pilotc90a

Quick question,

I had heard a story that there was a bit of a scuffle during a road show in PTC during the last contract. Someone trying to take a microphone away from someone that had the floor. Is this story true? If so, who was involved? I would LOVE for someone to try that with me!

TheManager

Ok. What if profits go to 9 billion?

What if the go to 12 billion?

What if they, gasp, drop to 3.5 billion?

What if after RA leaves, Gordon Bethune comes and runs the airline? What if the volunteers can actually get some decent recruits and win more than they lose in the SEC. Should be somewhat easier than to go 3-5.

TheManager

Again. This ^

forgot to bid

And that gives me how we won't but then again there is a difference in going back to the recovery system and one that simply prevents bidding lca trips.

I think the latter is palatable to a lot of people who detested the recovery system.

It's definitely not palatable to those who will have to live with a bidding system that kills of 20% of the FO lines if that is truly where this ends up going.

BenderRodriguez

What's your point?

Edit: Number 5 recruiting class in 2015 and similar in 2014. Our QB is truly a rocket scientist. Going 3-5 is highly unlikely.

EdGrimley

First off, it sounds like the "timeline" has been shortened by a day unless I am missing something...

"The MEC has had the actual language of the TA since last Thursday afternoon, but has been familiar with many of the individual items for some time (except the pay / “value” section which we were initially updated on last week)."

"The DAL MEC Policy Manual requires a seven day MEC review prior to voting to recommend a RLA (Railway Labor Act) Section 6 TA for Membership Ratification (MEMRAT). There was no MEC effort to reduce that time period."

I'm also talking about the process of keeping the membership in the dark with no opportunity to have information in advance to give proper feedback to our reps prior to their vote on whether to put the TA out for membership ratification. There could be an opportunity to head off some problematic language/items (with a whole lot more eyes examining) prior to a hair on fire sales job.

While the membership are in limbo, the insiders that run our union are busy crafted a one sided marketing campaign to steamroll the TA forward with fear, uncertainty and doubt (ie if we turn this down we will be parked and get less and here's some one sided data why you MUST ACT NOW and VOTE YES!). It's a manipulative process at best. At least one council tried to change this policy for the benefit of the membership but the overlords thumbed their noses at it.

"While there is no definition of “MEC Confidential”, the MEC Administration has asked us to keep the details of the TA non-public until the meeting (a practice we have previously sought to change, attempting to allow more information disseminated to the membership)."

For a guy that's a check airman, who should live and breath CRM, your acceptance of the current process is mystifying.

forgot to bid

That's a fair sentiment.

TheManager

I appreciate the Council 20 leadership for allowing me to respond to the May 28, 2015 Delta MEC True Headings. My comments are for the pilots of Council 20. Forwarding my comments to other Delta pilots is authorized, but placing these comments on any website promoting alternate union representation for Delta pilots is prohibited.

The Delta MEC wrote in the latest True Headings (underlining for emphasis):

“It is one thing to be on the minority side of a vote, and another to accuse the union of violating the process. This accusation was made in 2012, though the accuser did not cite the specific parts of governance that were violated, and our failure to thoroughly repudiate the false claim allowed a festering division to unnecessarily form in our ranks…. The insinuation that our process has not been respected in this cycle of collective bargaining has recently appeared in the same local council communications from which it originated last time and was repeated today by another council in their communications.”

As the Council 20 Chairman, I was the accuser of a process violation during the Contract 2012 negotiations. Council 20 recently expressed that “some of the MEC felt that there were process issues” during the current negotiations. To be clear, my concerns in 2013 did not relate to the governing documents of ALPA International and the Delta MEC, but to the actions of an individual elected to a position of trust. In the best interests of the Delta pilots, I chose to let two process violations pass. Unfortunately, the Delta MEC Administration has chosen to smear the previous and current Council 20 representatives in one breath vice resolving a dispute in private. I tried to resolve this matter with the Delta MEC Administration. I appreciate Captain Parker, MEC Communications Chairman, with whom I served with on the MEC, for taking my call. Alternatively, MEC Chairman Captain Donatelli chose to “wish you (me) a good weekend” and hung up after a one minute telephone conversation.

I would like to explain three items which supported my assertion that the “process was not followed” during Contract 2012 negotiations.

Item 1 Negotiating process agreed to per Delta MEC and Negotiating Committee agreement not followed. This matter has been previously reported and will be reviewed below.

Item 2 Special Meeting By Conference Call rules of procedure

Item 3 Failure to provide costing data when data was requested by a member of the MEC and making a false statement to the Delta MEC.

