|
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1425415)
I wouldn't say that I'm seeing bogeymen... I'm saying it is a major issue and conflict of interest when another pilot group (with their hand held by the ALPA national chair) goes and negotiates with our employer for guaranteed flying.
Seems to me that if National had prevented the Pinnacle pilots from doing something any other pilot group could do, then that would be a conflict of interest. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1425429)
The changes to the Delta Pilot Working Agreement were additions which amended Sections 1 D 12 and 1 D 11. ALPA's Administrative Manual, Section 40, Part 5, directs a best effort be made to secure first right of interview for displaced ALPA members. The Delta PWA honored this Admin Manual directive. The Pinnacle pilots modified our contract to favor their most senior employed Captains first. By doing so they unfairly diminished the interview rights of other ALPA members. Also, we typically negotiate flown down language to provide additional job security for Delta pilots, should we be furloughed. These bilateral provisions are absent.
The fact that Pinnacle pilots have preferential interviews and hiring doesn't change the fact that Delta is still obligated to Section 1.D.11 and 1.D.12, no? |
Originally Posted by JABDIP
(Post 1425341)
DPA is amazed to learn that, once again, ALPA is not interested in enforcing existing scope language. Not only is Delta out of compliance in the Atlantic (AF/KLM JV), but now Delta is also out of compliance in the Pacific. Instead of enforcing existing language, ALPA has granted relief, costing all of us jobs and progression.
ALPA is not interested in representing the Delta Pilot group any longer as is evidenced by their inaction. Poorly crafted scope language is already allowing Delta to operate at least 9 daily round trip A330 flights across the Atlantic LESS THAN REQUIRED without penalty. Now we learn that Delta plans to operate 28 daily flights in the Pacific LESS THAN REQUIRED and without penalty and ALPA is okay with it. How many wide-body jobs are gone as a result of ALPA's refusal to craft or enforce any meaningful JV scope language? When will Delta Pilots realize that ALPA is incapable of properly representing us? I find it simply amazing that I find out more abou what the company is doing from an organization that is trying to become our representation rather than the one we have ALPA. Where is the outrage with our current unions inaction on the information above on regards to international scope?:mad: AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance. Next.... In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true. We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions. We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are. Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed. Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1425432)
Denny,
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management. Agreed. ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group). Actually our section 1. A. 1. states: the Company recognizes the Air Line Pilots Association, International, as the duly designated and authorized representative of the Flight Deck Crewmembers in the service of the Company for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. It doesn't mention "exclusive" anywhere. But, yes, ALPA speaks for both the Delta and Pinnacle pilot groups. In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying. This is the precedent none of us likes. The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying. Okay, I can agree with this wording. ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking). This is where I think you go off base. Permitted flying is not being traded. We contractually allow a certain amount of it to be outsourced (not a good thing). With the Pinnacle agreement have we "lost" any flying? No we haven't lost anything that wasn't already outsourced. I would like to see where anyone from Alpa/Dalpa says that we, the Delta Pilots, have given up rights to that flying. We have allowed a certain amount of flying to be outsourced and the Pinnacle pilots have negotiated a percentage of that outsourced flying. No comment on the legal stuff..... ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete. I cannot agree with the idea that "sold" our flying. Cannot disagree with the latter. The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do. Not quite sure what you are saying here. How has ALPA sold one members job to benefit another? I don't see it. So you may ask, "Why should I care?" The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying? I think you are blowing this waaayyyy out of proportion. There are any number of pilot groups that perform this permitted/outsourced flying that are represented by unions. Have any of these agreements caused us to lower our standards in the past? When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession. Since I'm computer illiterate I responded the best way I could!:) Denny |
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 1425248)
Well, you don't choose a cat.........a cat chooses you. Mine died awhile back and even though I was told I could choose the replacement.......I didn't. It wouldn't have mattered anyway, all I am to her cats is the guy who bumps them off their side of the bed when I'm home:D That and the little creeps have never understood who REALLY buys the kibble:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1425432)
Denny,
It is a huge difference. We obviously do not control management. ALPA, OUR UNION, authorizes pilot bargaining. ALPA is an exclusive agent. Exclusive means ONE. ALPA speaks for Pinnacle just as it speaks for Delta (or any other represented pilot group). In the past ALPA would not empower an express pilot group to sit down at the table with another airline's management and negotiate a contract which controls that airline's flying. The Delta pilots PERMIT some flying to be done off the Delta list. This flying remains Delta flying. ALPA is trying to create a precedent by which PERMITTED FLYING can be traded to another pilot group. ALPA is doing this by trying to redefine Delta flying to just that flying which we perform. ALPA has mostly sold our MEC on the idea that flying we permit to be performed elsewhere is no longer Delta flying. Unfortunately, our MEC keeps went to ALPA National Attorneys for legal opinions on the behavior of ALPA National. Of course these attorneys created legal reasoning which justified the actions of the name at the upper left corner of their paychecks (metaphorically speaking). ALPA's sale of our permitted flying was bought with concessions. Other pilots are now being pushed into concessions to compete. The reason for ALPA's change is to facilitate the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. This is the opposite of unity. It is the opposite of what a union should do. So you may ask, "Why should I care?" The reason you should care is because once a separate, lower, standard is established, how do we negotiate better (pick an issue - rest / crew meals / bidding / time off / reserve rules / safety ) when ALPA has accepted the lower standard on the Delta property with a group of pilots performing Delta flying? When Dave Behncke founded our union the cornerstone of his approach was "when one member has a problem, we all have a problem." Unsafe scheduling was unsafe scheduling no matter where it occurred. He fought for a single, improved, standard for our profession. |
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 1425458)
This was hashed out a few days ago when the DPA mailer first went out. DPA certainly does pride itself on providing "facts". Unfortunately, their "facts" are not correct - but what's new there?
AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance. Next.... In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true. We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions. We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are. Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed. Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1425403)
Everything we have is ours because as a group we approved it. Over 60% of our pilot group voted YES for this latest TA. And now it's our contract. Done. Over. We can't change it.
We most certainly can "change it." Kick ALPA out. And after this latest buffoonery...kick them in between the legs. Oh, wait...there's nothing there to harm. |
Originally Posted by Ed Harley
(Post 1425481)
Good analysis of the facts.
|
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 1425458)
This was hashed out a few days ago when the DPA mailer first went out. DPA certainly does pride itself on providing "facts". Unfortunately, their "facts" are not correct - but what's new there?
AF/KLM JV is NOT out of compliance. Again, DPA knows this, but they keep publishing this to try and gain a foothold. The 3 year window was agreed to when Alitalia joined the JV on the other side of the Atlantic. Management is currently in the compliance window, and still has time to return to compliance, be it through DL growth over the Atlantic or the Euros pulling down (more likely). We may not like the 3 year window, but it is in the contract and is NOT currently out of compliance. Next.... In the Pacific, Delta is NOT out of compliance (notice a trend here with DPA's "facts"?) Due to economic realities of the NRT hub, along with Haneda, Open Skies Negotiations, etc Delta will have to do something to maintain a presence in the Pacific. The MEC has the ability, via the contract to grant relief to the company for the 316 weekly NRT departures. The important thing to note here is overall Pacific flying is up thanks to NRT overflight routes, and is looking like it will continue that way. No WB jobs are being sacrificed or given up - another claim DPA made in the email that isn't true. We can either dig our heels in and try to force the company to maintain the 316, or we can meet them at the table pre-emptively to try and come up with a scope amendment that allows the company to continue to make money in the Pacific, yet still protect our WB positions. We haven't heard yet what the "opportunities" might be, specifically, because the negotiations haven't concluded yet. IF DALPA and the company fail to come to an agreement by this fall, the 316 compliance requirement snaps back into play and we would be able to pursue remedy via the grievance process. Rather than both sides shed blood, we're first going to try to find a solution that works for us and the company. Don't know about you, but I'd like to try and get something out of this. If nothing materializes, then I expect we will grieve away. Either