Statement to Delta MEC
 

I attended the MEC meeting today, and got on the list for open speaking time. I encourage everyone to attend at least one of these to see how our dues dollars are spent, and here is a transcript of my statement:

Members of the Delta MEC:

The last time we saw each other, I was in the back of the room watching you all vote to accept the tentative agreement that the pilots overwhelmingly ratified last week. Immediately following that, a motion was made to vote on it again by roll call, and every one of you got a chance to vote twice on a deal that you all knew three things about.

You knew that the deal wasn’t going to get any better, you knew that if you turned it down the company could hide behind the NMB almost indefinitely, and you knew that the membership would overwhelmingly support the deal.

I’m not even going to get into how the writing was on the wall for us after PEB 250. That’s on you. I think a whole generation will pass before the National Mediation Board allows any case to proceed to a PEB again, but I’m just one pilot.

One vote per MEC member is the default process because it encourages consensus among representatives. In turn, consensus preserves results in collective bargaining, advancing the priorities of many councils, and thereby a larger fraction of the membership. Roll call was intended to serve as a last line of defense for democracy, preventing a minority that is over-represented on the MEC - but under-represented on the line - from imposing their will on the majority.

Roll call was never intended as a safe space, or the means for a rep to avoid political consequences. The MEC vote was 14 to 3, the result in membership ratification was quite different.

I think it’s just dandy that after TA1, the Delta MEC let everyone know how the vote went for each council. This MEC hasn’t done that yet, but the numbers are there for anyone curious enough to inquire:

David Forbes voted against 69 percent of his pilots.

Brian Kolbus was once again out of touch with 75 percent of his pilots.

Tom Kramer, through his proxy, voted against 78 percent of his pilots.

But the best part of this story is over in Council 48. Sam Mason voted against the AIP last December, but he quickly changed his mind once the instructors got a look at the deal and starting asking questions. In the end, 89 percent of instructors supported the TA, the highest level of support for any local council. The Delta MEC wasted a whole day in caucus, hiding from any pilot who might attend the meeting, cooking up a scheme to divide a 14-3 decision so that some of you could hang onto your political ambitions. I guess that worked. Sam Mason made the motion for roll call, and (surprise!) now he’s running for Pilot Director.

A 78 percent result in membership ratification should tell you that it is completely safe to ignore the loudmouths and seagulls who actively campaigned against the desires of an overwhelming majority of the pilots.

Looking ahead, I foresee the company encountering some difficulty in complying with MOU 23-01. They have a lot of code to write, and eye-tee has never been their strong suit. I hope that I’m wrong, and that Delta can find a way to keep its deals with the pilots; failing that, this situation might open a path for follow-on agreements that capture additional gains. My own representatives in Council 44 have written about this very subject in their last update, and I hope the rest of you will see the value of this strategy.

Accomplishing this will require rigid self-discipline from a majority faction of this body that can put product ahead of politics. It is my understanding that the Policy Manual Review Committee will get to work this year, and I can see a number of areas for immediate improvement:

First, the Delta MEC has lost its executive function over the last six years, and reduced the office of master chairman to a figurehead with no actual authority. It is one thing for the MEC to fulfill its duty of oversight, but it is quite another for the MEC to insert politics into the everyday work that serves the pilots who pay for everything around here. You should immediately end the practice of individual confirmations for MEC committee chairs; allow the master chairman to do the hiring and firing, and stop bullying the committee volunteers while you’re at it. Doing this will send the message to management that you trust your elected executive team enough to run the shop. It will also send a message to your membership that the Delta MEC finally prizes things like talent and competency over political reliability, and that stepping up for ALPA work won’t involve working for narcissistic psychopaths.

Second, get rid of the pro-con paper. Two of the three reps who voted against the TA were too lazy to lift a pen afterwards. The pro-con in 2016 was merely weak, this last one was ridiculous. This policy has devolved into rational reps bending themselves into yoga poses and negotiating against their own votes, and you should remove the language from the Policy Manual.

