Compass agreement

[~~~^~~~]

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?

Bull crap. Show me the economic analysis on that statement. ALPA steadfastly refuses to do any analysis on it, yet they make these ridiculous statements which you are repeating.

ALPA's actually PO'd at the APA for even trying.

What's wrong with even asking the question about unity? If the Company is caught over the barrel with an unworkable flow, we know it is going to trigger bargaining.

 

[PCL_128]

Bull crap. Show me the economic analysis on that statement. ALPA steadfastly refuses to do any analysis on it, yet they make these ridiculous statements which you are repeating.

I would refer you to the Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) report that was prepared by Clinton's PEB in '97 for the AMR/APA dispute. It's now available for public consumption on the NMB website. The APA made arguments for an "RJ supplement" that would allow them to capture back all RJ flying by flying for CMR wages and work rules. The PEB investigated and determined that it was absolutey impossible to match the cost benefit provided by outsourcing to regional carriers. When you start factoring in FA costs, SOC costs, retirement contributions, etc..., the cost rapidly increases when using RJs at mainline.

I'm not saying that it isn't a worthy goal. You know my opinion on that. I'm just telling you the realistic bargaining cost of trying to achieve such a thing. You want 0-seat scope? Great. You ready to give huge concessions to achieve it? Didn't think so. This is why you should never let scope go. Once you do, the cost to get it back is too great.

ALPA's actually PO'd at the APA for even trying.

They aren't "PO'd," they're just laughing. The APA is essentially asking for $6 billion of improvements on a $1 billion contract. Scope recapturing is a big portion of that cost. The NMB will soon "park" the APA negotiations, and the APA will probably implode soon thereafter when the pilots realize that their leadership has been leading them down a path of certain failure. I'm glad that Captain Hill has made scope a priority, but 0-seat scope is a pipe dream, and he should know it.

What's wrong with even asking the question about unity?

Nothing is wrong with asking questions. You should just look for realistic solutions. Getting Compass onto your list is probably a realistic goal, but it will take concessions to make it happen. Just go into battle knowing that ahead of time.

 

[JoeMerchant]

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?

I hate to admit it...but PCL_128 is right here. The cost to bring this flying back in house will be more than what was achieved in "selling" it in the first place....and probably a lot more than the average Delta pilot is willing to pay to "buy" it back...

Back in 2000 during the PID, one of the arguments against was a similar one that is being made today...That is that these things need to be done slowly...they can't be "rushed"....I said at the time, that the longer this problem goes unchecked the harder it is to solve and the more costly the solution will be.....Much like not doing preventive maintenence on a house or car....the cost goes up as the problem gets worse....

In addition to the cost going up, the leverage has come down....There was far more leverage in 2000 then there is today....

 

[~~~^~~~]

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.?

We currently have a joint MEC, it is also the Compass MEC.

Based on your logic, should junior Delta pilots have a claim against the Delta MEC on the basis of a factual allegation that our jobs have been substantially outsourced?

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.

ACL and I are in fact below you on the seniority list. Compass pilots, when they flow will be below us on the senority list. Granting them a longevity date is the only substantial change.

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?

Your rhetorical questions prescribe the creation of Comair II. Except the field is much more bloody now with nine combantants fighting eachother in whipsaw negotiations. A fight which Compass has neither the experience, or size, to win.

A policy favorable to one list (if we would even evaluate the matter) would align our interests with those of the Compass pilots. ALPA reported a lot of positive press from the Express Jet / Continental lash up.

With regard to memrat, one reference is in Admin, Section 45, D, 3. Further, on the general principle that a longevity date is a matter significantly involving the pay, working conditions, retirement and job security of a member... it is a memrat issue.

The "concerns" of the MEC that you repeat could be easily answered by polling and study. Someone simply needs to hit the execute button and set the process in motion.

 

[~~~^~~~]

but PCL_128 is right here. The cost to bring this flying back in house will be more than what was achieved in "selling" it in the first place....and probably a lot more than the average Delta pilot is willing to pay to "buy" it back...

Back in 2000 during the PID, one of the arguments against was a similar one that is being made today...

PCL and FDJ2, there's an endorsement for ya.

Joe does not want Delta to have effective scope. His win is Delta's loss.

Joe looks at the situation and thinks ALPA will never pull together. As a result he's placed his bet with a career at an outsourced lift provider and hopes more flying will be outsourced.

I look at the situation and realize that unless ALPA pulls its crap together our profession will continue its steady and inexorable decline.

Outsourcing reduces our strength resulting in a negative trend of lower lows and lower highs. We need to evaluate how to turn this around.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I would refer you to the Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) report that was prepared by Clinton's PEB in '97 for the AMR/APA dispute.

Credit where credit is due, at least you came up with something, which was a whole lot more than I expected.

Still, would you not agree that a lot has changed since 2001, the bankruptcy of our companies, reorganization, the World's largest merger and the subsequent reorganization? Don't we need current numbers?

Even if the plan is to package Compass up so we can trade it, doesn't ALPA need to know what it is worth?

 

[JoeMerchant]

PCL and FDJ2, there's an endorsement for ya.

Joe does not want Delta to have effective scope. His win is Delta's loss.

Joe looks at the situation and thinks ALPA will never pull together. As a result he's placed his bet with a career at an outsourced lift provider and hopes more flying will be outsourced.

It's not just that I don't think it will happen...There is a huge cost to "buying" it back.

As you know, I am a huge proponent of a single list at Skywest Inc.....but I also realize that it will cost a lot of negotiating capital...I am willing to expend that capital....but most aren't....

I'm not saying anything that I don't also believe applies here at ASA....

 

[~~~^~~~]

We need to evaluate that cost, so we know what the price is. Again, there is 12 seats worth of revenue your 90 seaters leave at the gate. There are the profits of yours and Republic's, which are some of the largest profits on the planet. In the case of Compass, there is ~ 400 type ratings and a training obligation that can't be met with current resources and then there are operational control issues which result in Mesa telling Delta which flights it is going to operate.

I'm fine with being wrong. I would like to be assured we performed our due diligence and know the answers.

 

[PCL_128]

Still, would you not agree that a lot has changed since 2001, the bankruptcy of our companies, reorganization, the World's largest merger and the subsequent reorganization? Don't we need current numbers?

Even if the plan is to package Compass up so we can trade it, doesn't ALPA need to know what it is worth?

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? You think ALPA hasn't run the numbers on the APA's scope proposal? I believe the number I heard is somewhere around $1 billion for a 3-year agreement. Ready to make those kinds of concessions?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

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.

 

[Linedriver]

Why don't we just get rid of the problem? ALPA is a conflict of interest.

We can represent ourselves more effectively, and do a fine job at it, with what we pay into ALPA National.

Being part of ALPA is like using a doctor that owns the funeral home. He will get paid regardless.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

If you are at DAL you would be giving away millions that your dues gave national.
With 12400 pilots we are ALPA.

 

[Linedriver]

Ok, been DAL for a little over a year and I'm still trying to figure out this huge romance with ALPA.

So we should stay with ALPA because we paid in so much in the past? Respectfully, that doesn't make sense.

I'm guesstimating we pay in roughly 30 million annually. Why don't we just finance our own representation that way we can ONLY worry about ourselves and interests and not have to consider what agreement was made with this regional, that national etc...

I'm not flaming here. I'm more of a do-it-yourself kind of guy and think a given person will work harder for himself than for someone else because he has a vested interest.

Has ALPA gotten us where we want to be? It's just like what we all have been hearing in the news - paying millions to big CEO's to generate losses.

Just my opinion.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I agree there are issues, but there are bigger issues with a in house union.
Never forger the legal and aero med that come with membership. It is great insurance and most never know it is there until they need it.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm guesstimating we pay in roughly 30 million annually. Why don't we just finance our own representation

It's probably closer to $25 million, actually. In any case, your $25 million pales in comparison to the $120 million that ALPA brings in annually in dues revenue. That sum allows ALPA to hire the best attorneys, actuaries, financial analysts, etc... Your $25 million would leave you restricted to much less. Take APA for an example. Their dues revenue is similar to what yours would be. They have only four in-house attorneys. The rest is outsourced to a firm in DC. ALPA has 60 attorneys in-house, all with their own specialties, and all are available to your pilot group on a moment's notice.

Independent unions simply can't provide the resources that ALPA provides. Even with $25 million in revenue.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

Fins is correct. The EF&A on the APA proposal is worthless. The example used was the position from 97, and the whole airline world has changed since then. Frozen or eliminated DB plans, pay cuts, work rules...the list is endless.

My guess these days if you were to do a real cost analysis, the money you save and the revenue you generate from single carrier ops is darn close to the increased costs.

As for leaving ALPA, I'm really starting to think that's a good idea. UAL has been on the brink for years with this. ALL services that ALPA provides to it's members are also set up for outsourcing, and infact, is a profit center for ALPA.

If DAL left, it would cause a cascade failure of ALPA. You don't lose %20 of your revenue and continue to do business as usual. UAL, CAL and probably FedEx would see the writing on the wall, and depart in short order.

My guess is that a coalition of major airline groups would then form, to pool resources for common services and interests, such as medical, legal, safety and EF&A. SWA, DAL, AMR, UAL, UPS and others would all be involved, and there would probably be wide scale poaching of talent from what would be left of ALPA administration.

What would remain of ALPA would be the representation of the regionals and the services branch. The regional representation, which has not, and cannot ever support itself, and would collapse.

The resulting fiscal crisis from the majors' departure would force a packaging of the technical/legal talent into a services outsourcing firm, and would be spun off to generate revenue to meet the legal obligations of the remaining carriers.

In the end, the spun off technical firm would be providing the same services as the majors receive now, but at probably a greatly reduced cost, and without the fiscal overhead of flight pay loss to ALPA national officers.

As a bonus, you've also freed yourself from any complicated entanglements.

Wow, I think I just talked myself into it...

Nu

 

[PCL_128]

What you describe would be the end of the air line pilot profession. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[PuffDriver]

What you describe would be the end of the air line pilot profession. Be careful what you wish for.

No, it would not.

 

[~~~^~~~]

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.

 

[flyboyike]

Puff's correct & it mostly is already over.

Sadly, I have to agree.