Apples and Oranges. We are discussing a labor agreement. I know where you are going, that some how labor is just another vendor. Thus, it is none of our business who does Delta flying. That argument leads straight to the DPA (or other alternative bargaining Agent).

A more considered view realizes the administration of our union and it's conduct in negotiations is very much our business. Pinnacle's labor agreement is for Delta company flying, which is contracted to the pilots of Delta Air Lines.

ALPA acted in this matter as an Agent for a predatory labor group, which acted in secret, behind the backs of our Reps, cutting a deal with Delta management. We have procedures which should have worked to prevent this representational failure. The results of this predatory bargaining have thrown nearly half of our profession into concessionary bargaining.

If the DPA, or Teamsters, should win a representational vote at Delta, it is the result of this failure of ALPA to properly administer itself and it's business of representing Delta pilots.

Those who believe, as your question suggests; that Delta pilots are simply a vendor, with no special right to perform Delta flying, are more responsible for the loss of Delta pilots from ALPA, much more so than the illogical rantings of any DPA supporter. Because, if you believe it is proper for Delta pilots to be excluded, by their labor representative, from labor agreements the result is a desperate situation which begs for a fix.

I advocate for ALPA because I realize it has the structure to facilitate the coordination of efforts among pilot groups to bargain up.

I advocate against DPA because going alone does not provide us this benefit of working together in unity.

If you are correct and Delta's labor negotiations are none of our business (even when ALPA Brothers are involved) then you advocate the DPA's representational model of exclusion, not the inclusive unifying model ALPA was founded on. What is your choice? How we administer our union is our political choice. What say you?

 

Concerns, yes, but you also have to ask yourself this question; could Delta have made the same agreement with a regional pilot group not represented by ALPA?

Bar was correct in one respect, the solution resides in Section 1, not in an admin manual or C&BLs that aren't binding on the corporation.

 

Look at 1D11 and the language that follows it in 1D12. The Delta pilots followed Admin Manual guidance to establish preferential interviews for ALPA members displaced from work. The Pinnacle pilots took this language and re-ordered it to favor their senior employed Captains. Further, Pinnacle does not honor our LOA 2006-14 with regard to flow protections ... got to run ... I know your lawyer is telling you something different. But three lawyers independent of ALPA's Representation Department's ethical entanglements have looked at this and stated my view is correct.

 

Bar, nothing you wrote addressed my questions.

 

Yes. Absolutely.

That is why I strongly advocate FOR ALPA. To prevent this sort of shenanigans.

But further, some in our MEC want to put language in our Recognition Section ... they're right!

 

Because management can contract with vendors however it wants and my interest is only tangential.

Labor agreements, under our Bargaining Agent within the RLA are a different environment entirely.

I can't build an Apple using parts for a Buick. It is simply two entirely different things.

 

Bar, section 1D11 doesn't have anything to do with displaced pilots. Section 1D12 does, but that language isn't modified since nothing in the Bridge Agreement refers to it at all. Furthermore, 1D12 only offers preferential interviews, not jobs, and in no particular order, nor in any particular quantity.

 

Again, you don't answer the questions I asked.

 

An excellent point, which brings some clarity to the issue. The more participants, the more perspectives, the more likely it is we'll find something that unlocks an endless debate...

To add to that, Delta has made deals with airlines for all of the flying in the "sandbox". The "novelty" here is that it made it with another pilot group.

So this discussion exists on two levels:

1) DPA supporters want to demonstrate that participation in ALPA somehow forces the Delta branch to negotiate against it's own interest to please National. They have a difficult case. So far, only in cases where we don't have a competing interest, i.e. hiring 35% from within ALPA, do we then extend a hand to other groups (not at our expense).

2) Our management decided to deal with another pilot group (not another airline) for a portion of the "sandbox" flying. This is not OK. It's been signed by Moak. Since he's just signing off on one group's agreement that doesn't infringe on another's contract, I don't know what grounds he would have had to refuse it. Which kicks this back to where it always is: between Delta and the Delta branch of ALPA. For reasons that haven't been fully explained, we haven't said a word. On that level, something is weird, and it's distasteful to the Delta pilots.

It suits DPA supporters to paint this issue under (1) above. They say Moak's signature is the smoking gun, but that's because their argument is based on the idea of National dictating terms. I don't see what grounds Moak would have had not to sign this thing.

This thing actually "lives" under (2) above, and I haven't yet heard a good explanation for our lack of reaction to Delta's actions. Doesn't mean there isn't one; I just haven't heard it.

 

Can you re phrase your question in such a way that separates the contract law and labor law issues?