Delta Council 54 Vice Chairman’s Perspective


The term “empty suit” is used to identify the ineffective manager, that person who is there to spout the “company line”, check the box, and not really listen. They take the “by-the-book" position that offers no flexibility to any constructive argument made. Even common sense is lost on these folks a majority of the time. Today’s empty suit is now best called a “robot." Following lines of code written by a creator, there is little or no flexibility in solving any real problems with a collaborative solution—just follow the checklist as written.


Your representative is still connected to you and is supposed to advocate for you in reaching a consensus position at the MEC level. This is supposed to be a democratic process, where it takes 10 votes senatorially or 50 percent plus one for a roll call vote to establish a majority position on the Delta MEC. However, if you find yourself alone in voicing the legitimate concerns of the pilot group to a disinterested majority, then no matter how compelling and reasonable your argument, your effort to represent the pilot group remains futile.


There are many times when you know you do not have the votes on an issue, so you seek to compromise. You try and make the arguments and move others toward your position and accept a majority position in order to achieve a partial victory on behalf of your constituents. Representatives make compromises, rather than demanding all or nothing, in order to achieve as much as possible within the democratic process. It’s not perfect, but that is how it’s supposed to work. National politics have morphed into the “win at all costs mentality. Politicians do not care about the collateral damage to constituents, and many of us have complained that government seems to be stagnant and cannot get anything done. Both nationally and on the MEC, one has to factor in human nature. What seems to be lost on the deaf majority is the benefit of constructive dialog, engagement, and decision making, rather than ignoring an opposing viewpoint that has the potential to provide a consensus solution.


Rarely is the consensus solution exactly what your constituents wanted, but the question to ask is if it achieved the most of what was asked for. If instead one misses the mark entirely, the result is a great deal of rationalizing and possibly recall or losing the next election. Elected representatives who only consider the administration’s position are not doing all that they can to achieve group goals. Advocating on behalf of others who trust you to do the right thing for them is naturally going to result in ruffling some feathers or even ****ing some people off; however, just like using CRM in the cockpit, you debrief after the flight or debate and realize it’s not personal. Every leg is a new flight and so should every MEC meeting start anew, the slate having been wiped clean after the debate and battle for positions and votes. Good CRM is not just for the flight deck, but should translate to the political arena as well.

This MEC meeting was the first after the split vote on the TA. There was a simmering anger from some members of the MEC, MEC committee personnel, and MEC administration over my vote of no, and the fact I wrote and expressed my view to this council.

Not wanting to become that empty suit or robot by just getting along, I decided to leave the CVG meeting after day two and headed back to SEA. Ron Morrell had my proxy for the remainder of the meeting. Fixing problems, finding creative solutions, and a willingness to listen to everyone is needed more than ever at every level of governance. With all of the challenges that we have to face as a group, every voice is important, even if it’s in the minority and of a different opinion. Does just the majority always have the best ideas? What happens when those who have been ignored stop participating and giving their thoughts and ideas? The membership loses the benefit of consensus decisions, which have a unifying effect on the pilot group as a whole.


Since returning home, I have been evaluating how I can best serve the pilots in SEA and what is in the best interests of my family. I have enjoyed representing this council and expressing my thoughts and ideas. Being snubbed for opinions and the votes cast, however, is not the best use of my time. Our time is valuable, and as we age it is more valuable than ever. What is truly in the best interest of the SEA council? In the coming weeks I will consider what will be the best course to follow for me, my family, and the Delta pilots.

".......The primary reasons that I want to get involved again now at the MEC / LEC level are my concerns about the way that Delta-ALPA operates and that’s primarily what I’m going to discuss in this letter.* I believe these issues need to be addressed, especially before we engage in any further significant negotiations with management, and before any of these issues affect the Association in general.*
*
Delta-ALPA (DALPA)
This is my primary concern and what I believe to be the largest challenge relative to Delta pilot representation. I believe that this is where some of the most significant “cultural” differences exist that affect the pilot group.* These differences are not necessarily pre-merger group specific either; they are a function of the existing MEC Leadership structure (referring to the MEC Officers and Administration, not elected LEC reps).*
*
“Leadership” or “Representation”?* The ALPA representational structure currently in place has the membership electing the LEC reps, who in turn, as MEC members elect the MEC Officers.* This is the point where the cultural and philosophical differences emerge, with the conflict centered on the flow of the direction and initiative. In simplistic terms, the existing philosophy is that the elections are where the primary democratic / representational duties end; from here the belief appears to be that DALPA should operate similar to a corporate or military structure where the elected MEC Officers develop initiatives (“lead”) with a strong expectation that the direction will be followed and endorsed by the MEC members / LEC reps and that those reps will subsequently “lead” the membership to make the “correct” decision.* Failure to comply with this philosophy usually results in being labeled as “not a team player”, “shooting inside the circle”, or “clearly a supporter of ‘alternative representation’”.*

Certainly there are efforts to ask the membership and the reps for “input” and “direction”, but ultimately when that input is marginalized while obtaining the final result, it is usually done so with a justification something like “we have more information than you do”, or “we know what’s best and decided to ‘lead’”.

