Bucking Bar

Differences:

• Pinnacle contract directly binds Delta management
• Pinnacle contract is 4 to 5 years longer in duration than the Delta PWA agreement. It therefore supersedes and preempts our next Section 6.
• Pinnacle pilots are negotiating independently ... we dont know what they are doing. If I were Whychor, I'd go for narrow body flying and no, I'm not kidding. I cite for example this Air Canada Jazz operation.
  
  
  

I honestly don't know. There is some talk out of national that ALPA will try a single carrier petition because of the way this is structured. If that is true, then Lee Moak went for the "Hail Mary" of unity and I'll send a $1000 check to make a bronze statue in his honor. But, somehow I think my $1,000 is safe.By adding the language favoring the Pinnacle pilots it re-orders the flow to the advantage of the Pinnacle pilots. The more clear violation is 1D12, where we have contracted to help unemployed ALPA members over those who are senior ambitious employed Captains with six figure incomes. Pinnacle re-orders this to put their senior guys first.

As for enforcement, I've always argued flows were a bad idea and weak. I am not sure who has the right to grieve LOA #9 and #10 because we negotiated those sections as part of a quid quo pro for our own furlough protection (flow down). I do not intend to to grieve that violation and have not tried to figure out a way to run the gauntlet to prosecute an unpopular grievance to protect members who are not even Delta pilots yet.
I see this a huge problem which threatens to whipsaw us against the other pilots Delta management now has the choice to contract with. The whole point of a union which fights alter ego is to make Delta pilots the exclusive pilots in Delta's employ. Our leverage is our ability to effect the total productive capacity of this company. As we cede our power to deny production, we cede our leverage. As we cede leverage we will see the result in declining pay and working conditions.

We also "authorize" a lower standard. I am not talking about college degrees. I am talking standards like crew rest, which we consider to be "safety." Why should we get meals on an international turn if Pinnacle pilots are able to do international turns without meals? Why do we need more rest than they do? For safety?

Management is always going to want the less expensive standard. ALPA is saying that standard is fine on the Delta property. Thus it makes it harder to justify what we see as our "quality of life" while on the road 300 hours a month.

Further, the Pinnacle agreement ties their scope to not seeking contract improvements. Six months after their amenable date, their job protections disappear. Is that the expectation we should provide Delta management?

Management will insist "if it good enough for them, it is good enough for you." ( speculative, but logical )

A big reason I left the top 25% of an express carrier and started over at Delta is because I wanted my Rep to represent me to Delta management. The pay cut was easily justified by the knowledge that Delta pilot autonomy would ensure we controlled Delta flying.

Now the Delta pilots are in the same role as Comair and ASA were in 2000. We are a "vendor" able only to contract with our management for "our" flying. ( "vendor" is the word used by six Reps I have spoken to since Roberts' interpretation ).

Bucking Bar

.. .

Bucking Bar

PG,

If Delta pilots owned all Delta flying, regardless, then any NEW operation would by default be Delta flying for the Delta pilots. Song is an example of this principle in action.

If we define our flying narrowly to what we perform, then NEW flying by definition is NOT OURS. As the Air Canada pilots discovered as they watched 757's fly way at the hands of AC Jazz "RJ pilots."

Consider ....


Delta has a whole handfull of derelict certificates sitting in filing cabinets ....

When do we object? Now, when we can make a difference, or do we let management establish the pattern ... which they can cram down on us when it is something we care about? Delta management has already run charter operations using "non permitted aircraft."

By re-defining "Delta flying" we have to proactively scope what we think the Company might do. I prefer the default position that we own it all.

gloopy

I know, I was just trolling. Mostly. However I am curious as to one potential "end around" of the intent of our agreement with them.

Can Hawaiian use "inter island feed" from Delta marketing/network/sales/etc. to fill up a mainland-bound plane? IOW, can they get DL system pax that DAL pilots never fly, on some of those legs to fill up the mainland bound legs?

If so, that will take a bite out of some of our own mainland-HI flying because we fly to several cities there from the mainland. If HAL can do this, they can funnel DL pax from cities we fly to, and even from cities we don't, into mainland bound cities we do fly to. Win for HI, loss for DL.

gloopy

Well if that's true, that is a huge paradigm shift. While in mediation prior to their strike, they were expressly forbidden by federal mediators for even making a demand for anything with a DL management signature. How and why was that changed, and why is that poisionous practice still being used?

acl65pilot

My understanding is a vote can happen via conference call. Happens all of the time. Last one was the Virgin Australia loa I beleive. What cannot happen as I understand it is direction. Could be wrong though.

gloopy

I wouldn't build that statue so quickly. If he does that, the DAL seniority list pilots will be in serious jeopardy as a massive land grab from PCL pilots for full or partial relative integration and full DL longevity commences. That is a price far too high to pay for the symbolic first step of theoretical unity it would bring. Even if a staple was offered, agreed and signed, many would sue under the bogus "federal merger law" knowing they had nothing to lose in doing so.

Then the retroactive lawsuits from CMR, ASA, etc would start flowing in. Single Carrier between DL and PCL would be a disaster with virtually no upside beyond symbolic hyperbole and massive negative consequences that could gut our seniority list to afford one arbitrarty ill timed pilot group a windfall of epic proportions. Even the "upside" would be meaningless as we still wouldn't own the flying then that we don't own now. If they simply relabeled PCL flying as "Delta pilot flying" then they could just re-shop that same number of large RJ's into the open market, that the PCL agreement helped further lower, for an even lower RFP. They could then furlough Delta pilots, possibly after many PCL pilots got "greater than a staple" with current Delta pilots hitting the streets while current PCL pilots stayed employed in current DL planes because of their greater than a staple system wide number.

I understand your desire for one list, all flying, etc. But this is NOT how to go about it.

acl65pilot

To your answer, I do not know and would not presume to agree with the pretense of the question without more information.

SailorJerry

More Monday morning quarterbacking:

A certain elevated executive at Delta said last night that the Pinnacle bridge agreement was an agreement between Delta, Pinnacle, and ALPA. So......why were we kept in the dark?

Rather than debate the finer points with someone who admittedly doesn't know much about section 1, I'd rather point out the following:

Our bargaining agent was needlessly kept in the dark while the people that signed our paycheck subverted our bargaining position and pay. What does this say about Delta's feelings towards ANY union?

Bucking Bar

ACL65,

The problem with a "conference call" is that the rules having to do with setting the agenda and conducting the meeting are subverted. A conference call is much more of a "presentation" style where the party owning the call mostly controls who speaks. While I know someone can speak up on a "go to meeting" it would be exasperating for someone to present their case in the fashion I do on this web board. Frankly, it would seem impolite. Is there a "Roberts Rules" for iPhone app?

Further, how is the vote recorded? Where can members see the recap & notes? Matters of union governance need to be conducted in open session. Members should be afforded the opportunity to address the MEC. How is any of that done via a closed loop call?

But, on this issue impolitic action is needed. Folks who have spent their whole professional lives following a strict Chain of Command need both the information and the opportunity to speak up.

Of course, my Reps have not called me to advise how our MEC came up with their "finding." I'll admit I'm guessing they at least held an informal conference call.