Compass agreement

[~~~^~~~]

Flyboymike - I don't think you have to worry. If you look at the numbers, flow down agreements work even more poorly than flow up agreements. The only flow down that I am aware of ever working at all in significant numbers was at US Air. The unlucky bastigages that found themselves at Mid Atlantic were considered by off the property in the US Air merger. The result was that with a date of hire in 1999 they were stapled behind the last America West pilots hired in 2004.

We pilots should not support flow up / down agreeements. They are a failed strategy for the following reasons:

• Airline management can not keep the promises it makes. It is a tough business and promises of future hiring nearly never come true and when things turn around, other pilots are better positioned and want those jobs (is - where my squadron buddies going to go? Not below some regional puke.... etc.)
• The empty promise of a future job is used by management to secure concessionary pay now (it is often bragged that Compass's costs are 30% less than other DCI carriers and can be used to force the others into concessions)
• Flow up / down does not protect seniority (see US Air example)
• Flow up / down destroys longevity as pilots within the same brand step across an imaginary line which starts their pay and benefits structure all over again (which is one reason why management loves flow through agreements)
• Flow through agreements are political hazards for ALPA. (Separate is never equal and ALPA's equal duty results in conflicts)
• Flow through pilots are typically not focused on securing better wages and working conditions at their present carriers since they believe they will move on (Compass, for instance, would rarely have a pilot with more than three years of longevity if everything was working correctly. How would they have the experience and staying power to do a good job in section 6?)
• Flow up / down have a long history of failure when put under stress. Corporate transactions are frequent in this business.

Again, theses are all solid, objective reasons for being against flow through agreements. The only reasons supporting flow through agreements are mainline prejudice and low cost (since management realizes they rarely are called on to function anyway). Five years is an eternity in this business. I've heard Delta managers say, "yes, we have a five year plan, it will change by this afternoon." Future promises don't mean much to pilots on either side. A seniority number is a promise that provides more security to BOTH sides.

 

[Monster Buck]

I think you may be missing my point, I'm not suggesting mainline isn't "better" than regional. My concern lies elsewhere, namely: if the only way a regional pilot can have shot at a flowup is if he agrees to give up his seat to a flowdown at 100%, Flow up and down is at 100% unless you are shortening the time window to prove your point.then, given that the odds of mainline furloughing is generally greater than hiring (at least for the next few years), Exactly, so if it was a few years from now and they were hiring it would be better for you, then it would be OK. But not now because its a possible down time. IE I want it only when its good.the downside is far greater than the upside. Now, if the mainline MEC were to say that any openings at mainline will go to the regional guys at 100% (and no, I don't necessarily mean Comair, could be Mesaba, Pinnacle, you name it), Has never happened in the history of the world to exclude the military, especially at Delta, this thought of yours in naive. then you might say that the risk/benefit ratio is somewhat more favorable, but that's not what they're saying and even if they were, I'm not sure I'd believe them.

As it is (at least this is how I perceive it), the mainliners demand certainty on the flowdown side, while offering either a remote "maybe" or nothing at all on the flowup side. Wrong, flow down is only possible as long as flow up is. Its no more a maybe or certain in either direction in the long term. Only this short window you are looking at. Again you want it only during the good times for you. And yes, I'm perfectly aware that the flowup (even if there were one) won't benefit me for some time, but a flowdown could put me on the street tomorrow. I just don't want my (or any other regional's) MEC to get duped Wrong, Mesaba pilots in the majority desired the flow and were an integral part of crafting it. We were not duped.(again).

BTW our first attempt at a flow through started with our MEC but fell short of our expectations and was never implemented. This was back when you were still in High School.

 

[FDJ2]

Again, theses are all solid, objective reasons for being against flow through agreements.

Those are concerns, not reasons. Absent an agreement, you can't comment on most of those concerns, since you have no way of knowing the terms of the agreement.

 

[Monster Buck]

• [*]Flow up / down destroys longevity as pilots within the same brand step across an imaginary line which starts their pay and benefits structure all over again (which is one reason why management loves flow through agreements)
  [*]

Unless the agreement was changed after the merger, once a pilot is at mainline(just as being hired of the street would do) their longevity starts, crossing back down over the line does not destroy longevity at mainline. It just doesn't carry to the regional but its not gone or stopped at mainline either. Also you come in as either 2nd yr CA or fourth year FO at Compass. At Mesaba the benefit is that you will bid via the seniority number you flowed in at, which the slots were at the top ten percent of the list.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Flyboymike - I don't think you have to worry. If you look at the numbers, flow down agreements work even more poorly than flow up agreements. The only flow down that I am aware of ever working at all in significant numbers was at US Air. The unlucky bastigages that found themselves at Mid Atlantic were considered by off the property in the US Air merger. The result was that with a date of hire in 1999 they were stapled behind the last America West pilots hired in 2004.

