Quote:
Delta Council 54 Vice Chairman’s Perspective


The term “empty suit” is used to identify the ineffective manager, that person who is there to spout the “company line”, check the box, and not really listen. They take the “by-the-book" position that offers no flexibility to any constructive argument made. Even common sense is lost on these folks a majority of the time. Today’s empty suit is now best called a “robot." Following lines of code written by a creator, there is little or no flexibility in solving any real problems with a collaborative solution—just follow the checklist as written.


Your representative is still connected to you and is supposed to advocate for you in reaching a consensus position at the MEC level. This is supposed to be a democratic process, where it takes 10 votes senatorially or 50 percent plus one for a roll call vote to establish a majority position on the Delta MEC. However, if you find yourself alone in voicing the legitimate concerns of the pilot group to a disinterested majority, then no matter how compelling and reasonable your argument, your effort to represent the pilot group remains futile.


There are many times when you know you do not have the votes on an issue, so you seek to compromise. You try and make the arguments and move others toward your position and accept a majority position in order to achieve a partial victory on behalf of your constituents. Representatives make compromises, rather than demanding all or nothing, in order to achieve as much as possible within the democratic process. It’s not perfect, but that is how it’s supposed to work. National politics have morphed into the “win at all costs mentality. Politicians do not care about the collateral damage to constituents, and many of us have complained that government seems to be stagnant and cannot get anything done. Both nationally and on the MEC, one has to factor in human nature. What seems to be lost on the deaf majority is the benefit of constructive dialog, engagement, and decision making, rather than ignoring an opposing viewpoint that has the potential to provide a consensus solution.


Rarely is the consensus solution exactly what your constituents wanted, but the question to ask is if it achieved the most of what was asked for. If instead one misses the mark entirely, the result is a great deal of rationalizing and possibly recall or losing the next election. Elected representatives who only consider the administration’s position are not doing all that they can to achieve group goals. Advocating on behalf of others who trust you to do the right thing for them is naturally going to result in ruffling some feathers or even ****ing some people off; however, just like using CRM in the cockpit, you debrief after the flight or debate and realize it’s not personal. Every leg is a new flight and so should every MEC meeting start anew, the slate having been wiped clean after the debate and battle for positions and votes. Good CRM is not just for the flight deck, but should translate to the political arena as well.


This MEC meeting was the first after the split vote on the TA. There was a simmering anger from some members of the MEC, MEC committee personnel, and MEC administration over my vote of no, and the fact I wrote and expressed my view to this council.



So is this anger from others going to morph into deciding to ignore what I have to say? Finding solutions to complex problems amongst almost 12,000 pilots requires input from everyone.



If there is going to be retribution in the form of isolating a representative because you did not like their vote on an issue, what guarantee does the minority have that they will be heard in the future when they may be advocating the majority solution. How is this in the best interest of all of us?



Not wanting to become that empty suit or robot by just getting along, I decided to leave the CVG meeting after day two and headed back to SEA. Ron Morrell had my proxy for the remainder of the meeting. Fixing problems, finding creative solutions, and a willingness to listen to everyone is needed more than ever at every level of governance. With all of the challenges that we have to face as a group, every voice is important, even if it’s in the minority and of a different opinion. Does just the majority always have the best ideas? What happens when those who have been ignored stop participating and giving their thoughts and ideas? The membership loses the benefit of consensus decisions, which have a unifying effect on the pilot group as a whole.


Since returning home, I have been evaluating how I can best serve the pilots in SEA and what is in the best interests of my family. I have enjoyed representing this council and expressing my thoughts and ideas. Being snubbed for opinions and the votes cast, however, is not the best use of my time. Our time is valuable, and as we age it is more valuable than ever. What is truly in the best interest of the SEA council? In the coming weeks I will consider what will be the best course to follow for me, my family, and the Delta pilots.

The majority on the Delta MEC would likely sell the rope to be used at our own hanging...