I don't think I don't need to list the people who "detest" each other, to categorize where they fit. What good would that do?

It's pretty logical to conclude that either group would be run by people with experience in unions. I assume they're going to be Delta pilots. I therefore infer that, whoever ends up on either hierarchy, would be from a similar batch, but with different politics. If DPA was certified, the people that run it would obviously be people that we've seen before.

You're not planning on importing anyone into the seniority list to run DPA, I hope?

 

...and I'm afraid not.

If a dog owner finds a turd on the carpet in the morning, and they've only got one dog, and the carpet's been clean every other morning, they don't assume their dog isn't trained.

You're actually trying to argue that the turd is proof that the dog runs the house.

 

Pineapple Guy,

Contract 2000 was the first agreement following the changes at the 1998 Board of Director's meeting which gutted and bifurcated ALPA's Merger and Alter Ego Policies. Prior to these changes ALPA's response to an alter ego was to force a merger. After these changes management was permitted to own and operate an alter ego. ALPA, in exchange, received "bargaining credits" for permitted flying in Section 1. Technically, while Contract 2000 might have reduced the numbers, it very likely was the birth of monetizing scope for credit. In plain terms, it does appear to be the origination of the market in the trading of job protection provisions.

I would have to refer to some very old notes to see if there was any talk of "credits" then. I do know we saw the discussion of credits in the nearly immediate concessionary scope negotiations that occurred when the nonsensical ratios in Contract 2000 failed to provide the job protections promised to Delta pilots. Not that Delta was alone. We see the same pattern throughout ALPA bargaining in the last decade.

C2K scope failed and remained in a nearly constant state of concessionary bargaining. Still, anyone who read that Section 1 would have realized that the 3 to ratio contained therein would have required the Delta mainline fleet to nearly triple. Did anyone really expect Delta was going to grow by 1,500 mainline jets as Delta accepted the 500+ RJ's already on order?

 

To follow up my own post. Historians are no where near finished digging into what transpired with the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement. Insiders on this board have stated D-ALPA did finally review the fee for departure arrangements with DCI carriers. The timing suggests this review was tied to C2012 and probably the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement. A key component seems to be the provisions which drive a matching of the lowest tier cost structure, which is represented by the lowest two vendors in the F4D arrangements. It is likely these agreements were reviewed to leverage their use.

There are many holes in the Pinnacle story. What makes sense is that negotiators used concessions at Pinnacle, just as they used cuts to profit sharing across all employee groups, to bolster pay rates in Contract 2012.

I do believe that if any of us, including those who want the DPA, got a peek behind the curtain there would be a certain "Ah HA!" moment as the light went on and we realized the kind of sausage making that results in a successful contract. There is probably some stuff no one wants to politically acknowledge and some good reasons why the Reps are OK with the negotiators going slightly outside the limits of their authority and our MEC is OK with national not abiding the Constitution, Bylaws and Admin Manual. Big picture view is at the end of the day the result benefitted the Delta pilots.
Carl,

A question of fact remains on your statement. We know that Section 40 of our Admin Manual was not followed by the Pinnacle MEC.

It really does not matter if President Moak called some friend, or random member of the MEC, to tell them what was going on behind the scenes. The operative fact is that the Pinnacle MEC did not follow the protocols which are in Section 40 of the Admin Manual, which was a part of ALPA's voluntary settlement of a Class Action brought by aggrieved express pilots.

We do know that when various MEC members at our airline and other airlines questioned the apparent failure to follow guidance ALPA's Representation Department vigorously worked to quash any formal investigation and hearing which might have led to an Executive Board meeting to take official action on behalf of ALPA's membership.

FWIW, President Moak stated he did advise our MEC. Our MEC is on record stating that he did not. I say it does not matter either way because:

• Even if President Moak did communicate the goings on with Pinnacle, the relevant parts of our Constitution and Admin Manual were sidestepped and ignored. As a result, none of those processes took place. This is justified by stating Pinnacle would have been dissolved by management.
• Once a contract is ratified, there are very few practical, operable solutions.

Thus, I believe the timing of the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement was specifically designed to coincide with the waning days of the prior Delta MEC Administration, Delta's needs for fleet renewal, and of course the Holidays.

The question that matters to most is "was the result good for Delta pilots?" Given what we know of the DPA's positions, the DPA would have approved. The difference is, by leveraging the unwitting Pinnacle pilots (and express pilots across the board), the Delta pilots got more than they ever could have gotten under the DPA's projected scheme.

 

Here's where all this alter ego stuff goes, BTW:

https://www.facebook.com/video/embed...51825060027518

 

Carl,
One of your biggest concerns seems to be the signing of the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement without consulting the DALPA MEC by Moak. Just curious, if we were DPA at the time, what would the DPA have done to stop Moak from doing what he did? After all, as an ALPA carrier, the Pinnacle MEC was well within their rights to sign a deal with their management team and the owner of Pinnacle, Delta Air Lines. Or, is it your position that what he did was OK, given the fact that we would have been two separate unions, but since we were not two different unions, but the same overall one, he shouldn't have done so.

My apologies if this sounds convoluted. It seems clear in my head, but when I write it out, it doesn't sound so polished.

 

Justdoin,

Nothing would have happened under DPA. The DPA is not bound to ALPA's Constitution or Admin Manual.

Conceivably, if we left ALPA the union would use it's resources to screw us at every turn.

Thus, it is better for Delta pilots to use ALPA for our interests.

 

I don't believe that's what I asked for. My question was in response to what you said here:

I don't know any of that to be true. In fact, from what I know personally, this is absolutely not the case.

So again, I'm not asking for a list of people who "detest" each other. I'm asking you to PM me with the name(s) of any "higher ups" at DPA that are current or former "higher ups" at ALPA.

Carl

 

Bar,

Your thesis is an interesting one, but one that is not yet borne out by any facts.

Carl

 

There's nothing anybody could have done to stop Lee from doing what he did. He's got the right to sign any pilot document he wishes on behalf of any pilot group. Once he's done that, he can't be stopped and it then becomes legal and binding on behalf of ALPA pilots. I'm just a line guy, but what I would do if DPA had been elected at that time would be to grieve the section that required Delta to do anything regarding Pinnacle as the current section 1 of the (ALPA negotiated Delta PWA) already describes flow ups and hiring priorities. The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement adds to that group of hirable pilots in a way that does not currently appear in our contract. That would be the basis of the grievance.

The main take away in my view is that this was done at all without discussing it in any way with our MEC. With a DPA that would be impossible because we would have no national officer from a parent union that would have that kind of legal authority. The only people that could ever sign a legal document on behalf of Delta pilots would be DPA officers working on behalf of Delta pilots. For me, that's a very big deal.

My post above answers this as well.

Not at all. I just hope I was reading you right and my response answers your questions.

Carl