I'm with you up until this point. Are you saying that with 9E negotiating with DL mgmt that they can circumvent our legally binding scope and replace us?

 

I'm having a hard time making that leap, unless you are saying that RA was there when it happened. They didn't break the FA union recently, but certainly put an all out effort...personally believe that we (ALPA) should have put more effort into keeping and supporting the FA union.

 

SEA weakness is going on the road. They'll have to do that for sure as a wild card. I know a team that really wants to see them in the playoffs...my Packers. The Fail Mary is still fresh.

 

ALPA can negotiate anything. ALPA is our exclusive bargaining agent. Not the Delta MEC. The Delta MEC only enjoys it's status because of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution (which ALPA has vigorously defended until now).

That's why another pilot group negotiating with Delta management with the full support of ALPA is a very serious matter, particularly so when the rules are not followed.

All contracts have amenable dates. Scope changes during those negotiations. If we allow multiple pilot groups to write deals with Delta our contract negotiations will eventually become an auction house where the cheapest are used to whipsaw us in active bargaining.

 

Anyone remember what happened when CAL went on strike in 1983?

They were 'replaced' by Scabs, and years later, ALPA National let them back in!

Anyone know who was Frank Lorenzo's lawyer at CAL?

Hint; his initials are...

Richard Anderson.

Anyone think it can't happen again?

 

Imapilot2,

I personally am very appreciative of Bucking Bar's efforts with regard to this issue. His digging for the facts and tenacity in bringing them to light is outstanding.

I'm not a fan of ALPA or Lee Moak and this agreement just adds more fuel to that fire. ALPA either directly, or through its "cheerleaders" on this forum, claim there is no conflict of interest between its responsibilities to mainline and regional carriers.

I see this conduct by Delta management, by ALPA national, and by Pinnacle's LEC as direct evidence of that conflict of interest.

As MEC Chairman at Pinnacle I'm quite sure Tom Wychor knew exactly what he was doing, and he showed complete and total disrespect to Delta's LEC and the Delta pilots.

Sadly I have no confidence this will be overturned. I'm based in SLC and our LEC reps have a long history of being "yes" men. I'd go so far as to say their motto is "We've never met a concession we didn't like".

This type of shenanigans is exactly why I've kept my DPA card up to date and why I wear a DPA pin.

 

Thank you for the kind words, but decertification is not the answer. If we were to decertify over Pinnacle's agreement, we would be out of ALPA, but ALPA would still be at the table for the Pinnacle pilots.

ALPA provides an excellent service and has an infrastructure which can not be replaced. The FedEx pilots left ALPA, came right back. The US Air pilots left ALPA, that has been a disaster for them. ALPA has served us well and will continue to do so, but we have to participate.

Any Rep can write the Association and ask for a review of the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement. The answer is to engage your Reps and have ALPA's processes lead to the correct result. Lets deal with the problem at hand.

 

I am not quite sure I understand what was done outside of the norm here. It is my understanding that the Pinnacle agreement only secures 81 of the CRJ 900s that are already allowed under your scope agreement, and a preferential interview with Delta, unlike the Followthrough agreement already in place. Correct me if I am wrong but it does not guarantee any flying that is not already done by DCI partners. Isn't this the same as the Compass agreement as well as the contract agreement Skywest has in SLC for a certain percentage of DCI flying. Don't get me wrong I would have loved to have seen your last JCBA call for all flying in house but wasn't the relaxation on 76 scope a compromise on your pilot groups behalf to get the SWA 717?

 

BE24,

Kindly read back a few pages to learn how the Pinnacle TA modifies the current Delta PWA. No DCI carriers have ever had a contract directly with our employer, Delta Air Lines. To the best of my knowledge this is a precedent in the history of our union. If it hasn't been done until now, there is a reason.

I don't oppose the idea of Pinnacle following our Admin Manual and working with the Delta pilots. The problem here is that the process what not followed and the Delta MEC was not involved.

We can work together to resolve conflicts of interest if your side will bother telling us what is going on instead of trying to hijack the President we share.

 

I'm also concerned about this and plan on writing reps. But since no one likes it when someone points out a problem (no matter how justified) without at least having a solution in mind, what do you propose as a remedy to what's already happened WRT this?

Has LM already signed this? If he can withhold signature, he needs to be pressured to do so. That's clear. But what if he's already signed it? How can we fix it then? And if certain people at Pinnacle have intentionally violated our exclusive agreement with DL then they need to be dismissed from the guaranteed interview at the very least.

I will also be writing to urge agressive, mercilless compliance by any legal means necessary WRT the intentional, flagrant, no plan to comply JV production imbalance. The ONLY remedy for that is flying, Period. We are due well over 50% to rebalance and I expect every single block hour of that because we sure gave them plenty on our end. The EU economy has nothing to do with this because the percentages apply to whatever the flying is anyway so that straw dog don't hunt.