Item 1 was a supplemental negotiating process agreed to by all members of the Delta MEC and the Negotiating Committee. The MEC Chairman is charged with following the direction of the Delta MEC and is a member of the Negotiating Committee. The Negotiating Committee reports directly to the MEC. Items 2 is governed by ALPA Administrative Manual Section 73, Part 1(A), what can and cannot be accomplished in a telephone conference call. Items 2 and 3 are clearly punishable under the ALPA Constitution and By Laws, Article VIII, Hearing and Appeal Procedures, Section 1, (9) Acting in any manner to circumvent, defeat or interfere with collective bargaining between the Association and an employer or with existing collective bargaining agreements. I contend there is probable cause to charge Item 1 under this provision, also.

ITEM 1

In my final Chairman’s letter in February 2013, I wrote (underline for emphasis)

“2012 Tentative Agreement

In previous communications, I have discussed the general terms of the 2012 Tentative Agreement (TA) process. I have not discussed the specific steps in the TA process because it was ALPA confidential information. This information has recently been declassified by Captain Roberts (MEC Chairman at the time).

As the MEC was preparing for negotiations with the Company, the Negotiating Committee submitted a proposed negotiating process to the MEC. Though a vote to approve this process was not held, there were no concerns noted nor MEC members who disagreed with this process. The following process was reviewed at every MEC meeting during the period that Delta ALPA was negotiating with the Company. This power point slide was presented to the members of the MEC in closed session and projected on two large screens. The process was clear, precise, and expected to be followed.



The following is an expanded explanation of the negotiating process used by the Delta MEC in 2012 contract negotiations

Negotiating Process-for Negotiating Committee, MEC Chairman, and the MEC

Receive-information from Company and the Economic & Financial Analysis (E&FA) Department of ALPA International
Analyze-analyze data
Report/Discuss with MEC-self explanatory
Receive Direction-specific and general guidelines from the MEC about what should be accomplished in any TA based upon the pilot survey and other subsequent information
Negotiate
Redo from #3 until…-MEC direction is met
TA
Unfortunately, item 6 never occurred with the final agreement and certainly not with respect to pay rates. The former MEC Chairman and MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman met with the Company and determined that the best deal was on the table even though the proposed TA did not meet primarily the compensation requirements directed by the MEC. This decision occurred as the MEC was traveling to a regularly scheduled MEC meeting. There was no need for immediate action. Any remaining MEC leverage was negated by this decision, especially as terms of the TA were subsequently leaked. The process is as important as the final product. The process assures that your LEC representatives remain in control of negotiations. “

If the negotiators reach a TA, it is with the understanding that they have met, or exceeded, the marching orders given to them. Because, if they have not there would not be a TA, by definition. The MEC then considers the TA and they should be properly biased to the affirmative as they are the ones who provided the boundaries that theoretically have been achieved.

“Based upon their failure to follow the TA process and other actions, I could not support Captain O’Malley or First Officer Olmstead for reelection. My view was in the majority for the MEC Chairman election and in the minority for the MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman election.”

ITEM 2

On May 11, 2013 all members of the MEC received the following email (underline for emphasis and telephone numbers removed):

“Gentlemen,

We have scheduled a MEC conference call for Saturday, May 12, 2012 at 1600 EDT. The topic is a negotiating update from MEC Chairman Tim O'Malley and Negotiating Committee Chairman Parri Olmstead. The call information is as follows:

Dial in number - XXXXXXXXX

Participant Code - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This is an informational call and participation is voluntary, although we would appreciate it if each council was represented on the call.

Best regards,

Kevin Guilfoyle

Secretary

Delta Master Executive Council

Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l”

The informational conference call was held on Saturday, May 11, 2013. The MEC Chairman presented a proposal in regards to increasing pay rates for Contract 2012. Since this was a conference call and security could not be assured specific pay rate percentages were not discussed. The MEC had no idea of the proposed pay rates before or during this conference call. This was a Delta MEC confidential (closed session) meeting so I will not expound on what was discussed. Each MEC voting member and nonvoting member was polled on their view on the proposal. I responded that, “I could not make a decision without further information” and expected all facets of this proposal to be presented to the MEC, discussed by the MEC, and voted upon by the MEC at the upcoming MEC meeting on Tuesday. Since this was an informational conference call, no MEC business/voting/direction could be given by the MEC per ALPA policy.

The ALPA Administrative Manual Section 73, Part 1(A) Special Meeting By Conference Call, states (underline for emphasis):

A. special meetings by conference call

SOURCE – Executive Board May 2007

Special MEC meetings by conference call to conduct MEC business shall be called and conducted in accordance with Article IV, Section 3.D of the Constitution and Bylaws, provided that:

6. Conference calls solely to provide and exchange updates and information, but not conduct MEC business, shall not be considered special MEC meetings and shall be governed by MEC policy.