Third, sell the seat on the BOD. The value of the position is the access to intelligence that it provides, which in turn guides the strategic decisions of this body. If we cannot acquire a seat on the Finance Committee, then our Pilot Director will be sitting in the hallway every time the board makes a decision involving money. The Delta pilots who were hired before bankruptcy paid dearly for that seat. If you cannot extract the full value of it because of your political games, then its value should be returned to the pilots through permanent contractual improvements.

Fourth, put an end to “lounge week” and the “duty officer” schemes. Lounge week is a lonely ALPA kissing booth that generates no value except in helping some reps reach the Line Creation Window through pre-posting, and duty officer is a holdover from bankruptcy days, when ALPA could barely pay its bills, and we were so strapped for cash that status reps had to fill in for everyday work at the MEC office. Both of these should be eliminated, and their resources re-directed to subject matter experts in the committee structure that serves the membership.

Fifth, enact a policy that requires anyone who receives Flight Pay Loss to actually fly the line. ALPA work should not be a safe space from working in a cockpit, and any non-qualified ALPA rep, officer, or committee member should get exactly what any line pilot would receive.

Sixth, Close the ALPA disability loophole. Show me a single line pilot who can remain on sick leave for nearly a year and not transition to disability. Pete Van Stee didn’t get that sort of deal, neither did Darren Hartmann.

I was planning to chastise you about the RV, but I recently learned that you all lured the United MEC into buying that rolling money pit, and good on you for that.

I’m done talking now. It's been lovely to see you all again. I’m going back home to enjoy the rest of my day off. Fly safe, and good luck.

Personally I found the 100% votes in favor during roll call sessions far more eye brow raising than those voting against 75-25 or whatever they initially felt.

Big yes to #5

Looking at you, MOD EDIT [LAXFO] rep.

7. Two consecutive terms max, then back to the line forever. And a big Hell to the yeah for your number 5, plus an addition: If you don't fly a full month, MEC members are ineligible for premium pay trips. Dropping an entire month for ALPA work then picking up a greenslip is flat our wrong.

But the pigs are at the trough so all of this is as likely as term limits in congress. And I guess you are trying desperately to get back in too, eh 'starcheck'?

Get rid of MemRat while you're at it and you will be happy as a clam in mud.

Fantastic speech. Eloquent and well written. Agree 100%

14 to 3 is 82%. Memrat was 78%. What am I missing to make that quite different?

1. Ok
2.ok
3. No, access is needed.
4. Ehh, been there and done that. Nobody enjoys it and line guys need a place to vent or ask questions beyond “I know a pilot”.. sometimes it’s the 1:1 to make a difference.
5. Maybe a simple cap of ALV+ would work. There is nothing “fun” to ALPA work. Sure, everyone gets upset over meals and drinks but nobody wants to discuss being on call 24/7/365. Been there, done it in a previous life, do oil changes in the shirts, but the issues that reps deal with tend to be after hours with lots of details outside of the norm.
6. I think language needs to exist at time of disability. Previous life I was doing a lot of ALPA work and got cancer. Disability was an option, and I had plenty of sick time to run me through it with still full pay, but I could still do what I was doing for ALPA on a significant month of buy, many months a full buy. If a medical disability happens, yet doesn’t impact previous and current ALPA work, I don’t see a reason to push someone out. That’s different than someone having a medical issue and going into a full ALPA buy. Personal happenstance but it was disconcerting to be told you have a medical issue and now can’t work because of an issue, that previously wasn’t an issue for what you are doing, with a track record of doing it without a replacement needing months of training. That’s a nerve to hit. May be something to put into a MEC vote to ‘allow continuation for pilot “”abc123” based on previous experience and ALPA resource needs’. Put a timeline on it. Enough to train a replacement for the pilot group, but don’t throw someone using personal time for the pilot group out of the pilot group immediately.

It’s a message board.you said your piece the MEC. Here’s my thoughts on APC.

Somebody has a high opinion of their opinion. More wasted money.

I’m astonished you are with him.

Let’s get those hats on!

What in the world