acl65pilot

Well when ANC closes there will be less "North" votes.

acl65pilot

I agree that what we see may not be what we REALLY see. Was it just a message?
Only a few know for sure.

forgot to bid

There are a lot of Captains who see this as protecting their own and they are loyal to everyone on their seniority list even if it doesn't effect or benefit them per se, and there are also a lot of Captains who simply see a CRJ900 or E175 tied up to a jetway in ATL as a degredation of their company and airline and they don't like it (even if they don't know which one is the CRJ or the EJet. )

And I think most understand that what happens to the 777 effects everyone but so does what happens on the 88 or 9 and everything in between. Unless you're senior enough that someone junior to you can bump you, then you need to worry about every fleet. There are some super senior people on the 88 and I'm sure the 9s and if those two planes start getting replaced then people all over will take notice.

obx41

Just some thoughts on the issue of divesting the CPZ representation.

The most common argument is that a conflict of interest exists in representing both pilot groups under one MEC. The argument is that what is good for CPZ (presumably growth) is inherently bad for DAL and that what is good for DAL is potentially bad for CPZ.

On the surface, that makes sense. However, the reality is that growth at CPZ is just as bad for CPZ pilots as it is for DAL pilots. The last thing in the world that any logically thinking CPZ pilot wants right now is growth. Unarguably growth at CPZ will come at the expense of growth at DAL. That would dramatically hinder and delay the flow through to DAL.

It might mean some short term benefits at CPZ, but in terms of career expectations it is potentially catastrophic. CPZ and it's flow status are unique animals that really make growth at the regional level unattractive. There are valid arguments for making just about any other regional a career destination. At CPZ there is no reason, that I can see, for making it a career destination in lieu of or in replacement of the flow.

One way to assert at least a tiny amount of control or influence over such growth is to maintain pilot group solidarity and bargaining strength. It seems to me that fragmenting the group is counter intuitive to that pursuit.

While a pilot group of about 350 (the size of CPZ) is as big or bigger than many other ALPA groups, it is also so small that I feel that it will not garner the support from National that larger pilot groups tend to elicit. Additionally, the CPZ pilots have just seen their bargaining capital reduced exponentially with this vote. And who knows what will happen with our access to DAL safety programs--something that benefits us all.

Also, in the event of a flow back, do DAL guys remain normal active ALPA members or do they revert to probationary, non-voting status? I have switched ALPA carriers before and I have always reverted back to a probationary non-voting status for one year. My assumption is that the flow backs become probationary. That is something that I hope has been considered. The fact that the current CPZ pilots are mostly now off of probationary status was cited as a reason to pursue this divestiture.

One last thought: While I think this is unlikely, it should be considered. I think there will be at least some push at CPZ to de-certify ALPA. There are enough long-time disgruntled ALPA members at CPZ to give it just enough momentum to be problematic. Probably wouldn't go too far, but could get divisive and contentious.

Regardless of the outcome and our differing opinions, I hope that we can all stay focused on what is best for our profession and achieving common goals.

shadyops

Nerd2009,

since you don't receive PM's i am posting this here...

Please understand that you have the wrong idea about me and most CP pilots. The majority here know the circumstances of how this place came to be. NWA pilots voted yes to form this place and we took the jobs because we are all furloughed. Pointing the finger of blame won't get anyone anywhere and neither will animosity. I want to see CP and all DCI carriers shrink and ultimately dissapear. I have plans for a long career at mainline and have no vested intrest in this shell company. I want CP to stay on the DAL MEC so that DAL pilots have direct control over what we do. Divest us from the MEC loosens that control and just creates disunity. We have the same goals and for some reason Delta pilots refuse to believe it. I would happy to talk to you in person about it or any other progessive thinking Delta pilot. CP pilots are not looking for a seniority grab, we are looking to protect all of our futures by preventing the further erosion of scope. Please pass this on.


Shady

shiznit

I think it is against all principles of a union to deny a DUES PAYING group of members a "real" (a.k.a. voting) voice in the decision making of their own union. It should be proportional to their size, but they should have a voting member NOW, IMHO.


Even though we normally see just a vote by representative, there is also a "roll call" vote that takes into account the number of pilots a representative has in his LEC, if the DAL pilots really wanted to push something then they could use that maneuver to get their way. It is a dangerous move because it essentially will show you as using a parliamentary procedure to get your way, rather than find compromises to find a mutually acceptable solution.


Also, the Continental Express and Continental Mainline LEC members all voted in the same MEC structure for many years and it was the gentleman's policy that LEC voters abstained from voting on matters that didn't concern their pilot group. It worked well until the company IPO'd the Express operation as "Expressjet" and some scabs were elected to the overly powerful IAH mainline LEC and forced a separation.

Oddly enough, XJT and CAL still share the same office space as before the split.

__________________
Seriously?

The Shiznit

Sink r8

Thanks for the reply. I assume you're "North". Am I correct?

