The very way you approach the subject, see the above quote, doesn't bode well for any real discussion. You try to set the table by implying that I have not been respectful, not been truthful and have misrepresented facts. You're not leaving much room for discussion.

On to the topics at hand:

1.I didn't have your full support during the early days of JC's tenure because I had no role in union leadership at that time.

2. The squabble started when the DTW local recalled their FO rep on the specific charge of "voting to often with FLL"

Speaking of that recall effort, that failed recall effort. You're worried now that we might elect reps who are "concerned about their own local agenda". You're worried now that we are spending our energy fighting each other instead of standing unified against management. Where was that concern for unification when the DTW local attempted to recall their own FO rep "because he voted to often with FLL". Maybe that FO rep (RM) was thinking of the overall pilot group vs his own "local" agenda, maybe? Did you vote to recall that famous night in DTW? Only two stood against the recall, were you one of those? Did you lecture your DTW brothers on the need to fight management vs each other.

If I may be so bold, I'll tell you the problem you're having today. You guys think that the only problem you have is a couple of loudmouths like me who won't let go of the past. WRONG! I didn't elect Connors and Leonard in FLL, and I didn't pass resolutions in FLL demanding that the Negotiators get the ax. But you still want to focus on the past. I declined to run for office this time around partially because I think that the next generation needs to step up and move us away from the DTW vs FLL mentality. You guys should step back and accept some new blood instead of trying to smear anyone not on your team who tries to step up. I'm seriously telling you this: me and Herb and Rich and Bob are not the reason so many people want new blood in office. It's up to you to understand why FLL and now DFW are in revolt.


Lemonade, You are correct Sir! Thanks for bringing me back to ground.

Ooops. Not finished yet! Balder, why is the assumption always that it is bad when union reps get friendly with management?

When union reps use their relationship with management to do the pilots business, to advance the pilot groups position, to protect the careers of individual pilots; those reps are accomplishing the job they were elected to do.

If you accept that the union must always be in conflict with management, you are accepting the very same environment you would seem to argue against. On one hand your side cusses management for being disagreeable/dishonest/etc and on the other hand you cuss union reps who manage to find a way to avoid that disagreeable/dishonesty relationship. You've set up a no win situation for the union. If the voters demand reps who go toe to toe with management, then the reps will have to be confrontational to management or face the wrath of the voters. If you don't allow your reps the ability to "play nice" with management, you've cut yourself off at the knees.