Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom

PG,

Carl said it pretty well, and he wasn't "on the property" during Delta's bankruptcy.

BTW, where's the FPL data, what, seven months after the resolution passed?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Sorry for the length of this, but since many of you guys don't get Council 20 (DTW) union stuff, I wanted you to be able to read it. Afterward, I only have one question: Does this sound like a Bottom-Up union, or a Top-Down union?

Carl

November 11, 2011

Council 20 Chairman's Letter

Council 20 Pilots,


Two years ago, I wrote the following words in a letter to you as a candidate for Council 20 Captain representative; “I realize that many of you are disillusioned with your career and are indifferent to your union. You are continually bombarded with calls for unity. Unity requires trust. When the line pilots trust their union representatives, unity of purpose will follow. Trust is earned not required or expected. Trust takes time and occurs in small increments. ALPA through intentional and misdirected actions has failed to create the level of trust expected by our members. A quick fix will not occur, but sustained progress is my goal.”

Since I wrote those words the Delta MEC has made great strides in:


· Passing numerous LOAs outside of Section 6 which provided incremental improvements in the PWA
· After receiving your inputs on scheduling, we implemented the recommendations of the Scheduling Optimization Team (SOT) without a cost to our members
· Electing and then re-electing our Section 6 negotiating team
· Preparing for Section 6 negotiations
· I look forward to the Training Optimization Team (TOT) recommendations and subsequent LOA which will be presented to MEC for consideration at next weeks’ meeting
· Working with the MEC Administration to improve MEC communications

We have however failed to create the transparency in MEC finances and flight pay loss (FPL) at a level that I am accustomed and many of you want. Transparency prevents questions on how member dues are spent or flight pay loss is administered. Let me be clear, FPL at Delta is administered in accordance with DAL MEC policy and I do not question the quality of work of our volunteers or their commitment to improving the “pay, benefits, and working conditions of Delta pilots”. My concern has been whether the DAL MEC Policy is appropriate, congruent with the practices at other MECs, treats all members receiving FPL equally or on the same basis, and does not unduly reward or harm an ALPA volunteer. Without transparency, the trust of our members will not occur. Transparency in finances is one area that we can approve. For those of you who keep yourselves informed through reading our communications, I have been personally pushing for greater transparency in this area, but have been unable to gather the necessary MEC majority support for changing current MEC Policy. I do believe:


· That a FPL review at the MEC level is in order
· This Chairman’s update provides a review of FPL issues and previous LEC/MEC actions
· The submitted Council 20 resolutions provide the MEC an opportunity alter or confirm current FPL policy.

The Landrum Griffin Act created a union workers bill of rights which allows for full financial disclosure of union funds and guaranteed freedom of speech. I believe in the Constitution and By Laws (C&BL) of ALPA. The foundation is sound.

The ALPA Executive Council, (the 4 National Officers plus currently 9 Executive Vice Presidents), have long used the “crew room test” to interpret the Constitution and By Laws; how the issue in question would be viewed by a line pilot in the crew room. Since the merger, I have wrestled with Delta MEC FPL in relation to how it would be perceived by the line pilot, how it is practiced at other MECs, and how these practices comply with ALPA financial guidelines. Again for emphasis-compensation for ALPA volunteers should not unduly reward or harm the volunteer. I did not intend to champion a FPL review, but am now committed to bringing these issues before the MEC for consideration. If the MEC reaffirms the current overall policy after reviewing FPL policy at other MECs and reaffirms the increased financial rewards for designated pilots (DAL PWA Section 24.J) at Delta, then my conscience is clear and my duty as your representative has been followed.


My first encounter with Delta MEC FPL practices occurred during the vote on the combined MEC Policy Manual soon after the merger. The former Delta MEC provided a stipend for MEC Officers, Negotiators, and full time volunteers. The full time volunteers receiving the stipend were selected by the MEC Chairman and retroactively approved by the MEC. The stipend was $1,000 per month for full time volunteers. The stipend for the MEC Chairman was increased in the new Policy Manual to $1,500 per month. At the time, I asked Captain Moak, former MEC Chairman, what was the basis for the stipend as the volunteers already received per diem based on CONUS rates ($54.00 per day in ATL) for expenses. Captain Moak responded, “It is for plumbing and yard mowing so the ALPA volunteer pilot does not have to do that on the weekend” or words to that effect. The former NWA MEC did not utilize stipends. In a FPL Comparison Chart discussed later in this communication, some of the sample MECs which were provided as a comparison to Delta used a stipend and some used per diem to cover personal expenses. The Delta MEC provides both to our full time volunteers.


