My opinion is that a special carve out for the IAH pilots is very divisive, and would treat the IAH pilots differently than the rest of the union members. One point I think that most everyone is missing, is, even if the MEC passes this, (more on that in a moment,) the company would still have to go along with it. ALPA doesn't tell the company what to do.

Next item. Everyone is saying ALPA should to this, should do that....well, got to tell you folks, ALPA is you. If you want ALPA to do or not to do something, you'd better get involved and right now! As distasteful as this thing is, it actually has a chance to pass the MEC. So, you say again, #@$!%^#&#&^@ ALPA!! That's you dude! You'd better talk to your LEC reps, and do it soon, because guess what, your LEC members make up the MEC! Imagine that. You have input to your union.

Step up to the plate! Now, I have a friend, yes I know that concept is boggling enough, but he is having problems posting on the forum, and MY OPINION is that everyone deserves a voice. He asked me to post a communication from the C5 rep, in EWR, Mark.

Mark supports the IAH resolution because it is like the ORD 747 bumps. Unfortunately, Mark may have the facts wrong. The ORD case, as stated above, was a base closure not a displacement or bump. Mike is my friend that wrote the letter to Mark. If you EWR guys don't want IAH to have a special deal, you need to educate Mark as to your wishes.

As Mike points out to me, it's not out of the realm of possible, that this thing may pass. If IAH LEC supports it, majority in EWR LEC support it, it would take only a small number of votes somewhere else, say, ORD to pass it. Scary stuff.

So, quite all ya'lls whining about ALPA doing stuff to you. Get involved and tell your reps what you want. ALPA is you.

Here are the letters by way of Mike, lightly edited for the internet:

"Mark,
I just had a resolution out of C171 forwarded to me seeking to give protections to displaced pilots there outside of the contract. While I would never wish a surplus or displacement upon any pilot, it is a mistake to begin "carving out" groups of pilots to protect or give special treatment to. Such protections are addressed in our contract.
I also understand the temptation to play politics and use the roll call power of C171, C5, and C12 to make a statement but please keep in mind that you represent the pilots of C5 and the excess of pilots in C171 is hurting our flying in EWR. "


From:
"Leneski......UAL005 Vice Chairman"

To:
MIKE

Sent: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:45:56 +0000
Subject: Re: C171 Resolution

"Mike

I support this resolution. We have made carve outs for the 747 and SEA. What this resolution would prevent is the company displacing pilots and then rerunning a bid replacing the pilots who lost their seats
I agree that a lot of this flying is EWR flying however this is apple and oranges. If they displace and don't backfill the displacements in IAH they get nothing. However if they displace and backfill the seats on a later bid, this will prevent it.

Mark"

Enforce your contract. Insist on it!