GoodBye. Absolute crock of poo resignation letter. Blame everyone else but himself and cronies. Get lost.

TEN

 

Someone post the letter please

 

Alright, you asked for it:

------------------

Delta Council 81
Captain Representative and Chairman Message #3
August 19, 2015



Council 81 members,

To support the recall effort to remove me from office as the Council 81 Captain representative, a group of pilots recently set up a Facebook page. This is truly an unusual development in the governance of our union, because while social media is here to stay, the ability to respond to baseless accusations or repulsive implications is not really available to a union official. The degree of anonymity available, lack of accountability, and ability to stay completely hidden behind a keyboard can motivate statements that would not be stated in public or with a name attached or under the disinfectant of sunshine. Following our August 14 special council meeting, an update placed on the FB page stated: “The mood was emotional, but civil. It was conducted in a professional manner.”

Every pilot in C81 needs to consider whether the best way to move forward in his or her career here at Delta is to react and behave in an emotional manner and if that behavior falls under what they consider professional conduct on his or her (and ultimately their family’s) behalf. The comments made by several at the meeting repeated that this recall effort was “simply business.” Yet emotion is the first characterization of the meeting offered by the pilot(s) who vigorously promoted the recall. Emotion and anger should have no place as our union works to achieve improvements. The only way to be successful is to approach contract negotiations in a professional, business manner. Each Delta pilot needs to periodically refresh his understanding of the economy; global business environment; airline industry metrics; and threat situation to ensure he maintains the necessary awareness to understand how to achieve success and what that success looks like.

Now to the process we followed during our recently rejected TA. All of us acknowledge that a number of errors were made during the ratification process and some well before that, or that at a minimum, some things should have been done differently. To be intellectually honest, however, we must also acknowledge exactly what I stated at the SLC road show and again at the recall meeting. There was a great deal of misinformation, disinformation, and what appeared to be intentionally incorrect statements in some council communications. Here are a few examples:

“The initial 8% hourly pay increase in the TA is offset by some 4% with the JV production balance, sick leave, and productivity concessions for a net increase of roughly 4%.”
—Council 1 Chairman’s Update #2 (6/29/15)

This same inaccuracy was subsequently made in the letter signed by the 10 LEC officers who did not support the TA. The statement is factually and mathematically inaccurate, has no basis in financial terms, and even the authors are unable to provide any numbers that would establish even the slightest hint of factual basis. The MEC was briefed numerous times throughout the negotiating process about costing of the TA. This accusation is so obviously incorrect that it must have been constructed by someone not even present at the numerous MEC meetings. Yet it was included in several official council communications. The author(s) apparently intended this statement to be inflammatory and incite an emotional response during the ratification process. To accomplish that task, elected reps intentionally misled the pilot group.

“To put our contract value in context, Contract 2012, which was a targeted agreement (meaning it only sought to change a limited number of items), had a valuation to the pilot group of roughly $400 million per year. In comparison, the valuation of Contract 2015, which was in theory a “comprehensive Section 6 negotiation” is roughly $350 million per year.”
—Council 20 TA Perspective (6/21/15)

Nearly everything in this statement is wrong, yet it is presented in a manner that provides seemingly plausible numbers in order to get “buy in” from the reader when the authors know it is false. The annual values stated in the paragraph are completely wrong (C2012 was in fact a good bit less than $400M per year), and the authors used an annual number for the final year of C2012 (when all pay-rate increases are in place) to compare to an average annual increase for C2015. We can all understand the first year has a lower value since the subsequent pay-rate increase and 401(k) additions do not kick in until the second or third year of the contract, affecting the average of each year. Additionally, both C2012 and C2015 were Section 6 negotiations; no distinction exists despite the theoretical reference. In fact, C2012 made changes in more sections of the PWA than C2015 (26 of 28 vs. 22 of 28).

