Slowplay,

Thank you for your reasoned response. Always pleasant when we can discuss the L&G in such a manner.

First, I would hope our association follows the guidance we democratically establish at our Board of Director's meetings, as outlined in the Admin Manual. In this case, Section 40 appears to have been ignored in whole. Not just the "Ford / Cooksey ... meet, confer and work together" (which existed in principle even before ALPA authored the voluntary settlement language); also the standards for concessionary bargaining and job protection provisions.

Secondly, to justify ignoring the Delta MEC's proper role in the representation of our pilots ALPA effectively responded with "that's none of our business." Such a reply is, in my opinion, really bad strategy which harms Delta pilots. To explain; our MEC has negotiated GOOD SCOPE which states Delta pilots perform ALL COMPANY FLYING, with certain permitted exceptions. If the Company comes up with something new, like Song, it is ours. Also, according to the sworn testimony of ALPA National's attorney (which is how I learned this stuff) "permitted flying" is only permitted by Delta pilots. We own that too. Comair only flew, according to testimony, because the Delta pilots allowed it. To say the Pinnacle negotiations were "none of the Delta pilots' business" when it involves Delta flying presupposes that our permitted flying can be committed to another carrier independent of our involvement. In as much as Compass was at one time part of the "craft and class" of Delta pilots as represented by the Delta MEC, ALPA is by policy endorsing Alter Ego negotiations on our property without the Delta pilots' Reps in the room.

A clear contrast can be seen with Alaska Air Group's scope which only binds them to Alaska Airlines current and ordered 737 fleet. In that example a Song type operation could be flown under the Alaska brand. I think this will be an issue in the career expectations of Alaska pilots in a merger.

Our MEC has properly taken the correct path on scope which includes the entirety of Company flying. We should fight vigorously against Alter Ego airlines chipping away and writing contracts which conflict with ours.

ALPA should, can and has vetted contracts at National to avoid such conflict, but, the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement is chock a block full of language which modifies the Delta PWA. The Pinnacle agreement does not respect Delta pilots' flow down quid pro quo, it reorders preferential interviews to give senior employed Captains jobs when our contract says the Company will make a best effort to hire ALPA members displaced from their jobs.... and while it is clearly stated that the Delta contract is dominant, how exactly does a line pilot fie a grievance over the order of preferences.

Further, it is clearly established legal precedent that "separate is unequal." IMHO is likely management will try to leverage multiple pilot groups at the same bargaining table, particularly if these negotiations can be kept secret from Delta pilots.

The other unresolved issue brought forward by the Pinnacle agreement is the fact that compliance with the voluntary settlement ALPA reached with the Comair plaintiffs remains under Court supervision. A very quick and easy ruling which we can discuss somewhere off a public forum. As of yet I am still hoping and praying for an internal resolution which preserves the rights of the Delta pilots.

Delta Company flying is my job and your job. Policies which authorize other pilots to sit down and talk our jobs with our management is against our interest and against the long term interests of our association. If Pinnacle was authorized, then the road is paved for Teamsters to seek greater Republic flying and anyone else who wants to come sit at our table.

At one time we enjoyed exclusivity over our flying because ALPA would not authorize these ex-partied negotiations. I know legally ALPA can authorize any bargaining, they just didn't used to as a matter of policy. Back as recently as the year 2005 ALPA was on record as stating Delta MEC autonomy prevented such negotiations.

This could have easily been done properly (which makes me wonder why it wasn't). A call to Delta's MEC seeking approval could have been a ministerial matter. ALPA is smarter than to make that kind of mistake, so there probably was a reason.

My best guess is that the superior knowledge of the Delta MEC would have prevented the Pinnacle debacle. At some level we probably knew of a 1.6 billion dollar cap ex commitment and plans to takePinnacle in house (it was pretty obvious even from here in the bleachers if you read Mesabah's posts). Wychor himself stated having the Delta MEC involved would have resulted in a better deal than they got.

In conclusion, I see no reason why Pinnacle's deal had to be done in a way that undermined the Delta MEC. The negotiations should not have been ratified by our Association's President.

I will not accept a narrow redefinition of "Company Flying" to be an Alaska like "only what you perform." Our MEC has the horsepower to tell ALPA how it should be. I'm still pulling for them to see the light.