Why Does DALPA Want Closed Arbitration Hearings?

[Fly4hire]

??

Most court proceedings are open to the public. The NWA/Republic hearings were open. Personally I'd rather see both sides positions publicly with nothing to hide.

We've had way too much unsubstantiated "he-said-she-said" with the garden variety line pilots on both sides getting mushroom communications.

Let's have it in the open and see what both sides are really about.

From a recent NWA Merger Cmte update:

Legal counsel representing the Merger Committees from Northwest and Delta recently signed a Ground Rules Document which stipulates the items that have been agreed to and will be presented to the arbitration panel. This document contains procedures related to arbitration conduct, amount of time designated to each party, types of evidence, exhibit format and record of transcripts. There has been NO agreement relating to list methodology or list construction.

There is an unresolved issue contained in the Ground Rules document regarding open hearings. Our firm belief is that the arbitration should be open to all Northwest and Delta pilots and their families. The Merger Committees have been unable to resolve this issue, and it will therefore be decided by the arbitration panel.

For your planning and bidding purposes, the SLI Arbitration Hearing schedule is as follows:
Oct. 2-5, 2008 LAX area
Oct. 20-24, 2008 DCA area
Nov. 15-17, 2008 LAX area

 

[JoeMerchant]

DALPA likes to control the "truth".....Hard to do with open meetings.....

 

[Occam's Razor]

Most court proceedings are open to the public.

This isn't a court proceeding. It's an arbitration between two private organizations. it has nothing to do with the government, and it's not a tort case. It will be privately funded and sanctioned.

The NWA/Republic hearings were open.

And look how well THAT turned out! :laugh:

Seriously...the open arbitration hearings didn't seem to do much to keep many Red/Green guys from being antagonistic dweebs for 20-years.

Personally I'd rather see both sides positions publicly with nothing to hide.

I don't care if the hearings are open, but I understand your point. I hope we see substantial communications on the objectives and logic behind our proposal(s).

We don't conduct "open" contract negotiations, nor public merger negotiations, because some of the information and rhetoric is best kept in-house.

If we do it right, we send people into the crucible that can shuck it off after the issues are settled and an agreement is reached. I suspect someone not selected for their discretion and/or thick skin might contribute to divisiveness between the pilot groups.

Again...I don't really care, but I can see the logic behind both positions on this.

We've had way too much unsubstantiated "he-said-she-said" with the garden variety line pilots on both sides getting mushroom communications.

Good point. The strongest one for keeping hearings open. By the same token, we've also had some "selective" and parochial information put out. I'm not convinced that an NWA guy watching the show wouldn't hear things differently than a DAL guy might.

From Annie Hall:

Shrink: "How often did you have sex?"
Woody Allen: "Never! Like maybe 3 times a week!"
Diane Keaton: "Constantly! Like 3 times a week!"

Let's have it in the open and see what both sides are really about.

You know how I feel about open MEC meetings!!! This type of event is a little different. If our MEC's can't trust the teams they've sent in there to represent us properly...then we've got other problems.

In the end, though...I just don't care.

 

[Occam's Razor]

DALPA likes to control the "truth".....Hard to do with open meetings.....

I say you SUE 'em, Short Bus!

Back to Loserville for you...

 

[180ToTheMarker]

DALPA likes to control the "truth".....Hard to do with open meetings.....

Why do you hijack every Delta thread?

 

[Raoul Duke]

an open hearing in this cotext is a terrible idea. Just pushes both sides to take a winner take all position just to support the vocal minority at each carrier. Once you get past the blow hards, most pilots are reasonable.

 

[Fly4hire]

This isn't a court proceeding. It's an arbitration between two private organizations.

...publicly traded companies

Seriously...the open arbitration hearings didn't seem to do much to keep many Red/Green guys from being antagonistic dweebs for 20-years.

And I doubt closed hearings will either

I hope we see substantial communications on the objectives and logic behind our proposal(s).

I'm sure you meant to include their proposals as well....

We don't conduct "open" contract negotiations, nor public merger negotiations, because some of the information and rhetoric is best kept in-house.

This is no longer negotiations - it's a civil proceeding. That statement does apply to simultaneous ongoing negotiations.

If we do it right, we send people into the crucible that can shuck it off after the issues are settled and an agreement is reached. I suspect someone not selected for their discretion and/or thick skin might contribute to divisiveness between the pilot groups.

Good point - it also allows one side or both to go in there behind closed doors and attempt to trash the other side (you should be happy to wear the XXX uniform, you'd be out of business without our saving you, we need to teach you guys how to fly, etc.) with outrageous stuff that would certainly cause animosity on one side or the other, and then hope we can be have group hugs after the arbitration is over because no one really said that.

Open hearings kind of upset that strategy. Draw your own conclusions from who wants open hearings and who does not.

Good point. The strongest one for keeping hearings open. By the same token, we've also had some "selective" and parochial information put out. I'm not convinced that an NWA guy watching the show wouldn't hear things differently than a DAL guy might.

Guess we'll need designated bloggers or stenographers - but even if it's closed we'll still probably get transcripts, if not as timely, so there will be no hiding of tactics in the end.

You know how I feel about open MEC meetings!!! This type of event is a little different. If our MEC's can't trust the teams they've sent in there to represent us properly...then we've got other problems.

You are mixing negotiators and arbitrators up. I expect the negotiations that will continue to take place during arbitration will be closed.

In the end, though...I just don't care.

I don't believe that for a second

 

[TWA Dude]

You don't want a public hearing because it makes the proceedings into a zoo. Having the transcripts available is sufficient. There won't be any secrets.

 

[Fly4hire]

You don't want a public hearing because it makes the proceedings into a zoo. Having the transcripts available is sufficient. There won't be any secrets.

Agreed, although that depends on the timeliness. If we get them next day (we did lengthy BK hearings) shouldn't be an issue - certainly more accurate and less spinnable.

If we don't see them until after it's over it more problematic.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Less bad blood when the dust settles.

 

[Occam's Razor]

...publicly traded companies

Huh? Show me the stock ticker symbol for ALPA. This is an ALPA gig...not a DAL, Inc or NWA, Inc gig. YCLIU!

This is no longer negotiations - it's a civil proceeding. That statement does apply to simultaneous ongoing negotiations.

You're wrong. This event can be closed just like an MEC meeting can be closed. If you insist it must be public, then produce the statute that requires it.

Good point - it also allows one side or both to go in there behind closed doors and attempt to trash the other side (you should be happy to wear the XXX uniform, you'd be out of business without our saving you, we need to teach you guys how to fly, etc.) with outrageous stuff that would certainly cause animosity on one side or the other, and then hope we can be have group hugs after the arbitration is over because no one really said that.

Precisely! I'd prefer to keep that parochial stick-poking away from the pilot groups.

Guess we'll need designated bloggers or stenographers - but even if it's closed we'll still probably get transcripts, if not as timely, so there will be no hiding of tactics in the end.

Right-o!

I'm sure it'll be a 200-post thread on the Algonquin Round Table (ALPA Web Board). Great reading, and chock-full of deeply intellectual analysis...

If we fail to reach a negotiated deal it'll prove we're dorks. Both sides. I don't need a daily report from partisans to know that arbitrations are ugly.

I don't believe that for a second

Then you didn't read it correctly! I don't care how the arbitration is conducted...open or closed. Got that? I care about the results...duh!

 

[GogglesPisano]

Occam, I knew you had the disciminating taste to be a Woody Allen fan.

:beer:

 

[Fly4hire]

If we fail to reach a negotiated deal it'll prove we're dorks. Both sides.

So you like to say. Not so sure of that, but it's not my call. And, yes I agree results are what matter.

Prediction: we will get a negotiated deal at 11:59 on arbitration deadline, or after.


So why do you think the NWA team want's open hearings?

 

[Turtle21]

If our MEC's can't trust the teams they've sent in there to represent us properly...then we've got other problems.

In the end, though...I just don't care.

Its not who the MECs trust..

Its do you trust your MECs? when they say "Trust us, YOU don't need to see what WE are doing to you.. err for you."


For one perspective.. ask a TWA pilot if he is in favor of ALPA magic behind closed doors.

 

[tomgoodman]

Behind closed doors

Perhaps the MEC dislikes an "open" arbitration not because their negotiators will be seen as too belligerent, but as too accomodating. Best to let the arbitrator take the inevitable heat from disgruntled constituents.

 

[FDJ2]

We don't conduct "open" contract negotiations, nor public merger negotiations, because some of the information and rhetoric is best kept in-house.

Bingo!

It may or may not be an open arbitration, some of the information or exhibits may include confidential business and marketing plans, which may require a closed door proceedings, or at least partially closed.

I'm comfortable with the process whether it remains closed or whether it becomes open to the public.

Send a good committee, let them do their job and let's avoid a circus atmosphere.

Whether it's an open or closed process, most arbitrators will write a decision which will address the positions of each committee and the rationale for the award. If someone is so inclined, they'll have an opportunity to scrutinize the proceedings and decision, as well as what the other side is all about in due time.

Let the process play itself out, at the end of the day, I don't care whether it's open or closed, I just want a fair and equitable list, that's what matters. JMHO

 

[Voice Of Reason]

If I were you guys I'd rather to see a transcript from the
"Delta Pilots' Wives Club" :laugh:
What on EARTH is up with THAT????? :erm:

 

[michael707767]

Perhaps the MEC dislikes an "open" arbitration not because their negotiators will be seen as too belligerent, but as too accomodating. Best to let the arbitrator take the inevitable heat from disgruntled constituents.

You hit it.

 

[Fly4hire]

Perhaps the MEC dislikes an "open" arbitration not because their negotiators will be seen as too belligerent, but as too accomodating. Best to let the arbitrator take the inevitable heat from disgruntled constituents.

That sounds good in theory, but given the history I sort of doubt the DAL will be too accommodating. Both side are going to fight like hell to present the best case for their pilots and the arbitrators will take the heat regardless.

Since we can't agree, the arbitrators panel now gets to decide whether it's open or not.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Why do you hijack every Delta thread?

Because there's nobody to sue right now and nobody's job to steal.