Delta Representation Discussion
09-10-2013 | 05:08 PM
#371
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Yes, but when the problem is as basic as another pilot group walking in and doing a deal with your management?
I mean, the Delta MEC should have been outraged they were kept in the dark, marginalized, then left to read about it in the papers.
Should it really take a line pilot to point out the fact that something is wrong with what occurred?
Perhaps apathy is preferred to the alternative
I mean, the Delta MEC should have been outraged they were kept in the dark, marginalized, then left to read about it in the papers.
Should it really take a line pilot to point out the fact that something is wrong with what occurred?
Perhaps apathy is preferred to the alternative
Carl
09-10-2013 | 05:19 PM
#372
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl, Having lived in the DFW area for many years and having many SW friends I actually agree in principle to what you just wrote. However: you fail to mention they are more productive than DL, part of that being one type of jet, point to point business plan vs hub and spoke but the main one is their ability to pick up to max FAR's and most of them do it so they get by with 10% on reserve. OBTW their reserves work most of their on call days. I'm sure DL mgmt would gladly pay us more if DALPA would agree to unlimited open time pick up but I don't think the majority of DL pilots junior to us would care for it.
I guess what I'm saying is SWAPA has some good things and some not so good things. Remember what they do have they got through constructive engagement.
I guess what I'm saying is SWAPA has some good things and some not so good things. Remember what they do have they got through constructive engagement.
Carl
09-10-2013 | 05:23 PM
#373
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Crew Van News
The elves were busy last night. The DPA Constitution has been up in it's final form since at least April and after a few days of questions it's been change to a hella' convoluted mess.
New version
If the DPA would have so much extra money why does the dues rate for Section 6 and Mergers need to go up automatically every time we have one? It doesn't do that today. If we sign another early contract for 3 years dues are going to 1.5% every 2 years or less or in the case of a merger until the integration is complete. Look how long CAL/UAL and APA/USAPA are taking. How does anyone know that a .25% reduction per year for 3 fiscal years is the right reduction percent?
My same concern is that dues or assessments can't go up automatically without a vote today under ALPA.
3. The dues rate shall be 1.75% upon initial certification by the National Mediation Board. On January 1st of the second full fiscal year following initial certification, the dues rate shall drop annually by 0.25% every year until reaching a minimum dues rate of 1%. Special Circumstance Exception: Six (6) months prior to the amendable date of the Pilot Working Agreement, or upon early opening of negotiations if greater than six (6) months prior to the amendable date, or upon notification of a possible bankruptcy or merger initiated by the Company, the dues rate will temporarily increase by 0.5%, not to exceed 1.5% in total dues rate, until the new contract is ratified, or bankruptcy proceedings or merger integration is complete. Upon completion, all expenses for the Special Circumstance will be fully accounted for and any remaining funds and any accrued interest from the 0.5% temporary increase will be refunded to the membership on a pro rata basis. Exception: During the initial three year transition, while the base dues rate is above 1% for the buildup of union finances, refunds are not mandatory, but may be given at the discretion of the Executive Board.
- Year 1 1.75%
- Year 2 but only if second full fiscal year 1.5% otherwise still 1.75% until 2nd fiscal year has happened
- Exception contradicts this by saying it will go up .5% without a vote not to exceed 1.5% leaving no explanation for what happens if the dues are in Year 1 or Year 2 status where they are already at or above 1.5% would they then be capped at 1.5%?
If the DPA would have so much extra money why does the dues rate for Section 6 and Mergers need to go up automatically every time we have one? It doesn't do that today. If we sign another early contract for 3 years dues are going to 1.5% every 2 years or less or in the case of a merger until the integration is complete. Look how long CAL/UAL and APA/USAPA are taking. How does anyone know that a .25% reduction per year for 3 fiscal years is the right reduction percent?
My same concern is that dues or assessments can't go up automatically without a vote today under ALPA.
09-10-2013 | 05:25 PM
#374
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
09-10-2013 | 05:41 PM
#375
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
The elves were busy last night. The DPA Constitution has been up in it's final form since at least April and after a few days of questions it's been change to a hella' convoluted mess.
New version
If the DPA would have so much extra money why does the dues rate for Section 6 and Mergers need to go up automatically every time we have one? It doesn't do that today. If we sign another early contract for 3 years dues are going to 1.5% every 2 years or less or in the case of a merger until the integration is complete. Look how long CAL/UAL and APA/USAPA are taking. How does anyone know that a .25% reduction per year for 3 fiscal years is the right reduction percent?
