You are correct, but lets elevate your argument. You reference, Section 40 of the Admin Manual, Part 1, I, 3. That is one violation. But, the bigger issue is that of MEC Autonomy. The question is can any pilot group sit down and do ALPA authorized deals with Delta Air Lines, without the Delta MEC ?

The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement violates:

• Section 40 of the Admin Manual Part 1, I, 3 (referenced above)
• Section 40, Part 5, Paragraph 10 ... in that it gives preference to senior employed pilots over ALPA members who have lost their jobs and who need the help
• Section 40, Part 6 ... "snap back" provisions are actually a NO "snap back" provision in as much as the Pinnacle Pilots lose their aircraft six months after they begin trying to renegotiate their bankruptcy contract
  The Pinnacle pilot violated the autonomy of the Delta pilots by:
• Modifying our Scope Sections 1 D 11 and 1 D 12, by reordering (inverting actually) and limiting the preferential hiring language in our contract
• Restricting and limiting the rights of the Delta pilots to negotiate future contracts, by preempting Delta MEC bargaining. If we tried to recover flying, management could reasonably reply "we are already under a contract with Pinnacle."
• Directly negotiating pilot pay and benefits with Delta Air Lines management without the involvement of the Delta MEC.

... and there is a whole host of ugly crap in there ... restrictions on employment for furloughed guys if they want to keep their flow ... most of it does not effect us.

The Railway Labor Act gives ALPA the power to represent us. The ALPA Constitution and Bylaws, Section IV, Section 2 gives each Master Executive Council broad autonomy to deal with the issues facing it's pilot group. Pay, scope and employment are central issues.

The first cure it to put ALPA National on notice of the violation and trust the internal review process to recommend our President not sign this concessionary TA. I have some confidence that this will stop right there. ALPA's Representation Department and our President take their duty to enforce the Constitution and Bylaws seriously.

If that fails, then an Executive Council can be convened to over ride ALPA's President. Given the importance of MEC autonomy to Continental, FedEx, Alaska (heck, anyone really) I'd guess just a few well placed phone calls by mainline MEC Chairs would make the President reconsider his signature.

I will get into more detail on internal remedies as this progresses.

For now, write your Reps. Talk to your friends at other carriers and ask them to get their MEC Chairmen involved. The second line of defense is for other MEC s to see how they would be affected by this change in ALPA policy. All they have to do is take the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement and change the names ...

Expressjet / Alaska
American Eagle / Continental
Mountain Air / FedEx
Virgin / Delta

I will applaud and say "thank you" when President Moak refuses to sign this agreement.

 

Doesn't matter. Don't make this too complex.

The issue is, another airline is sitting at the table doing deals that modify your contract without your MEC representing you.

 

Someone - somewhere - even Tom Wychor - should have, at some point, said "We really need to ask DALPA about this". The secrecy behind it is absurd. The timing is suspect. The deal is bogus. Great posts on this issue.

 

Bar, don't disagree, but how did this modify our contract?

 

That would be my question. Management hires pilots. If they want to hire ex convicts from Mongolia its their choice.

 

This deal was setup so TW could renege on his previous decision not to flow, getting permission from DALPA might spoil his master plan. He and his cronies will be Delta pilots within months of Delta starting the hiring cycle.

 

Bar you make an excellent point and post. I totally agree and was trying to point pilots to the real issue, not their issues with the language of the Bridge agreement.

You are correct in referencing all of the issues that this deal does in regard to the DAL MEC's autonomy and then the changes that this agreement makes in precedence to the other sections you outlined.

I also further agree, call and e-mail your reps. There are a few remedies here that stop dangerous precedence from being set. Pilots need to focus on these issues not their like or dislike for the language. That is what input would be for if the President of ALPA refuses to sign this.

For the 9E pilots, remember that the effects of this will negatively impact you when you are a DAL line pilot with DALPA representing your interest. What Bar outlined will directly effect you well after the bridge is yesterday's issue.

 

Section 1 D11, D12. Inverts the order.

I wrote, then edited back out 10 separate violations. Best to keep this focused. The AM Section 40, Part 1, Paragraph 3 is enough to have the Representation Department recommend not signing.

The principle of allowing management to pick which pilot group to do a deal with and letting them tangle themselves up in contracts that modify each other's is enough to have all the carriers leaving ALPA. That is why this will get fixed. It has to. The procedural errors just make it easy to attack.

Consider that with the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement, Delta pilots no longer have the ability to recover our flying. ALPA and Pinnacle are trying to write an agreement that redefines permitted flying as "Pinnacle's Flying" under their PWA. Delta pilot negotiations are being preempted by ALPA contracts with Delta's own management.

Just play with the Bridge Agreement, swap the names around. Perhaps that will help you get a handle on the real issue here.

Now when Delta Management wants to talk pilot labor, it talks to the Delta MEC

After, Delta management could pick who it wanted to talk to. Lets say it negotiated with Pinnacle first, Delta pilots could find themselves in non-compliance with Pinnacle's agreement with our management. this threatens to create a conflict of interest which will rip our union apart.

But, BUT, ALPA has carefully crafted documents which govern our conduct. We have managed this problem with well thought out procedures. Lets give those procedures a chance to work.

... and Sailing, look at the signatory page. If other ALPA pilots decide to, there is little guess who they'll include on their lawsuit. The difference between this Section 40 violation and past is that this one is crystal clear and Delta would most probably be a named defendant. Delta will be unable to do anything while the litigation pends. I'm shaking my head in disbelief that Richard Anderson had anything to do with this, unless he figures the union's internal remedies will work, or ALPA will blow up and leave us effectively unrepresented ... who knows? He has outsmarted me here.

Again, the internal remedies must work. We need them to.

 

The possible issue is the ability of another pilot group to sit down with our management. Has that ever been done before without our representatives from our MEC not being present?

Notice DAL is paying these pilots though "direct pass-through costs" a lump sum, furlough health care plus a few other items.

Our CEO is signing this bridge agreement. Has he signed anything of ours? Does that mean that this deal takes a higher priority than ours since someone in a higher corporate position signed it?

These difference should concern you is DALPA was not consulted. My rep said he did not know, so we will have to wait and see what comes out.

 

Sounds like you guys need the MLDC (Main Line Defense Coalition)....What a tangled web we have woven in this big disfunctional "family"....

I seem to remember this issue coming up previously with regards to ASA and CMR being able to negotiate with Delta....Have to dig up some of those old RJDC points.....