Originally Posted by
Thor
I don't see anyone questioning his character, only his judgement. He's growing a following of pilots who are relieved that his ALPA work is characterized as "former". I hope he keeps it that way.
Comparing DALPA's board seat with UA's is worthless unless you want to breakdown the Articles. The governance and the role that each respective pilot BOD member has are quite different.
It's no surprise that DALPA elected a Naval Aviator to the BOD, what are the odds
Me, I rather have an appointee to the BOD that has worked in the trenches and suffered (or benefited) from the negotiated CBA and is directly responsible to the pilot group. Baseball's claim that pilot BOD info is:
"1. Targeted
2. Filtered
3. framed
4. deliberate and metered
5. manipulative"
while entertaining (and remarkably similar to every LEC in the airline), needs to admit that nothing would change with an independent director. In fact, it would only add an insular layer without any real responsibility to the pilot group. ALL BOD members have a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, I'd prefer the ALPA appointee be intimately familiar with, and affected by, the CBA. Additionally, I want the ability to recall him if he colors outside the lines.
The question was asked and I had the balls enough to answer it.
Based on past history the BOD seat has not yielded anything positive for this pilot group. Therefore, why would you horse trade to keep it?
Not only do ALL BOD members have a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, but as an added boat anchor, now the pseudo-pilot rep does too. I'd rather KEEP HIS/HER LOYALTIES (fiducirary responsibilities) to the union. THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WE DON't want to interbred. This is the problem I see with the current construct. We latch on to ideas because it sounds great and then beat people down who disagree. I know first hand what it is like to have a dual role (fiduciary responsibility to a company and also the same fiduciary responsibility to a union). Many and I mean many times those two ideals are at odds. If you violate the company's deal you go to jail. If you violate the union's you get article 8. So, I think it's wise, prudent, cautious, and smart to just be loyal to your union and let the company processes go on at a safe distance. If you require a briefing, or a luncheon, then go ahead and schedule it. But as far as doing day to day BOD/management business is concerned that should be stiff armed.
You ended up making my point for me. Thanks.
in ALPA's case, reps not only have a fiduciary responsibility to the National union, but they have one to their respective MEC and they have a three-legged role of supporting a national agenda, MEC agenda, and a local agenda. Combine that with the representational responsibility and department of labor responsibilities and it is awesome indeed. I don't see too many people running around here with a big letter S on their shirt standing for Superman. Haven't seen anyone yet. But, that would be some trick for someone to be that talented to represent all of those interests fairly and honestly and not be hood-winked or misled in one way or another. The job is hard enough without putting more on it than already is.
All you need is access when you require it. Nothing more. A simple luncheon will do. No seat required.