We pilots should not support flow up / down agreeements. They are a failed strategy for the following reasons:

• Airline management can not keep the promises it makes. It is a tough business and promises of future hiring nearly never come true and when things turn around, other pilots are better positioned and want those jobs (is - where my squadron buddies going to go? Not below some regional puke.... etc.)
• The empty promise of a future job is used by management to secure concessionary pay now (it is often bragged that Compass's costs are 30% less than other DCI carriers and can be used to force the others into concessions)
• Flow up / down does not protect seniority (see US Air example)
• Flow up / down destroys longevity as pilots within the same brand step across an imaginary line which starts their pay and benefits structure all over again (which is one reason why management loves flow through agreements)
• Flow through agreements are political hazards for ALPA. (Separate is never equal and ALPA's equal duty results in conflicts)
• Flow through pilots are typically not focused on securing better wages and working conditions at their present carriers since they believe they will move on (Compass, for instance, would rarely have a pilot with more than three years of longevity if everything was working correctly. How would they have the experience and staying power to do a good job in section 6?)
• Flow up / down have a long history of failure when put under stress. Corporate transactions are frequent in this business.

Again, theses are all solid, objective reasons for being against flow through agreements. The only reasons supporting flow through agreements are mainline prejudice and low cost (since management realizes they rarely are called on to function anyway). Five years is an eternity in this business. I've heard Delta managers say, "yes, we have a five year plan, it will change by this afternoon." Future promises don't mean much to pilots on either side. A seniority number is a promise that provides more security to BOTH sides.

Well said Fins!
:beer:

 

[~~~^~~~]

Those are concerns, not reasons. Absent an agreement, you can't comment on most of those concerns, since you have no way of knowing the conditions of the agreement.

The residents of Lakehurst New Jersey were pretty sure that filling a dirigible with people and hydrogen gas was not a good idea, although they understood little about the physics of the metallurgy. Having seen flow through agreements fail, I understand they are no substitutes for good scope policy and a flow is no promise of job security.

What surprises me is that anyone would believe management is even capable of keeping a promise of future employment. Has everyone forgotten bankruptcy already?

Since you might (I don't know your position, Moak said they were part of his scope strategy) like flow through agreements, I'd like your thoughts on what they offer. A bullet point list of advantages:

• Easy to negotiate
• Political cover for ALPA politicians who can respond to legitimate concerns about job security and scope with a trite sound bite "look, we have a flow through"
• Diverts attention from the conduct of the union to the conduct of the company.
• Management likes them - maintains maximum flexibility with minimum long term commitment to employees
• Management realizes a unified pilot force would be a serious negotiating power - flow through agreements break up that power in to small ineffective parts that allowing whipsaw bargaining to continue.

Last, why do you think anyone came to Delta (FedEx, AA, etc...) just to be "flowed down" to their old regional gig? Flow throughs suck for mainline pilots too. Why would a mainline pilot want to go back to a regional?

When it is within my MEC's power to keep me on my job, it is entirely reasonable to ask them to do everything possible to keep me at THE airline where they represent me.

NO TO FLOW!
Unity, accept no substitute !

​

 

[flyboyike]

What surprises me is that anyone would believe management is even capable of keeping a promise of future employment. Has everyone forgotten bankruptcy already?

I think that's an excellent point. A related one would be why anyone would believe that a mainline MEC would keep a promise with regards to something that ultimately at the end of the day is not within their control (i. e. hiring). This is the management's show, after all.

 

[flyboyike]

BTW our first attempt at a flow through started with our MEC but fell short of our expectations and was never implemented. This was back when you were still in High School.

I think you're absolutely right. I want a flowup in good times very much like the mainliner wants a flowback in bad ones. Or is my selfishness somehow worse than his selfishness?

BTW, I graduated high school in 1993, I doubt you were either at XJ or at DL back then, but I digress.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Unless the agreement was changed after the merger, once a pilot is at mainline(just as being hired of the street would do) their longevity starts, crossing back down over the line does not destroy longevity at mainline. It just doesn't carry to the regional but its not gone or stopped at mainline either. Also you come in as either 2nd yr CA or fourth year FO at Compass.

A distinction with no great difference. A Mesaba, or Compass, pilot is flying the same passengers a Delta pilot carries at a division of the same company. Why should their longevity be destroyed when crossing the line? (I'm talking LONGEVITY, not SENIORITY).

For example. If we were ASA Rampers, or Gate Agents, we would have our ASA DOH for benefits, like vacation weeks and non rev travel. Literally 1,200 of ASA's Atlanta employees maintained longevity when they came to work for Delta the same month I did. Why do we tolerate our pilots' longevity not getting the same treatment as a baggage handler's?

How much longevity did Northwest pilots accrue while they were out on furlough?

I'm all for a flow up, but a flow down provides nearly no benefit to a mainline pilot, without longevity and seniority. By the time you negotiate that, why not just make it one damn list and keep it simple & effective?

 

[Monster Buck]

Why would a mainline pilot want to go back to a regional?

Um to have a job. Its a choice of a flying job at one of our regionals that most likely has the same bases. IE better than being on the street since when one airline is furloughing most are not hiring.