Compass agreement

[~~~^~~~]

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.