Compass agreement

[ACL65PILOT]

I have long said, that we need to take ego out of this.
People are worried about the wrong guys coming here, well I am willing to bet that those bad apples will be taken care of just fine.

 

[FDJ2]

Originally Posted by ~~~^~~~
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

Bingo. How do we treat pilots on separate seniority lists? Best Answer, A Single List.


Great, how do we get there. Mandate a staple to a pilot group that doesn't have it's own representation? Let me see, Delta MEC determines that all Compass pilots should be stapled. Sounds like some may say they weren't represented fairly.?

• It is impossible for a pilot group to have a DFR claim within itself. Just as a person can not sue himself.

Not true at all. Most successful DFR claims are from members filing lawsuits against their own bargaining unit or Local. The RJDC lawsuit failed so miserably because it had members from one bargaining unit suing a separate unit which didn't represent them. In the RJDC litigation the Plaintiff's brought their claim against ALPA. There was no direct action against the Delta MEC, or any other bargaining group.

You are right, and the RJDC failed miserably because ALPA was a nuetral in each bargaining units negotiations. Your answer is to make the Delta MEC, which represents both Compass pilots and Delta pilots, not act as a nuetral, but as judge and jury and staple one pilot group below another.

In the Compass case you have an MEC Chairman who is suppose to represent two seniority lists in a SLI. Unlike ALPA, which takes a nuetral position on SLI, you are asking the MEC to take an active role in stapling one group under another. You even admit that the Compass pilots, if left to their own, may not agree to that. So your proposed answer takes us to the exact same point the Delta MEC went when the RJDC was formed. A denial of unity, separation, and disparate treatment. When the lawsuit comes out of this round, are you going to blame me again since I pointed out the fact it is to come?

I didn't say I had a proposed answer, just some questions. Despite your RJDC rhetoric, the fact remains that the RJDC failed because each pilot group had equal representation. I fear your rush to staple the Compass pilots would fuel litigation because it would deny the Compass pilots equal representation when determining a single list. You yourself admit that if they had their own independent representation they may not choose to be stapled. Your solution, deny them their own independent representation. Real nice.

• SLI would require member ratification, including the Compass pilots

Really, where is that written? ALPA Administrative Manual and Constitution and ByLaws.

Where in the C&BLs does it state that a SLI is subject to membership ratification? Hint, SLI procedures are covered in the Admin Manual not C&BLs, but if you can please point to the paragraph that states an SLI is subject to membership ratification.

• The Compass pilots are within a representative structure, Delta's.

That may be part of the problem.
That is not part of the problem, it is part of the solution.

Maybe, maybe not.

Can you tell me why our union is so dead set against unity? Really? Why always looking for reasons to divide our profession?
__________________

Not looking for reasons to divide our profession, just looking out for the best interest of Delta pilots and making sure that no one can claim that the Compass pilots aren't fairly represented.

Your approaching this issue as an opportunity to staple Compass to the bottom of our list before they get a choice in the matter, with the objective of capturing the 76 seat flying.

I'm looking at this as a representational matter. Yes it's a noble goal to capture the flying, but is there a conflict of interest in the Delta MEC representing both pilot groups? And if we do create a single list, is it a conflict of interest for the Delta MEC to staple another pilot group, which the Delta MEC also represents, to the bottom of the Delta list?

Just because we decide there should be one list doesn't mean the company will agree to one list. So if we don't have an operating single list, could certain Compass pilots declare that the Delta MEC, which represents them and Delta pilots is thwarting their ability to fly E195s through their scope language?

What if we negotiate tighter scope, could the pilots at Compass sue because we represent them too? I know you think the answer is to wave a magic wand and create a single list, nevermind the realities of negotiations or whether or not the Compass pilots are fairly represented in the process.

What is wrong with allowing the Compass pilots their own representation so that they can independently determine what is in their best interest?

Does having an independent Compass MEC preclude a single list?