Another issue, that of paying our volunteers at the position they can hold rather than their awarded position has been raised many times. In particular, I heard from many pilots concerning the pay of the Pilot Director, who represents us on the Delta Board of Directors. ALPA’s Pilot Director is one of several “designated pilots” (positions listed for your review under Section 24.J of the PWA). Our Pilot Director was a SLC 737B pilot, but being paid as a NYC 767A pilot; a position he could hold, but has not bid. He now holds a SEA 767B position and being paid as a NYC 767A pilot. There are certainly other “24. J. designated pilots,” so there is no attempt here to just single out our Director, rather just to use him as an example. The policy of paying “what you can hold” was allowed under the former Delta MEC Policy Manual and continues today. The former NWA Policy Manual had a similar “pay protection” feature, but required the pilot to bid and be awarded the position in order to obtain the additional pay. Other MEC’s do pay volunteers what they can hold, but require the pilot to bid the position. The NWA Policy then allowed for a delay of the awarded training until their ALPA duties allowed or following ALPA service. The impact of the difference in Policy is this: under our current MEC Policy the volunteer is bidding at a senior first officer position which allows for good schedules and choice of vacations and is paid as a junior/reserve captain position. In the NWA example this same pilot, currently bidding as a first officer, would instead be bidding as an awarded, likely junior, captain. The difference in pay is substantial as I will later show with Greg and myself as the examples.


A third issue was how budgets were approved. At the October 2010 MEC meeting the MEC unanimously approved resolutions AI 10-151 and AI 10-152 amending the Delta MEC Policy Manual regarding MEC committee and project budgets and annual MEC budget approval. These compromise resolutions followed my request to the Executive Council to rule whether if “accepting” a report that included the annual budget was equivalent to “approval” of the budget, as required under ALPA policy. Captain Kingsley Roberts, DAL MEC Treasurer, briefed the Executive Council that the Delta MEC was conducting a review of FPL policies. This was news to me, but I welcomed the review. Ultimately, the Delta MEC practice was changed so that the MEC actually votes on the annual budget. I also requested a definition of “full time volunteer” through the former Delta EVP, Captain Ray Miller. In a subsequent Executive Council meeting the Executive Council left the definition of a full time volunteer to the MECs.


Council 20 pilots then approved a resolution, submitted by Greg Rizzuto, requiring the monthly publication of FPL for ALPA volunteers. Continental Airlines and the former NWA provided this data on a monthly basis. At Delta, line pilots can check a volunteer’s line to see what he or she is being paid on a monthly basis. After numerous discussions with an ALPA International attorney, he noted the he would recommend publishing all FPL. The resolution was withdrawn by me at Greg’s request after strong MEC opposition was expressed. Members of the MEC agreed that we would review FPL policies in the future.


A Council 20 pilot then submitted a “local resolution” (not requiring MEC approval) requiring your LEC Officers “to personally conduct a detailed and thorough review of the DAL MEC budgets from 2010 to present. This exam will include, but is not limited to:


1. MEC meeting expenses for 2010
2. All FPL expenditures paid via any MEC accounts and any funds paid via Section 24.J of the PWA; their amounts; to whom paid; by also authorized and a description of the services rendered for such compensation.
3. The exam will also include a clarification of all who are currently on 24.J of the PWA.”

We were unable to provide item #2 as the FPL data was not collated in a manner in which we could determine the net pay received by an ALPA volunteer. I did receive, at the ATL MEC office, a half an inch thick computer printout of individual volunteer trip drops. This FPL data included credits and debits for each volunteer. I found this data unwieldy and I was unable to reduce it to the basic information required by the DTW resolution. Though a line pilot can request to view MEC or ALPA International finances in Atlanta or Herndon in accordance with ALPA policy and the Landrum Griffin Act, I was unable to provide even this basic information. Since this time, Captain Randy Helling (DTW), ALPA Vice President of Finance, has instituted a FPL accounting change to improve the clarity and transparency of FPL reports. The report separately lists net pay to the ALPA volunteer, benefits, green slip charges, etc. However, there still is not a plan to publish this FPL information.The policy regarding FPL disclosure has not changed. Sec. 60.M.2.a.(4)(d) requires that ALPA paid FPL must be made available to the MEC and the membership, but how it is made available is at the sole discretion of the MEC. Any decision to publish the enhanced report, including company paid FPL, continues to reside with the MEC.


