![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1332361)
Really? What is changing in our contract with this agreement?
And while it's not in our contract, the meet-and-confer procedure was possibly violated, And certainly revealed as flawed. It seems to me we should no longer be bound by it. In either case, I think this issue will be best cleared with some straightforward accounting of what happened. Maybe that's a little premature. In that case, it could be spelled out more clearly that the MEC hasn't had a chance to review this, but it will do so at the next regular meeting. When is the next MEC meeting anyway? |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1332401)
Has it been determined yet, if the DALPA Chairman, T. O'M., was not "Notified"?
What if the MEC was notified, but didn't think it necessary to show up for negotiations? |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1332484)
And while it's not in our contract, the meet-and-confer procedure was possibly violated, And certainly revealed as flawed. It seems to me we should no longer be bound by it.
"They did not follow the rules they did not like, so we won't either" That's anarchy. Those rules exist to resolve conflicts of interest within our union BEFORE our union sits down at the table with management. The central argument of the DPA is valid without those rules. We want our conflicts resolved within our union, not at the Courthouse. Further, the Admin Manual language was the resolution of a class action lawsuit and ALPA is now in breach of that settlement agreement. That is not my dog in this fight, but I fully expect ALPA will be back in Court over this. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1332489)
For all I know, that's exactly what happened. It really could be that simple.
( ... and that would have been the easy fix. One day meeting with the NC and the Delta MEC added to the signature block ... why they did not do that is beyond me ... who knows ? ) But, now that it is out there, it simply must be fixed for the Delta MEC to maintain any appearance of relevance. |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1332411)
Ok, I need to flat out ask at this point. What exactly would DALPA have negotiated between DAL management, 9E mismanagement, and the 9E pilot group?
I definitely feel as though the 9E pilot group should have approached us, just out of common courtesy. That being said I'm not sure what our involvement would have added or taken away from 9E's TA. Maybe I'm missing something here (I usually am), but seems as though the only thing that was missed was DALPA having a seat at the table. Perhaps an even better question than what we would have done had we been at the table, is simply why we were not at the table in the first place? Do we not have a special relationship going? One interesting angle on this is that we may actually be helping the company at no cost to us. The permitted flying has not increased as a result of this TA. However, it has made it easier for Delta to deal with a DCI carrier, potentially at a lower cost. Perhaps we are doing them a favor, for another favor in return? Ironically, this helps Delta potentially whipsaw two carriers, but does not necessarily harm the Delta pilots. At least not now. We must also not forget that these discussions, while not very important with respect to Pinnacle, might be very important when it comes to Virgin Atlantic. |
The ALPAoids here claiming that DALPA had no interest in these negotiations and didn't mind not even being notified are hilarious. They're actually making an argument for ALPA's irrelevance, as well as basically admitting that constructive engagement is a failed experiment as DALPA, despite all the flexibility it has shown the company, still has no power to do anything beyond enforce the letter of the contract.
|
Sink,
You "get it." But, without Section 40 mainline carriers can not remain inside ALPA. If express carriers can leverage ALPA's representational exclusivity to bid on mainline flying then the mainline carriers have to leave. We must make ALPA National follow the damn rules and we have to follow them too, or leave ALPA. ... and your point about Alaska, Virgin, ASA (really any airline) is exactly right. Further, I submit the senior attorney that got us into this mess needs to retire. |
New AA livery out today...
1. Team America- World Police 2. Greyhound Skyways 3. ... |
I have a question for you guys. Please excuse me if this has been asked/brought up already, but this is an incredibly long thread so I'll just ask now. If Lee Moak was present for and to my knowledge assisted with the bargaining of this deal, how is it that the Delta MEC was left out?
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1332521)
Sink,
You "get it." But, without Section 40 mainline carriers can not remain inside ALPA. If express carriers can leverage ALPA's representational exclusivity to bid on mainline flying then the mainline carriers have to leave. We must make ALPA National follow the damn rules and we have to follow them too, or leave ALPA. ... and your point about Alaska, Virgin, ASA (really any airline) is exactly right. Further, I submit the senior attorney that got us into this mess needs to retire. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:45 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands