For all I know, that's exactly what happened. It really could be that simple.

 

That's what some Reps are thinking and it is very dangerous to our union ....

"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.

 

T O'M communicated the status. The Delta MEC was not notified.

( ... 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.

 

Great question. I asked myself the same thing. As a result, I'm not certain that I want to be fully invested in this issue. But, as you said, there is probably a problem with the meet and confer provisions of the ALPA policy. If it was not respected, there should be a remedy, for instance removing our responsibilities to meet and confer in return.

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?

 

Exactly, 100% Correct.

Carl

 

Reminds me of a couple of airplanes I flew early in life which had been assembled from parts from several other wrecked airplanes ... which is kind a metaphor for the impending US Air merger.

Caption 2 (stole from ALPA board) "Huh, I thought it would have a stapler ... "