Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I'm going to ask a stupid question, and maybe sound condescending, but that's not my intent: I just want to confirm this...
Delta owns Endeavor outright, correct?
If we're not merged, it's because we don't have to. If we wanted to jointly petition our management (and they'd have to agree), we wouldn't do it without a negotiated agreement. IOW, you can't force us to merge under any policy.
But let's say you could.
In that case, the merger policy sets standards for "fair and equitable" (career expectations, longevity, status and category). That's still better than just "fair and equitable".
When considering a more likely scenario (Alaska, for example), and making representation decisions, Delta pilots (and this is purely a matter for Delta pilots) probably wouldn't logically list "dumping the merger policy" as a pro-DPA argument. That makes no sense.
You are 100% correct on all points, the problem is, ALPA merger policy is not actually used in ALPA merger policy, it is set up to fail, that way the union doesn't take the blame. If you merge with say Alaska, you must be hostile to the Alaskan group to protect your seniority. However, since you use ALPA policy first, you have to work together. This is the ultimate flaw in ALPA. No one is debating that ALPA is the absolute best at contract negotiations and other services. The problem is ALPA doesn't care who is in the seat. They may be able to negotiate $500 an hour for a wide body captain, but they don't care if it is you, or me sitting in that seat. You better believe SWAPA cares whether or not a former SWA pilot is sitting in the correct seat. Does that make sense?
This is the reason ALPA outsources to gain max profits, they don't care about who is flying the plane, as long as it is an ALPA pilot.