the latest MEC meeting, they are getting closer on this by the minute.

Nu

 

[IamGumbyDammit]

Lots of people on this thread seems to be talking about taking back the 70+ seat flying. My question would be how? How will it be sold to management? Will Delta under cut ASA on the 70 seat rate? Would Prater sign such an agreement? Then what happens to the CRJ-700s SkyWest owns? Do you really think Jerry Atkin is just going to sit by while a bunch of "union thugs" make him park his planes? Not likely. He will use all of his resources ($500 million+) to fight it. Can D-ALPA win that battle? The only solution to recapture the 70+ seat flying seems to be to undercut the ASA CRJ700/900 rate, then force management to buy Jerry Atkins' CR7s. We all know neither one of those things are going to happen, so anything more is nothing but chest thumping. So what are we really talking about here?

It's more than pay rates, there's also a mountain of money in aircraft lease payments that some of DCI the carriers are paying DAL (or some holding company) that are more than market rates. For accounting/future IPO/spin-off purposes, I think that's why they don't want anything combined.