Originally Posted by Humboldt (Post 1652523)

Quick Q: Is there any other way to travel on our JV partners than simply buying an eZed? On travel net, all those flights with JV partner legs have non-selectable radio heads.

Do we get any preferential boarding on JV partners as Delta employees or is standard eZed with the masses the only way to go?

Gracias!

Humboldt

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 1652567)

Alan,





The way to avoid this is to hold the NC accountable to bring back a TA that is strictly within the negotiating "box" directed by the Reps. The way it's supposed to work if they can't is to come back to the Reps for clarification or redirection, NOT get a TA that is outside one of the box parameters and then put the MEC in the position of accepting something less than directed or voting it down at a cost. This is now the second time the Scrappy/Admin team has done this, and it is is unacceptable. The work for the elected status Reps and are duty bound to follow their direction. Signing a TA with less than the directed parameters to play on the fear of "we'll do worse, RA won't be happy with us, you'll undercut the NC, we can't have 19 negotiators in the room, etc, etc," is simply unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1652530)

The Delta MEC Policy Manual is available on the ALPA / DMEC web site and downloaded in your document library if you used the iPubs or Box. If you understand the system, things worked like they were supposed to. We do not routinely memrat agreements unless it is the result of Section 6 bargaining. Our MEC could, but most view the MEC as a representative democracy and reps expect to take responsibility for the job by casting their vote.

I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.

The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.

As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.

I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.

Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1652577)

I understand that about memrat but what I was saying is "Whether it went to memory rat or not I think the language deserved time to review."

And just as you mentioned this was a big deal and a huge negotiation outside of section 6, but it was also a rare one. How often does the FAA make an FAR change of this magnitude that requires contract negotiations? So if its a rather rare incident then unlike most LOAs maybe it deserved some rare extra attention by those who would be bound by it.

And not doing that was confusing to me because it stirs trouble.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1652566)

I have to ask you what does "significant" mean? How would you define "significant" so we all agree on the definition?

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1652588)

Let's start here: it's "significant" when the MEC changes the manual to make it easier for them to bypass memrat.

Why would they want to do that?
And why are you OK with that? :confused:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1652566)

First, the policy manual resides in the ALPA library for everyone to see and has even been pushed to the devices of those who signed up for the iPubs or Box deliveries. I'm not sure how the manual could be further highlighted without risking further ALPA pub fatigue.

I have to ask you what does "significant" mean? How would you define "significant" so we all agree on the definition?

The policy manual reads:

Collective bargaining agreements that have been approved by the MEC and result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to both Section 28 of the PWA and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act that both resolve all Section 6 issues and conclude Section 6 negotiations shall be subject to membership ratification. All other agreements shall be subject only to MEC ratification unless the MEC determines that an agreement should be subject to membership ratification.
Assuming you are aware of the policy manual's direction on how to communicate a TA prior to memrat (road shows, pubs, etc ...):
* Did you want membership ratification (with delays to making PD pilots whole)?
* What about your MEC unanimous vote in favor of the agreement?
* If yes, then what would be your suggested change to the policy manual?

My rep asked me about memrat and like everyone else around at that moment I replied "no reason with CDO's removed ... there is no significant change, just improvement." FWIW, the "significant change" litmus was still being used in the decision making process among the reps I communicated with.

I don't understand how memrat would have improved results for Delta pilots, yet I can see how memrat would have harmed Delta pilots by delaying the implementation of improvements and getting guys paid.

Interested on your thoughts on improvement.