Obviously it's up to Delta pilots as to whether to replace ALPA with DPA, but there's a world of difference between Delta's position and the one that created USAPA, Dan. USAPA was created specifically to circumvent an arbitration, and to advance one part of the USAir pilot group at the expense of the other part of the same pilot group, whom they were charged with "fairly" representing.
If Delta pilots replace ALPA with an in-house union, it would just be a different negotiating group, representing the exact same entire pilot group, and trying to get an improved contract for the exact same entire pilot group. If they did change unions, you'd see every pilot at that company behind it, hoping it could get a better deal. It would still represent every Delta pilot equally--something that's obviously not true at USAir.
There's advantages and disadvantages with both having ALPA and having one's own union. I suppose an appropos advantage to consider DPA over ALPA in this particular case would have been less of an apparent conflict of interest. Since ALPA represents regionals as well as mainline carriers, one could argue that they might not have tried as hard to reduce outsourcing as much, since that might hurt other ALPA carriers. Obviously the local Delta ALPA guys are the negotiators, but ALPA National policies and guidelines are considered. Would DPA have achieved a better reduction in outsourcing? Who knows; maybe not, but it's a perception that has to be considered.
Regardless, it's done. They have a contract that's been voted in. If the pilots still end up switching to an in-house union, it'll be because the other advantages were deemed more important than having ALPA.
Bubba