“Disposition of medical records and DHS (Director of Health Services) AME responsibilities. Boils down to a letter of commitment from the Company which states that they can’t share your medical records or data with the FAA (without a court order or your approval) vs. the stated FAA requirements to AMEs that requires them to “…report a disqualifying condition either observed or in the course of the examination or otherwise known to exist.
—Council 20 Update (7/7/15)

The sick leave provisions and change in procedures certainly prompted a good bit of discussion and concern among some pilots. This statement, however, misleads not because of what it says, but because of what it omits. The quote leaves out the very next sentence in the AME guide: “ln this situation, both the applicant and the Examiner in completing the application and medical report form may be found to have committed a violation.” (Emphasis added) Since the affected pilot is not submitting an application and the DHS is not completing an evaluation, there is no medical report form. The authors attempt to use an AME guide that few if any line pilots would ever have reason to read to incite a negative response, and they leave out the key language that disputes the statement they are trying to promote. That disinformation prompted numerous questions and comments while we were in the pilot lounge and no doubt prompted a no vote by many pilots. A representative who would mislead the pilots who placed them in office should be ashamed to make an error of this magnitude (especially so late in the ratification process). To then allow it to go uncorrected is the basest of failures by an elected ALPA representative. Additionally, the MEC had been briefed and provided documentation, which was also put out as Contrails 25 on June 29, that the TA language was more protective of pilot’s personal information than the current PWA language. The Council 20 Update, put out eight days later, was clearly incorrect and can only be viewed as a deliberate effort to intentionally mislead pilots to vote against the C2015 TA.

“Lost: A pilot retiree who is described in Section 25 C. 4. a. and his eligible family members will remain eligible for coverage under the DPMP OOA upon reaching Medicare eligibility age. Loss of $1 million insurance for training/check/test flights.”
—Council 66 Special Update (6/22/15)

These two items are almost comical in their inaccuracy. The Council 66 Update, which was only signed by the captain and first officer representatives, demonstrates the inattention at MEC meetings by these two. The first item was actually changed in C2012, but the citation in the PWA was missed in the rewrite. This was a simple clerical error that the Negotiating Committee corrected in the TA language and pointed out to the MEC. The second item was included in two different places in the PWA (another simple clerical error), and this was simply a removal of the improper reference—again explained thoroughly at the MEC meeting when the question was asked. All Delta pilots should rely on their representatives to pay attention while at the MEC meetings—they are on flight pay loss after all and supposed to be doing the pilot’s business. The inattention and lack of care displayed in the C66 Update on this and other items affected the understanding of the TA by many pilots and likely affected the voting results. As was the case with the Council 20 update cited above, the C66 captain and first officer reps made no effort to follow-up and correct their errors with the pilot group; they simply let their errors stand. Your C81 reps make extraordinary efforts to always run our council communications through the Delta MEC Communications Committee and the various subject-matter experts as the Policy Manual recommends. The C66 Update errors would have been caught if it had been processed as is recommended in the Delta Policy Manual.

“Here is a partial list of items you asked for but we failed to achieve:
· No ability for NYC crews to avoid A-period sims on last day of training
· Improved relocation benefits
· Improved laundry expenses
· Improvements to jury duty
· Reimbursement for hotel Wi-Fi charges where not free of charge/free use of Go-Go domestically (and other tablet concerns)
· No positive space on NYC Crew Runner van
· Etc, etc.”
—Council 66 Special Update (6/22/15)

This is one of the most blatant examples of misinformation and was again presented by the NYC captain and first officer reps. You can see the complete list (“etc.” used for brevity above) if you read the C66 Update. A number of these items were never even discussed by the MEC at all, much less discussed as possible PWA changes in this Section 6 negotiation. Others were not endorsed by even a simple majority of the MEC, so were never given as direction to the Negotiating Committee. Yet the C66 reps decided to intentionally mislead and incite pilots with the “failed to achieve” statement.

These are just a few of the examples of inaccurate and misleading information that were provided to the pilot group during the ratification period. Additionally, there were substantial leaks of information, bargaining positions, MEC direction, and parochial items that some MEC members did not carry the day on during the debate within one day of the MEC meeting. I considered other possibilities, but it’s clear that the leaks had to come from MEC members—most leaked information was posted on an internet forum by a MSP F/O and used almost exactly the words that were used on the MEC floor as objections. This out of context information caused tremendous damage during the negotiations and should concern every Delta pilot as we attempt to move forward. A representative, or a committee member, who leaks information because he disagrees with the direction, agreement, solution, or proposal is doing damage to his fellow elected reps and ultimately to line pilots. That should not be tolerated by the Delta pilots. Interestingly, no early leaks of the “positives” contained in the TA were evident on the internet. If you are going to deceive people, I guess you want to keep it simple—don’t confuse them with pluses and minuses, just the minuses that will grab attention on the various forums.

