Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1261462)

That's where this whole rogue chairman stuff falls flat on its face. The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the MEC. If a majority of reps don't approve of the job he's doing, then why would they elect him?

I think the real issue is we have a minority of reps who didn't get their way, but that's how democracy works. If the minority can make a strong case to the majority, then they'll become the majority and round and round we go.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1261496)

Worth posting. Go get it done if you haven't. It's about pilot jobs no displacements etc.


Item 1. Haneda. *Other airlines are trying to take our Haneda route. *Those other airlines are all making the case that they deserve the route we are simply trying to move from Detroit to Seattle. *The loss of this route will mean less domestic pilots needed to feed the route, and less international pilots to fly the route, it will mean less international flying in the Pacific, and less revenue and profit sharing. * DOT Chairman Ray LaHood will make the decision shortly, and there is a great deal of organized opposition to Delta retaining this route.

Please go today to*Capwiz*and do your part to help retain these jobs for Delta pilots. *Do it today. *Click on the*Capwiz*link to do your part saving this route for Delta.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1261235)

Your use of JM as an example is an interesting one, as it does highlight and contrast both viewpoints being discussed here.

For purposes of this discussion, let's stipulate that JM was doing the best job that he knew how to do.

JM was not reelected during a normal election cycle. He was not recalled or fired, but his challenger won the MEC vote. JM was also extremely popular with line pilots. His communications were filled with the bellicose rhetoric of traditional labor, especially regarding the pilot DB plan.

With the benefit of history we know that the pilot DB plan was grossly underfunded and its condition was getting worse. In late July, 2005 the MEC was briefed on the possibility of a liquidity shortfall that would cut off payment of lump sums. The funding projections were all based on confidential data, something Delta management at the time hadn't and wouldn't provide to the line pilot as its disclosure would eliminate any chance to avoid BK. Malone's R&I group put out a generic bulletin on what a liquidity shortfall is, then followed up 2 weeks later with an R&I bulletin that said lump sums in the hundreds wouldn't effect the plan.

It was not July 2005, but Sept 2005, that MEC was briefed of a possibility of a liquidity shortfall, as it was the first week of Sept that the MEC administration was notified of the problem. In July of 2005, the MEC hired an outside firm to independently audit the health of the DB plan. While management agreed to the audit, the audit was delayed by management until Sept 2005.

You reference a bulletin published by the R&I committee; it was an update of an earlier R&I bulletin. The R&I committee did not want to publish an update until the DB plan was audited. The then MEC Vice-Chairman took as it as his project and published the update before the audit occurred. Of course the administration was still responsible, let's just get the correct folks since you have gone out of your way to name them.

The plan paid fewer than 300 lumps, went into liquidity shortfall, and was terminated. 6878 active pilots lost their pension. Another 6000+ retirees were damaged.

JM hadn't prepared the MEC or the pilot group for that outcome. Outside actuaries weren't hired until July, 2005. Bankruptcy defense and preparation were non-existant. No Strike Committee preparations for contract rejection contingencies completed.

The process to hire outside actuaries began several months before an actual firm was contracted: it takes time to start the process, interview candidates and get MEC approval to spend the money. As you correctly state was completed in July 2005. Who was chairman when the outside actuaries were hired in July 2005? Hint: the election was in August 2005. You know all this, so why the manipulation of facts?

Regarding the Strike Prep, how much prep would have been required when management "imposed"?

The real argument should have been over the Bankruptcy Protection Letter. Which was not argued. In fact, the next administration published a Negotiator's Notepad in Feb 2006 explaining why the MEC should grant the company more than the Protection Letter provided.

Yet JM was popular with the pilots. You even called to ask "why".

In a normal election cycle the MEC (with significant pilot protest) made a change. Those LEC reps were the guys we, the line pilots, elected to represent us. They're the ones privy to the confidential info. A majority of them came to the conclusion that JM was not effectively carrying out their mandate, so they changed their executive officer.

Had there been popular elections there likely would have been no change. But with the change DALPA prepared a Strike Committee. We hired outside corporate counsel, 2 outside investment banking firms, and outside ERISA (R&I) attorney, and put the Actuarial firm on full time status. That was done just 30 days before the 1113C to reject the Delta PWA. History shows that while bankruptcy SUCKED, the Delta MEC and Delta pilot group protected more of their contract and got a greater return than any other pilot group.

Really, more than the NWA pilots with their DB plan and what value did you place on gutting the D&S plan? And other "fact" not quite right, when was the first investment banking firm hired? And while you are at it, mention the second was interviewed and rejected by the prior administration since they successfully advised the UAL MEC to sell their DB. It is my opinion that the DAL pilots do not have a DB plan because the MEC decided another path was better: sell it for the Note and Claim money.

You said the MEC was slow to act. It acted at a regular election. While speculative, a poplular election would likely have left the Delta pilot group completely unprepared for bankruptcy.

While I disagree with your opinion concerning preparedness and direction, the election was decided by the MEC. That is all you needed to say. Your distortion of facts to justify your role is... interesting.

The recalls that I've mentioned were all done outside the normal election process. The checks and balances work, imo.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1261501)

You're missing many of the good points being made when framing the discussion in this way. I've been distinctly unimpressed with the minority in the MEC, and I don't want to gove them special status. What I'm getting out of the discussion is that while the MEC can wait to dump the Chairman at the next election, the members still get some opportunity to vote. Whether they are presented with a fait accompli in some of those votes is another discussion. The question is whether the group has the same recourse.

The problem isn't the ultimate ability for the MEC to elect a new Chairman, not even the MEC's ability to control and guide the Chairman and NC, but in the inability of the pilot group to alter direction in anything close to real-time. I don't think ftb has yet shown that the solution is to have two conflicting elected positions, but I think the discussion highlights a problem in enforcing our democratic process. I sure agree with many that it doesn't feel like a change of consensus among the pilots on an issue today is assured to yield a change of policy tomorrow. The only simple and elegant solution I see is to have the group's consent along the way. Anytime you lose the group's agreement, you pause and get direction.

You're not opposed to having the pilots validate the policies by voting more often, are you?

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1261515)

Didn't we already announce the end of DTW-HND in anticipation of SEA-HND? It would only be a loss of jobs if we cancel the DTW-HND schedule and we don't get SEA-HND.

If we are trying to get additional HND slots why would we give one up before we had a replacement? What am I missing?

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1261515)

Didn't we already announce the end of DTW-HND in anticipation of SEA-HND? It would only be a loss of jobs if we cancel the DTW-HND schedule and we don't get SEA-HND.

If we are trying to get additional HND slots why would we give one up before we had a replacement? What am I missing?

Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1261552)

I believe the issue is that DAL is losing money with DTW-HND, so it is cancelling service and attempting to use their HND slot from SEA. This opens up the bidding war.

For me it is quite simple. There is no downside with us keeping a HND slot, there is a downside with losing a HND slot, therefore I took 1 minute out of my day and sent Lahood a message.