|
Bar, as usual, I agree with what you say about Compass.
The only thing I would add to your discussion, that Sailing doesn't address, is the Compass issue was the only party line vote (there may have been one other but I can't think of it) between premerger MEC members to date. So, I would argue, there was more to the discussion than what Sailing reports. Compass and the length of the bankruptcy contract was why I voted no on it. That flying was ours, and when they traded/sold it or what ever you want to call it.......those became our guys. I'm glad we were able to preserve the flow for them but.......... |
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 1176851)
I'm glad we were able to preserve the flow for them but..........
They lost longevity and potentially job security. We lost jobs, the corresponding representational relevance and set the outsourcing bar a bit higher by weight & capability. I would like to know what, if anything, we got for it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1176760)
Not necessarily. If you buy parts of an airline that are blow their fragmentation threshold, their contract provisions do not come in effect. As a result, taking the employees is optional.
If you bought airplanes from an airline, it depends on how the deal is structured and if the loss would cause furloughs. Again, it is does not trigger fragmentation language, employees do not necessarily need to come with. Airplanes can also be returned to the leasing company and then washed though there. The only scenario where you would definitely see employees is if DAL chose to take part of say AMR that equated to more than their fragmentation language, or you bought someone like ALK, HAA or B6 in whole. I do not see the latter coming before the fate of AMR is known, not just assumed. As for a my statement about culture, the melding of cultures costs money, and time. It also causes delays in getting to the efficiencies that brought about the transaction. I am sure at some point we will take employees, but I doubt it is DAL's first choice. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1176854)
It's OK to quantify.
They lost longevity and potentially job security. We lost jobs, the corresponding representational relevance and set the outsourcing bar a bit higher by weight & capability. I would like to know what, if anything, we got for it. I would like to know too, but of course that is compartmentalized information and we don't have a need to know or the proper security clearances:D |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1176854)
It's OK to quantify.
They lost longevity and potentially job security. We lost jobs, the corresponding representational relevance and set the outsourcing bar a bit higher by weight & capability. I would like to know what, if anything, we got for it. As for job security, they could have been sold at any time. Although we did give up the "we demand a DC9 replacement" (whatever that was going to end up meaning) so in that respect we did give up something of theoretical but unproven and unknown value. As for representational relevance, all that looked like was yet another DFR suit waiting to happen. You're right about the weight limit being set a bit higher but regardless of what happened with CPZ, the flow (which was kept) or their place on the DL MEC, we had already sold that flying to management. They were part of 255 large RJ's 153 of which can be over 70 seaters. Nothing would have changed that, even if they were on our MEC today. Its messed up in many ways, but we need to bring the flying back first. Its ours and we own the claim to it; no one else. Unless and until we take it back on our end, it really doesn't matter what MEC represents a low bidding ACMI provider, other than it makes it a little harder for them to sue us now I suppose. |
Sorry, can't help it. Wish I had been at KJFK this morning:
|
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1176492)
Dunno if you guys have heard yet, but some interesting news coming out of the Compass Chief Pilot's Office the last few days....
1. Delta has confirmed 110 flowups in "early 1Q 2013," letters to be sent out later this summer. Obviously it's not final till my butt is sitting in class, but CPS is sure enough of it to be spooling up our own hiring in the fall. If the ratio from the last flow-up holds true, this implies at least 360 total newhires, and possibly more as 110 is the maximum that can flow in one year (1/4 of our total list). 2. We just signed an agreement with Delta to extend guaranteed interviews to all Compass pilots not covered by the flow (ie anyone hired after 8/2010). Applicants have to meet all DAL requirements and go through the entire Delta interview. Hope its true. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1176871)
They didn't lose longevity because they never had it. They had the same two choices then as they have now: go to DL and start over or stay at CPZ if you want to keep your longevity. I know you want outsourced RJ pilots to be able to come to mainline at full longevity but that's never going to happen unless we fix scope first and get those seat and weight ranges back and eliminate the number of allowed outsourced airframes. Until then, no RJ pilot is ever going to slide over to DL at top scale with full YOS credits.
As for job security, they could have been sold at any time. Although we did give up the "we demand a DC9 replacement" (whatever that was going to end up meaning) so in that respect we did give up something of theoretical but unproven and unknown value. As for representational relevance, all that looked like was yet another DFR suit waiting to happen. You're right about the weight limit being set a bit higher but regardless of what happened with CPZ, the flow (which was kept) or their place on the DL MEC, we had already sold that flying to management. They were part of 255 large RJ's 153 of which can be over 70 seaters. Nothing would have changed that, even if they were on our MEC today. Its messed up in many ways, but we need to bring the flying back first. Its ours and we own the claim to it; no one else. Unless and until we take it back on our end, it really doesn't matter what MEC represents a low bidding ACMI provider, other than it makes it a little harder for them to sue us now I suppose. I agree somewhat with what you say in the last paragraph. Compass was our opportunity to do what you suggest, but I suggest you have it backwards as we should have worked harder to get them and the jets at Delta. Impossible, maybe/probably. But not not have even tried was a crime. JMHO, fire away Ferd |
Originally Posted by MoonShot
(Post 1176876)
I thought the memo on the Compass thread in the regional section indicated that they weren't looking to hire anytime soon (as it relates to bringing on furloughed Pinnacle guys)? So this flow information was distributed subsequent to that?
Hope its true. The other memo came out yesterday about the garuanteed interview program and future class dates. So really nothing concrete |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1176863)
This is called "managing expectations.". They opened up contract talks early, meaning they want something. That could be labor peace, or whatever. That is called leverage also. DALPA must use it correctly, or face possibly getting replaced. Plain and simple.
What is different and more important then the early opening is the pace of negotiations. The company appears to be moving the process along when if they desired they could drag it out for years and years. They have decision makers directly involved. In past negotiations we would exchange a term sheet on a specific section and might not get a reply for months. They are getting things done in days. I still however rate the chances of a early contract as no better then 50/50. I just don't see the company as willing to put up the kind of cash it will take for a ratified contract just to get it done early. I hope I am wrong. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands