Scooter432

So far we have 4 candidates that have said they are in the running. Tom Kramer, Karlene Pettit, Darren Hartman, and Ryan Argenta. To date, I've only seen 2 of the 4's campaign letters. Perhaps the other candidates feel it is not worth their time to lobby the pilot group as all they need to do is gain the upper hand politically from the inside the MEC to get elected.

I find it unfortunate that we are not able to actually cast a vote ourselves. All we can do is provide input and that is what I've done. I really like Ryan's podcast series over the last few years. It's provided transparency that is badly needed. He has an impressive resume, is competent and willing to fight for the pilot group. Below were some responses to another pilot today. Needless to say this is critical that our reps get this vote right. We have major leverage that does not need to be wasted.

This is absolutely critical that we get this vote right as this will determine the course of the final negotiations. If not for Ryan, at least engage.



-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reaching out and for your thoughtful questions. I appreciate your engagement. My responses to your questions are below.

- Do you have a military retirement? Tricare?

I do not have a military pension or Tricare benefits. I separated from active duty in 2013 and from the Air Force Reserve in 2016.

- What Dalpa positions have you held?

I've worked in Communications since September of 2018. I served as Chief of Staff of Communications and a Strategic Advisor to the MEC Chairman during the pandemic through the end of 2020. I still volunteer in Communications where I produce and host the Engage Podcast. I also work closely with the MEC members and committee chairs with who I've earned their trust and respect. This work in Communications has given me a high-level view of how the MEC works, what its shortcomings are, and where we can improve.

- Do you support our Four Pillars Ask?

Yes. In any negotiation, it is imperative to have a foundational ask backed by a firm negotiating position. The Four Pillars of Pay, Scope, Quality of Life, and Retirement & Insurance are strong openers for C2019 and represents what the pilot group had asked for in 2019. Obviously, the climate has changed and so has polling data and pilot requirements for this contract and I believe the MEC is directing the Negotiating Committee to incorporate such changes. It is important for the MEC, and to me, to not negotiate away from one pillar to fulfill another. In other words, we can't and shouldn't take from Retirement and Insurance to gain in Compensation. The MEC Chairman is a de facto member of the Negotiating Committee and I look forward to bringing fresh energy to the NC in supporting them in the final stages of this negotiation. I know the pilot group is collectively tired of this dragged out process - I am as well. But we cannot erode our unity and resolve in obtaining the contract we have earned. The strike authorization vote gave us major leverage that we now need to use and use properly and strongly. Bringing fresh energy, strategy, and perspective to the table as MEC Chairman, I am certain, will bring management to the table in a significant and serious manner.

- Do you support Full Retro on significant pay raises going back to our amendable date?

Absolutely. Doing otherwise will signal to this management team and those in the future that delaying negotiations is acceptable. It is not. I am an ardent advocate for full retro pay to the amendable date defined as pay, compensation (vacation, overtime, profit sharing, etc), and retirement contribution retroactively paid from the amedable date to the date of signing.

- Do you support the MBCBP, including achieving the Minimum Balance in this contract?

I haven't read the full language of the MBCBP so I'll keep my comments brief but from what I have been briefed on and what I have learned from R&I, I am supportive of the MBCBP so long as we maintain optionality. That is, the ability for each individual pilot to determine if the MBCBP is beneficial to him/her and either opt in or out of the plan. The Minimum Balance portion of the plan is essential for our more senior pilots and the only way of remunerating them for loses and sacrifices made which have never been restored or, frankly, even acknowledged by management.

- Mr. Bastian so far has offered $1.38 Billion to settle this contract. That number is far below the value needed in One contract cycle (2020, 2021. and 2022). We are now into our SECOND contract cycle (2023, 2024, and 2025). Will you fight for fair value for the TWO contract cycles that this contract will cover?

Absolutely. It is essential that we view this as two distinct contract cycles and negotiate each independently and through the lens of different effective financials even though it will be under one contract cover. I have studied Delta's financial reports, shareholder briefings, and the recent briefing to the Board of Directors by Glen Hauenstein and Ed Bastian. I am prepared to engage management backed with this information along with the analysis provided by ALPA Economic & Financial Analysis in Washington DC.

- Can you state your position wrt Scope and our as yet to be seen Global Scope Agreement?

I wholeheartedly back the Scope section of our PWA; I support with vigor the Scope Committee and the work they do; and I firmly believe without Scope, our PWA, our careers and our industry are at stake. As for Global Scope, from what I have read and learned so far, including some sections of actual language, I am in support of the Global Scope Agreement. I think it benefits all Delta pilots across the board, bolsters our position as Delta pilots, and sets the stage for the industry as a whole. One for One growth has been a desired achievable for years and this Global Scope Agreement has done just that.

I'd like to draw your attention to the Engage podcast if you haven't listened already. Engage: The Podcast for Delta Pilots on Apple Podcasts
I feel it lends itself for you to get to know me, my philosophies, and my position on various topics including Scope, Retirement, and how we proceed as a pilot group. I hope you'll find that I am authentic and genuine; I am a line pilot who is fortunate to have the background and experience that I have and to bring value to the MEC and the Delta pilots.

I really appreciate your questions and your support. As always, please reach out with any questions, ideas, or needs. I'll be sure to address them.

Kindly,
Ryan"

sailingfun

This is exactly the guy we need. Smart, not emotional and understands negotiating! Resume is light years ahead of the other published candidate.

20Fathoms

I liked Ryan’s letter overall despite the name dropping of Harvard, but putting it in bold font? By the way did you know he went to Harvard?

The Engage Podcast is very good though and he deserves a good deal of credit for it.

gzsg

Not bothering to write a letter to the pilots you want to lead is a fail.

How do we give our reps input on which candidate to vote for if they won’t bother to write a letter?

We need to choose one of the two who respect us enough to write to us.

capncrunch

I think it’s a requirement that Harvard grads have to tell everyone. Same as F16 guys having it in their email address. 🤣

JamesBond

Two of the candidates know that the deals are made at the MEC. They don't need YOUR approval or support. They know they need the support/approval of the LEC members. Oh they will put out some boiler plate letter with their resume, blah blah blah, but it doesn't mean anything. It is at the MEC that they have the advantage and one of them will win. Look at how hard it was to get the turnout for a strike vote. It took a wholly owned regional getting a better deal in 17 days to convince enough that management is not interested in dealing with us. So in order to get fresh blood in the MEC, you have to write your reps. If enough write, (and here's the problem) and can prove they supported one of the outsiders, I would think we would have cause to replace a rep. Apathy rules and incumbents know that. There are two incumbents.

Change my mind.

brakechatter

Just a couple of opinions, having experience with all of them. I agree that taking the time to write an email to the pilots is good form, especially if they don't know who you are.
With regard to Ryan Argenta in particular, I agree that he has a lot of potential. I worked with him in Engage, and he is likable, very articulate and writes well. His future is bright if he sticks with it. That being said, experience matters in the position of MEC Chairman, again IMO. I appreciate his honesty in answering the question of not really knowing what the MBCBP consists of, and the MEC Chairman needs to know about the MBCBP. There is a lot about the contract, the process and the people that he needs to learn prior to taking that office. The Chairman doesn't work for the pilots. The Chairman works for, and is responsible to, the MEC, and represents the MEC when the MEC isn't in session. The MEC works for the pilots. With almost 15,000 opinions from "A" type personalities, I personally think the process works, but the place to change it is with resolution at the LEC level.

Some clarifications, the Chairman isn't a de facto member of the NC, he/she are an ex officio member of all of the committees. It is an important distinction to understand, as the NC works for, and is responsible to, the MEC, not the MEC Chairman. The Chairman does not come in and lead the NC. They are independent elected members, individually responsible to the MEC but tasked to work together. To get fresh blood on the MEC, people need to volunteer, do good work and establish a reputation for a quality product. It's hard to get people to volunteer. That leads to promotion to Committee Chair positions and/or base representative positions. That leads to Admin positions. And yes, distasteful things happen in the name of politics and less-than-pilot-centric motivation. Always has, always will.

Stepping back now, and waiting to hear the update from this week and next after the MEC meeting.

bugman61

What is the source of this number?

JamesBond

The only part of this post I am going to comment on (and yours is a fine post) is the part regarding getting people to volunteer. I tried once. I guess I didn't grease the right people's palms as they didn't want to hire me for the open position for which I was applying. So... it went to an insider... much later... So that whole thing about having a hard time getting volunteers is BS. They want specific volunteers; those that toe their ideological line.... just like the MEC election will be. The thing is, at the time, I was a koolaid drinking ALPA supporter. Now I am awake.

DeltaboundRedux

In all formal organizations (business, government, church ladies, etc.) there are formal lines of power and authority, and informal networks of power.

The informal trumps the formal 100% of the time. Nail Ferguson's book "The Square and the Tower" is excellent popular read on this and a good starting point. (See also, Geneto Mosca, Carl Schmitt, Montesquieu, etc.)

MEC elections being separated from the direct voting by the membership is a good example of this. It's not just current LEC who'll have input on the MEC elections; it will be the informal networks of former MEC/LEC reps, and the volunteers they interact with on the committees, who'll come together and determine the new MEC.

Want to have influence on who is on the MEC?

Don't write an impassioned email (Won't hurt. Won't help. It's just noise).

Volunteer and network relentlessly.

(Too much work for me. I'll just be writing the LEC reps to say no ** because Cray Cray ain't good for business)