You may have noted the briefing by Arthur Kohn of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton LLP at our recent MEC meeting. As noted, Mr. Kohn previously presented a briefing on NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). That topic again came up due to the perceived difficulties with the Delta MEC keeping confidential (corporate, ALPA, or Delta MEC) information limited to those who are authorized to know the confidential information. The inability of the Delta MEC to abide by the various agreements will affect relationships and that will affect access to information that is useful in future negotiations and arrangements. Your career will be negatively affected if the leaders of your union do not have ready access to the information to guide the decisions they must make on your behalf.

A recent Council 20 Special Update (7/29/2015) included a discussion about the LEC/MEC structure and MEC operations. In the discussion about committees, these paragraphs (page 6) lay out part of the plan moving forward for the restructuring of the Delta MEC into the rather dysfunctional structure employed by the Northwest MEC prior to the merger.

Other ALPA properties conduct elections (by the MEC) for some or all of their committee chairmen. Often in this case more than one individual will run for a chairmanship, resulting in a public nomination and election procedure at an MEC meeting, where the various candidates are vetted by the MEC at an open MEC meeting. In our opinion, this provides a greater access to the membership and provides a diversity of candidates.

Because the MEC chair, and not the MEC appoint committee chairs, they are responsible to the MEC chair, and not the MEC at large (except for through the MEC chair).

What follows is not an attack on, or the indictment of, former Northwest pilots, but a discussion about the governance of the former Northwest MEC. This system did not work well at Northwest; the politics of the Northwest/Republic merger paralyzed the MEC, creating a huge Policy Manual necessary to try to accomplish anything for the pilots they represented. Imagine that system here today. The MEC chairman is elected by the MEC to conduct the daily business. When a committee chair who is supposed to be in the office during the work week accomplishing the necessary duties to serve the pilots does not do an adequate job, the MEC Chairman has little to no authority over that elected committee chair. A committee chair elected by the MEC will likely have his/her own constituency who voted for him/her, and that committee chair has little responsibility to accomplish daily work or projects directed by the MEC chairman. If there is a shortcoming, the MEC is the only authority to correct that problem by removing him/her from office. The policy of electing committee chairmen was discussed at length when the Delta MEC Policy Manual was created after the merger, and it was rejected. The Policy Manual with the current appointment policy was ratified with a unanimous vote of the merged MEC. The current representatives, some long-time Northwest ALPA reps, seek to recreate the chaos, instability, and failed model that was the Northwest MEC. If you need to see an example of the MEC electing committee chairs and the disastrous results that follow, look no farther than the circus that happened at the UAL MEC during the ALPA BOD meeting when the MEC voted to keep a committee chair in place. A number of damaging public comments were made by the UAL committee chair during the negotiating process about a member of the NMB, and the UAL MEC chairman (who was running for ALPA President at the time) attempted to remove the committee chair from the position. The MEC forced the continuation of the UAL committee chair in office, but that committee chair was prevented by the MEC chair from doing any work, resulting in little to no effective work being done for the UAL pilots. Ask yourself if that’s a model that any Delta pilot, regardless of background, should view as effective in protecting and enhancing his career. Many parts of the Council 20 Special Update elaborate on their other ideas or aspirational thoughts on fixing the Delta MEC to mirror the failed NWA MEC.

