Good point and agreed, although did the Admin manual read in 2005 the way it does now? My copy shows the applicable section was clarified "SOURCE – Executive Board October 2007; Effective July 16, 2008."

Not to parse words. I think the founders of our union realized we needed to work together to reach consensus, then take a unified front to management. The Administrative Manual provides a format for us to work together. By going at it separately and individually, we are not as strong and there is the obvious risk of one pilot group negotiating against the interests of another. The internal mechanisms for our union governance were important then and they remain important today. I believe we have improved our governing documents by our experience and the thousands of smart men who have worked on them.

So some will ask "why can't Bar just accept the consensus view?" Well, because, our MEC has never met on the issue nor reached a consensus view. We know the opinion of national and those who work for national.

Our union was built by and exists because of the work of the hands of its members. We members pay for what goes on at national and national should be responsive to us. I will be a bit surprised if the final determination of our MEC will be to remain silent while ALPA National does a cram down for a regional (or any) pilot group without our participation.

If you look at the general trend, our MEC has been moving in what I consider to the the right direction every March 1st. The movement is slow, but each progressive Delta MEC has been more receptive to the ideas and concepts that ALPA was founded on. We now understand outsourcing for what it is and how we facilitate it. That is a much more honest discussion than we could have had a decade ago. (... and while we disagree, I am deeply impressed with honesty of our MEC Executive Admin)

There are good people throughout the organization. Many of the veterans are nearing the point where we will thank them for their service and others will fill their responsibilities. In the next five years not only will Delta have a lot of retirements, ALPA will have a lot of retirements.

Our time horizon is a whole lot longer than those who would silence our voices.

Thanks for reminding me why I quit posting here. You six guys can go back to your ALPA bash fest.

Now that's the kind of Proletariat I could get behind ;)

I would be happy to stand beside PG and try to sign up Southwest pilots (isn't he Air Tran ? I think, dunno). PG can be open minded until he gets his talking points, then there is no talking him out of them.

PG is a tough soldier. I'd like to have him on the side of ALPA's membership. Not sure what he's going to do when / if he's SWAPA. It will be interesting to see how he deals with the choice.

One way to solve that...buy Alaska! Until then, just accept the fact that Ma DAL wants the free feed more than flying the routes.

What's the bigger concern here though; an attorney having or not having a license? Or an attorney, with or without a license, having a significant conflict of interest that may go against an individual pilot or even against an entire MEC in favor of the supposedly "greater good"? What if that pilot is you, and/or that MEC is yours?

I think we can all smell smoke on that one, even if we shut up and keep watching the movie for fear of inciting a panic, it doesn't mean everything is fine. This is a huge issue of potential and actual fundamental conflict of interests with some examples of it playing out right in front of us. We have to perpetually shine daylight on something like this, regardless of the brand name of our representational structure.

I don't care how many licenses an ALPA attorney has or doesn't have nearly as much as I care about his/her duty to represent our pilot group (and individual line pilots as the case may be) first. If they can't do that, well, we at least need to know that before we can determine what we want to do about it, if anything.

Every airline wants free feed.

It's up to our scope clause to stop it and/or the other airline to irritate the outsource-er.

There's other ways to solve that, both from a company perspective anytime and a DALPA perspective during negotiations. We're starting to (maybe) see both play out, but we have a lot more work to be done as the status quo is still off balance to say the least.

Speaking of that, if we keep up the cautiously optimistic trend of "doing Alaska flying" and keep growing it, can they farm out their existing flying to us within the code share? Their scope from what people say is a good bit weaker than ours. Maybe we can use this nifty arrangement to make their route map the wrong color for a change?

Some thoughts that support the used 747 rumor.

1. An established pattern of Delta buying used airplanes that are no longer in vogue pennies on the dollar. (SWA owning airplanes the past few decades is one thing that gave them a leg up on the competition). Low or no monthly payments is a good thing in the airline business.
2. Delta management has touted the benefits of having low cost iron on the property. This allows:

a. Flexibility to quickly adjust to market conditions and route opportunities. You can park the planes with no real penalty (other than paying the aliens for ramp space in Roswell) when the economy declines and dust them off to ramp up when needed.
b. Having low acquisition cost airplanes allows for more spares ready in wait to clean things up after the shoot hits the fan. The 747 is large enough to do a lot of clean up after storms where the new MO is cancel a ton of flights in advance then shift into high gear to get people on their way. The 747 can step in to a given route where say 5 flights to that destination have been cancelled. Get all the backed up pax to that destination on one airplane is a good thing.
c. Extra 747's allows the ability to pick up more charter work (which the company has been upbeat on lately) on short notice without disrupting other routes.
d. The comparatively low operating cost if you fill em up.
e. Should the company decide to reverse the "there is no money in cargo even though Fedex/UPS are minting money" the 747 purchased at a low cost can fill this need. Asia (specifically China) could produce some great opportunities in freight as Delta looks to expand into this part of the world.
f. When Delta decided to spend the money on the lie flat seats and upgrade the current 747 fleet they committed to at least another decade of 747 use at Delta Air Lines. Adding more numbers to any existing fleet typically brings cost down.

777-300's will do a nice job and these I am sure will come to Delta as well but for pennies on the dollar the 747-400 could fill a lot of gaps for a relatively low acquisition cost.

Food for thought whether it happens or not.

According to the recent lounge meeting in LA, looks like we're taking some back.