Is it just me, or, does all this talk of replacing our bargaining agent during Section 6 just seem a little dumb?

Most talk about replacing ALPA if the opener is unsatisfactory. How could you pick a worse time to start a representational battle? Regardless of your reasoning, management (and the NMB) will take a "wait and see" position. Nobody will give anything if they are not sure they are negotiating with the correct representative. It will be like my first attempts at doing business in Latin America. "Gringo, you sign contract with wrong person, he no have authority." In effect, we as a pilot group will have created the form of democracy being tried in Afghanistan.

Management absolutely will not "raise the floor" for the next representative to start with. We could demand 125% ... ... ... ... The result will be nothing will happen. We sure wont be released to strike by the NMB. So what's our next move?

The DPA needs to make a choice. Option 1 was to hold the vote last spring ... but they were unable to get the cards. Option 2 is to wait until AFTER Section 6 to avoid harming our Contract. By making our Bargaining Agent appear illegitimate they can prevent progress at the table.

The only significant leverage we have is getting released to strike. Every contract negotiation ends with a deal, or a strike. Getting the release to engage in self help is highly political. Just like management, the politicians aren't going to give ALPA or DPA any credibility if they are unsure who the bargaining agent will be.

Worst case, the DPA wins a vote, then realizes they have the exact same issues as ALPA had, but with no relationship with management or the NMB.

Vinegar and Bluster used to work in the union business, that changed in 1936.