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

Our contract binds holding company structures. So, in a nutshell the question involves Pinnacle pilots performing Delta flying in Delta jets with the permission of our Bargaining Agent.

 

Fair enough. I think we're getting side tracked on different issues.
Quote: Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
PG,

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?"


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?

 

With respect to DALPA, what would be an appropriate outcome or end result now as it pertains to the Pinnacle/Endeavor pilots and satisfy DALPA?

 

I think that's because this issue is less about the admin manual, C&BLs, or union affiliation (political arguments for the most part) and more about the language in our contract and what's allowed and what isn't. IMO, this makes for less theater and is therefore rarely discussed here, as politics tends to drive the debates.

 

If Dickson announced tomorrow that after this round of hiring, and the last of the designated Compass and Mesaba pilots have flowed, that all future new hires would come only from Embry-Riddle, would that violate our contract?

Which independent pilot unions have contracts that require the union to approve the pilot hiring source?

 

That makes sense. This issue is not a contractual violation issue, but mostly a political issue. But politics matter also. It doesn't matter how effective your actions are, if you mishandle the politics. This is an arena in which the current administration has not excelled.

Politically, the DPA has done to this issue what afghans like to do on horseback, to a calf, on soccer fields. They do that on as many issues as they can get to. The pattern seems to be: 1) a decision or issue crops up, 2) a certain captain leaks it on the forum before it is addressed, and before there is even a chance for the MEC to communicate about it, to frame it in a way that suits his political purpose, 3) a line in the sand is drawn, or an impossible standard is set, 4) the MEC plays catch up, from a political perspective, and 5) the DPA writes the e-mail.

Which leads me to conclude this is all a political game, a power struggle between people on, near, previously on, or previously near to, the MEC.

The entire thing should be a matter of vision, and specifics strategies. Hopefully, we'll get back to that. For now, it's a lot about politics. Legitimate political issues, and self-serving issues are intertwined.

I'd focus on the politics of properly addressing Delta pilots political concerns. If Delta talks to other pilot groups, the politics, and our principles, demand some sort of response.

It could be as simple as objecting publicly, for a start. Failing that, I would think a little mea culpa on not responding soon enough might work. Arguing that our contract allows it doesn't quite cut it.

 

I admit to having no ready answer for the speculative question on Republic. I believe (at least hope) ALPA would object to Teamsters doing a pilot labor deal direct with Delta. It is the proper role of the Delta MEC as authorized by the President of ALPA to do such bargaining.

I do not argue whether the Pinnacle Agreement is binding at this time. (others say the changes to Delta's contract are not enforceable) The deal was authorized by ALPA's President and was ratified. The SOL has run. It is a political question but the answer should be framed by our Constitution and Admin Manual. (please do recall who was the first to state this was a political question having to do with the administration of our association, not an appropriate question for ALPA'S Representation Dept. after the decision to ratify was made. )

My question to you is, why are smart politicians defending bad policy which forced half of our profession into concessionary bargaining wile our employers make billions? We are so close to a period which should finally favor pilot labor and their leaders. Why screw up the fundamentals of the game defending outsourcing?

Why encourage ALPA's adversaries?

 

All DPA resolutions require a 25% block threshold regardless of what they are trying to change as long as it's "consistent with the objectives of the association." The blocks as shown on the DPA website currently have 1000 pilots per block in the last example I looked at. I don't know what happens if your resolution isn't consistent with the objectives of the association?

Section 2. Petition Procedures

1. Any Active member or group of members in Good Standing has the right to petition (make a resolution) through the membership.

2. A petition containing signatures of twenty-five (25) percent or more of all Active members in Good Standing in a single Seniority Block shall constitute a valid petition.

3. All petitions other than Recall petitions shall contain:

a) The originator’s name and employee number.

b) The signature, printed name, employee number, and date of signature of each petitioner.

c) The issue of the petition. Issues are to be limited to those, which are consistent with the objectives of the Association.

d) A signature date no earlier than sixty (60) days prior to submission to the Secretary.

 

That's another DPA problem. List an ALPA issue and then list the DPA fix when really the complaint is with DALPA and not ALPA or ALPA and not DALPA depending on the issue. The process to change the constitution at the DPA is much more convoluted especially if driven by a resolution.

If it's policy manual then you'd be looking at simple majority at the LEC level and then 2/3 at the MEC and your done. That's it. We don't have a DPA policy manual to look at so that's moot right now.

I'll go to the DALPA site and look through all the resolutions to see how many have have been ignored and get back to you but to answer you second question it looks like yes.

The recent NYC election spawned at least 2 resolutions from LEC members on changing interim election procedures. They passed by simple majority and went to the MEC where they passed and now it's on it's way to Herndon. I don't understand the executive council/board timeline in Herndon so I don't know when it get's placed on their agenda but it made it through the LEC and MEC pretty quickly.

The 25% of a block threshold just to get any resolution on the table is pretty high and is much higher than today. 125 pilots for 500block and 250 pilots for 1000block and "Issues are to be limited to those, which are consistent with the objectives of the Association."

I don't think there's a limit on resolutions today? If the resolution didn't meet the DPA's "objectives of the association" would it be "received, tabled or flat out ignored if the" DPA "doesn't like where your resolution is aimed." How does the DPA plan on dealing with a constitutional line item that says that only resolutions "which are consistent with the objectives of the Association." if someone brings an item that isn't?

 

So you have to get 250 guys to go along a petition to get it passed, unless "the association" decides not to pass it? It doesn't as though the pilots themselves get to decide what "meets the objectives", and what doesn't.

3 (c) doesn't actually look like a sentence to me. Did you accidentally cut something out when you highlighted it?