You'll still have management in order to keep operational control separate from big D and also a senior pilot group compressed into the remaining seats. You still won't be as cheap as Go-Jet or Compass whose senior most captains are only on year 5 pay.

I guess that's where ALPA National Communications got the talking point that the agreement ensured the hiring of Pinnacle pilots. Guess my theory that we could just hire 0 and let the Pinnacle pilots grieve it was more correct than I thought...

the more you read the more you realize that for some in the pro ALPA crowd it wasnt about putting ALPA on a pedestal, but rather Lee Moak.

Any council 20 notes?

ALPA needs to come out with a Lee Moak commemorative kitchen plate already?

Three good points.

On the first one, the Pinnacle Pilots are in the service of Pinnacle, not Delta. That's the way the NMB sees it. They are no more in the service of Delta than Delta pilots are in the service of Alaska when a Delta flight has an Alaska coded pax on board.

Second, the meet and confer is language that is required when there are opening scope proposals with regards to section one. I am unaware of any changes to section 1 of the 9E CBA. The Bridge Agreement, as you have pointed out in another thread, is a separate agreement.

Even if there had been a meet and confer, there is no requirement for a consensus, the 9E pilots would still have been able to seek their own negotiating goals.

Third, you haven't made a compelling case why the admin manual meet and confer section is binding in this instance, particularly since the bridge agreement is apparently not part of section 1. Furthermore, what would be gained by invoking a meet and confer clause if there is apparently nothing in this agreement that adversely impacts the Delta pilot contract and even if nominally it did, there is nothing in the admin manual that would give the Delta pilots a veto over the Pinnacle pilots contract.

I think as a pilot group, whose scope clause does routinely impact others, that the Delta pilots may not want to be the ones who set a precedent where pilot groups get involved in each others negotiations, but that's a question for the MEC to ultimately decide.

I agree that this could have been handled better, particularly with communications, but I haven't yet seen a compelling case where this was done in a manner contrary to the RLA, the C&BLs or the AM.

Reroute: Did you come up with that on your own or only after conferring with the lawyers (who work for ALPA National, not DALPA)?

Why hire zero? Why not interview them and hire the ones that meet the DAL hiring criteria and pass the interview? If they have some good guys and gals over there lets bring em onboard........provided they meet the criteria.

I guess I am old fashioned because I prefer people be treated as individuals and hired or not not hired based on merit - not because of affiliation with some group or some fishy ALPA bargain with Delta. Then again Delta can hire whoever they want to, so paraphasing Mongo:

"Delta Line Pilots just pawns in game of life." :rolleyes:

Scoop

Totally agreed here. There are some really good guys there that deserve a shot. I just hope the SSP does the same overall very good job that the full DL interview has done in the past.

I'm not a big fan of it either, but most of it is a result of lawsuit settlement, so it is unlikely to change. IMO, it is toothless and it is not in our best interest to be in the business of putting teeth into it. Others opinions may vary.