Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Folks who are interested in this issue need to take a look at, and ask their Representatives, to take a look at the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement.
Pinnacle, allegedly with the support of Lee Moak, did a contract directly with Delta management that among other things, modifies Delta's Section 1, locks down the outsourced jets and modifies hiring language to favor Pinnacle pilots over other ALPA members. The Delta MEC was not even told another ALPA group had engaged their management.
It is a horrible precedent when another group can come in and do a deal which excludes your MEC. Our MEC Chairmen need to call a Executive Council, but of course ALPA's attorneys are out in force defending their client. Most Reps do not understand that ALPA attorneys work for ALPA. The ALPA attorney assigned to your MEC still represent ALPA.
We have processes to deal with bargaining that does not comply with our Admin Manual and Constitution and Bylaws. Rather than replacing ALPA, the smart thing to do is to fix it. The Pinnacle Bridge agreement is a good place to start because of the issues that are involved (an autocratic structure which excludes the representation of members).
It seems, that what you are saying is that the Pinnacle agreement does not violate your section one, while at the same time it is modifying it? If it is in fact a violation of the contract, a simple grievance by an affected member is all that is necessary to eventually put the issue in front of an arbitrator. No need to wait, you have the right to file that grievance yourself. The powers certainly could stop it through the grievance review process, but if you don't file, no point in complaining. Your MEC's action denying the grievance would be tacit approval of that agreement. You could take whatever political action necessary after that.
If your section one does not actually prohibit these types of negotiation and your management refused to agree to limit them when they signed the contract, then you are relying on the ALPA political machine to give you a satisfactory resolution. That is a difficult process at best since it could benefit one ALPA group against another. The elected representatives implement the rules, they can modify them if they think it benefits the goals of the organization.
Most of us agree that deference to seniority and longevity in the profession is a measure of fairness. We are not willing to leave it to management to churn us to their benefit. In this case, it appear the concept has been maintained that a long time ALPA member should be hired before a 23 year old off the street. So, it is unclear to me, if your angst is because some contract provision or ALPA rule was violated or if a de-facto flow through was implemented without your design and approval. It just may be, that it is because the perceived autonomy of your pilot group met the reality of a national agenda.