Does having the Delta MEC representing pilots at Compass limit our ability to negotiate scope?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

FDJ2:

How about we hold a vote amongst the CPZ group and see how many favor a staple integration (the majority would be more senior at DL than if they flowed)? The answer might surprise you.

If the results are bad, then out they go. Very simple.

They can easily determine their own outcome while still under our MEC (preferrably that being an outcome that makes at least a movement toward "taking it back")



I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'm not concerned with being furloughed. This is not about furlough protection for me...this is about bringing this career back to something that is worthwhile.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

FDJ2:

How about we hold a vote amongst the CPZ group and see how many favor a staple integration (the majority would be more senior at DL than if they flowed)? The answer might surprise you.

If the results are bad, then out they go. Very simple.

They can easily determine their own outcome while still under our MEC (preferrably that being an outcome that makes at least a movement toward "taking it back")



I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'm not concerned with being furloughed. This is not about furlough protection for me...this is about bringing this career back to something that is worthwhile.

+1

Fact is that they could do this, but I am assuming that they are looking at this in the confines of the admin manual. Change can happen, and needs to happen. This is as good as any to start the change that ALPA so desperately needs.

I to am not worried about furlough.

 

[PCL_128]

A question to the supporters of a single list: how much are you willing to give up to make it happen? Even if the MEC decided to back you on this, they can't achieve a single list without giving management something in return. What are you willing to give up?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

More scope! (sarcasm)

I'd personally like to see mgmts opening play for what they would want for it. There's certainly a limit- and frankly we've given up enough over the years, it's time for something more in return.


ACL- That's exactly right... this is something that is outside of the "normal" admin book. Thus, this requires a bit of outside of the box thinking... I don't think theres a decision tree in the ALPA QRH for this. And if there is (which there isn't), screw it. It's screwed up enough other things in the past.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

A question to the supporters of a single list: how much are you willing to give up to make it happen? Even if the MEC decided to back you on this, they can't achieve a single list without giving management something in return. What are you willing to give up?

Negotiations are give and take, but the fact is that we have given for the last nine years, now it is time for us to take. We know it and they know it.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I think that the last few scope related actions have sent the majority over the edge. Like the CA that asked when NWA got 737's. When I told him it was an RJ (E-175) he lost it, and I mean screwed himself in to the roof of the terminal.

 

[PCL_128]

and frankly we've given up enough over the years, it's time for something more in return.

They certainly won't give you credit for what you've given up in the past. As far as they're concerned, it will be a blank slate. Just like they give you "bargaining credits" for giving up scope, they'll give you bargaining debits for taking it back. I suspect that you might be able to get back down to clean 70-seat scope and a staple of Compass, but it would probably require something to the effect of a 10-year agreement with nothing but 1% raises per year. You ready to accept something like that?

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL128:

You trot out the same old, tired, boring, rhetoric ALPA uses against unity, "we sold scope, so now we must pay to get it back." ALPA is parroting lines from management circa 1990's, the same concepts which have been discredited and discarded when Leo Mullins left the property.

Remember, Delta could not operate small jets, not necessarily due to pilot costs, but the costs of underwing support and gate resources? Well, management decided to CONSOLIDATE those functions to SAVE money and gain better operational control. Management decided a merger (or just hiring the ASA staff with their longevity) was the better way to run the operation. After NWA was "acquired" ground services were again consolidated carrying the program to the outstations.

The questions we should be asking are:

• How much more revenue does an 88 seat jet make with 88 seats in it?
• How much more can pilots share in that additional revenue?
• How much more negotiating power can be gained through unity?
• What are the future threats to Delta scope?
• What risks are there for Delta pilot job security when a Type which encompasses 122 seats and 4,200 mile range is outsourced?
• What is the track record of Delta scope? What is its failure rate? Is that failure rate acceptable and if not, what can be done to fix it?

Would you not agree that answering these questions is part of a union's basic obligation to its members?