Lee Moak's stance on scope and unity.
10-12-2009, 02:10 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Delta M88 A ATL
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by shadyops
Lee Moak runs the show and the LEC's guys do what he says. That is exactly what happened at the meeting. 12 FNWA guys voting one way and 13 DAL guys voting another...The 13 DAL south guys are senior at DAL, have a selfish agenda, and have convinced themselves that having cheap Compass pilots replacing their DC-9 routes will save DAL money and in turn end up in their pockets somehow. What is good for Delta is good for them, maybe.
I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175. The bottom line is, the closer CPZ is to the DAL MEC the more control the pilots of Delta have control over CPZ flying. They just gave it up.
I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175. The bottom line is, the closer CPZ is to the DAL MEC the more control the pilots of Delta have control over CPZ flying. They just gave it up.
Don't you think that is exactly why we have seperated our MEC's!
You said: "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175." !!
According to your statement, CPZ is replacing the DC9 routes. Perhaps with a seperate MEC that will put enough distance between DAL/NWA and CPZ so that does not happen.
10-12-2009, 02:18 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Delta M88 A ATL
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Eric Stratton
I've heard that argument before with other airlines and it seems to be the dumbest one of all. What are the differences in our goals and interests???
The differences in our goals and interests are brought into clarity by another poster, "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175.".
The Goal and interest of the NWA/DAL pilot is to keep the DC9 flying on the mainline at mainline pay rates. The goal an interest of the CPZ pilot is to increase flying at CPZ at CPZ payrates.
How can the combined MEC represent BOTH pilot groups fairly??
10-12-2009, 02:40 PM
#93
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
There might be four guys at CPS that do not want to flow to DAL. It starts with four, but yes going forward, when the flow does not work, the CPS guys are going to want more flying and better pay. There is a conflict there if left as the status quo.
10-12-2009, 02:54 PM
#94
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by slowplay
You don't correctly see it. What I stated was that CONTRACTUALLY it didn't matter who the bargaining agent is for the CPZ flow to still operate. That's far different than not caring. I haven't opined on that point; many others here are calling for MALPA or an independent union for Delta pilots, with complete separation from regionals. Why didn't you take them to task?
Talk of MALPA is simply to point out that there could be some minor tweaks that could solve the conflict of interest that many see at National. Critical thinking is needed so that we can once again focus on unity within our ranks and with that unity go get what we want. Right now there is a ton of end fighting going on. All it will do is dilute our resolve come C2012. That my friend needs to be addressed.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 10-12-2009 at 03:05 PM.
10-12-2009, 03:08 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: New Hire
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by nerd2009
Hi Eric,
The differences in our goals and interests are brought into clarity by another poster, "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175.".
The Goal and interest of the NWA/DAL pilot is to keep the DC9 flying on the mainline at mainline pay rates. The goal an interest of the CPZ pilot is to increase flying at CPZ at CPZ payrates.
How can the combined MEC represent BOTH pilot groups fairly??
The differences in our goals and interests are brought into clarity by another poster, "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175.".
The Goal and interest of the NWA/DAL pilot is to keep the DC9 flying on the mainline at mainline pay rates. The goal an interest of the CPZ pilot is to increase flying at CPZ at CPZ payrates.
How can the combined MEC represent BOTH pilot groups fairly??
I want Compass to dissipate all together! You can read everything I've ever posted. You Sir have me confused with someone else (perhaps a republic guy). I am trying to open up old DC-9 guy's eyes such as yourself...CPZ is a threat to your flying so do something about please. I DONT want to spend my career here.
If you would like PM me a time and place and I would love to meet in DTW and discuss this over coffee. The only time I want to fly those routes is with a DAL seniority number. Please delete your last post because it's wrong.
10-12-2009, 03:28 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by nerd2009
Hi Eric,
The differences in our goals and interests are brought into clarity by another poster, "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175.".
The Goal and interest of the NWA/DAL pilot is to keep the DC9 flying on the mainline at mainline pay rates. The goal an interest of the CPZ pilot is to increase flying at CPZ at CPZ payrates.
How can the combined MEC represent BOTH pilot groups fairly??
The differences in our goals and interests are brought into clarity by another poster, "I fly the 175 at Compass and I jumpseated on a DC-9 a few months ago. I took a look at the pairing that crew was flying and a few weeks later I flew that exact pairing in the 175.".
The Goal and interest of the NWA/DAL pilot is to keep the DC9 flying on the mainline at mainline pay rates. The goal an interest of the CPZ pilot is to increase flying at CPZ at CPZ payrates.
How can the combined MEC represent BOTH pilot groups fairly??
I'm betting the majority of compass pilots (or regional pilots) would rather you have that dc9 flying than a feeder airline. The regionals haven't been fighting for more 50-100 seat airplanes but the majors have been giving them out. There are some out that do hope and think that they should get larger equipment but that isn't ALPA's job at either the regional or mainline. The ones I've come across that think that way have made the regionals their career and mostly by choice.
As for who gets the dc9 flying, that has been and will be, determined by delta/nwa pilots. Not compass or the other regionals.
