Resolution
 

Council __ resolution


Subject: Resolution to limit hospitality suite spending and end alcohol service by DALPA


Whereas, DALPA has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership which has been in the opinion of this council NOT been upheld.

Whereas, more transparency and better stewardship of DALPA funds provided by the membership in the form of dues is needed, evidenced by hospitality suites costs DALPA has incurred during the 2018 ALPA board of directors meeting. (in excess of $170,000)

Whereas, alcohol is suspected to have lead to behavior that is embarrassing to the organization and detrimental to the reputation of DALPA and its pilot members.

Whereas, the damage to the reputation of DALPA will impair its ability to negotiate improvements to the pilot working agreement and could limit earnings or preclude enhancements to the working conditions.

Whereas, DALPA may be held liable for damages or injuries as the result of providing alcohol to persons involved in DUI, assault or other harmful actions.

Whereas, the purpose of DALPA meetings is to conduct the business of the association, not to provide entertainment and leisure to the MEC and the administration.

Whereas, Unimpaired thinking and professional behavior is expected of pilot representatives when conducting the business of the pilot group.



Therefore be it resolved, the standards of alcohol consumption while doing DALPA business be the same as is expected of pilots performing company duties.

And be it further resolved, that DALPA will not purchase or reimburse the purchase of alcohol or other intoxicants.

And be it further resolved, that hospitality suites be limited to providing food only and permit for a predetermined 4 hour period individual members to consume individually purchased alcoholic beverages.

And be it further resolved, an annual accounting of hospitality suite expenses including all items and services purchased for the purpose of furnishing said suites be published to the membership. And that any exceedance of authorized funds be accounted for and approved by the MEC as a body and not by a single officer.

And be it further resolved, if these resolutions require changes to any governing policy be it known that this resolution is intent of this council to make these changes.

Supervisors aren't (apparently) what they used to be. The one I talked to most recently didn't understand the contract and was not helpful resolving a pay issue. I'm told that many supervisors are still rather inexperienced.

[A pilot on company duty would be expected to blow 0.0% bac. Dalpa business is not always during “business hours”. How could you on one hand permit a cash bar at a hospitality suite where dalpa business is discussed in an informal setting, and then on the other expect no consumption?]

May I suggest these changes?

Good edits. I think the “reasonable and prudent” while undefined is probably more prudent. My original thought was to have a similar expectation to the profession standards line pilots are held to.

My only comment is you might want to include non-alcoholic beverages along with the food.

Denny

Yes, saw your well-placed intent.

Good resolution👍

I can see significant edits and revisions to the resolution as it passes through the various hands in the process, but indeed a policy - that reflects the seriousness of doing work on behalf of Delta pilots and the integrity and professionalism demanded of the calling - is long overdue. Such work should be considered duty time requiring the same judgement and decision making capacity as flying the line. Maybe they need to sign an FDRA (a little humor)?

Union dues should not be funding alcohol and lavish meals.

Over the years there has been a lot of bad behavior at union gatherings, much of it influenced by alcohol. There have been troubling things occurring that affect the lives of pilots. Let’s hope this is a wake up call. There is, and has been, a lot of anger. I have no dog in this fight and am a fan of neither party; however, I can’t help but wonder... the example it would set, what it might do for unity within the leadership and at large if the ATL rep were to drop, or not press charges. The offending party will pay a high cost regardless.

I disagree with the characterization that there has been “a lot of bad behavior at union gatherings, much of it influenced by alcohol.” Most union meetings and after hours are civil, professional, and productive. Most reps, volunteers, and attendees operate with integrity and discipline.

There are however a few outlier instances where people have made bad choices. These have heightened the need to have a policy, primarily to absolve the union of enabling such undisciplined participants of making these bad choices. Further, a few bad apples have shown that without boundaries, union dues earmarked for advancing the profession and safety have been outrageously spent on unbounded “hospitality”. If the reps and MEC work for us, it is probably wise to have a policy in place to guardrail this spending and behavior (since the leadership didn’t do this themselves). Exhibit BOD.

We are professional pilots. By and large the grownups that do union work act like adults. They don’t need an FDRA reaction. A non-overreactive resolution (I think) is the wiser decision. Set a formal policy not to use dues-for-booze, but still allow adults to return to acting like adults.

After that Article 8 stuff from before, do you think he, as an outgoing rep who now can't fly for 3 months, is going to turn a blind eye in the name of unity when he gets out of surgery?

You're correct that the OP was talking about Swap with the Pot and I got focused on personal drops. My bad. But, swap with the pot is not affected by APD holidays either. The formula in 23.v.5 is what produces the reserves required shown in DBMS. If the available is greater than the required that's all the system looks at. PWA 23.H says nothing about a swap with the pot being able to be denied if the trip to be dropped operates on an APD holiday. Only a carryout trip, i.e. asterisk rotation, can be affected if the carryout portion hits an APD holiday. Again, my bigger point is that the only thing an APD holiday can cause to not be granted is an APD. As long as reserves available is greater than reserves required they can't deny a PD or SWP simply due to an APD holiday period.