Originally Posted by
Reroute
I'm not a big fan of it either, but most of it is a result of lawsuit settlement, so it is unlikely to change. IMO, it is toothless and it is not in our best interest to be in the business of putting teeth into it. Others opinions may vary.
Reroute, prior to that settlement we has similar language in our Admin Manual. ALPA's re-write was an attempt to clarify that language so as to avoid a repeat of Ford - Cooksey.
If we were to delete page 5 from Section 40, what would we replace it with? How would we ensure conflicts of interest are resolved BEFORE ALPA sits down with management?
I am open to suggestions for improvement. Resolutions need to be drafted to accomplish that goal. What do you think of something along the lines of:
"The Delta MEC will seek a Letter of Agreement which stipulates the Delta MEC be a full participant in any pilot labor negotiations with Delta Air Lines, Inc., airlines it controls, or subsidiaries and further that such agreement be binding on any successor companies, or in the event Delta is acquired, the acquiring entity."
Is there an alternative which would be acceptable to your line of thinking which would result in Delta Reps being at the table when ever Delta management does a deal for pilot labor?
Lets pretend this resolution just got introduced at your local council. Yay or Nay, modifications from the floor?