rube

Gentlemen of the MEC,

This past Thursday, Salt Lake City representative Michael Poggi authored a communication containing several factual mistruths and accusations that reflect harshly on the conduct of the Delta MEC, the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee. His claims impugn the process and very basis of our recently negotiated contract agreement, and by so doing, call into question the entire organization's ability to effectively bargain on behalf of our members going forward. As elected servants of the MEC, we owe you our dedicated work and honest analyses of any and all negotiating factors, in order to help you best do yours. We are obligated to directly contend Captain Poggi's statement, and to provide a clear synopsis of what this episode and others like it entail.

Regarding the following written statements by Captain Poggi:
"I have a fiduciary responsibility in representing you. My resolve to meet that responsibility was continuously challenged by an administration that on many occasions failed to provide me requested information to base decisions on."
To the best we can discern, this claim has to do with two very general statements he made, first midstream, and then again very late in our process, about "not getting costing data" related to the contract negotiations. The fact of the matter is that he has been offered full access, analyses and explanation of all costing aspects of the project whenever he requested. The real problem has tended to be that he does not demonstrate the modeling acumen or economic literacy to frame pertinent inquiries, or seem to understand the fundamental answers he is provided. His claim here is simply false.
"We (the LEC reps) were told to use polling data until it didn’t align with the narrative coming from the administration and the Negotiating Committee."

This statement is also categorically false. The affirmation of that is obvious: 1) no move was made at any time by any member of the MEC to act against the Negotiating Committee or Administration as would be called for if such a clear violation of the will of the membership had occurred; 2) the MEC willfully ratified the Tentative Agreement by a vote of 15-4; 3) 95% of the pilot membership subsequently ratified the TA at a record approval of 82%. The agreement undeniably lies within the footprint of our very thorough polling of the pilot group.

"Moves were made during negotiations that were outside the direction of the MEC body. When we attempted to stop the “bleeding,” we were accused of micromanaging. When we gave leeway, we surrendered contract language."
Negotiators do not define, finalize or accept any agreement; the Delta pilots (through their elected representatives) do. Throughout the negotiating process, the MEC determined and provided direction, along the way modified it, and in the end strongly approved the work product of the Negotiating Committee.

Before the final negotiations of this contract, there were a handful of items worked at the edge of direction. Two were identified in process as the result of internal miscommunication and were immediately withdrawn. Two others were part of early agreements in principle knowingly accepted and ratified by the MEC. Another pair were designated for retraction from the AIPs by the MEC, and indeed were.

In the very final hours of negotiations, two items were determined by your negotiators to be both essential to secure the deal, and to be in keeping with the progressive direction the MEC had given throughout the process. In the end, they were accepted and approved by the MEC (and subsequently, by the Delta pilots).
"We were told that the AIPs were not final, but when they didn’t meet your needs, as evidenced by polling, we were told we couldn’t change them."

Like the entire agreement, the AIPs were not "final" until ratified. However, a comprehensive negotiation process does require sequentially and progressively settling items. When some MEC members sought to regress from settled positions, the Negotiating Committee responsibly described the projected consequences, affording the MEC the ability to thoughtfully choose its course. Neither the Negotiating Committee nor the MEC Administration has any authority or ability to tell the MEC that they "can't change" anything. There was never any targeted polling conducted on any of the AIP items considered for retraction. And the 82% membership ratification actually does confirm that there is very little of significant distaste to the broad span of our pilot group in the net agreement.

"I’ll describe John’s leadership style as autocratic. The MEC chairman, by Policy Manual, works for the MEC. I felt that the process leading up to the TA was more of a manipulation to get us where the chairman thought we should go."
The entire Negotiating Committee aptly responded to Captain Poggi about this statement: "Your Council Update paints John Malone as a master manipulator who did whatever it took to get the TA deal done. It paints the Negotiating Committee as willing accomplices with no regard for process, and it paints the MEC as hapless dupes incapable of effective oversight. If the things that you allege happened, why did the MEC allow it; why weren't we recalled, and why was the agreement recommended for approval?"

In conclusion, we can only characterize this event, and an increasing number of others like it, bush league, and genuinely costly to the Delta pilots. As negotiators representing the best interest of our party - the MEC and the Delta pilots - we recommend that the body promptly and formally condemn the subject communication and censure the author.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Uvena
Jeff Anderson
Ron Hay
Heiko Kallenbach