Another post blasting ALPA from someone with 1 or zero previous posts. I'm shocked...

Do your homework. Get a history lesson. The current admin came in AFTER many of the issues you complain about in hopes to make some changes after the 2006 contract, the Age 60 changes, and FDA LOA 1. I was elected in 2008 trying to do exactly what you mentioned in your opening paragraph.

Got a complaint about contract enforcement? Take a number. Most of those guys were hired around FPA time or during the ALPA transition about 2002. Damning them is damning the guys in charge at the time...you know...the guys who now have tons of complaints about the current administration. I know the customer service could be better, but there are also a ton of legal pain-in-the-a$$ issues (Q&A book!) that often work against us. This won't be fixed by any one person overnight, but will take a systematic improvement in contract language to be effective.

The current group is IMHO much more transparent than previous administrations. The guys who scream the loudest about the lack of open comm are the same guys who supported a "city purity" letter they failed to reveal to the crew force and accepted (without counter) the first FDA LOA. The guys who cry about "leverage we gave up" by not holding out the FDAs in the latest interim contract were some of the same guys who were willing to send you non-vol to Guangzhou for 90 freakin' days. The guys who say SS and the group are "elites" were the ones who yelled at you for daring to complain about age 60 changes (it was the right thing to do) and assure you that retroactivity would never hurt you (they can't move unless there is a VACANCY bid!) and said that HKG "would go senior...".

The group that is in now was installed--in part with my help--was asked to try to regain the trust of the crew force by being more open and more responsive to the pilot group. There are several schools of thought on the role of the rep. Once group says that the rep should follow the will of the pilots. The other says the rep should "lead" and "massage" the pilots, as they know as leaders what it best and often have more info. I believe the real challenge is doing a bit of both, and having the judgment to know when to lean either way. What we asked the current crew to do is start leaning back towards the first method and away from the second.

I think a lot of the angst and resentment against the current leaders is actually frustration that the pilot force dared to approve the last bridge contract. Regardless of whether or not you were for or against it, that fact is the MEC and the MEC officers decided in 2011 that YOU would get to vote on it. The decision we had to make was "is it worth offering up to the pilots for a vote". Most of us saw both the weaknesses and the goods in it, and we let YOU--the crewforce--make the call. The guys on the losing end of that decision--the anti-contract crowd--decided that the decision reflected a failure of leadership. In other words, a "real trade unionist" or "real MEC leader" would have steered the pilots away from approving the deal. Therefore, the passage of the deal--even though approved by most pilots--was a failure of leadership and the only "right" way to fix this is remove that person so a more "appropriate" union leader (in the mold of Hauserman, Baker, Webb, or whomever) could lead the pilots in the right direction.

The problem with this is they overlook the fact that probably 70-80% of the crew force is largely happy with their jobs, and while they want some positive changes they don't drool and salivate for a fight with the company. Many of our pilots tend to lean towards the right politically, as do quite a few now on our MEC. This contrasts largely with the largely left leaning very adamant pro-AFL-CIO types. While it is too simple to say its a pure Republican/Democrat type fight, many of the guys currently screaming the loudest were on "Pilots for Obama" committees or were active Democrat supporters. That doesn't mean the divide on the MEC falls exactly down party lines, but the differences in the role of union largely falls on idealogical differences in what role our union should play.

Interestingly enough, one of the biggest changes in the last 2 years has been on the Hill where our guys are now working hard to cultivate aviation friendly relationship on both sides of the aisles. For a long time, it was harder under the Prater group to spend PAC money supporting Republicans. It is easier now. The current group is a more pragmatic "what can we do to help us" crowd and less "how do we tow the AFL-CIO line" crowd. Its still politics...messy at times with blurry lines...but if you were mad at the PAC and ALPA National in 2006-08 you need to understand quite a bit has changed since then.

National office an irritant to you? Dude--get mad at ME. I was one of the reps who supported the move as the chance to have a cargo guy at the helm was a once in a blue moon kind of opportunity as UAL/CAL and DAL/NW were still creating tense feelings at National. We saw a potential 4 year seam where we could put a more "neutral" but strong ALPA carrier into a leadership position. No MEC is perfect, but FDX is respected for some solid people by most on the hill. This wasn't about a personal ambition--it was about trying to extend the FDX influence up a little farther. As it stands, Lee Moak is doing a tough job about as well as anyone can, and is trying to limit foreign carrier forays into our markets. Our MEC has quite a few guys now in various committees...which help YOU, ME, and a lot of other ALPA pilots. Would you rather Kalitta or Delta manage flight time/duty time or cargo security issues, or would you rather have some FDX bros representing you? If Ronald Reagan had only decided to serve California, we would have missed out on a great President. When we have the chance to send a FDX pilot to make a difference for all of us, I think we ought to do so. We won't win every time, but just getting our name up and around opens doors for the rest of our team in other places.

The MEC officers are elected by the reps YOU elect. If you have 20% turnout for LEC elections, you aren't going to have a lot of control over who gets elected. Only recently as guys have gotten irritated have we seen turnout start to improve. If you don't like where your reps are going--recall them. There is an effort under way right now to do that with 3 reps who many feel are not complying with the wishes of their constituents. Its ugly, and messy, but it is also somewhat health as at least it is forcing formerly complacent pilots to get involved, get informed, and make some decisions.

Looks like there will be more openings in both the MEC and some committees along the way... If you think guys should only serve a while then return to the line (which I echoed and agreed with, BTW....I'm a line pilot now...) then that means somebody else has to step up to get smart and fill the void. Maybe your time is now. Dive in....talent and drive are always needed.