I believe that the structure should operate more like it was designed to operate, with the membership providing direction and input to the reps, the reps giving direction to the MEC Leadership (“representation”), and the Leadership developing initiatives and taking action as directed.* When unable to meet the direction, the Leadership should return to the MEC for re-direction (and similarly the reps to the membership when necessary).* This is, of course, is how the current system is advertised, and does work with small issues (providing specific direction is given), but not the way it works in actuality with larger, more significant issues.

*I believe that it is a rep’s job to “lead” at the MEC level by taking the initiative in concert with the other reps / members of the MEC in an effort to “represent” the interests and direction of the membership. The obvious example about where the current system may not have best served the membership was with the recent contract TA.* Despite all of the justifications that I’ve heard, it is still unconscionable to me that the MEC Leadership / Negotiating Committee agreed to a Tentative Agreement (TA) with management, which neither met the MEC’s nor the membership’s parameters, the day before a regularly scheduled MEC meeting where the MEC could have been updated and had the opportunity to re-direct the Negotiating Committee / MEC Leadership prior to them actually reaching the TA.
*
“Best Practices”.* All of us are acutely aware of the numerous changes in Flight Ops policies and procedures since the merger.* While in some cases the volume and frequency of changes have been frustrating and confusing, I believe that we can say that the net result is the current operation is better than the individual pre-merger operations, especially when considering the additional size, fleet, and route structure of Delta’s operation.* While there’s still work to do, Flight Ops has come a long way toward instituting “best practices” and the operation has benefitted from those decisions.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that DALPA has been able to claim those same successes in adopting “best practices” in how the membership is represented.* There have been some policy exceptions, like the long painful effort (led by the current C20 reps) to codify, rationalize, and consistently apply the way Flight Pay Loss (FPL – union leave) is handled, but there is still a long way to go in several areas.*

There also still seems to be significant reluctance to admit when something could’ve been done better, apparently focusing on concerns about the negative effect that would have on organizational “image”.
*
Command & Control.* DALPA Leadership enforces a strict “Command & Control” structure which in many cases restricts necessary actions, communications, and information.* While a top-down, tightly controlled structure may be more efficient in many areas, it does not lend itself well toward the open and inclusive democracy that the success of our union depends upon.
*
Committee Structure.* The current system has the MEC Chairman (CH) appointing all of the MEC committee chairmen, subject to MEC ratification, rather than MEC election of the committee chairmen.* The net effect is that the committees all technically work for the MEC CH, rather than for the MEC (who are the direct representatives of the membership).* As such, the MEC CH is directly responsible to the MEC for all of the committees’ duties and actions.* The MEC CH delegates this committee oversight to specifically one of two appointed Executive Administrators (EAs).* This EA has effectively become a “Super Committee Chairman” for all of the MEC committees, with most information flow in and out of committees routed though him.* This restricts, delays, and limits communication between the committee members, the reps, and the membership.*
*
“If you agree with me you’re brilliant; if you disagree with me, you’re an idiot”…. or worse.
An old problem not unique to DALPA, ALPA, or to probably any organization.* DALPA is still a difficult place to have a different opinion or believe in a different solution.* If you do, you will likely be ostracized, attempted to be personally discredited (definitely not unique to DALPA) in an effort to minimize your differing opinion on substance, or accused of “being in favor of alternative representation” and that your point of view should be disregarded.* This has the effect of squelching any different, potentially preferable solutions.
*
If you don’t want a negative response….* I certainly think that it’s preferable to avoid an action or policy that may create a negative response rather than taking that action anyway and saying that no one should write or talk about it because that may help the case of those who dislike or oppose the union. If something that’s going to be negatively received must be done, be prepared to discuss it openly.* Unfortunately I believe that the threat of alternative representation is an overused tactic to attempt to silence those who disagree.
*
“We’ve got ‘people’”.* DALPA benefits from a somewhat unique section in the PWA; section 24.J.* It provides for the FPL of several “designated” pilots on full-time union leave (MEC Officers, Negotiators, EAs, etc.), as well as voting members of the MEC (LEC “status” reps – Capt. and FO) when attending MEC meetings, to be paid directly by the Company rather than out of the MEC budget (which comes from pilot dues $).* This equates to several million $ annually in additional financial resources outside of the MEC budget.* This is generally good news for the membership; it allows for significant resources to be readily available in times of need as well as for a significant budget surplus in low demand times which allows for dues refunds like the one we’ll be receiving soon.

The down side is that these extra financial resources also allow for the operation of a relatively (even compared to other large MECs) large entrenched bureaucracy at the MEC Leadership level that is deemed necessary “to run the MEC”.* This is one of the factors which greatly assists the MEC Leadership to press or lobby for their initiatives, solutions, ideas, agreements, etc.* This doesn’t mean that the MEC Leadership isn’t pushing for what they honestly believe what is best.* However, when combined with the organizational culture, the command & control, and the concern of being “shunned” for non-compliance, all mentioned in the sections above, the MEC Leadership has an overwhelming advantage when trying to implement their view of the world.* This is still true even if that view initially differs from the consensus of the LEC reps / MEC members, who certainly mean well and are doing their best to represent their membership’s interests, but who simply don’t have the resources, and in many cases, the organizational experience and history, to confidently resist direction from the MEC Leadership......"