Bucking Bar

ALPA responds to DOJ on LATAM flying allocation

Several people called me about a supposed lawsuit brought by LATAM pilots over the allocation of flying in Delta's newest JV. I was not able to find such a thing and question how any representatives of the LATAM pilots would have standing. What did turn up was the back and forth between the JV partners, ALPA and the US DOJ.

The view of the Department of Justice is that "fair allocation" and "shared growth" provisions restrict the growth of LATAM in this case and would be used to constrain capacity to drive ticket prices higher. ALPA (and common sense) suggest that LATAM wouldn't be able to grow as fast without Delta's $ and network feed.

Interestingly, the DOJ is requiring the JV participants to report effects on US jobs, but is allowing the JV partners to keep this information confidential. Clearly one of should FOIA this report (and I probably will when it becomes timely).

Our MEC, Scope Committee and International Affair and, or, Alliances Committees have been asked for any additional information they might want to provide.

If our current theater protections are considered unmanageable and unenforceable, then it is more likely that a global balance is even more difficult to enforce. The US DOJ putting the heavy hand of government on the scales to ostensibly favor the consumer while knowingly harming US labor makes an already difficult task impossible unless Delta management were to intervene on our behalf (and to be clear, it appears Delta management was on the same side of ALPA on this, at least with the initial filings).

ALPA needs to step up it's legislative game A LOT. This is not partisan. I doubt there would be any difference regardless of who was elected POTUS. The US DOJ is following the law which favors cheaper outsourcing over US labor. American workers need their congressional reps to give us a hand here.

Look forward to additional perspectives on this. Does anyone know is this is why the AIP Section 1 seems stuck?

Hello Newman

Unfortunately, the ship has likely sailed on rectifying this.

This situation does beg the question…why does ALPA support antitrust immunity for Delta JVs, only to frantically try to fix scope imbalances and other issues after implementation? These problems are completely predictable. None of these JVs have turned out positive for Delta pilots, and yet ALPA runs the same playbook over and over.

Bucking Bar

The company presented a plan to the DOJ that included equitable growth provisions.

The Department of Justice struck down the balance.

tnkrdrvr

As an interested outsider (Brown would love to use JVs overseas to move our boxes), my question would be why wouldn’t you guys go to the mat to kill these JVs and tighten your scope? Seeing your own pax fly on RJs is irritating, but not many Delta guys really want to do that flying. Seeing your pax fly on somebody else’s wide body aircraft, taking away your highest paying jobs is a kick in the financial nuts.

Planetrain

News to me, hadn’t seen that published.
Is this why Global Scope is getting slow-rolled?

Hello Newman

Yes, but what was that plan for equitable growth actually worth to the pilots? Even had DOJ left it in place, the company would still have done what they always do, and outsource as much wide body flying as they could get away with.

ALPA supported the Korean JV, and that has not been good for Delta pilots.

ALPA supported the Aeromexico JV, and that has not been good for Delta pilots.

Same playbook, same results.

Not sure how you can expect any kind of a legislative solution from Congress when the union repeatedly supports antitrust immunity for these ventures.

Bucking Bar

To be very clear, ALPA is fighting the good fight for us in this matter.

In almost every case, it is is better to be at the table. If we just take the feel-good politically popular "!WE ARE AGAINST EVERYTHING!" stand then we are irrelevant. We want to be FOR good things and work to make bad things good, or at least, better.

Whoopsmybad

Agree.

Had anyone written their reps yet to see where we are going from here?

Hello Newman

I’m sorry, but I think you making a bit of a straw man argument. I am not suggesting that we take the position that WE ARE AGAINST EVERYTHING. There is a big difference between “being at the table” and offering unconditional support to a JV that means additional outsourcing of our jobs. As an example, this is from a former MEC Chair regarding the Aeromexico JV:

“For the reasons stated above, the JCA will benefit consumers, Delta’s pilots and employees, and a range of communities in the United States. The proposed limitations in the Show Cause Order would greatly reduce those benefits. Accordingly, the Delta MEC urges the Department of Transportation to set aside those limitations and unconditionally approve the Joint Application.”

Did the pilots receive ANY consideration from the company in exchange for this unqualified support for the JV? As far as I am aware, Delta management gladly pocketed the statement of support and continued its outsourcing quest. What was the benefit to Delta pilots resulting from ALPA supporting the JV? How did this help to “make bad things good”, as you put it? How is this fighting the good fight?

Serious question, and not trying to be snarky. I honestly do not see the benefits of this approach.

DALFA

Same result with the AF/KL JV. Got rid of a lot of lucrative flying and destinations in favor of flying 20x per day to CDG and AMS.