DALPA Leaders: Ready (with consultation from ALPA national staff) ... FIRE !
APC Posters: Aren't those guns supposed to be under our command? Then why are they shooting at us instead of in support of our position?

 

Another point being made here is less convincing: the idea that only one person is obsessed with this topic. Whether you support ALPA or not, I think this is a topic that should be of interest to all of us.

 

And finally, another point that is being swept under the rug: the idea that discussions occurred directly between Delta and another pilot group, without any involvement of, or any notification to, or MEC. What does it say about the nature of the special relationship, that we were not at least given a courtesy call? Am I correct that the MEC members were just as blindsided by this, as line pilots were surprised? Is this normal? Is the engagement off?

I've agreed that there might be a logical explanation for what happened, that the MEC may find that they don't have a problem with what happened, and that I probably would ultimately agree that there is no problem if given some information. What I don't understand is how it is that we were not even notified. That just doesn't make sense.

In fact, I think it's so improbable that Delta would do this for no gain, that I think we must've been involved earlier than is publicly admitted.

 

1)
To get around the language, ALPA staff attorney(s) have promulgated the idea that what is in Section 1 is not "scope." Conversely (and illogically I might add) they state that Pinnacle's job protection language is not scope because they did not put that language under the "Scope" heading. There is also compensation in the Bridge agreement. When is money not compsensation? When are job protection provisions not scope?

Again, ALPA staff says:

• Language in Delta's scope section is not "scope"
• Job protection language in Pinnacle's Bridge Agreement is not "scope" because it isn't under the header "scope."

Part of what re-invigorated me to take up this debate was the redefinition of "scope" to a much more narrow definition. Although this was done in an attempt to gerrymander the rule, the effect is potentially more harmful as a result of narrowly defining the job protection provisions in our contract.

Again, the purpose of the Admin Manual is to help our union resolve conflicts in house so that we are unified when we come to the table. We can not be unified if the rules are not followed and we are not coordinating.

2) Our MEC can not hold a meeting and a vote via conference call with the exception of ratification of a committee chairman. There are procedures to be followed for the agenda items, debate and voting which our current MEC Policy Manual and Admin Manual do not replicate in a conference call setting. In a nutshell, the Council Members can not direct the MEC via telephone under current guidance.

 

BINGO1 This is the point.

 

On the weekend which we celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, you read a whole lot like the concerned Clergy that wrote King, telling him to go home and stop making trouble.

You probably mean well, but there is something important here that needs to be fixed.

 

 

The MEC is an afterthought and Delta management knows it.
They are a detail that can be handled later.

"Notification" was provided to the only guy who matters: Lee Moak.

He is the one with the special relationship.

 

How about a suggestion? Let's have an intelligent debate without all the hyperbole. Shall we?

I DO have a different perspective toward ALPA than you and many. And its for one simple reason. Most of you see "ALPA" as some amorphous blob, or even worse, see it as a single person (Moak), with evil intentions, or incompetent, or both, whose primary job is to find ways to hose over the Delta pilots (or sometimes just "you").

I see the reality. The "political ALPA", which is really the only part people complain about, consists of only about 30 guys at the Delta level, and (from what I know) about 10-15 guys at the National level. I know the vast majority of these guys. And with very few exceptions (and there ARE a few exceptions in my opinion), all of these guys are upright, hard working, honest, intelligent human beings, and fellow pilots who do the best they can to make the best collective decision they can for the long term betterment of the Delta pilot group (in the case of the 30), or for the betterment of ALL ALPA pilots (in the case of the 10-15). While there are certainly a few with hidden agendas, I simply don't believe the majority do.

I have tremendous respect for their willingness to put up with the BS from keyboard warriors who constantly disparage their hard work, assign nefarious motives to them, and always have the answer for every problem that is so obvious to see. Yet, are seldom willing to actually attempt to do any of the heavy lifting. Having said that, a few on this board HAVE stepped up to the plate, and I applaud them for their efforts. I am quite confident that they may end up with a different view of "ALPA" once they get involved more deeply. I've seen it happen over and over again. Some on the current MEC got involved because they had all the answers, only to find out the problems are a bit different when you actually are responsible and held accountable for the effects of your decisions.

And BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I am NOT (nor have I ever) been elected to one of these ALPA positions, but I do do ALPA work.

Not ready? Caught off guard? Lacking power?

For what?

Because Delta signed a contract for flying that is outside the scope of our PWA, just like they've done dozens of times before? Because Delta (possibly - we still don't know for sure) changed a corporate policy (modified hiring standards), something totally within their right to do?

I don't recall DALPA being consulted when Delta changed their paint scheme. I don't recall DALPA being consulted when Delta changed their logo. I don't recall DALPA being consulted when Delta changed lawn service providers at the GO. I don't recall DALPA being consulted when Delta changed caterers. And on and on. We have a PWA that says we will fly any aircraft that [fill in the blank]. We ALSO have policies that govern and limit what others can do. But how Delta (or these others) do that is totally up to them. IMO.

I just don't see the problem here, other than I agree with Sink r8, that purely for optics, DALPA should have been consulted and given a heads up. I honestly don't know whether they were, but the appearances seem to indicate they weren't.

 

I'm guessing they have. It's called a telephone and/or email. What is there to vote on? That Delta negotiated a contract with a 3rd party that they are perfectly permitted to do? See the last couple of paragraphs of my response to scambo.

Is your only issue that Pinnacle management was (allegedly) taken out of the loop? Do you really think previous ASA and CMR managements were pulling the strings during negotiations when they were wholly owned? Really? Would you have a problem with this whole thing if there were a few 9E managers sitting in the room on the sidelines doing nothing of substance?
I'll take your word for it. It's probably a good thing that no one man have so much power. Yet, the complaint of many on here is exactly that - that LM single handedly runs this entire organization, and does whatever he fancies. Implied in that, also is the assumption that he's doing it all for his own benefit, not the benefit of the ~50,000 pilots he represents.

By all appearances, 9E was in bankruptcy, and in fear of liquidation. It really doesn't matter whether that was a real crisis or a manufactured one as claimed by the "experts" on this board. If true, then the 9E MEC did what I would expect my MEC to do -- find a way to mitigate the negative impact of that looming disaster as much as possible. And since they are in ALPA, they used all the resources that ALPA provides. They also didn't do ANYTHING that violates our PWA, at least no one has been able to show me that.

I'm no lawyer, nor an expert on the ALPA C&BL, but it seems the intent of that language is to have consultations occur when one pilot group is potentially limiting the flying of another. I see none of that in the 9E agreement. They are fighting for their slice of flying that is outside the scope of our agreement, and they got a contract that provides a certain amount of that.

Again, to repeat, if there had been 2-3 9E managers sitting in the room (and do we really know whether there were?), and this exact same agreement had been signed, with their names on the bottom (and do we know who really signed it), would you have a problem with it?

And lastly, I have no desire or intentions to carry on this web debate all weekend. I have better things to do. I elect reps whose job it is to do this, and I trust them to do their job. I'm also smart enough to know that they know infinitely more than I do on the issue, and will ultimately make the right decision, given all the facts.