shiznit

Well said.

Bucking Bar

Perhaps well said, but not correct.

This gets into a game of who said what. During the PID Bob Arnold (the ASA MEC Chair) briefed in both Dallas and Atlanta what status quo was. By paycheck or equipment we were talking staple. The huge advantage if it happened was a job at Delta and avoiding whipsaw and outsourcing. As for pilots going to Delta, I made no secret of my hopes for a Delta job and never heard anything like what you state.

The ASA and Comair guys were following a process like a sequential checklist. ALPA policy is that a PID for a merger must happen before each side takes positions on SLI. Therefore there was no position on SLI. They had not gotten to step 1, so why jump to step 4 or 5? Especially knowing that failure to adhere to policy would have both given ALPA National the excuse they needed to deny the PID, as well as incite a riot on the Delta property.

I promoted the idea of publishing "we'd be grateful for a staple." The reason my request was shunted was that we had no PID yet and (to reiterate the above) we were following a process. To start the SLI talk was inappropriate before the PID was granted.

The Q&A you reference does not exist. Like the stories about MEC positions on SLI. They never got that far. One of the other Delta pilots said he heard Bob Arnold take a SLI position in a meeting with Delta. I wasn't there and did not hear that. His report sounded credible, but it sounded like MEC Chair bluster which everyone had plenty of back then.

As for the RJDC, they were separate from the Bob Arnold MEC. But they held similar views on whipsaw, outsourcing and the likely staple. Later, Dan Ford and the Comair MEC Chairman had wildly different views and frankly, Dan Ford thought the Comair MEC Chair was an idiot.

As you know the ASA MEC split from him also. While Comair's MEC was hoping to leverage Delta furloughees, ASA welcomed them and were very happy to have the excellent guys that came over. The Comair MEC also printed up stickers avowing their support for the ASA pilots in our Section 6 while simultaneously trying to cut a concessionary deal with Delta to take ASA's jets.

That does not account for crew room blow hards (every airline has them) or Chief pilots. When ASA was acquired it was looking at 737's and Comair was in the process of a DC-9 acquisition. The management types were aware and talked a lot about it. But, they were not ALPA Reps and mostly not even ALPA members. To be fair, I think you have to take the official statements from the official reps and not let crew room rumors speak for the group.

Current negotiations (which have not begun yet) are another topic entirely, but the Delta MEC is encouraged to restore scope. Thus far there has been no effort at scope restoration which would allow us to see our Bylaws in action.

gloopy

It was 100% correct. Heard it from DF himself, three times in personal conversations in the terminal and on the jumpseat, and saw it in writing in a handout given away to hundreds at a PID meeting in October 2000. Maybe BA didn't agree with that but they were pretty much joined at the hip WRT the issue at the time so I doubt they differed radically. DF realized a staple was absolutely possible, but in his jailhouse lawyer opinion (and he's quite the little studybug in that regard and highly rhetorical to say the least) significantly more was significantly likely.

He may have been on to something too with his little "gotcha" technicality seniority grab attempt because ALPA was scrambling avoid the possibility. We all know that once it gets into the hands of an arbitrator, they can go buck wild and anything is possible. Why would they be so worried about something with zero risk? They even made an asinine change of definitions of "operational integration" to something so absurd that no one on either side could believe it, but they did it to avoid the chance, whatever the odds were, that it would ever be in a position of even theoretically granting more than a staple. As absurd as the maneuver was, it had to be done to prevent the risk of something the other side refused to agree to up front.

Then they could have come up with a public statement along the lines of "while we fully respect the process, we are perfectly fine with a staple and would have no problem agreeing to that up front if necessary". But instead they "went for it" by trying to take the runway, reach V1 and then talk about how, after it was too late to back out.

As for the "status quo" likely leading to a staple that was used as an innocent excuse, how many mergers at that time went by pay scale? And by W-2 or pay tables, there were junior DL pilots that would have lost seniority. Not most, but some.

I really doubt the PID guys were too concerned with jeopardizing their chances at the PID because they were willing to give up too much at the front end. Also, from the Q&A "what if ALPA says no" answer: "ALPA can't say no". They really thought this was a slam dunk and were absolutely giddy about the potential seniority grab. The ones at the top were smart enough to speak like a well oiled politician trying to avoid taking a position but they could easily be coaxed into revealing their true intentions both verbally and in writing.

Only if you're trying to preserve your leverage is that a tactically sound methodology. Do you think the USAir pilots would have scuttled the merger with America West if the AmWest pilots said up front, before the "process" unfolded, that they would agree to a staple? It would have been inked the same day outside of arbitration.

Saw a PID handout memo from their official powerpoint with my own eyes, in writing, and heard the same from DF personally. Didn't think to ask if I could keep it and then save it for 12 years to prove it, but it 100% existed and was given to hundreds of pilots as well as being verbally conveyed at meetings, put on screens via power points and privately one on one with basically anyone who was willing to listen: a staple is the floor, DOH the ceiling, and the PID will likely result in something in the middle. If you have a class date at Delta, you would likely gain more seniority by staying at ASA/Comair right now. The PID must be approved, we will be merged with Delta.

Once I asked him, "so if an ASA/Comair pilot has a class date at DL he should stay because if he goes he will "start over" and lose all his seniority because they are different companies?" He said yes. So I then asked "but if he stays at ASA/Comair, he may have a claim to at least some DL seniority, arbitration depending of course, because DL/EV/OH are all the same company?" Again, another yes.

I let it go after that gem.

Bucking Bar

Gloopy,

OK ... Dan Ford was a safety guy. You're saying he was briefing Comair pilots on the PID in some sort of official capacity?

MEC communications live forever and if it was written, someone would have produced it by now. It would be a very hot document.

Dan Ford maintained no SLI position was ever written. Given the intensity of the litigation he managed, it is hard to believe he'd risked getting caught lying.

Interesting diversion. But, as you state, water over the dam.

gloopy

There's a difference between an official MEC SLI position and the opinions of those pushing the issue before an actual PID. Pilots were being told in person, on power point screens and via matching handouts what I mentioned above. Regardless of if it was sanctioned by an MEC or not doesn't matter. The mentality of the day was let's go for one list and once that's committed to let's go for as much as we can get.

I distinctly remember 2 of the Q&A's from the sheet. One said "what if ALPA said no" and the answer was "ALPA can't say no". The other was "I have a class date at Delta, should I stay or should I go" and it expressly advised to stay because the hypothetical person in question would "likely" get more seniority than a DL new hire. There were other questions, mostly logistical type stuff like "what is the timeline for all this" etc. But those two really stood out.

I'm sure DF followed all the political CYA's for phrasing everything in a teflon coating. No doubt about that. He is a very smart and well read guy and knows how to weave an argument. I'm sure he never came out and said "our official MEC position is that we "demand" something greater than a staple" but he did come out and say that it was very likely that the end result would end up like that. You can't really hold someone accountable for expressing their little innocent opinion of how things may shake out, so he was in the clear and he knew it. Every question and answer was open ended enough so as to avoid a smoking gun with MEC fingerprints on it the implication was there and was very clear.

Like I said, its been 12 years and it was just a 2 or 3 sheet handout on stock copy paper delineating opinions and predictions of what was to come but a packrat here or there may have it lying around. In any case I know I saw it and even if I didn't I heard it from him and others on multiple occasions. They were VERY careful to hide behind "the process" oh, that righteous, infallible process, of committing to a merger first and then worrying about it later but behind that wafer thin veil of pure trade unionism was the forked tongue of a potential seniority grab. "We didn't say we would get more than a staple. Let's just commit to the process first, but as it happens, typically, and results may vary, the end result is almost always somewhere *between* a staple and DOH" was the answer you would get if you asked directly.

In any case, clearly the biggest concern at the mainline level was a seniority grab, and no one in the PID/RJDC/either MEC ever, ever, came out and diffused it by blatantly saying what needed to be said. Strong, binding language that anything more than a staple was off the table and prenups would be agreed if necessary to move the process forward. The temptation to "go for it" was too sweet to pass up.

Then once DL furloughed over 1000 and DCI was taking deliveries limited only by factory production lines, the arrogance on the DCI side really blossomed. Sadly, it gave some of the proponents of the mainline scope failures a soft target to hide behind and divert some populist rage away from their broken outsource model they loved (love?) so much. As an added bonus, the same outsource proponents were able to divide and conquer what for a while was strong unity between at least ASA and Comair when each airline management simply said they were sticking to their preexisting policies of seniority resignation. ASA didn't "step up" anymore than Comair "chock blocked" anyone. Both management teams stated they would comply with existing policy. All the rage went towards Comair and that separated the unity between the two. Comair rode the wave of growth based arrogance and the MEC made some inflammatory statements, including the infamous "letter" where they pretended to have leverage over their management over the issue and would maybe see what they could do for some ill timed quid pro quo and we all know the rest. The pro outsourcing guys at DALPA got what they wanted from that of course so everyone was happy.

But yeah, Dan was a safety guy. But he didn't do what probability amounted to hundreds (if not more) hours of work with the PID and later the RJDC just on the basis of safety concerns. And he wasn't wrong about everything either. He made some very good points, as did everyone in both movements, about pointing out some of our collective key threats as a profession. But like the Occupy folks, you can be partially right in identifying a lot of what's wrong, yet still be really jacked up in how you propose to "fix" it.

Bucking Bar

Gloopy,

Interesting read.

As for ASA's "pre existing policy" on seniority resignation, it had a very interesting wrinkle. At one time Delta had second officers who did not meet Delta's mins to become First Officers. A SLOA was negotiated which allowed concurrent seniority at ASA and Delta, PRIOR TO THE PID.

The concept was pilots could go on leave from Delta, gain experience at ASA, then return to Delta. Not sure if anyone actually used it. ASA had a dozen or so instructors and other employee groups pass through. They kept their DOH for benefits, but restarted their seniority when "hired" as a Delta pilot.

I've always thought the concept of concurrent seniority within a brand is something that merited more analysis. In effect, Delta could move jets around different operators, but regardless those airplanes would be flown by Delta pilots.

gloopy

I remember the FE "dual citizen" situation. While it was red meat for the PID folks because of which airline's list(s) the pilots involved were on, it really wasn't anything uncommon, then or now.

Its always been airline managements' policy at every individual airline as to permitting a pilot on one list to have a seniority number on another list. It still is today. Some airlines don't care while others are adamantly opposed to it. Even the ones against it have little control over what another airline does with pilots on the first airline's list. For example plenty of pilots were required to write seniority resignation letters to work for certain airlines, like Delta and Comair.

Many other airlines never required anyone to write anything. Even the ones that did/still do require resignation can't really enforce it because some airlines, like United and American (among MANY others) tell (or at least told at the time in question) their furloughed pilots to write whatever letter they needed to in order to get a job and they were assured those letters would go straight to the trash. Delta, OTOH, strictly upholds seniority resignation letters, even if written in duress while on furlough. That is a Delta policy that most other major airline pilots do not have to deal with in their hour of need.

So for example a furloughed UAL or AA pilot (among MANY others) was free to write a meaningless resignation letter to appease Comair's policy (or any other airlines') but Delta pilots were told if they did any such thing (to get hired anywhere else, not just Comair) they would be off the list forever. ASA policy didn't require the resignation in the first place as a matter of ASA management policy, so furloughed Delta pilots were able to go there without writing the letter that only Delta among the "majors" would enforce.

As adamant as Delta management was about their "no dual seniority" stance, like you mentioned, they were willing to waive it for the PFE's to meet company mins, even though they controlled the mins and could change them at any time, to allow dual seniority for their specific case. Right or wrong, the PID/RJDC saw that revelation as the smoking candlestick that Col. Mustard used in the library and tried to elevate it to a much higher significance than it was. The Delta MEC was later able to hide behind the emotional smoke screen by capitalizing on the anti Comair demagoguery by blaming the Comair MEC for not changing a Comair management policy that required the writing of a resignation letter while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that the Delta MEC was unwilling or unable to get Delta management to change its identical policy that put the furloughed pilot in that situation in the first place.

The very same policy that furloughed pilots at other majors never had to abide by, not even by their otherwise hostile management teams. So why was Delta the only major airline that required furloughed pilots in need of a job to resign on their end when others didn't and in fact actively encouraged their pilots to find other work while assuring them that their jobs were safe upon return? Why was the Delta MEC the only MEC that was unable to change their own airline's policy for their own pilots?

DAWGS

I really think it would be much easier to staple today. The movement and upgrade times aren't what they were during that time frame (2000) at the Regionals. Parking 50's has led to stagnation there and our junior would welcome warm bodies beneath them even if there was some sort of fence. The Regionals would benefit from our attrition and provide them with career advancement rather than the constant worry that you have been undercut and now face furlough or bankruptcy. It would also provide us with experienced pilots. I feel the timing is right to drop the SWAPA PWA on Management's desk with their Section 1 highlighted. Is that really unreasonable? We do have leverage. We are profitable. I don't think the NMB would think it is unreasonable. If only we had a bargaining agent who would do just that!

tsquare

Wow... seriously?

Rather B Fishin

I guess you're not up to speed. SWA is the Lee Harvey Oswald of DPA's strategy. Just drop the SWA PWA on the table and the NMB will HAVE to give us everything they have. It's only reasonable right? I mean that strategy has ALWAYS worked in the past wrt contract pattern bargaining. Individual pilot groups have NEVER had to wait YEARS in section 6 right????? In fact why even negotiate our own individual PWA. Let's just have every pilot group on one contract, oh yeah we can't.