Since 2008 when the merger occurred, the progress all Delta pilots have made is substantial by any measure. While some may view the progress as too slow or not enough, the Contract Comparison and Contract History continue to be good resources. When the merger occurred, the pilots of NWA were slightly more than 10 percent below the existing DAL pay rates. During negotiations, the DAL PWA was set as the baseline due to the better overall provisions. Since the merger, we have been able to capitalize on opportunities to further improve the provisions of the PWA numerous times—not just during Section 6 negotiations. The practice has been very beneficial for all Delta pilots. Constructive engagement; interest-based bargaining; proactive engagement or whatever term you use, the practice has been successful when numerous other pilot groups have not been able to make that steady progress and the Delta pilots have repeatedly “set the bar” for those other pilot groups to aspire to or leverage up to. This difference between the results achieved between the two approaches before our merger must be acknowledged or the Delta pilots will be on the path to trail our peer pilot groups—be followers of those other groups that have been dependent on our success in the past to give them leverage during negotiations.

If the Delta pilot group is going to embrace the way things were done at the NWA MEC, the Delta pilots must make an active decision to do so. Do not allow it to happen by accident or without debate. As stated previously, at the merger, the NWA Collective Bargaining Agreement had the NWA pilots in excess of 10 percent below the Delta pilots, with overall worse work rules and benefits. Other examples are available through the years where the NWA pilots trailed the Delta pilots by an even greater margin, but just pick the 10 percent number. If being 10 percent behind the pilot group that is the industry leader is acceptable to Delta pilots and the group wants to be in that position, make that choice. To allow a slow erosion of the ability of the Delta MEC (due to the poor representation by those elected in some councils) to lead the industry on pilot pay, benefits, and working conditions should be unacceptable to every Delta pilot.

That brings us back to our recent special council meeting. Despite what was claimed by some, it was quite clear at the meeting on August 14 that the reason this recall occurred was because of my vote in favor of the C2015 TA. That was stated on the floor at the meeting and then, almost comically, denied. Two of the MEC representatives who directed the Negotiating Committee to agree to the TA subsequently voted against the agreement (they were among the eight “no” voters). In fact, one of those stated shortly before the vote that he might have to vote in favor to make sure it passed. Then he denied he said that. This is a perfect demonstration of what one speaker raised on the floor at our council meeting. Delta pilots elect representatives to attend MEC meetings and conduct business while making the necessary decisions based on the information they have from all sources. The current and future representatives will see what just happened in Council 81 and is occurring in other councils. You may quite possibly get reps who decide to take the “safe” path rather than the “right” path and cast a vote they know will not get them recalled. As I have said, saying No is most often the easy choice as it avoids any responsibility or accountability—and that applies to both representatives and members.

As evidenced at our meeting, there is certainly some level of dissatisfaction within Council 81 for the representation I have provided over the past few months. To alleviate that condition, and perhaps bring a closer focus on the need to indeed approach these negotiations in a “business-like” manner, I have notified the ALPA president that I resign effective August 20, 2015. This will allow Council 81 pilots more time to identify and consider the interim captain representative to fulfill the remainder of the term as well as the captain representative who will serve the three-year term commencing March 1, 2016. I urge you to choose wisely. To paraphrase an old sage—the Delta pilots may end up getting exactly the type of union they deserve, not the one they want, due to the out of scale actions of a small group.


Randy Worrall
Chairman, Capt. Rep
[email protected]

 

Wow. I am forever thankful that Randy is gone. I'm not a big fan of recalling all the yes voters, but he was among the ones that needed to be done. He is completely out of touch with the population he is supposed to represent.

 

Exactly. Certainly he accepted the will of the majority, when he was elected, the will of the majority of the MEC when it was in his favor, but he sure doesn't like it apparently when the will of the majority goes against him. To say I am disappointed is an understatement, but I guess I am not surprised either.

 

I find it comical that he preaches professionalism and not being emotional when it is well documented that this guy was the king of temper tantrums and yelling at people when things did not go his way at meetings.

 

We may have routes over 12 hours again!

 

Thanks Carl! And these morons are still playing NWA vs DAL games. Wrong, we are just done with votes to make our lives more miserable than the previous contract and sell away our flying. DONE... Randy, don't let the door hit you in the arse.

 

The only paragraph that was necessary in that entire diatribe was the last one. AMF!!!

 

That really was a diatribe.

Are there unwritten rules for these guys as to what appropriate crowd control measures they need to take with us?

I don't know about anyone else, I'm not looking to be controlled or managed. I am only interested in being represented properly.