10-12-2009, 03:32 PM
#97
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
More flying and more aircraft is not the issue. The limitations of Compass have been visible from the very beginning, Compass will not grow. It was always going to be a 36 aircraft operation with large input from main-line pilots with the intention of zero/little growth. Compass was created to stem the loss of main-line flying while still retaining some form of control over outsourced flying. Originally, all these staff positions were to be filled by main-line pilots on furlough. The spin-off was not a real proposition because NWA would be spinning off its own pilots.
These (E-175) aircraft were supposed the be manned by pilots that shared the same seniority list with mainline only 3 months prior, in order to stop the flying from going to yet another carrier further from the scope and protection of a mainline contract. Given the circumstances of the bankruptcy, the fresh memories of USAir's and UAL's contract dismemberment, in addition to the possible loss of pensions, etc., the NWA guys/gals did a good job of keeping it in the family. It could have been much worse. The best part is, DAL N/S have the ability to make it better over time.
If anything we should be working on bringing all the DCI carriers into the fold and working on protecting the current flying. If everyone attended the same meetings or at least participated during major events, whipsawing could be greatly reduced, especially among the DCI carriers. We should be communicating more freely between mainline and regional affiliates now than ever before. We should be asking ALPA national to help us improve everyone's contracts, instead of asking how we can better separate each entity without getting sued. I am not talking about seniority numbers for everyone or anyone for that matter(not going to happen). But, if we give management nowhere to go with contracts, dispersion of flying, etc., we may be able to pull something positive out of this huge mess.
Yes, DC-9s are up for replacement but not by an E-175. The real issue comes up over the next few years as the DC-9s leave the fleet for lack of extendable pressure hull issues. Will there be a replacement? Who will fly it? If another major carrier in bankruptcy, not DAL, gives up 100 seat flying the pressure will be on the DAL pilots. Will the company try to put mainline wages on the table against 100 seat flying? Will the company put pensions/retirement/benefits on the table against 100 seat flying? I would bet they would and we better have unified response. That response will only be achieved if we work together. The clock is ticking.
These (E-175) aircraft were supposed the be manned by pilots that shared the same seniority list with mainline only 3 months prior, in order to stop the flying from going to yet another carrier further from the scope and protection of a mainline contract. Given the circumstances of the bankruptcy, the fresh memories of USAir's and UAL's contract dismemberment, in addition to the possible loss of pensions, etc., the NWA guys/gals did a good job of keeping it in the family. It could have been much worse. The best part is, DAL N/S have the ability to make it better over time.
If anything we should be working on bringing all the DCI carriers into the fold and working on protecting the current flying. If everyone attended the same meetings or at least participated during major events, whipsawing could be greatly reduced, especially among the DCI carriers. We should be communicating more freely between mainline and regional affiliates now than ever before. We should be asking ALPA national to help us improve everyone's contracts, instead of asking how we can better separate each entity without getting sued. I am not talking about seniority numbers for everyone or anyone for that matter(not going to happen). But, if we give management nowhere to go with contracts, dispersion of flying, etc., we may be able to pull something positive out of this huge mess.
Yes, DC-9s are up for replacement but not by an E-175. The real issue comes up over the next few years as the DC-9s leave the fleet for lack of extendable pressure hull issues. Will there be a replacement? Who will fly it? If another major carrier in bankruptcy, not DAL, gives up 100 seat flying the pressure will be on the DAL pilots. Will the company try to put mainline wages on the table against 100 seat flying? Will the company put pensions/retirement/benefits on the table against 100 seat flying? I would bet they would and we better have unified response. That response will only be achieved if we work together. The clock is ticking.
10-12-2009, 03:58 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: New Hire
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Harry Dunn
Will the company try to put mainline wages on the table against 100 seat flying? Will the company put pensions/retirement/benefits on the table against 100 seat flying? I would bet they would and we better have unified response. That response will only be achieved if we work together. The clock is ticking.
10-12-2009, 04:03 PM
#99
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Right now, it shouldn't be too much of a fight for the 100 seater. The 100 seater that comes on is a simple replacement aircraft for the 9. Just slide those wages right on over...
Now, if they are looking for us to burn this airline to the ground. They can start a fight over the 100 seater. If it comes to that point, I have zero qualms about ending this airline's future.
Now, if they are looking for us to burn this airline to the ground. They can start a fight over the 100 seater. If it comes to that point, I have zero qualms about ending this airline's future.
10-12-2009, 04:04 PM
#100
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by shadyops
Don't worry. As long as the top 10 percent of DAL is looking out for eachother, us regional guys will be flying 100 seaters...what a shame.
Contrary to what you think, 95% of the guys over here think on some level that selling scope is an issue. Now granted about 80% of this group is not like some of us, but that is OK, they just need to get the point that it is a bad idea. The do not need to know all the stupid details. Better if they did but not necessary to make an informed vote.
If we think that will will have to chose between 100 seat flying and our DC, well then I think we are at a point where the options are very limited. I for one would give up neither.