New version
- Year 1 1.75%
- Year 2 but only if second full fiscal year 1.5% otherwise still 1.75% until 2nd fiscal year has happened
- Exception contradicts this by saying it will go up .5% without a vote not to exceed 1.5% leaving no explanation for what happens if the dues are in Year 1 or Year 2 status where they are already at or above 1.5% would they then be capped at 1.5%?
If the DPA would have so much extra money why does the dues rate for Section 6 and Mergers need to go up automatically every time we have one? It doesn't do that today. If we sign another early contract for 3 years dues are going to 1.5% every 2 years or less or in the case of a merger until the integration is complete. Look how long CAL/UAL and APA/USAPA are taking. How does anyone know that a .25% reduction per year for 3 fiscal years is the right reduction percent?
Carl
09-10-2013 | 05:44 PM
#376
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Mr. Moak's signature would not have been legally required if the agreement did not modify the Delta contract. If the Pinnacle agreement did not modify the Delta contract and was really only between the Pinnacle MEC and Delta management, the only required signatures would have been those from the Pinnacle MEC and Delta management. If the agreement does modify the Delta contract, then the Delta MEC's signature must also appear...unless the ALPA president decides to sign it on behalf of Delta pilots. The ALPA president chose to do just that.
Carl
Carl
So you're telling us that Pinnacle pilots, members of ALPA, ratify a new contract and it doesn't need to be signed by Lee Moak? You do realize that's incorrect?
09-10-2013 | 05:51 PM
#377
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
ALPA News Release
09-10-2013 | 05:52 PM
#378
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
09-10-2013 | 06:14 PM
#379
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Carl,
Effectively it is operable as a PWA.
Interestingly the Comair "commitment letter" example was also signed by ALPA's President. I had never made the distinction that it was unusual for a President to sign a LOA. But you might be on to something here. This resonates with a report from an attorney (which I did not completely understand and I am not sure it matters).
This attorney states the President's signature is there because ALPA is serving as the vendor for alter-ego outsourcing using Pinnacle pilots. He also believes the contract is unenforceable due to a number of flaws, some of which include the non participation of the Delta pilots in the modifications to our pre existing PWA (he refers to us as the "fifth party.")
I'm not going to report his whole analysis of the mess since I am not even sure I completely grasp the concept and can't defend his position.
I don't have to understand how a fish decomposes to know this whole deal smells like low tide.
Effectively it is operable as a PWA.
Interestingly the Comair "commitment letter" example was also signed by ALPA's President. I had never made the distinction that it was unusual for a President to sign a LOA. But you might be on to something here. This resonates with a report from an attorney (which I did not completely understand and I am not sure it matters).
This attorney states the President's signature is there because ALPA is serving as the vendor for alter-ego outsourcing using Pinnacle pilots. He also believes the contract is unenforceable due to a number of flaws, some of which include the non participation of the Delta pilots in the modifications to our pre existing PWA (he refers to us as the "fifth party.")
I'm not going to report his whole analysis of the mess since I am not even sure I completely grasp the concept and can't defend his position.
I don't have to understand how a fish decomposes to know this whole deal smells like low tide.
09-10-2013 | 06:28 PM
#380
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl,
Effectively it is operable as a PWA.
Interestingly the Comair "commitment letter" example was also signed by ALPA's President. I had never made the distinction that it was unusual for a President to sign a LOA. But you might be on to something here. This keys into a report from an attorney which I did not completely understand (and I am not sure it matters since everyone seems pleased as punch to abide with it).
This attorney states the President's signature is there because ALPA is serving as the vendor for alter-ego outsourcing using Pinnacle pilots.
I'm not going to report his whole analysis of the mess since I am not even sure I completely grasp the concept and can't defend his position.
As another historical reference, when ASA had it's SLOA which provided concurrent seniority for Delta pilots at ASA and Delta, that agreement was done locally, with the agreement and authorization of national. I don't think that side letter went up to Herndon for a signature.
Effectively it is operable as a PWA.
Interestingly the Comair "commitment letter" example was also signed by ALPA's President. I had never made the distinction that it was unusual for a President to sign a LOA. But you might be on to something here. This keys into a report from an attorney which I did not completely understand (and I am not sure it matters since everyone seems pleased as punch to abide with it).
This attorney states the President's signature is there because ALPA is serving as the vendor for alter-ego outsourcing using Pinnacle pilots.
I'm not going to report his whole analysis of the mess since I am not even sure I completely grasp the concept and can't defend his position.
As another historical reference, when ASA had it's SLOA which provided concurrent seniority for Delta pilots at ASA and Delta, that agreement was done locally, with the agreement and authorization of national. I don't think that side letter went up to Herndon for a signature.
The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement is not their PWA. It is a separate part of the contract like any LOA or MOU...but are legally binding additions to the PWA.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
