C20/DTW Special Special Update

May 29th, 2015



Special MEC Meeting

Another Special MEC Meeting will be held in Atlanta, starting on June 2nd, 2015. The only agenda item is an update from the Negotiating Committee. We anticipate that most, if not all, of the meeting well be held in closed session.



The Previous Special Meeting

During (and since) the conclusion of the last regular MEC meeting (May 4-7), several MEC Representatives expressed varying levels of dissatisfaction with the MEC’s level of engagement with and knowledge of the status of negotiations.



This dissatisfaction was expressed to the MEC Administration. Several Representatives were in the process of calling for a special meeting (per the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws) when the MEC Chairman elected to call for a special meeting in Atlanta on May 19th and 20th. We certainly appreciate the MEC CH making this decision.



To ensure that our concerns, as well as the concerns of other Representatives were addressed, 11 Status Representatives (including Bill and Rich) elected to call for a Special Meeting in addition to that called by the MEC Chairman (two Secretary/Treasurers, including Tom, also signed the letter requesting the meeting). This was done to ensure that items of specific concern were placed on the agenda. Since the agenda, which was subsequently published for the meeting, included these items, the MEC Administration stated that an additional meeting was not necessary.



The goals for the special meeting:

“Attempt” to ensure that the direction given to the Negotiators and the MEC Administration is still a priority and is still in line with your expectations.
Make sure we get Contract 2015 right, and accomplished on a proper timeline that does not sacrifice quality for expediency.




Negotiations Update

The MEC was comprehensively briefed on the status of ALPA’s issues from the ALPA Opener as well as updated about the negotiations relative to the Company issues, which had been the primary area of discussion at the MEC meetings since the Openers were exchanged.



The Negotiating Committee briefed the MEC that (as of last week’s meeting) there had not been any discussions with the Company about the “value” items (pay rates, profit sharing, DPSP contributions, overrides, etc.). Obviously we will get an update at next week’s Special Meeting.



MEC Priorities and Direction

We had your priorities aggregated from multiple sources, including last year’s survey
Most of us (the pilot group) had our own personal lists of priorities for C2015.
We (the C20 Reps) have certainly tried to keep as many items in the final agreement as possible, as well as adapt to and address proposals that were not conclusively covered by the survey or other sources.
Although we are confident that all the members of the MEC pressed for priorities which they / we believed best represented their / our constituencies, both locally and aggregately, significantly different “worldviews”, beliefs about representation, MEC responsibilities and governance, and the amount of latitude that should be afforded to the Negotiating Committee and MEC Administration, led individual members of the MEC to sometimes give substantially differing negotiating direction. Further complicating the exercise is the component that the Negotiating Committee itself, having debated and discussed all of these issues amongst themselves, have opinions about the best courses of action, which may differ from the MEC member opinions.
We can only conclude that the representatives are representative of the memberships who elected them.
Sometimes we (the C20 reps) were in the majority, sometimes we were not, throughout the full range of more to less significant issues.
Many of the key non-“value package” items still have details to be finalized.
How acceptable or unacceptable some of items individually are will have to ultimately be judged in the context of the overall deal.
We believe that the greater the prevalence of any objectionable parameters certainly raises the requirements in other areas.
Our goal from the start was to work very hard to help craft a deal that we could ultimately support rather than being satisfied with just voting against one that is rushed and unacceptable…...or just unacceptable.




Rumor Control

Significant caution is suggested when considering rumors regarding the status of negotiations. While occasionally providing a certain level of amusement to some, rumors range from wildly inaccurate to items that accidently have some correct parameters, but remain disconnected from reality due to the lack of context and overall specifics. Many key details still remain to be decided.



Pilots are pretty good at picking out bits and pieces of information from multiple sources and integrating them together to maintain situational awareness. That’s what we do. We do this with rumors as well, even if sub-consciously. A tidbit here, a tidbit there, and add in some “confirmation bias”, and pretty soon you have a fully blown “ALPA already agreed to it, it’s a sure thing” kind of rumor.



Finally, consider one of the psychological factors that can come into play. Let’s say you see a particularly bad rumor…maybe it was for some really unsatisfactory pay rates, some kind of unforgivable concession, or whatever. But then the actual Tentative Agreement appears that includes something similar…just not to the negative level included the rumor, or as significant in the context of the overall agreement. You may find yourself saying “well, that isn’t so bad”. You may have been pre-conditioned by the really bad rumor into considering something that was still not all that great...just not as bad as what you had heard.



Don’t fall prey to “negotiating with yourself” or getting so invested in any particular rumor and go “all-in” disputing or supporting it, only to have to say “never mind” once all the details are determined and published.



A final word about the Internet…be sure of your source. That person giving you contract advice may be a 13 year-old in his parents’ basement in Amarillo.



