Originally Posted by StepchildF16

I have been reading from the sidelines and talking on the line but decided to finally join the board here. I'm don't see any reason to get emotional about things on the board, but I do see reason to point out error and show fact. Hopefully pilots will read the actual TA, the facts will stand for themselves and the pilots will vote based on fact. My concern is that I never seem to get just fact from DALPA. I get a little bit about fact (sometimes) and then I get a lot about how I should interpret the tidbit they just gave me. It would be nice to be treated as a professional not as a laborer...

I'm not an ALPA hater, but I do need to have a person or entity demonstrate consistently that I can trust them before I will freely endorse and promote them. That's the problem I have with DALPA right now. What makes it worse is that DALPA doesn't care, they don't have to earn my trust, there are enough other people that will blindly follow them. DALPA doesn't need me. That also means that DALPA is not interested in addressing my concerns (survey or emails) or protecting me and my career.

Interestingly DALPA MEC Chairman likes to sign his letters "Fraternally". While I don't have a biological brother, the "brothers" that I regularly turn to don't treat me like that. The true "brothers" deal with me on truth and fact. They aren't trying to carefully choose words to get me to agree with them. They respect me enough to tell me the facts - good or bad - and let me decide. They really want the best for me. "Fraternally" on the letters I receive doesn't have ANY true "brother" sentiment to it.

I have asked for explanation to requests for "ability to say yes" and "consensus" but have not received anything other than a request for blind faith and a rubber stamp. I continue to ask for that. As for the TA, I just ask that my union "brothers" show me that they fought for what I (and the pilot group) wanted from the contract survey. If I'm "out to lunch" on what I want, I can live with that, but I can't buy that the majority of pilots are "out to lunch" and DALPA is the only rational player - especially without any data to back that up.

Here is the letter I sent to the MEC Chairman after his last fraternal letter...
Mike,

I think you have all the tools you need to stop the falsehoods. DALPA represents Delta Pilots. As part of that representation - and DALPA’s responsibility - DALPA conducted a contract survey of its members. Then the MEC provided the direction to the NC and the NC reached a TA. I realize that this is not something you are unfamiliar with.

If you want to show how DALPA is succeeding, then take these steps:
1) Release the results of the DALPA contract survey
2) Release the direction of the MEC to the NC

These 2 items will show that DALPA listened to the concerns and desires of the membership that it represents and that it directed the NC to get a contract obtaining those items.

Once the pilots - myself included - see that DALPA is truly representing me and achieving the desires of the membership as a whole, all of your concern about falsehood will not have a leg to stand on.

If you chose not to be transparent in your representation of the DALPA membership then you leave yourself, the MEC, NC and DALPA as a whole suspect in their actions.

A number of months ago you sent out a request for “the ability to say yes” and “consensus”. The problem with that is - and I asked you these questions directly at the DTW LEC meeting - you don’t want to reveal what you want me to say yes to. You want my consensus but you don’t want to tell me what I’m signing up for. Show and prove that you are truly representing the group through actual data and then you can move DALPA away from the “falsehood” and you can achieve “consensus” and “yes”. Continue on the current path and what you refer to as “falsehood” will grow. You have the tools to stop this.

As for the contract:

1) Pay rates acceptable but nothing great - based on inflation adjusted 2000-2004 rates. Also trading PS for pay 1-1 not great, should have been a better raise in 2nd year to offset at least some of the trade. DC should be 20% min to make up for lost retirements - it’s just simple math.
2) Sick time - tighten it up - fine. treat the entire pilot group like kindergarteners (laborers) - unacceptable. If you think there are abusers, address it with them. Don’t penalize me. Worst part - getting the company involved in my medical information. This is the main reason I’ll vote no.
3) JV - company is not in compliance so you settle for penny’s on the dollar and then instead of having them fix it, we rewrite the contract to put them in compliance. IF we do that, we should get something for it - we aren’t…

While there are other annoyances in the contract, these 3 are my biggest concerns.

As I stated above, releasing the survey results and MEC direction to NC will bring to light that pay, sick time and JV language in the TA all followed the desires of the membership - falsehood problem solved. or not?

Fraternally,


BTW, I'm a solid no vote.