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