Delta Pilots Association

Reply Subscribe

Page 148 of 959

148

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

10-19-2010, 04:48 PM

#1471

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: 747-400 Captain

Posts: 12,487

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Here is what the Policy Manual states with regard to MEMRAT as defined in the ALPA By-Laws.:

B. Ratification of Agreements
1. MEC Ratification Policy:
a. 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.

This is what I thought the bylaws stated. Now, how do you explain this post from you which prompted me to ask for proof of your assertion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl;
It would not follow the by-laws. They specifically state that a significant change to the PWA like a scope concession would have to go to MEMRAT. I do not see any Rep having that on their shoulders alone. They would want the rank and file to vote on it and probably vote it down.

This really troubles me given how many pilots here listen to your words as fact. Given the fact that the bylaws clearly DO NOT say what you asserted, please explain this.

Carl

10-19-2010, 04:51 PM

#1472

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Position: 747-400 Captain

Posts: 12,487

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

Good point, Carl. If I remember correctly, wasn't it an LOA that allowed the company to have a one time exemption to the number of 76 seat RJ's (a scope giveaway) as long as they agreed to our interpretation going forward? We didn't get to vote on that... it was decided for us via LOA (and to make matters worse, it was pretty much done in secrecy until it was a done deal).

That is exactly what happened. Our union then said that it WASN'T a scope sale, and that they lawyers said it was too risky to fight it in court.

Carl

10-19-2010, 04:53 PM

#1473

acl65pilot

Happy to be here

Joined APC: Jun 2006

Position: A-320A

Posts: 18,563

Simple Carl, you are correct.

It is not spelled out in one place. It is a combination of a by-law, a policy and past practice.

I have asked the same question many times and it has been stated by multiple people that a change to scope above the allowable cap of 255 will be sent to MEMRAT if it were ever happen. I cannot get the admin manual or I cannot find it to determine if there is something I am missing in there. In the end you are correct, but I still trust what my reps have told me. Call yours in DTW and ask them, they will tell you the same thing.

10-19-2010, 04:55 PM

#1474

acl65pilot

Happy to be here

Joined APC: Jun 2006

Position: A-320A

Posts: 18,563

Also it says MEC not MEC Administration.

10-19-2010, 05:05 PM

#1475

acl65pilot

Happy to be here

Joined APC: Jun 2006

Position: A-320A

Posts: 18,563

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

That is exactly what happened. Our union then said that it WASN'T a scope sale, and that they lawyers said it was too risky to fight it in court.

Carl

I had issues with this LOA too Carl. When it was clearly spelled out I saw their reasoning behind not want to lose it over 27 jets with six extra seats either. A loss would have been really bad for us. I still think that the pilots should have been brought up to speed well before it was voted on. Finding out things like this after they are ratified is not the way to do business.

I have also noticed that they now announce the TA at least seven days as the policy manual states prior to a vote. I would prefer the TA language itself but would be happy with a CA Bulletin to mull over during the comment period.

10-19-2010, 05:39 PM

#1476

alfaromeo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2008

Posts: 1,619

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Plenty of turnarounds to the western cities could be done from ATL, DTW and other bases. No surprise you would only focus on JFK. And I dont know if you're a hick or not.

Regarding the rest of your post, it's just more drivel to get people to believe that fatigue is made better by adding 1 to 2 more flight hours per day to a 2 man crew. It's a great example of what I've been talking about. When some shill comes here and puts out some long winded explanation to excuse something that makes no logical sense...it's BS!

Carl

Well, Carl, your post said "coast to coast" turns. Now I know DTW is on the shore of Lake St. Clair, but that is not what people think of as coast to coast. Look, if you ever come back to a domestic aircraft you would not have to worry about doing day turns from DTW to SFO/LAX/SEA/PDX, etc. They wouldn't make it past the top 10% of the category list.

So you admit that you have no scientific data to back up your rantings and your personal attacks are nothing more than a cover for your lack of knowledge. At least we now know where you are coming from. Pretty much standard Carl.

10-19-2010, 06:09 PM

#1477

shiznit

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2009

Position: right for a long, long time

Posts: 2,642

Web forum negotiators. They are about as cool as a fanny pack.

10-19-2010, 06:12 PM

#1478

FedElta

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jun 2008

Position: Retired, again...

Posts: 608

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Here is what the ALPA By-Laws State, and based upon this wording, a change in scope would be grounds for MEMRAT:
SECTION 2 - RATIFICATION
A. Any contract, letter of agreement or letter of understanding that, in the opinion of the MEC,
substantially affects the pay, working conditions, retirement, or career security of member pilots will
be subject to membership ratification under the following terms and conditions:
(1) The MEC will, at its option, ballot the membership of their airline to determine if it is their
desire to have membership ratification. Once membership ratification is established it will remain
in effect until changed by another ballot of the membership through MEC action.

Of course the answer is in the MEC policy manual and I do not know if I can download that document.

I think the salient point of this paragraph is: " in the opinion of the MEC". My last ALPA carrier had Member Ratification on each, and every LOA. Otherwise, ALPA would never been voted back on the property.

One more time: Can DALPA gain Member Ratification of all LOA'S ??

Regards,
BG

10-19-2010, 07:20 PM

#1479

Flamer

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2009

Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find

Posts: 1,044

But still I love technology.....

I can deposit checks and trade a boatload of cash and stocks on my iPhone, but we can't get the technology to provide me an easy opportunity to vote as an ALPA dues paying member? I should be able to vote on all of these super secret side bars. Am I a mushroom?