Are you talking about Compass having voting rights now? IOW, are you saying they would be denied voting in the decision making of their union if they had their own MEC, or are you saying they need to be voting in ours?

You wrote earlier that groups of people should have voting rights proportional to their size. I agree. You say the use of the roll call vote is not the best way to be represented. I agree. How do you reconcile the two? Compass should have a vote on our MEC proportional to their size, but South shouldn't?

What if they didn't follow this gentleman's policy, and actually used their vote, when they saw fit, as they saw fit? Should we give Compass voting power, and hope they don't use it in certain issues? And what happens if Compass is IPO'd? Does this arrangement follow the same path, and stop working too?

...

I'm not really seeing an arrangement in your reply that works for me as a "South" pilot (in terms of distribution of voting power), but I think this exchange probably helps shed some light on some of the discussions that took place on this vote. So far, I get the vibe that this was indeed about power, and the make-up of the MEC. Maybe a lot of guys here hope this was a matter of approaches over scope, but maybe it was simple horse-trading at work. I'm not making accusations, I'm just trying to scratch at the veneer on the picture, to see what's really underneath.

shiznit

I am a "South" pilot, but that makes no difference for this conversation.

I'd need a CPZ pilot to help out here, but do they get to vote for reps in LEC's 1, 20, 74?
If they do then I stand corrected about there ability to have a vote/voice.

As for a "gentleman's agreement", it never happened at CALALPA. If it were threatened, then use of the "roll call" would be acceptable and eliminates the threat, providing a huge deterrent to "pee in big brother's wheaties".
(Tried to think of a more fun metaphor to compare but I got nothing.)

The IPO really had very little to do with the split, it really was a tactic of fear and blame used by SCABS who were elected in IAH (and GUM if I recall). Ask anyone who was active in ALPA stuff over there at that time and they can give you a lengthy explanation, its way too convoluted to write out here.

What I'm getting at is there is more to be lost by pointing out differences and creating division than there is by using our strength in numbers and UNITY to work together to achieve higher goals for everyone involved.

__________________
Seriously?

The Shiznit

Bucking Bar

Shiz - they are full members of their LEC and are represented by their reps, just like you and I are. In some cases we share the same reps (depending on base).

If we worked to extend our list below us, they would be Delta pilots and their aircraft Delta jets. Under a single list they would share our same interests and want Delta to grow. Like you and me, they would be more pleased with 777 orders than E175 orders. Like you and me, they would want tighter scope. There would be no conflict of interest because we would be one. We would stand at the table together.

Instead our MEC voted to further divide us, a path which will lead to conflict. They will try to break our contract and they just might be able to do it. Delta pilots who flow down to Compass will now no longer be able to enjoy Representation as Delta pilots. We junior guys now face a very real risk of being left out of future merger integration - like the US Air guys were.

Again, it was a misguided vote. It was probably done to enable a management transaction involving Compass, or simply to wash our hands of ugly bargaining involving aircraft "we don't want to fly."

It was a vote done based on insider politics and went against the desires of the Delta pilots, as demonstrated by numerous resolutions at the local level.

Sink r8

OK, thanks.

I agree that there is more to be gained in unity. It's simply a question of strategy, and how you approach scope. It's not simply a matter of DALPA inviting Compass into the house without guarantees we could ever be merged. It's also a question of having some definitive grand bargain with regionals at the National level that would serve as the basis for such moves. IOW, if we have an understanding as to where everyone fits if we can bring all the stepchildren under one family, i.e. via a NSL, then we have absolutely no excuse for failing to unify the groups as much as possible. I was under the impression (and I'm sure I'm going to be corrected) that the Compass guys, with little longevity, were willing to take a staple. If that were true, we ought to be smart enough to come up with an agreement now.

I've made a call to a rep about this, and I'm under the impression the Compass guy made a very convincing argument to the MEC, right up until the point he talked about negotiating for bigger aircraft when their contract was up. My rep acknowledges this will not be a popular decision, but points to the lack of a clear ALPA policy towards integrating the regionals and mainlines. From his perspective, there is no confusion that many of the people at the regional level want DOH, or some other form of favorable integration.

I'm not 100% sure that excluding Compass was the better move, and I would have prefered to be consulted first... but don't you think we need to have a clearer understanding of what "unity" means, if it served the purpose of merging the airlines down the road?

I think it's time to either strike a deal on a NSL, or time to acknowledge that ALPA actually works more like IFALPA, as a coaltion of independent blocs with divergent interests. I'm open to either. Like you, I prefer unity first.

Are there a lot of major pilots out there that are willing to give up their seat in a NSL, or even a merged DAL/DCI list? Are there a lot of regional pilots willing to accept a staple? I don't know, but the answer will tell you whether "unity first" is the right investment. Until we sign something, the safest strategy from my viewpoint will be to continue to compete for our own flying, and fight against the outsourcing thereof.