On Monday, May 12, 2013 the MEC travelled to Atlanta for a regular scheduled MEC meeting beginning on Tuesday. On Tuesday, Captain O’Malley informed us that a tentative agreement (TA) had been reached. One of the items discussed in closed session was the proposal that was presented in the conference call. Whether one calls it a deal, a trade, or something else the proposal presented was included in the TA. When I asked on how this could be done as the conference call was an informational conference call where no MEC business or vote could occur, Captain O’Malley informed the MEC that he “felt he had a consensus”. Captain O’Malley interfered and circumvented the MEC from providing direction to the Negotiating Committee while the Negotiating Committee was engaged is a collective bargaining negotiation; an offense chargeable under Article VIII.

ITEM 3

On Tuesday, May 15, 2013, I asked Captain O’Malley in plenary for the costing data on a change to the current contract that would be allowed in the Contract 2012 TA. He informed the MEC that this was included in “scope and not quantifiable” or words to that effect. I disagreed, but he reaffirmed that costing had not occurred. The negotiators were busy and not in the MEC meeting at the time of my question. Costing is standard practice in all ALPA contract negotiations. I was later informed by a member of the Negotiating Committee that the costing had been completed on this item. Captain O’Malley presented the requested data on Friday. The data was received from the Delta ALPA representative to the Delta Board of Directors. The data was Delta company financial data though I was privately informed that ALPA Economic and Financial agreed with the costing. This value of savings to the company was in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the contract. I thought the Delta pilots should receive a percentage of that savings in pay. The MEC chose to not redirect the Negotiating Committee to capture some of these savings to the Company in the form of increased pay to Delta pilots.

Captain O’Malley chose to provide a false statement to the MEC and only when knowledge of the costing data was leaked to the MEC did the MEC Chairman present the requested data to the MEC for consideration. Captain O’Malley attempted to circumvent and interfere with collective bargaining between Delta ALPA and Delta Air Lines; a chargeable offense under Article VIII. For a third time, the process was corrupted.

After much discussion the MEC chose to review the TA immediately and postpone a discussion on the process during negotiations and a possible Article VIII violation. Following the passing of the 2013 contract, I decided it was not in the best interests of Delta pilots to bring the MEC Chairman up on Article VIII charges. The writing was on the wall that Captain O’Malley would not be reelected as the MEC Chairman.

I have enjoyed the last two years as a line pilot and being far from the maddening infighting of union politics. I gave a pass on Article VIII hearings for what I thought was the good of our union. There should be consequences to unprofessional conduct and a pass may not have been the best choice in retrospect based on recent MEC communications. I was a college sophomore during the summer of 1974 and witnessed the damage the Watergate Hearings had on our citizen’s trust in elected leaders. The deadline to press Article VII charges has passed.

I assumed, wrongly so, that the MEC would thoroughly discuss the negotiation process before this round of negotiations began. I noted the list of steps to negotiations, very similar to the previous ALPA confidential list above, that were sent in an email to all Delta pilots. I thought that the MEC, the Negotiating Committee, and the MEC Administration were all on the same page. It does not appear so. The True Headings email was an emotional response against current and present council representatives. The current MEC Administration chose to rattle the cage and use smear tactics vice resolve disagreements behind closed doors. Your union representatives on both sides of this issue can do better and should be held to a higher standard of conduct.

We now have a TA and the negotiating process is complete to this point. It would be prudent to form a MEC special committee to review current Delta negotiating practices and those of other ALPA carriers when Contract 2015 is complete. There should be no misunderstanding of the duties and responsibilities during a negotiation process. Expectations and assumptions should not guide the negotiation process.

In my twenty six years as an airline pilot, I have never witnessed a better time to improve the pay, benefits, and working conditions of Delta pilots.

Respectfully,

Tom Tucker

Capt/DTW

BenderRodriguez

This kind of complaining is just like the complaints we will start to see in 2016 about Gerrymandering and voter registration in national politics. These rules have been in place for a long time. Why are YOU just now questioning them? Why didn't YOU voice disapproval a year or two ago when YOU knew that we would be having a TA someday to examine?

I think most pilots will be fine with making their decision when the MEC releases to product to us. You obviously are not. I'm good with that. If you want something different, get it changed.

Professor

Why? Because you would beat them down?
There is no need to pretend you like or that we need that kind of rancor. It's childish.

Let us pretend for a moment we are all professionals.

Let's us all consider what a TA offers us once we have facts. Debate those facts. Vote. And then go from there in solidarity.

It will help all of us in the end. Regardless.