At the February 2011 MEC meeting, the Compensation Review Committee (CRC), which was created to review FPL procedures, reported their findings. The CRC determined that the Delta MEC FPL policies were within ALPA guidelines. They did not present to the MEC, FPL policies at other ALPA MECs. I brought up this deficiency in their report and the MEC requested a comparison report.


At the June 2011 MEC meeting, the CRC presented a comparison chart of MEC FPL. At the time, I did not report to you the debate that ensued concerning whether the chart would be presented in open or closed session. I cannot report to you issues discussed in closed session. I do believe however, that not improving transparency is representative of a pattern of conduct in regards to FPL that I believe is wrong. There is a concentrated effort by some to keep this information from becoming available to our members. The data for the FPL chart was supplied by Captain Helling, ALPA VP – Finance / Treasurer. It was stated that the chart could not be presented in open session as the chart contained the names of the individual MECs that were compared against the Delta MEC. It was further stated that “presenting the chart in open session could result in unneeded questions from the pilots in the other MECs and that when gathering the information it was believed that there was an “implied commitment” not to disclose this information in open session” or words to that effect. Since FPL polices are found in the individual MEC policy manuals and policy manuals are documents available to the membership, therefore publically combining individual MEC FPL policies would not break ALPA or company confidentiality agreements. As a compromise, I suggested, and the MEC Administration agreed, to remove the names of the MECs and replace them with letters. The FPL comparison chart was then presented in open session. The CRC again noted that the Delta MEC FPL procedures were within ALPA guidelines and “legal”. Legal should not be the sole determinate of right and wrong. The chairman of the CRC spoke for the committee. I asked if there were any dissenting views. The Chairman refused to respond. ALPA guidelines provide numerous methods to compensate volunteers. I commented that our “FPL policies are similar to taking one item from each category of a desert bar”.


I contacted Captain Helling to obtain a copy of the FPL Comparison Chart. He informed me that he no longer had the chart, an Excel spreadsheet. I then contacted the Delta MEC Chairman by email and he informed me that he had directed everyone to delete the chart from their computers. Fortunately, we took good notes and reproduced the chart to the best of our recollection. This chart and accompanying power point were presented in open session at the recent Council 20 meeting. The power point presentation can be viewed at here. The takeaways of the presentation, including resolutions passed at the October LEC20 meeting, are:


· ALPA Administrative Manual 60.M: Allows for FPL “up to the maximum that could have been earned by the member pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement if engaged in line flying”. There is not a maximum hour limit at Delta Air Lines.
· Other MECs provide per diem or a stipend/extra per diem for their volunteers, but not both forms of compensation as we do.
· Other MECs require the volunteer to be awarded a higher position to receive the pay of that position.
· Full time DAL ALPA volunteers can trade up their schedules to 100 hours and not fly, although this 100 hour upper limit is not written in the Delta Policy Manual. See the section below discussing the Council 20 resolution that will be considered at the upcoming MEC meeting seeking to define this upper limit.
· Council 20 resolution #7 removes the stipend, requires a minimum number of days of ALPA duty to be considered full time, guarantee pay at 87 hours + 5 hour override for full time FPL, requires the volunteer to actually bid and be awarded a position to receive the pay, preplanned ALPA duty is blocked on a volunteer’s schedule at 5:15 credit per day (or whatever the future DPA may be worth) vice dropping rotations, all full time volunteers would receive the same pay as designated pilots, and the volunteer can pick up additional rotations above and beyond the guarantee for additional pay.
· If I was elected to a designated pilot position (LEC reps are NOT full time designated pilots and do NOT fulfill their LEC Officer or representative duties on full time FPL) , I would make a minimum of $37,000+ in pay over an average line pilot who was paid 87 hours per month.
· If Greg was elected to a designated pilot position, he would make a minimum of $57,000+ in pay over an average line pilot who was paid 87 hours per month as he can hold a junior captain position.
· This additional pay does not include higher profit sharing and defined contributions as a result of the increased pay.
· Resolution #5 is a backup to resolution #7 and seeks to define a “full time ALPA volunteer” to determine who receives the stipend. The Executive Council passed when offered the opportunity to define full time FPL.
· Resolution #6 is also a backup to resolution #7 and defines the maximum number of hours an ALPA FPL volunteer may receive at 100 hours vice the current “technique” of the current MEC Chairman. Note that with the current technique / guidelines the maximum is already set at 100 hrs.
· The three resolutions were written in general terms to focus on a debate of the issues and not specific wording. I did not wish to spend dues dollars on outside counsel to compose specific Policy Manual changes. This is not a debate over whether the former NWA or DAL FPL system is better.This is certainly not an effort to improve the pay and benefits of LEC Representatives and Officers, as some have implied, to distract and distort the debate. That accusation is intellectually dishonest and those pursuing that line of criticism know it. This is a tweaking of the current policy which references peer MEC policies, increases the guarantee for full time volunteers, directly correlates FPL to ALPA days worked, and ends seniority concerns with ALPA volunteers bidding rotations and then dropping them for ALPA duty.




















