Overview
Public reporting supports the existence of a Delta coalition. The reviewed material identifies a labor split that places CWA-AFA with flight attendants, IAM with ramp, cargo, and tower workers, and the Teamsters with technicians and related crafts. That is enough to say the campaign is not operating through a represented-airline MEC / LEC structure alone.
In practical terms, some campaign activity is expected to be coalition-shaped rather than confined to one union’s normal represented-property reporting structure.
What is not publicly visible
The public filing trail does not produce a verified allocation formula. The national CWA-AFA LM-2 shows large representational-activities totals and identifiable Schedule 14 and Schedule 15 activity, but it does not publish a Delta coalition budget or a cost split among CWA-AFA, IAM, and the Teamsters.
That is an important difference. A coalition can be publicly visible without its underlying cost-sharing method being publicly auditable. Outside readers may be able to identify events, vendors, campaign intensity, and participating unions without being able to verify who paid what percentage.
Why the disclosure gap matters
The absence of a public allocation formula means readers should be cautious about attributing coalition costs to one union merely because that union appears more often in public messaging or in an isolated filing entry. The filing architecture is not designed to produce a transparent coalition spreadsheet.
For that reason, the correct reporting conclusion is direct: the coalition itself is publicly visible, but the reviewed public materials do not quantify how coalition costs are allocated among the participating unions.
Bottom line
A public record can confirm a coordinated campaign. It cannot, at least from the reviewed public sources, verify a cost-sharing formula.