“The Process”

As we mentioned in our last update, some of the MEC felt there were “process issues”. Other MEC members stated in their Council updates that there were no process problems. The difference in perspective is related to defining “the process” (which generally has no official definition) narrowly by solely referencing the “Negotiation Procedures” as outlined in the Delta MEC Policy Manual, Section 9.A.1 (shown below), or by defining it more broadly to include the general manner in which negotiations are being conducted and the MEC’s ongoing involvement in direction and re-direction.



“9.A. Negotiation Procedures

1. When change to the PWA is contemplated, the following policy will be followed before commencing bilateral negotiations:



a. The MEC chairman will use appropriate resources to gather all available background information.

b. Background material will be forwarded to the MEC.

c. If deemed necessary, an MEC meeting will be called for the purpose of review and direction by the MEC.

d. If the MEC gives direction for negotiations to proceed and a tentative agreement (TA) is reached, it will be brought back to the MEC for review and further action by the MEC.”





This policy is very general…as it should be; there are a range of circumstances that could affect the Pilot Working Agreement, such as Letters of Agreements on minor issues, larger changes such as LOA 14-01 (FAR 117), and full Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 6 negotiations.



However, since it is so general, there is an abundance of “wiggle room” in how things are done, and that latitude frequently gets defined by a majority vote of the MEC.



Our differences of perspective shouldn’t make a difference, right? Again, even though each person believes that their goals are “in the best interests of the group”, even defining what those interests are can be a tough debate.



The actual direction process can be subject to considerable give and take. Items can be presented, re-presented, re-worked, and presented yet again to the MEC to give direction on, even though direction had previously been given. This can turn into a contentious interaction where concepts like “no means no” faces off against “this really is something that needs to be done”. This dynamic is not limited to Delta ALPA, nor ALPA in general, but can occur in any collective bargaining situation.



As we mentioned in a previous update, direction to the Negotiating Committee may be firm or conditional, depending on the subject. Some issues may be worth exploring by providing some flexibility, while others are more likely to need definite requirements. There are many moving pieces and components that go into an entire package. And again, these value judgments can differ amongst MEC members.



There is one school of thought that anything developed that meets the sometimes broad & vague direction should be approved by the MEC (which could certainly put the necessity of MEC approval itself into question).



The other school of thought, (the one to which we subscribe), is that you really can’t realistically evaluate the individual pieces without considering the package as a whole (barring individual non-starters and “deal killers”…some lines you just don’t cross). Just because a deal met individual minimum sub-goals, doesn't necessarily mean the entire package is acceptable. Like Systems Validations, each module must meet a minimum, as well as the entire test collectively.



So while the “process” may be technically within the loose guidance of the Policy Manual, it does not necessarily mean that all of the MEC is comfortable with the manner in which the MEC was included or regarded throughout the overall effort or even just relative to individual items. While we certainly appreciate the hard work that goes into an effort such as this, it’s the final result that counts.



Summary

Negotiations with the Company and the Negotiating Committee are proceeding.

It appears from our viewpoint that there is some factor driving the pace of negotiations, but we are unsure about what that factor might be.



A Tentative Agreement (TA) may be possible in the near future.



Maybe.



As many of you are no doubt aware, the Company announced a significant stock re-purchase program and increased dividends as parts of their “capital deployment strategy”. These programs show the strength of Delta Air Lines which is, in no small part, a result of the sacrifices that this pilot group has made over the past several years, helping Delta to regain its preeminent competitive position in the industry.



It also tells us what every Delta Pilot already knew: the Company has ample resources to deliver the contract we expect and deserve.



We continue to experience very high pilot input to the process. Please keep the cards and letters coming. We will continue to make every effort to reach the “historical” agreement referred to by our leadership at the outset of the negotiations process.



“If not now, when?”



Fraternally,



Bill, Rich, and Tom







Captain Bill Bartels
LEC Chairman/
Capt. Rep
[email protected]
(734) 834-5634
Rich Wheeler
LEC Vice Chairman/
F/O Rep
[email protected]
(954) 494-5086
Captain Tom Bell
Secretary-Treasurer
[email protected]
(414) 732-8197


Contract and Scheduling questions may also be directed to:
Captain Steve Drew: [email protected]; (210)859-0638
Dave Rogers: [email protected]; (812)431-0387
Heiko Kallenbach: [email protected]; (352) 212-4289





The Pilot Assistance Network (PAN), for pilots seeking physiological, psychological and/or medical assistance, can be reached at 1-800-USA-ALPA (1-800-872-2572). If calling after business hours or on the weekend press 7.



The Council 20 Representatives are committed to protecting your jobs, your future and repairing this industry for ALL Delta Pilots.

# # #