Splendid! See, we do have a common interest after all. I reside in the MCO area. If you're serious, PM me prior to you next time in my town and you can be my guest. I must warn you however that you're likely to discover I am not the "enemy" that you suspect me to be.737 Pylt said:
Actually I wasn't refering to J4J with reference to DAL since I'm not yet aware of your having made any formal proposal in that area. For what its worth, I do think that mess created at U is an abomination and hold the union leadership responsible for malfeasance. Should the DMEC negotiate a J4J protocol, we do have the option to reject it as long as our CBA remains in place and hopefully, CMR pilots would be wise enough to do so.
The problem of whom we negotiate with is a different matter and a definite bone of contention. CMR "management" is in reality nothing more than operations management and therefore lacks the ability to make any contract without the consent of DAL management. Negotiating with CMR management is therefore a waste of time and effort, particularly with regard to job security issues. CMR management cannot secure my job; only DAL management can do that. Therefore we need to negotiate with DAL management directly or, at the very least, Section 1 of our CBA must bind DAL. Otherwise it is meaningless. DAL management has not refused to negotiate with us. ALPA however, has denied us that right. I consider that denial to be a deliberate breach on the part of the ALPA to represent my interests fairly. That must be reversed, legally.
I agree completely that my branch of the union has no right to negotiate on your behalf. We have not attempted to do so. While you say that you have no right to negotiate on our behalf with which I would also agree, nevertheless your MEC does not practice what you preach and does so routinely without our consent. This is sanctioned and both overtly and covertly supported by the ALPA. I consider this to be another breach of the ALPA's DFR. Additionally, when the ALPA permits your bargaining unit to use my career as a bargaining chip in its negotiations, that is yet another breach of ALPA's duty to represent me fairly and, in my opinion, constitutes egregious bad faith bargaining. It does not border on the irrational, it is irrational.
The conflicts of interest that exist between us will never vanish on the basis of unilateral actions by either party. It is the union's responsibility to take whatever steps are neccessary to ensure resolution of the existing conflicts. Instead, by chosing to discriminate in your favor it exascerbates them. The instant that the ALPA's President signs a document that makes my rights subservient to your rights he has violated the union's charter and Federal law. Section 1 of your current PWA is such a document.
The union maintains that Comair and Delta are separate airlines. I don't argue with the union's right to make that determination. However, once it is made, the rights of Comair pilots as members of this union become equal to those of Delta pilots, not subordinate or subservient to them. Comair's status as a subsidiary of Delta has no legal effect on the status of ALPA membership for CMR pilots vs that of Delta pilots. Each member in good standing has the same rights as any other member in good standing. That ALPA chooses to attempt to equate corporate status with that of membership status and thereby rule that our interests are subordinate to your interests is error on the part of ALPA. That error must be corrected and I think it will be.
When, as I believe they will, the courts sustain those arguments in Ford vs ALPA the union will be directed to stop such practices and hopefully reverse their damaging impact on the careers of Comair and ASA pilots. That may negate certain portions of the Delta PWA, which I think is a small price to pay for correcting the errant behavior of the ALPA. It is not likely to have much, if any, real impact on Delta pilots, but it will certainly be an emancipation for Comair pilots. I can't wait.
Regards