In September, Drew submitted and Council 20 and the MEC unanimously approved a resolution requiring the listing on the MEC website of all ALPA volunteers. This allows you to know who is receiving FPL and to check their schedules.


What is not in question is whether designated pilots (MEC Officers, Negotiators, Pilot Director, and certain committee members) and full time ALPA volunteers work long hours and are continually on call. The question should be what is a reasonable level of compensation based upon on average line pilot pay and the compensation at our peer MECs. I am not shocked, but I am disappointed with the vigorous opposition to resolution #7, blatantly false statements posted on the forum, and the strong objection to posting FPL for membership viewing. Unfortunately, character attack is preferred by some over debate. I was warned by a long term DAL ALPA volunteer during a recent Council 20 meeting that “Council 20 would be considered a pariah if we continued with FPL resolutions” (implying that the influence of Council 20 would be reduced on the MEC). I do not believe we have to pay the current level of compensation to “get the smartest volunteers” or that ALPA volunteers “should be compensated like chief pilots”. I also believe that you should know why “I” submitted these resolutions on your behalf vice informing you of the MECs decision following the meeting. This is not only a philosophical discussion, but one of ethics.


I continually hear that the pilots do not care about volunteer FPL and that the MEC should be focused on “improving the pay, benefits, and working conditions” of our members. The two issues are not exclusive. DAL pilots’ greatest strength in the upcoming Section 6 negotiations is our combined will to gain improvements worthy of the responsibility and training required of our profession. That combined will requires trust and as I noted earlier, trust is earned.


For those pilots that are supporting an alternate union and will try to twist my words; debate, disagreement, and the democratic process are the strengths of ALPA, and the right of every ALPA member. It may not always be pretty, but these policies have served this union well for eighty years. The ALPA C&BL and the DAL Policy Manual are living documents that allow for revision and change to better serve the needs of our members.


It has been a long process reaching the point on FPL where the MEC will have to either confirm or alter current FPL policy. No one should question my or this counsel’s commitment to championing your wishes in the upcoming Section 6 negotiations. This will not be a short term endeavor and our resolve will not waiver in representing your interests in the same manner as has been done with FPL.


Your comments and input are always welcome and considered.


Fraternally,

Tom

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

That was an interesting letter to read.

I think it's a good point about FPL transparency and the need for unity going into section 6.

I bet the underlying thought by many members is the reason FPL is not being published is because some are making a lot of money.
Now that's just one thought.

FPL could absolutely be in line with other MECs. It could be very fair. The push back from publishing it could be nothing more than a preacher not wanting his salary published in the bulletin because the members might scoff at it but really it's reasonable and fair. But it'd be a headache to deal with.

But really imho the push back from publishing it and the fact it has not been published in a clear simple format makes it look like a coverup. Coverups can be worse than the crime therein ruining "unity" going into section 6 when its unnecessary to do so if the FPL is normal and the average of other MECs.
All tin foil hat stuff.

In the meantime DPA is up 3901, which to me it's a vote of no confidence for many of those folks and a revolution for the rest. So how long can this FPL issue simmer especially with letters from LECs like this one?

And Council 20 a pariah? If that becomes the case would council 20 be voted out or continue with strong support and what does that say about unity if council 20 continues to garner strong support even from those outside of 20?

Originally Posted by Flamer

I had no idea there was that much extra pay going on, and the cover up is right OUT! These people are holding the door open to the DPA. The weak opener will be the final straw.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

I believe that a weak opener would indeed be the final straw. One problem, though. Do you think we'll see the opener?

Originally Posted by Flamer

I had no idea there was that much extra pay going on, and the cover up is right OUT! These people are holding the door open to the DPA. The weak opener will be the final straw.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I say a resolution... council 20... that if the survey and openers are not made public prior to the TA then once the TA is put before the pilots then the pilots get to see them.