Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1331802)

That bothers me too.

If this was just interviews, or even just a flow, the arguement could be made that its management's domain who to hire and where they source their future pilots from. They are not DALPA pilots until they get their number.

Theoretically DAL could sign agreements with universities, flight academies, heck even the DoD itself to grant guaranteed interviews or new hire class numbers or percentiles, all completely without DALPA (or ALPA) permission or involvement. Although if we were talking about an ALPA carrier, a Ford-Cooksley violation would still likely occur, which is interesting and worth looking into as a separate issue.

The major malfunction here though, is the guaranteed flying at a non Delta Air Lines carrier, PCL in this case. There have been fleet ratios and guarantees made at other express and connection carriers before, and even at DCI carriers, but the signatories on those have always been non Delta Air Lines carriers. In fact, non DAL carriers have been told by federal mediators that they are not even allowed to demand access to DAL management as part of the RLA and Section 6. Whatever they agreed to and signed had to be binding only to "their" airline. That even applied, especially applied, to wholly owned airlines like CMR and ASA. They could get guaranteed block hour or fleet count flying, but only their "company" could sign on the dotted line. If those promises were broken, they could grieve it, but only so far as their "company" and not with Delta.

That is why this is a first, and a very, very, very B.F.D.

PCL pilots now "own" 41 large RJ's worth of flying for the next 7 years and if they don't get it they can come after DAL, inc. DALPA was completely bypassed, in flagrant violation of Ford-Cooksley as well. Moak needs to withold his signature and they need to go back to the negoating table with PCL pilots. They can get whatever they want as long as PCL management signs it and not DAL management, and their recource to grieveance will be limited to PCL, regardless of their wholly owned status with DAL.

DAL is free to hire as many PCL pilots as they want, with whatever flight time and degree requirements they want, as long as DAL management is not a signatory to the contract with another pilot group. That is what needs to be stopped, now, dead in its tracks. If not, rigorous enforcement of Ford-Cooksley should be persued immediately as a first step. And yes Alannis, that is ironic.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry (Post 1331606)

First off - that's an ALPA guy tactic. Trust me - I know. And I'm not talking about Delta pilots having a grievance. I've told you in two posts now that we have no recourse, contractual or otherwise to stop the bridge building. However - with all the misinformation floating around about the bridge program and whether or not it's an interview, or a guaranteed job (this confusion driven by ALPA's communication department, not my own agenda) the Pinnacle Pilots could, theoretically, file a grievance against Pinnacle, and hence Delta, if not enough of their pilots were hired by Delta. They negotiated, and have negotiating history that will indicate that their overstaffing will be partially solved through this bridge program. If that is not the case, they will file a grievance. Tom Wychor (an ALPA guy) was sneaky enough to not even deal directly with OUR company with OUR MEC in the room. What makes you think he wouldn't pursue this issue through those means?

Pushing the lack of common experience issue with pilots just means you're failing the first and second task of an ALPA volunteer. LISTENING and UNDERSTANDING. Once you do those two things properly then you can EDUCATE me.

Originally Posted by Vikz09 (Post 1331772)

Alfa,

I am not opposed to the PNCL pilots coming aboard. My beef is that apparently our own ALPA officials were not part of the solution. The precedent is a dangerous one.

Originally Posted by Falcon7 (Post 1331883)

Not sure if this is a precedent, I understand that the CMR pilots did something similar a few years ago.

Originally Posted by Vikz09 (Post 1331772)

Alfa,

I am not opposed to the PNCL pilots coming aboard. My beef is that apparently our own ALPA officials were not part of the solution. The precedent is a dangerous one. Next could be Virgin Or any other group of pilots. My absolute disgust is that if it's true and the damn ALPA lawyers do not see the problem.... the problem then is these ALPA lawyers have no clue about future precedent or ramifications from their lack of forward thinking. As i have mentioned at a previous carrier I got to see first hand what a ALPA attorney is worth. My conclusion was, NOT MUCH! they are paid the same win, lose or draw.

Originally Posted by Falcon7 (Post 1331883)

Not sure if this is a precedent, I understand that the CMR pilots did something similar a few years ago.

Originally Posted by sinca3 (Post 1331934)

What was Pinnacle or DAL or even ALPA national trying to hide or get away with?

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy (Post 1331961)

VP Biden overheard by a few of the youngsters today during the signing, "This is a big f@#king deal!"

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content...908.cached.jpg

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1331858)

First, I am not trying to educate you. I'll leave that to Bar :D

A forum is a great place to vent, but your reps are the ones that need to hear this. You should know.

As for the concerns that are identified on here need to be discussed. No doubt about that. What the MEC does from here depends a lot on what the pilots identify as the issues. That is very important as you seem to know. Education cannot go on before the MEC discusses this. To my knowledge that has not occurred. The angst on this board would have been good prior to the vote, but that does not preclude a discussion at the next MEC meeting by the reps.