Another junk yard lawyer? Please provide the court case to support your argument.

 

How many guys have posted W2s? And how many hours did those guys fly to earn those W2s? If you want to work 50% more so as to earn 50% more, have at it. You can do that under our current PWA.

 

Justdoinmyjob, Carl didn't answer your specific question, so I'll try again. He's already said he doesn't like to read long posts, so I've shortened it, just for him.

CARL - If Delta changed the pilot hiring requirement to be only transgendered individuals, and signed an agreement with LGBT, would that violate our PWA in any way? YES or NO?

 

Pineapple Guy,

The difference is that the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement:
(1) Is executed directly labor with Delta management, just like the Delta pilots' contract.
(2) The contract contains provisions for a fleet commitment from Delta to perform Delta flying.
(3) Delta flying is, per Section 1 of the Delta PWA, flying performed by Delta pilots. Delta pilots permit some of their flying to be outsourced. This permission does not change ownership of that flying.
(4) The Delta PWA was modified by another pilot group without the knowledge or input of the the Delta pilots' Representatives (Sections 1D11 & LOA 2006-14) having to do ith hiring preferences.
(5) The Pinnacle MEC and NC did not comply with a whole host of provisions in the ALPA Administrative Manual, not just the "meet and confer" language, but those provisions having to do with concessionary bargaining and preferential hiring.

I've posted a lot my research here. Even if you do not agree with all these points, any one concern is sufficient for there to be a need for corrective action.

As I recall, you argued vigorously against the RJDC. Do realize that what was authorized and ratified via Pinnacle was actually further than the RJDC dared to ever try to go! Woerth would not authorize express carriers to do deals with mainline management behind the back (or even with) the Delta MEC.

Things changed under Prater and he did authorize a Comair contract with Delta management. So, not the Pinnacle contract is not entirely unique in that way. But, this is unique in it's disregard for the direction of our ALPA BOD. Further, just because Prater did something does not mean anyone else should repeat that mistake.

We should not want express carriers having unfettered access to the bargaining table with mainline management. ALPA has the resources and structure for us to coordinate our bargaining for mutual benefit. We should make good use of those tools.

Instead we see in Pinnacle, and now PSA's, negotiations airlines breaking away to do "survival" deals that undercut our profession.

I think the fix, at least for Delta, is to require notice and participation at our discretion in our Contract's recognition paragraph.

 

PG,

Yours is an irrelevant question.

The issue here is that another organized labor group sat down with Delta management and did a contract for Delta flying.

A more relevant question is; "what if Delta sat down with Republic pilots to fly an order of 50 C Series jets operating under a 86,000lb Certificate of Convenience for long thin international routes, like we use our 737-700's for currently?"

What if your and my first notice of these negotiations were in the newspaper? What if the re-Certification of the C Series was just a logbook entry and a sticker ... oh and removal of that restriction is tied to C2015 negotiations?

----

If your concern is more about hiring, then it would depend if your class of folks were ALPA members displaced from their jobs ... that is how our contract reads.

 

PG,

Ever watch Breaking Bad? The junk yard lawyer was pretty impressive.

I am not sure I follow Mesabah's "blank" section 1 concept. But, he has run this by his labor lawyers. He's quite a successful businessman outside of flying (as a few on this board are).

Certainly inclusive scope is simpler to write, more effective and includes new operations (things that have not been thought of yet). For example: "Delta pilots perform all Delta Company flying." That is how our Section 1 begins.

We reiterate that in our JV language and production balances are predicated on an inclusive model. We permit some of our flying to be outsourced. It remains our flying.

This principle is under duress (and under out right attack by those whose desires are to commit our flying to themselves). That is why I spend my time here trying to convince members (and spend time trying to convince our MEC) that this is an area they need to actively protect.

 

Bar, do the Republic pilots own Republic, because wouldn't the company have to have a contract with Republic to operate Republic aircraft. What good does a Delta contract with Republic pilots do if Delta doesn't have a contract with Republic?

Assuming a contract with Republic, would that be a category A, B, or C operation? Prorate or capacity purchase?

 

The number of guys was relatively small, maybe 10. Self selection bias and all. However, I have asked swa guys the w2 question while jumpseating and gotten the same 300k, 200 k answers.

Two things I know to be facts. They have the ability in 12 to 14 days per month to make that kind of money on a 737 while we don't.

And, our collective bargaining agent will malign their ability to do that at all costs.

 

Bar, explain how the Bridge Agreement modified Section 1D11? How was it modified? Section 1D11

"The Company will fill a minimum of 35% of the aggregate of all positions in Delta pilot new-hire classes in each trailing twelve-month period (to the extent airmen are available) with ALPA-represented airmen at Delta Connection Carriers, subject to such airmen meeting the Company’s competitive hiring standards, and subject to the Company’s objectives for diversity and experience among newly hired pilots. Airmen who flow up pursuant to LOA #9 and LOA #10 count toward satisfaction of such minimum percentage."

 

PG,

Using your sandbox example, even the most ardent ALPA supporter will struggle when explaining how it's a good thing that Pinnacle reached a deal that places a "reserved for us" sign in that part of the sandbox. That makes that part of the sandbox permanent.

Your point is well taken that the sandbox is shrinking, of course.

The DPA would have you believe that national is somehow coercing mainline MEC's to give up flying, and enlarge the sandbox. To support this idea, Carl (as an example) recently said this:

I don't think this description is plausible.

On the other hand, you do have a case here where another group did carve out a piece of the sandbox. Bar has hinted that there might be a reason for this, but I don't know what that is. It doesn't seem like the information is going to forthcoming, maybe for the right reasons.

In that case, I think you've got to accept the legitimate skepticism of the Delta pilots, and fess up that a deal was made, within the sandbox, that we don't like. It shouldn't happen again. OR you explain why the deal was acceptable in other ways. OR you can provide another credible explanation. At a minimum, you have to acknowledge the concerns many of us, ALPA supporters or not, have.