way, the MEC felt a mutually beneficial solution was likely enough to be worth pursuing, and here we are. Again, like it or hate it, the company is NOT out of compliance in the Pacific (DPA myth debunked again) - and we have an opportunity to improve our scope as the Pacific situation evolves. To put it another way, what do we as pilots expect the company to do if/when Haneda finally supplants our NRT operation and the Japanese get their way? Is DL supposed to run empty airplanes just because the PWA says so? That's the direction that things are tracking and the company wisely is trying to make adjustments ahead of time. If we are able to extract a few goodies from them, for playing nice, then why not give it a shot? Again, we can always fall back to a more adversarial stance (if it were to become necessary) if the company and DALPA can't reach an agreement on how to proceed. Further, this is an example of change for the better. In the past this is something that we would hear about AFTER the LOA had been signed. Your MEC is seeking pilot input on the matter due to feedback from the group saying that we don't want to find out about deals after the fact. This is our opportunity to influence the outcome. Don't let your concerns go unheard. ALPA FACT SHEET 1. Dues structure: 1.95% (1.90% effective 2014). Almost twice as expensive as other independent unions. 2. Takes dues on profit sharing and other bonuses. 3. Refuses to publish online Flight Pay Loss (in dollars paid) for DALPA Reps back to 2010 when required by resolution and ignored. 4. Delta gives over $39,000,000 annually to ALPA National, 34% of its income. Delta Pilots get back only 1/3rd for our use. 5. ALPA’s NET assets fell to $39,000,000 as of 12/31/2012. MCF is at $33,000,000 in uncommitted funds, ½ of the $70M required. 6. ALPA dues ($53,305) were used in 2012 to send American Eagle regional pilots to Six Flags Over Texas and baseball games. 7. ALPA is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Delta Pilots have not approved this affiliation through a survey. 8. ALPA artificially lowered optional insurance rates below the ALPA negotiated Delta optional rates. Conflict of interest. 9. ALPA negotiated contracts are sloppy, full of loopholes and only enforced when it suits ALPA agendas. (Codeshare, bunks, etc.) 10. ALPA is unable to fully represent either side of a dual ALPA carrier merger. It must remain neutral or be sued. 11. Surveys results are not published, except the Age 60 survey which ALPA then ignored. No accountability. No unity. 12. ALPA refuses to follow survey results in selecting contract goals. Member mandates are ignored. 13. Delta Pilots are not allowed to vote for ALPA President/Officers or MEC Chairmen/Officers. Cronyism is rampant. 14. Conflict of Interest lawsuits are destroying ALPA finances. TWA - $1.7 Billion Damage Trial to conclude soon. 15. AirTran DFR, UAL Furlough Longevity and CAL Military lawsuits also currently in progress against ALPA. Legal fees are enormous. 16. Unity Resolution of 2000 affirms long-standing goal of recruiting independent unions, yet fails to represent current members. 17. Extravagant spending disrespects the membership. $360 per night hotel rooms, $1.5 Million BOD meeting on the beach in FL. 18. Refuses to publish online itemized pay and benefits received by local and national officers/representatives. 19. National officers/employees have a special pension benefit while the membership does not. 20. ALPA leaders often take management positions after union work is finished. Randy Babbitt is now SWA VP of Labor Relations. 21. Dues dollars are used to purchase alcohol at union meetings. 22. ALPA Toolbox is useless against a fellow ALPA carrier or any other carrier ALPA is attempting to recruit. 23. ALPA represents regional carriers. ALPA used the Delta contract to benefit regional members. (35% ALPA new hires, 76 seaters) 24. ALPA is allowing AF/KLM Joint Venture Scope non-compliance through a poorly crafted contract. 25. ALPA cannot stop trading scope for pay because it benefits its regional members. 26. ALPA designated reps are paid 92 hours monthly for position they could hold plus a $1,500/$1,000 stipend. Super seniority. 27. ALPA refuses to show the accounting books or officer names/salaries of offshore subsidiary Kitty Hawk Insurance Co. 28. ALPA National President received 2012 increase in total compensation from $540,408 to $576,968. 29. ALPA is $75M in debt. It is taking out more and more loans to cover legal expenses in multiple conflict of interest lawsuits. 30. ALPA’s first goal is to grow membership and associated dues income. Representing current members is secondary. 31. ALPA has taken in and been responsible for over $3 BILLION in total income since 2000. Has only $39M in NET assets left. 32. Minimum ALPA Designated Rep annual pay: CA Roberts - $283K, CA Van Sickle - $293K, FO Guilfoyle - $247K, FO Fries - $225K, CA Dominguez - $277K, FO Rogers - $247K, FO Olmstead - $225K, FO Coons - $229K – FO Nevins - $193K. 33. Jobs promised in last contract. No hiring for all of 2012 or 2013. 757s to be parked and 737s will replace..…pay cut. 34. ALPA Reps stated that Delta had no more left to give in last contract. Delta gives investors $1 BILLION (dividend and buyback) as a result. ALPA should have listened to the pilots instead of pursuing different agenda. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands