1) Agree on the "voting for everything". Don't understand how that's a negative. I do feel we've been asked to participate too little. If the idea behind constructive engagement is that we get more gains, in a more timely manner, but in smaller increments, I'd like to decide for myself as to whether the quids and quos balance out.

2) As far as the dues go, I don't see the point of paying up to .5% more, but if it was a great product, maybe. What's more worrisome to me, in terms of finances, is how vulnerable this smaller group would be to someone landing a legal punch.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the DPA is very focused on ALPA lawsuits, and the insurance (re-insurance?) issue, to portray a huge liability hanging over ALPA's head. It appears that ALPA has this covered under current dues, which would ultimately be lower.

So, if you get convinced that you need to fear ALPA because of DFR suits, out of the ALPA ship, you might stop to wonder whether it's really sinking, and ascertain the seaworthiness of what you're jumping into.

What happens if someone sues DPA, and lands a punch?

I recall APA got sued over a sick-out, and had to be really, really nice to AMR to get out from the ensuing judgment (I recall something in the $40 million range).

3) One thing that is absolutely bizarre, in Hitmefurl's list, is putting the bar at 25% of a block to get a resolution in, vs. simple majority at a meeting. If you didn't want the membership to exert influence, that would be a great firewall.